Is it possible to have vinyl nearly noise free?

Your opinion is your own. I happen to strongly disagree. I should have put these (!!!!!!) 

All things being equal, are you saying unequivocally, that there is NO need for record cleaning at all?

Well I'm not sure what things would be equal; IME in audio its a rare thing where that happens.


But I've not had to clean any LPs in the last 20 years to get them to be silent. OTOH my phono preamp doesn't care if RFI comes into its input (so I don't need to mess with loading resistors) and its very stable so I don't get any ticks and pops unless there's a scratch. ...And cleaning won't do anything about a scratch...

So apparently in my case I don't need a record cleaning machine. I gave mine away after it sat for 20 years unused. As I think I mentioned in one of my prior posts, we have a whole generation of audiophiles that grew up listening to unstable phono sections that generate ticks and pops all on their own, so they think that's normal. It isn't- just poor design.

@atmasphere ,

All things being equal, are you saying unequivocally, that there is NO need for record cleaning at all?

I haven't used a record cleaner in 20 years. No need.

So, I’m a little confused by the remarks by @atmasphere . I clean my records religiously. I think Ralph's "90%" is an overreach.

@slaw You have to hear a stable phono section right beside one that isn't to know what I'm talking about. Scratches- can't do anything about that. I just use a dust brush and that's all that's needed.

I exchanged emails with Rush Paul a couple of years ago. He turned me on to the Walker 4 step system. It also had become obvious that I needed a good vacuum cleaner (VPI and several others). I used the Walker system for a couple of months and heard a significant improvement in the overall sound quality, detail and timbre. More so than any other cleaning method I had ever used. But it was time consuming, I could do about four records an hour and I did the work.

Then I found a way to use ultrasonic and not spend a pant load of money doing it. See Rush’s article at: https://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/rushton-paul-diy-approach-ultrasonic-cleaning-lps/ on US cleaning. It gives all the details on how to do it. I must say I heard another order of detail and timbre that had never been there before. The US is faster than using the manual Walker system by replacing the two enzyme and detergent washes with the US bath, 4 in ten minutes. It is still necessary to do a Regents water rinse and conditioner (ethyl alcohol, Regents water and a drop of Jetdry).

Additionally, the Walker Talisman will do wonders for any residual noise (aka static). This thing works phenomenally well at neutralizing static. It’s just some very strong magnets oriented in a way that does the trick. It also has other sound improving uses. You won’t believe your ears. Much of the clicks and pops we hear are static discharge (lightning) between the record and cartridge assembly.

I clean all records when I get them, new or used. Usually when I clean an old record there is some "dark matter" at the bottom of the tank. New records don’t do this. On a rare occasion that the used record was abused or poorly cared for there may be some surface noise that is micro scratches. You can’t fix them. But if you don’t clean the record those micro scratches may be full of the "dark matter" I spoke of and you won’t hear them or the improved detail and timbre. This has been proven time and again in listening tests.


It took me a while but I have become a believer. I used to think the US cleaner people were just wanting to play with something new. That it was another audiophile rabbit hole, but it really works. I will never be convinced that not cleaning is the way to go.


The Sugar Cube is a digital processor. You want analogue or digital?

Rollin

This is an interesting thread.

I just played an OP of Bob Seger "Beautiful Loser" I bought off ebay. I have cleaned it. It was eerily quiet. Still I have other lps I notice surface noise. So, I’m a little confused by the remarks by @atmasphere . I clean my records religiously. I think Ralph's "90%" is an overreach.

As a previous poster said, the older LPs sound best, and, I find, have fewer problems with ticks and pops.

I was at VPI last week and they make a cleaning machine and some other machine that cleans the groves.  They told me that it most cases, the Ps and Cs are eliminated.  Contact VPI in New Jersey and ask for Matt (owner) or Marc the office manager.  Great people.

I recently fined tuned the cartridge alignment, balance, anti-skid, overhang, etc on my friend's SOTA Sapphire TT.  Since doing so his vinyl is very quiet.   I think setup is the first step to achieve this.  He has never owned a record cleaning machine. He just uses a carbon brush 

I suggest the critics of the SugarCube ought to put it to the test. I have one on a reasonably resolving system.  Even at a  relatively high setting there  is virtually no effect on music.   And a phenomenal reduction and pops and clicks. ..It can’t do anything about other types of service noise.
Have to agree with M Fremer when he says there is a slight- very slight -change in air, not even a reduction but rather a difference. There are no audible digital artifacts and it makes a tremendous range of potentially troublesome records eminently listenable.  
 As to the cost, how much is making 500 more of my records enjoyable worth?  Remote controlled, so you use it when the record calls for it.  I suggest this is a product that does exactly what it claims,  there are  not too many of those.
On another note, the right cartridge can do wonders.  Some Shibatas run very quietly dep in the groove.

