Old records.

Maybe for worn records get a different (modern?) stylus profile to reach non-worn parts of the vinyl.

I’m currently dumbfounded and relieved.  
I spent a lot on putting a decent analog side together not that long ago, and have been less that thrilled with it ever since.  It never lived up to what i hoped and expected..

 I think finally now it’s reached it’s full potential.

Vintage recapped preamp.  No remote😩

Haven't you heard about "Riding the Remote"? The loud passages are few and far between. Turn up the volume and enjoy -just be ready with the volume control when the crescendos happen. Regards

Just a little fiddling with the anti-skating, and now (with increased volume) good records sound at least on a par with digital!   
 Who would have thought such a tiny adjustment to the anti-skating would make such a big difference.

Coltrane1,

 I have that exact device.  Perhaps I should use it more.

All you need is a VPI 16.5. But man, have fun cleaning that many records!

It seems to be working!  
‘Can’t explain why it didn't before.

Dweller,

interesting that you should say that. My dealer said the same thing.

it’s just that it gets too loud sometimes.

OP: The volume you use for playback can affect the perceived detail. Classical music has a wider dynamic range than Pop/Rock. Try increasing your normal volume and see if this helps. Example: Reference Recordings digital (wide dynamic range) must be turned up compared to regular CDs.

One final observation. The inequity between vinyl and digital seems to be more noticeable in classical records. In popular. Jazz, folk, rock, etc. the SQ is at least as sharp as digital. It’s with classical that I notice a less detailed presentation.

Perfect Vinyl Forever is a vendor i used before i acquired an ultrasonic machine. i suggest you send them a sampling of discs. prices reasonable as is turn around time. Keep the CJ ;-) 

@lewm " I have found that every upgrade to my phono stage, TT, tonearm, or cartridge has resulted in better sound on average from even average LPs"

+1

 

 

You've got it RV. It use to be somewhat predictable. Classic good to great, pop not so much. Commercial pressings of modern music still have much to be desired. There are new smaller companies that are doing an excellent job of making quiet pressings. They usually specialize in re-releases.

If you are a picky person and can not stand the occasional pop and tic vinyl may not be for you.  

My LP collection includes every one I bought between the early 70s and the present plus about 900 LPs I "inherited" upon the passing of a dear friend. His LPs were purchased new by him, usually from local vendors like Tower Records, and he took meticulous care of his LP collection which totaled 6000 LPs at the time of his death. Most of mine were purchased second hand, but I am very finicky about sources for LPs, and I will not buy any LP with any visual evidence of surface damage (scratches, scuffing, etc) or other evidence that it was not well cared for (e.g., no inner sleeve, album cover showing signs of having been wet or defaced). Without exception, I have found that every upgrade to my phono stage, TT, tonearm, or cartridge has resulted in better sound on average from even average LPs and that old LPs that I heretofore thought were not worth listening to because of poor SQ in many/most cases seem rejuvenated by new and better playback equipment. I am constantly and pleasantly surprised by this phenomenon. I guess I’m just a lucky so and so, to quote a phrase from a good song.

@rvpiano 

"I think the consensus here is that records are maddeningly inconsistent. " 

I couldn't have said it better .

@hsounds  brought up people's top 50 or 100 albums that they listen to most often,  for myself I have multiple copies of those records , most of the time they are each from a different country and /or sometimes 2 or 3 copies from the same country but different pressings .  There are differences usually small but still there, the greatest one I can recall is a John Denver US pressing that weighted 105 grams verse a German pressing that weighted 150 grams , that one is on my shelf while the lightweight is in storage ( to be sold someday ) . 

I am happy that this matter about the material pressing of vinyl was touched upon  here instead of  usual the alleged superiority of vinyl which for me in the actual digital state of the technology is only a matter of the cost/design /level of the concerned technology when compared to each other  ...

I am happy that this was discussed openly because it was the reason i quit vinyl buying spree BEFORE digital enter the scene ...

As i said when digital came the sound was horrible because it takes at least two decades before this technology was mature enough ...