I heard the Sugar Cube device on a very fine audio system and disagree with the unfavorable impressions noted about. To my ears, it got rid of 90% of pops and click with no degradation to the music quality.  I think this is the only device that does what you are looking for.

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/sweet-vinyls-sugarcube-sc-1-real-time-pop-and-click-remover-any...

I saw the Kirmuss demo at Axpona last week and also saw the video Dr. K did with Mike Fremer and I laughed like hell.  I recall it takes something like 15 minutes to clean the LP with the system in a very manual process.  I dumped my SOTA vacuum TT a year ago and my anxiety level has dropped dramatically and I have never heard a pop or click with any of my digitally sourced music since the SOTA left.  Good bless you vinyl lovers.   Me, I am upgrading to Qobuz this week from Tidal Hifi.  

Yes.  I just listened to a 35 year old LP with virtually no noise, and all I did was brush the dust off first.  I have other LPs that are pretty hopeless, and are noisy the entire way through.  But I will tell you this: your playback equipment matters tons in this regard.  Over the years, I upgraded both turntables and cartridges independently of each other, and each time I moved up the food chain, I got less noise.  The current setup is a Dynavector 20X2L cartridge on a Well Tempered Versalex, and it has been a revalation in terms of how low the noise floor on vinyl can get.  Comparing the same records to my previous setup (Clearaudio Aurum Beta on a Sota Comet) is simply night and day in terms of surface noise.  I suspect it’s a combination of stylus geometry and tonearm damping at play.

@g_nakamoto, I found that with optimum cartridge set up and tracking there was no increase in surface noise or clicks and pops after numerous plays. I think its very hard to damage a record with just wear and tear if your  turntable/arm and cartridge are set up as intended.

With used records I would be surprised with the amount of fluff that the cartridge was sometimes picking up on the first or second playing. In fact playback got quieter after the first or second play.

My main gripe with vinyl was the poor pressing quality sometimes found here in the UK. EMI (Beatles) didn't seem to be too careful with quality control. By the 1990s some records were almost like flexi-discs. 

As there is much more awareness of consumer rights nowadays then there should be less reason to put up with poor pressings now. Record companies will always put up with a percentage of returns but after that they will be forced to improve their product. 

With the price of vinyl today, and I daresay for its continuing success, first rate pressings are a must.

i bought my turntable back in the early 70's. i've experience a noise free vinyl on the first play. after that it was'nt the same. any comments on this?

Yes, you can listen to vinyl that is nearly noise-free.

Playback system influences and record condition aside, some vinyl does play black quiet. I clean and play 2-30 records a week before listing, mostly classical and jazz and I have noticed some patterns with regard to certain labels and unwanted noise. A lot of DGG/DG pressings from the 60-s-70’s play black quiet. Most Japanese pressings I have listened to are also CD quiet. Some UK pressings. It’s mostly the quality of the vinyl. I can spot a record that will play quiet- it has a certain type of shine- like a sheet of silky black glass.

There are a lot of factors that go into making a quiet vinyl surface. Vinyl pellet quality, processing variables, cleanliness of the vinyl (dirt and regrind) and the amount and type of plasticizer used to keep the vinyl soft. I believe, in general, that the Germans and the Japanese are better at formulating a quiet vinyl compound than most. Plasticizer has a half-life and some formulations age poorly. I have opened many sealed RCA Living Stereos and a large proportion play with surface noise- even after a good cleaning. I am convinced it is the way the vinyl compound ages with RCA pressings. DGG pressings of the same age and quality generally play CD quiet.

I also believe that cleaning is a worthwhile pursuit. I have tried many methods, chemistries, and machines over the years and removing unwanted noise and cleaning up the original signal is possible through a good cleaning. I don’t believe that a very expensive RCM is necessary. Most I have tried are not addressing the real issue- they only provide more convenience.

I am getting impressive results cleaning with just a mild surfactant/detergent and very pure water. No vacuums and no ultrasonics. I do it by hand with a material I found that provides the right amount of agitation without harming the vinyl surface. Enough said.

I can’t make damaged, deformed or worn groove walls magically come back to their original shape, but if there is something hiding in the groove, I can get it out. And it’s worth it to me. I am sometimes shocked that 50-60-year-old records that look hopeless and would only get a Fair to Good visual grade can be cleaned to play quietly. I’ve had friends ask me if I used an ultrasonic cleaning machine.

So, if unwanted noise bothers you, I would say, yes- quiet is possible.

Atmosphere, obviously some uncompressed LP can have have more dynamic range than overly compressed CDs. However, a lot of LPs are overly compressed, too. It’s difficult to make generalizations. Even SACDs and hi res downloads are being aggressively compressed.

It’s difficult to compare apples to oranges because of all the variables that affect the real S/N ratio in the room in a real system, including what domain the recording was made, vibration isolation, room treatments, RFI/EMI protection and all the rest. Optimizing S/N ratio is an art.

No matter how much you have in the end you would have had even more if you had started out with more.

@atmasphere great write up! 

I guess since mainstream music ( I just cant bring myself to call it Pop) is still the biggest seller digital compression will remain a serious factor.

At least until the mainstream listener invests in wide bandwidth audio equipment and starts driving quieter cars. Far too difficult to ask them to employ the loudness/ EQ button let alone adjust Bass and Treble controls - that's if there are any. 

I really don’t foresee analog system getting any better than 70 dB. But digital systems can achieve 90+ dB (potentially).

16 bit is -96 dB, but analog can and does get to -85 dB down. The reason this is so is not because all LPs are that quiet (people often mistake personal anecdote for all the media).

When the LP is mastered, the resulting lacquer can be so quiet that the phono preamp is the noise floor, regardless of the phono cartridge or preamp. That's pretty quiet and -85dB is being conservative. Most of the surface noise occurs in the plating/pressing process. QRP (which is the pressing plant set up by Acoustic Sounds in Salinas, Kansas) has modified pressing machines that are mechanically damped to eliminate any vibration as the vinyl cools. As a result, they can make pressings that are so quiet that their noise floor is also lower than the playback electronics.


Most digital releases are compressed in the digital domain using DSP. This is because there is an expectation it will be played in a car where there is a higher background noise. As a result, LP often has greater dynamic range.

As I've upgraded my analog system I've gotten a lot closer to "nearly completely quiet".  Most new and well cared for used records are pretty quiet on my system.  There's noise between tracks, which of course is there during the music as well, but there usually isn't a lot to distract me from the music.

I became complacent about cleaning records because most of them I either buy new or from a record store that cleans their records with a VPI.  I always cleaned records that I bought anywhere else but not the ones that were new or already cleaned.

I was listening with my girlfriend one night and the record I put on was really noisy.  She suggested that I clean it.  I told her it wouldn't do anything because I bought it from the record store that cleans the records, but I'd do it for giggles.  I was quite surprised when it sounded dramatically better.  I don't know if they missed cleaning that one or if the fluid I use worked better or what, but I've started cleaning all my records again with my VPI. 

I use a soft dry brush on the stylus (usually for every side) and then every few sides I use some fluid.   

Mint good pressing records are very quiet in my system, you can only hear master tape noise. I clean the stylus with Lyra before each play and never look at it under magnification. Okki Nokki machine with Audio Intelligent fluids cleans quite good, soak the records before vacuuming off. This takes some work but very simple and easy really.
Unfortunately, best pressings that I have are mostly far from Mint but I listen to them as opposed to inferior pressings in better condition.

OK, let me put it a different way. Digital has the potential for much greater Signal to Noise Ratio and Dynamic Range than analog. I really don’t foresee analog system getting any better than 70 dB. But digital systems can achieve 90+ dB (potentially). Obviously, the intentional overly aggressive dynamic range compression for digital and analog doesn’t help in terms of dynamic range. Of course, there are many sources of noise and distortion in any audio system, so a lot depends on the desire and ability of the person to achieve his system’s true potential.

Dear @tubelvr1 : " Noise " is an inherent part of the LP alternative and we have to learn to live with because try to fighth against it is a true losted battle way before just start it. After $$$$$ against it we still has it.

I clean my LP's and cartridge stylus in an old fashion way even that I own a VPI cleaning machine.

I just learned about and my " brain " was or is educated by it self to let the LP " noise " out of the listening sessions to the level that today I don't care about but this does not means I don't make a cleaning routine with the LP surface and cartridge stylus.