As an important observation this does not means that all vinyl pressings were bad , at this times i owned a hundred vinyls it is not a big sample enough to gave the right information .... Then i may had been unlucky with my choices and it was half classical and half pop or folk ... This post of mine relate only a limited experience not the truth of the vinyl market at the times...

 

I remember well why i listened mostly only Bach because i was disgusted with vinyl buyings and not picking the best interpretation first but the more solid and well pressed one .,.. The other reason was my unsatisfaction with the sound quality of my audio system , even with a Sugden Amplifier and Tannoy dual gold concentric ... I did not know anything about what i learned in Acoustics and embeddingas controls in the last 10 years..😊

Then being ignorant my only way to improve the sound was buying costlier component ... But how to improve Tannoy dual concentric and Sugden ampliofier when you are relatively poor ? I did not upgraded ever from Tannoy or any other component i quit buying vinyl till digital ... Upgrading i know it now would had been a disaster because of my ignorance in acoustics and embeddings ...

 

It seems to me that it's something wrong with your system, not your older records.

My record collection is predominately 80's music and ones pressed in 80s..90s sound more superior ones pressed recently or re-pressed. I can't even think of comparing modern day releases of Zeppelin vs. original Ludwig releases

 

I think the consensus here is that records are maddeningly inconsistent.  

Many of us were not near as good with record hygiene back in the old days. Styluses were not as well polished and were of types that caused more wear. They were also in many instances larger then many modern styluses.

Before giving up on 3000 records I would suggest cleaning a few, preferably with a vacuum cleaning machine. The Ortofon Replicant 100, Gyger S and Soundsmith OCL styluses have much longer contact areas than old styluses and can bridge over worn areas. They also tend to be quieter. You might want to consider a cartridge containing one of the above styluses.

Unfortunately, many records are going to be suboptimal. My oldest records from the 60s and early 70s are pretty rough. Some of them came from the factory that way. I only kept the ones that I could not replace or had an emotional connection. to 

@puptent It's amazing how many of us do use alcohol in some form (isopropanol or ethanol) in our cleaning solutions and seem to get away with it. The 'ripples in a sandbar' appearance is something I associate with the discoloration caused by PVC outer sleeves.

I also came across an original Reiner/CSO Pictures that was excellent. Otoh, the first lp of that recording that I purchased was on RCA budget label (Camden Classics) and it was awful. My point is just because a recording was issued on vinyl doesn’t guarantee it will sound well; frequently the reverse 

btw, RCA Living Stereo CD issue of that record is superb

@hsounds Vinyl LP collecting is as old as my interest in the Vinyl LP.

In my Teen years I met many who had Vinyl Collections, there is a renaissance for this, as today the Hard Medium is a merchandise offered by Performers and Fans want to own it. 

As these Pressings are limited in numbers, the Collectors are also attracted to making an investment to have a an attempt to see  appreciation realised. 

As a Hard Medium merchandise the remuneration is very valuable to the Performer, especially to keep their plans to perform viable.

Streaming as a means to experience music replays, is one that is heavily loaded against the Performer attempting to make it their career. Streaming is 'all in' for the Record Label and Streaming Service. 

Mapman,

I totally agree with the digital recording presses to vinyl. If the recording is bad then the pressing sounds bad. Jimmy Hendrix, LED Zeplin, and even some of the Beatles albums sound poor. It is cool that it is digitally recorded sometimes in 4x DSD. I really do enjoy some of the reproductions because sometimes they do it right or at least better. Since I came very late to the vinyl game I have been very picky about what I buy or keep. My crutch is Pink Floyd. I have different pressings of Pink Floyd albums and they do sound different and even better. I have friends who have over 1000 albums. My problem is they do not or cannot listen to most of them. I am friends with Charles Kirmus. The one thing they always say to him when he is at shows is how can I clean hundreds or thousands of albums. If I’m near that person asking I tell them you don’t. Because you probably don’t listen to all of them. I tell them to clean their top 50 and then their top 100 while mixing in your recent purchases. You might only get to 200 or 300 albums cleaned. It doesn’t matter because everyone has their top 50-100 albums. I have been to my friends houses over and over helping them set up their carts and having a listening session. They always have that top 50 including myself. Every once in a while they picked up a new record. They clean it and we take a listen. If it’s great it gets added to the top 50. Eventually some if the albums get put back on the shelve. We usually only have so much time to listen. My biggest frustration is the price of a good pressing and it does not match the quality of sound or is warped.  Typically it goes back. I’m talking a brand new pressing from top rated companies like AP, OJC, and MOFI. I’m sorry but I am not paying $60 and it has missing areas and bad warps. I have taken a break from buying for a while do to these issues. I do have to say if you get into vinyl make sure your reasoning behind it is met. What I mean if you buy a $300-$500 new record player I can almost guarantee it will not best your digital. If you like handling the physical medium and are ok with the lesser sound then have at it. Sometimes I listen to the HEOS streamer in my Marantz surround system and it sounds really nice even better than that $500 record player. Luckily prices will be pulling back on vinyl so hopefully we all can get a lot more value then we did in the past three years. 

There is this totally false notion that records are the holy grail of good sound.

No and no. Record sound quality is all over the place just like all the rest. Some recordings are good and many are not. Some records are physically of good quality and some are not. Some are in good shape and some are warped and or have groove damage.

 

It’s literally all over the place .

The best sounding records overall are those from the golden age circa ~1955 into the 60s. This was the golden age because hifi recordings were new and novel and the manufacturers competed to deliver good sound accordingly. Then it went mostly down hill from there where good quality recordings become harder to find.

Finally you have the “vinyl renaissance” in recent years where people got hoodwinked into buying newer recordings that are totally digitally produced with the marketing spin that oh hey it’s a record and records sound better .

Again No and no. Records make a nice package but that’s it. They do not make digitally remastered recordings sound better because they are now records. All you get is a higher noise floor, pops clicks and other forms of noise and distortion in most cases.

I read something recently that more people who buy new records have nothing to play them with than those who do. They buy records to own them but not to listen to them. Who wants to deal with all that when modern day streaming does it all?

 

I still buy records, mainly on the cheap when opportunity knocks , because I have a large collection to start with and I like records. But I hardly ever play them anymore. When I do they get a thorough cleaning and go straight to my digital library to stream.

LEWM,

I do not want the OP to give up on vinyl this is why I suggested trying his older vinyl on a second system to see if it’s his system or the vinyl. I have spent hours on the phone with JR from WAM Engineering or Wally Tools. I have tested these theories enough that I can change my VTF/ VTA in one minute even though my tt has an Allen set screw on the tone arm post. I just wanted the OP to test some things out to help him out as efficiently and cheaply as possible. I listen to a lot of different types of vinyl but most of my collection is classical. I don’t mind that people are not into vinyl. I do feel when you hear it done correctly it is on another level. 

Interestingly, when I compare Reiner’s RCA .5 mastering LP of the Mousorgsky Pictures at an Exhibition it sonically blows away the Idagio stream of the same performance.  But this is a rarity.  Normally the Idagio streams sound better in comparison to LPs.

I live with old, I mean OLD records. A couple things, first, upgrade your stylus to a Line Contact, or SAS, or other nude elliptical (for stereo, and a good mono cart...). Those styli designed for 4 channel (like the SAS) are an excellent choice for 70's and 80's records. The deeper into the groove the better (virgin territory...). Second hand records have an unknowable history, quite often the "top" of the groove has been worn by old, or inappropriate cartridge/stylus choices, or dirt. I also recommend Moving Magnet or Moving Iron for used records until their condition is known. As for cleaning old and used records I use Tergikleen mixed per manufacturer's directions in a Spin-Clean. I rinse with a spray bottle of distilled water, and then dry on a Record Doctor (vacuum) then air dry in a rack for a bit. Tergikleen can be formulated for Ultra Sonic as well, but it must be rinsed with distilled water no matter the method (get some label protectors on Amazon). The PVC (it's PVC that keeps vinyl records out of curbside recycling, nasty when melted) in the record is a recipe of different suppliers and products. Pressing plants often recycle rejects back into the mix. It is impossible to know, unless you mixed the batch yourself, just what is in your record. Some of the component parts of the vinyl mix can react badly to alcohol. It is not worth the risk of exposing your vinyl to any amount of alcohol. I have a ruined Mahavishnu Birds Of Fire LP on which I naively used a home brew recipe cleaning solution that had alcohol as an ingredient. None of the other records cleaned with that recipe show the same damage. The damage is visible through a magnifying glass, looks like ripples in a sandbar (the solvent action of the alcohol removed something and left the record "dried out"), and the damage was probably cumulative. And finally, if you can't think of your vinyl, polystyrene, or lacquer collection as Artifacts, you are bound to be disappointed. Yes, there are some excellent sounding pressings out there, and a perfect marriage of record, stylus and electronics can sound spectacular. But digital perfection is not what record collecting is about, for me, anyway. Maybe you can price your collection (3,000 is not an insignificant collection!  I'm sure there are some gems in there) on DISCOGS and find your nirvana..  Good luck