Why to spend $$$ and time testing this or that cleaning machines/systems if at the end just can't disappears for ever.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Mijostyn- those digital microscopes- at least the cheap ones- are a little tricky. The 'frame' of view with high magnification is very limited- obviously, and care must be taken to mount the microscope in a way that it is aimed properly and doesn't move or get jarred. I use a lab stand and lab type clamps- but I didn't go all spendy on a $400 US one-- they were under 50 dollars US. Maybe the expensive ones are better. You can definitely see a lot more. 
For routine cleaning, i use various loupes- i did a little research on them, most of them are pretty bad, optically, and the claims of 20x-60x are kind of a joke. From what I gather, a jeweler's loupe should only be 10x and have triplet lenses-- I have several. One I use-- i'm getting old-- is a set of magnifying eyeglasses with illumination. It's only 3x, but sufficient for me to see the stylus and brush- i've been using a longer bristle than the pad type, as I mentioned. 
I guess this is all obsessive but I think we agree that keeping that stylus clean as well as the records is pretty essential. One thing I found on my Airtight Supreme, which is now out for rebuild, is that a lot of stuff collected on the top of the cantilever. This, even though I'm pretty fanatical about record cleaning and stylus cleaning (the latter within reason). I also think there's a lot of stuff-- dust, human skin shed, whathaveyou-floating around in our rooms. I have a dedicated room, no pets allowed, no smoking, etc. and decent central air con and heat with good filters. There's still an endless amount of 'housecleaning' to do in that room, which just adds to the stuff that can collect on a record during handling and play. 
regards,

Cleeds,
 What's the matter? Don't like sex?

Whart,
I use the alcohol only about once a month and it is iso propyl not denatured. If denatured alcohol got back to the coils it could really screw things up. As a solvent iso propyl is just one click stronger than water. On a regular basis I just use a standard stylus brush which I use maybe once every third listening session. Because I use a grounded sweep arm and a dust cover my stylus does not collect much dust. What I really need to get is one of those USB microscopes. The monthly alcohol cleaning is based more on tradition then whether or not the stylus and cantilever are really dirty. It would be nice to be able to see it more clearly.

The elephant in the room, of course, is even if you eliminate all of the surface noise or can play vinyl that’s noise free, there is still the sticky wicket of the Signal to Noise Ratio for analog systems being much lower than the SRN for digital systems. In theory, anyway. 

I've always hated vinyl noise and I've been on a quest for the last 30 years to minimize it. There are quite a few of my precious albums that are in pretty rough shape. I have tried various cleaning methods with mixed results but nothing has been successful in removing those ticks and pops that show up in the same place each time I play a record. I have a Burwen TNE 7000 (Transient Noise Eliminator) that does a pretty good job of removing the light ticks and some of the surface noise. I also have a Phase Linear 1000 Series II Noise Reduction system that lowers the steady noise level. These two units work reasonably well but at best they are a 50% solution. This gear show up on eBay regularly and they are not very expensive. Another option is an SAE 5000 Impulse Noise Reducer that is better at removing the bigger ticks and pops. There are lots of these available at modest cost and this is a low risk way to see if you like the effect.

I have read enough positive press about the Kirmuss system that I think I will take the plunge and get one. The biggest problem that I see is how time consuming their process is. There's no way I'm going to clean over a thousand records with this thing. That means I'm down to a Sweet Vinyl processor. I head one of these last year at AXPONA and I was blown away. They played a couple records that were in the same shape as some of my college vinyl and it was just short of a miracle. I'm going to get one of these as my next gear purchase. As for running my wholesome analog through a digital processor, all I can say is whatever digital nasties crop up are way less annoying than clicks, pops, and surface noise.