Wow! I remember finding orchestral RBCDs from the 80s (which would include Ormandy recordings derived from earlier performances) to be just awful. So bad I couldn’t bear them even at a friend’s house during a party. Massed strings, to which ormandy was no stranger, sounded like crumpling of cellophane. This was on an otherwise high end system using his brand new Meridian CDP.

@rvpiano 

probably a combination of things.  I prefer digital but I acknowledge it’s possible to get excellent results with a good vinyl setup.  
  Not all lps from back in the day sound great.  A whole slew of them sounded much better in their digital incarnation.  I know that you listen to a lot of classical .  Goddard Lieberson, who headed Columbia classical during the early lp era, wanted his recordings mixed as though the average listener would be listening on AM car radio.  Most of the RCAs from  seventies had muffled sound and horrible vinyl quality.  Play any CD of an Ormandy recording from that era and then compare the lp.  I could go on but the point is it depends on what lps you are referencing.  In your OP you say that old lps should not sound worse than newer ones, but in many cases precisely the opposite is true.

  Worn out stylus?  The issues there would be tracking difficulty.  However you may want to check the settings on the phono preamp.

  And I believe you are in your mid eighties?  How preserved is your hearing?

 

@rvpiano Source Material is the only product in the chain that little can be done with, and I feel confident that within your collection there will be plenty of the Pressings that those who concern themselves about pressings will recommend.

My suspicion is that very shortly you will start to see advisories to move onto a SS Phonostage, as these will in most cases of my experiencing the designs in use be presenting in a manner that can be perceived as having a sharper edge.   

My suggestions to follow are what I consider not too expensive options to create a sonic that has become closer to the attraction your are looking for. 

Cleaning Pressings with the correct solution is for myself today everything, after being familiarised with a change of cleaning method, for the past 18months, I refer to the now used process as a Purification of Vinyl, nothing used before has created the impression of the Source Material being so decontaminated.

There was no need to make any changes to the Down Stream Ancillaries to become so impressed with the Vinyl being used, but as stated before, I am now able to fully experience the benefits of using Wire Types such as PC Triple C and D.U.C.C, along with my selection for Valve Types.

As for your CJ PV 11, I would not be too quick to suspect it of being a weak link, even though there will probably be contention on such a device being used presented by other members. As you have already invested in having the PV 11 undergo modifications, and have made earlier inquiries about the PV 11 the following might be of interest to you. 

The PV 1, has an interface within, that can easily be worked with, being the 2 x 12AU7 Tubes.

Tube Rolling has for myself proven to be extremely successful, I feel extremely confident this method id adopted by yourself, will produce something that is very much aligned to your tastes.

As a Tube Rolling follow up, trying out Interconnects terminated with Low Eddy RCA's, connected into Chassis Mounted Low Eddy RCA's can prove to be the most cost effective way forward, any rewards found from Tube Rolling will be accentuated for the better, if the ideal Interconnect is also discovered along with the use of the RCA Connectors, there is a whole lot of betterment that is being achieved.   

There is Plenty to read in the link, that might discourage the idea of exchanging Pre' and further enhance what is already owned.  

https://www.conradjohnsonowners.com/viewtopic.php?t=1852

...beats a leased life...;)

I haven't dragged out an Lp in forever....got 3 still encased in shrink, so I guess it's time to doso.....

There were some beautifully recorded, mixed, mastered, and stamped vinly productions from the 60s on, and there were some poorly done also (ABCO for example).

Take a listen to Steely Dan's AJA from many decades ago.  I'd match that LP against any produced today.  There are many others that were also very well done.. 

If pretty much all your old vinyl sounds really bad, they probably are damaged.

Have any friends with good system that can play vinyl?  Try some there...

hsounds, Can you explain further?  The change in VTF due to adding or subtracting VTA is real but very minimal for the amount of change in VTA that you describe.  Also, a modern tonearm that places the center of gravity of the counterweight in the plane of the LP surface will not much exhibit any change in VTF if you change VTA, even by a considerable amount. However, changing VTA does have an independent effect on tonal balance.  Usually people report that a "tail up" VTA causes a downward tilt in tonal balance (more apparent bass; less apparent treble), and vice-versa for a tail down setting, as you suggest.  That is more due to changing the contact patch between stylus and vinyl, as I understand it.

Hey, I know sometimes audio can get frustrating. I amgoing to ask you to bring your questionable records to an audio store or a friends house whose system sounds good. This could be a setup issue even if some newer pressings sounds good. It does not matter if the cartridge was pre mounted unless you are using a conical stylus (circular). Do not give up. Some past recordings and even raw materials were not great. For some reason I get this weird error code when I try to look at members systems. It could be that your old vinyl was thin (120g) and your new vinyl is thicker (180g). By lowering the pivot point of your tonearm it creates more bass from the weight (VTF) of your cartridge. Find a second platter mat or put two of your old records you do not care about and put them both on the platter and play the top record. If you feel it improved then it is a VTF (cartridge weight) issue. 

I never listened in analytical mode , the only exception were when i was acoustically unsatisfied and frustrated ..

Then i take the time necessary ( months ) to optimize mechanically, electrically and acoustically and begininng with the best synergy between components for sure as a starting point...

When this is done and i succeeded three times in the last years : 2 times with different speakers and with a system with headphone...I never look back nor listen anymore in analyical mode after that because all evidents defects perceptions pertaining to the three systems were gone or solved or decreased for the best ...In the specs limits of this system potential for sure ...

My three systems were low cost , mostly vintage , and the results is that i never listen with any defects in backtought as a pinch of insatisfaction when all was well embedded ...

Then i concluded that insatisfaction result in the lack of embeddings controls in any system at any price ...

There is a difference between vinyl and cd but this does not nullify what i just said ...

Buying and upgrading is not the solution , embedding each component with the others in the best way is the solution ... It was the solution for me in these three occasions then i dont know anything else...

It is not easy work it ask for study and experiments...

By the way , i quit vinyl soon before the cd era because the printing was so bad i was frustrated as a demon in purified water ...

I listened after that only Bach heavy european vinyl albums which did not deteriorate ...

When cd entered the scene i bought them and i was frustrated by their horrible sound for decades ...😁

In the last decade we had very good digital reading technology ...😊 It was then at this moment i begun to study how to embed all components for the best ...

Today with a well chosen low cost dac in a well embedded system there is no more war between bad digital and good analog ...

What matter now for a MINIMAL ACOUSTIC SATISFACTION THRESHOLD is the embeddings method not the product price at all ...

But many people dont want to study experiment and think and look for easy short-cut as upgades but we must do our homework , because each system in each different room /house must be treated in some specfic way in their three working dimensions, mechanical,electrical, acoustical and if there is many recipe to adress the mechanical and electrical problems ,there is no easy recipe for the acoustical relation between room speakers and ears .. We must experiment ... it was my experience ...

To answer the OP , many pop recording and even in other genre , were badly pressed ...It was the reason i quit buying vinyl long ago ...It is not a bad stylus which for sure do not help the case ...

 

 

The other thought that occurs to me is that I have an old Conrad-Johnson (recapped by CJ) tube amplifier which matches wonderfully with my super accurate Benchmark equipment. Perhaps the mellowness of the CJ is just not a good match for the analog.

I realize my preceding comments are somewhat contradictory. Maybe I’m thinking too hard.