@mijostyn- I haven’t used an Ortofon since the mid-70s. I will use a bit of alcohol applied to a pad type stylus brush, e.g. the "brush" type Ortofon and many others sell, but I usually only do it sparingly, not regularly, and more in cases of extremis-- for example, I had purchased an old, somewhat valuable record that, despite deep cleaning on the Monks and on an ultrasonic machine (I forget which one, an Audio Desk or KL- I’ve had both), yielded this nasty yellow gunk from the grooves. I immediately cued up; the record was returned to the vendor but the stylus needed to be degunked. That was an extreme situation.
I have in the past periodically used Magic Eraser or the Blu-stuff that Soundsmith recommends, but again, don’t do that constantly- and am always mindful of the forces applied to the cantilever in doing so.
I guess the cautionary note about alcohol could be read as lawyer boilerplate, but for the uninitiated, I’m not sure I’d throw caution to the wind.
I don’t disagree with pressing run variations in quality. There can be considerable variability sometimes among copies of the "same" record with the same deadwax indicia.
On phono stage and cartridge interactions accentuating noise, yes, taken to an extreme, you could conclude that the phono stage isn’t doing its job if it is not handling record tics--that was precisely why I referenced Ralph’s @atmasphere ’s views on this. I do load cartridges for best sound by ear and sometimes it isn’t at 47k.
I was sent some samples of needle drops done on a Sugar Cube. They sounded pretty good. I actually own copies of the early pressings of the records from which they were drawn, so I guess when I have the time and inclination, I could make a comparison, but that might show more about the difference between my more elaborate vinyl front end and the modest digital front end than the effect of the needle dropping software.
For what that’s worth, I have heard archival restorations in studio of very old transcriptions and acetates and despite the effects of digital processing, the sound was vastly improved by the work done by the archivist- the original was a noisy, tinny sounding record ( in one case it was Les Paul acetates cut direct to disc before he got his hands on a tape machine and in another case it was the original transcription discs that Benny Goodman had paid someone to cut for his personal use of that famous Carnegie Hall show back in the ’30s). The digitally processed signal, with painstaking adjustments made by the archivist in tiny time increments yielded a dynamic, very open and vivid sound that was no longer masked in noise. Perhaps extreme cases.
One last note of interest beyond your post- after spending the better part of the day with the one archivist who had the Benny Goodman transcriptions, I returned home to a large dinner party. I mentioned the Benny Goodman concert and one of our guests-- a man of age-- had actually attended it! (He was a youngster and his older brother, who was a big band fiend, had dragged him to that historic show).
regards,
bill hart

mijostyn

... the Sugar Cube is like having sex with a rubber on. It may be useful if the record has AIDs but it is not needed at all for a virgin record

Actually, no, using the Sugar Cube component is not at all like having sex, with or without a prophylactic. Not even remotely.

Whoops, hit the green button by accident!

for poler molecules like oils and it evaporates very quickly. If you use the evaporation test you will notice that there is absolutely nothing in last that will not evaporate. 
Theo, the Sugar Cube is like having sex with a rubber on. It may be useful if the record has AIDs but it is not needed at all for a virgin record.

Whart, If iso propyl alcohol removed the cement from your stylus you need to buy a different cartridge from a different manufacturer. That is just a liability statement from Ortofon of which I have had several and have never damaged one yet. A lot of the stuff stuck to styli will not be removed by simple brushing especially just back to front. If some phono stages accentuate tics and noise then they have a frequency response/correction curve issue.
Just because one copy of a disc is quiet does not mean the whole run will be. They always get noisier towards the end of the run.
Tomic, Last is just freon. Freon is a group of halogenated hydrocarbons used usually as refrigerants and propellants. Freon is a great solvent 

I was at AXPONA this past weekend. I heard several talks about vinyl cleaning by some experts, The folks from Kirmuss record cleaning systems have done a lot of research into how to best clean a record and backed up their information with detailed microscopic photos of the results. Perfect Vinyl professional record cleaning service also spoke about how they clean records. They get very good results too.Check out their websites for more complete information. In addition I spoke with the folks at Sweet Vinyl Sugar Cube digital pop and click remover. These units are work great and have gotten many endorsements including Mike Fermer. They have a lower priced unit coming out soon, at $1500 it is a little pricey but then lots of gear in this hobby is.As for my system I keep my records clean but I also have an internal pop and click remover in my brain, I just tune out the odd bits of noise, works pretty good.

Agree with Captain_Winters. The   Mobile Fidelity Stevie Ray album on the new Super Vinyl is dead quiet with reduced  (eg absolutely no) groove noise. Up until that purchase, I had believed that other great Mobile Fidelity , Analogue Productions, etc albums were dead quiet. As in all things audio, you can never know what you are missing until you experience  there actually was another step to be taken. 

Yes, it is certainly possible. But it’s not for the lazy or the gullible.

Whart and atmasphere discuss the issues and, characteristically, stick to the science. See the US cleaning threads for details on record cleaning. For what it’s worth, I agree about rinsing - pure water, and lots of it.

I have and can listen to vinyl noise free. 
First you want to have a good quiet system from power cords and connects to turntable and components. Second, a good new vinyl record helps. But it doesn’t have to be new. Also whether the vinyl is new or not, clean it in an ultrasonic system. I use the Cleaner Vinyl system using distilled water and a little Kodak Photoflo. For the damaged used records I buy I play them through the SweetVinyl SugarCube SC-2. That removes pops and clicks. They are coming out with an update that will remove surface noise. But you can listen to vinyl noise free. 

Lyra is very happy with Last

I would be perpetually trapped in 4th dimension without Discogs

not cleaning a new record ? They are loaded w trash
even and sometime especially QRP

i ran space grade clean rooms, I know trash !

@whart maybe it’s a black hole they fall into and then pop out again somewhere else? Before I went to the effort of cataloging everything I own on Discogs I used to do that all the time - I only have 1300 LPs however so can’t imagine having to go through many more, and Discogs classical coverage still has gaps. 

Anyway the main thing is that I’m listening to them now - might have to get the CD set of that Berglund series anyway just so I can get the most out of the performances! 

Mobile Fidelity UltraDisc One-Step with the new Super Vinyl is dead quiet. There are only 2 out right now that have the SuperVinyl. Marvin Gaye, What's Going on, and Stevie Ray Vaughan - Texas Flood.
The dynamic range on Vaughan's Stratocaster on Texas Flood on SuperVinyl is very impressive. Dead quiet.

I took a quick look and didn't find it, but that doesn't mean much- partly due to how the classical stuff isn't completely organized here. When I moved a couple years ago, I kind of back-binned several thousand records in one room and I go 'shopping' there periodically.
 I also have a 4th dimension problem- you ever experience that? You know you own a particular record, but you search repeatedly and can't find it. Sometimes, you buy another copy if it isn't crazy money. And then, one day, when looking for something else, the thing just pops into your hand?  I really think there is this dimension where records go sometimes.... 
Go ahead, make fun of me. 
:)
Yeah, I remember the SQ/QS stuff from back in the early-mid '70s, whenever that was. I started buying EMI ASDs first for Jacqueline Du Pre, then kinda bought 'em whenever I found them. 
Haven't listened to the Sibelius symphonies in quite a while. Somebody mentioned a Barbirolli of Mahler's 9th here.  I did find that, as a German Odeon. I'm not sure how old it is, it came from a collection that stopped in '91 when the owner passed away. Man, I should get back to listening to classical more. Time waits for no one. 

Yes -- six of the seven Berglund symphonies were recorded in Quad, they’re a great set but I cannot recommend #1 in this original pressing. 

https://www.discogs.com/Sibelius-Paavo-Berglund-Bournemouth-Symphony-Orchestra-Symphony-No-1-Scènes-...

Side 1 is >27 minutes which is pushing it for heavily modulated classical

I'll look to see if I have that record- i have a bunch of ASDs, most go unplayed. Was it only released as a 'quad' record? 

Absolutely a mastering issue!

I suspect its a combination of
a) late 70s poor quality vinyl,
b) quad and
c) trying to cram too much on a side -- each side is running a good 25 min + with most of the loud music at the end of the side (esp on side 1 which is where the problem is worse)

this is groove echo caused by modulation bleeding through from the adjacent track -- you can hear it both pre and post (one on the left, the other on the right) and it disappears completely on loud passages where the grooves are widely spaced -- luckily it’s rarely this bad. The 2 second lag (one revolution at 33RPM) is also a give away

@folkfreak I've cut a few records and not experienced this. My lathe is a bit older- so it only has fixed groove spacing. We modified it so we can run variable groove spacing but either way never get print-though issues. When you look under a microscope at the grooves you can see why- unless you over cut the record the grooves are spaced from each other. Overcuts (grooves too close) often results in distortion. If you really are getting print thru from an LP, its poorly mastered!

I’m on the “no” side, but I still love my vinyl.  I play mostly vinyl. Sometimes I feel like hearing music, usually classical, without any noise at all.  I go to cds at times like that.  

Sorry @atmasphere I know what Print Through is, and thats another problem but if its in the master tape it’ll be on every version -- this is groove echo caused by modulation bleeding through from the adjacent track -- you can hear it both pre and post (one on the left, the other on the right) and it disappears completely on loud passages where the grooves are widely spaced -- luckily it’s rarely this bad. The 2 second lag (one revolution at 33RPM) is also a give away

On an original Berglund Sibelius ASD3216 the continuous foreshadowing through long quiet passages rendered the disc almost unlistenable -- maybe late 70s quad pressings make this phenomena worse but in a highly resolving system you'll begin to notice it all over the place

@folkfreak , this is called 'print-thru' and its an artifact of the master tape. Its not endemic to LPs.