I’m beginning to think that my problem with analog is that I’m looking for it to have the same qualities as digital in terms of immediacy and accuracy. The two formats are indeed quite different.  If I listen to analog for the music and don’t get in the analytical mode it all becomes clearer.  The music indeed does come through but in a different way.

I recently (a year ago) set up my Linn TT (with new cartridge) after 30 years of being in storage and have found my old original LP’s seem to sound better than the new ones. My old records have been properly stored and cared for so are pretty much in mint condition - many recently played for the first time. My point - your records may be damaged. My experience has been some of the old ones still sound absolutely  incredible. 

In relation to cleaning, I am now a firm believer it is the mixture to produce a solution that is the most important part of the process.

The cleaning method will be a small proportion of the overall success.

I use a Manual Cleaning Method today with a Neil Antin suggested mixture.

The US Method is no longer considered.

@lewm

i actually agree with you. Those old records that are not worn often do sound better than new releases. Especially those from the ‘60s and early 70s.

I beg to differ. At least with respect to jazz and classical music genres, “old” LPs that were well cared for can compete with and often surpass modern reissues by a wide margin. Unlike CDs, LPs really can last forever if properly stored and played with decent cartridges and tonearms. And I don’t mean the equipment needs to be expensive. This only makes sense; the market for LPs in the 50s, 60s, and 70s was far more vast than it is today, and there was real competition for consumer attention. RCA, Decca, Capitol, Riverside, Contemporary, Columbia, Verve, Nonesuch, Vanguard, and later Pablo, ECM, etc, took great care to produce high quality product. We still venerate their various recording engineers.

@rvpiano If it’s any consolation, my experience is much the same as yours. I have many old albums which have been meticulously cared for over 50 years…most of which simply sound flat and thin. Recording quality for most popular consumer vinyl was relatively poor especially for pop/rock music. 
 

I’ve reached a point where I only buy new vinyl for that reason. And it’s still a gamble. You can clean those old records all you like. It won’t change the recording quality. 

The majority of my records are old. Those that were in the house when I was a kid were treated pretty dreadfully, being played on an old Garrard radiogram and then a Philips portable player. Stylus changes only happened when the thing would no longer play! And yet, right from my first RCM I found they could sound surprisingly good, and with better RCMs the improvement continues. I can't cure a scratch, sadly, but if a record isn't scratched it will usually be as near silent as makes no difference. The fact you say your new records sound great must give you some insight as to what's happening, no?

You may be right that your old disks were mistreated far more badly than mine, and they are damaged. The only way to know is to get a couple cleaned as well as possible and see if they improve. If your RCM is "perhaps not the best," have you the possibility of getting a couple cleaned by someone else for a test?

Or, send a few of the worst ones to a record cleaning service and see if that makes a difference.  

Just use some audio intelligent solutions one step No. 6 and a vacuum record cleaner.  With 3000 records, I would think even with a bad stylus rotating through records would take quite some time for a bad stylus to do terrible damage.

@dweller ​​​​@pindac 

I do use a cleaning machine.  Perhaps not the best.  I believe the records have been damaged through the years from old and worn out styli.

@lewm

Sorry for the confusing time parameters.  You’re quite right that I can’t have heard the majority of my 3000 records, but I did play a fair sampling.

There is the notion that you prefer the Sound produced from your Digital Source and the Signal Path created between the Source Ancillaries over the Sound produced from the Vinyl Source and Signal Path in place between these Source Ancillaries.

I am late to the Party with Digital and am now a very contented with the use of a CDT > DAC as a Source.

My Vinyl Source was always satisfactory, and excelled a few years past when I adopted PC Triple C Wire cables into the Signal Path, this when being made known become infectious and there are quite a few adopters in my HiFi community.

It took time to get my Digital Source to produce a sonic that was in my assessment a Parity presentation to my Vinyl Source. By Parity, I mean as welcoming to be listened to, but certainly not a like for like presentation.

I would strongly suggest taking a few Albums from the Original Collection and clean them, the after experience can be night and day.

The following is a recommended Cleaner from the Linked Discussion, I would think it best to see how easy it is to get hold of this solution, the thread is long and at times extremely confusing. 

https://unitedhomeaudio.com/clearaudio-pure-groove-record-cleaning-fluid/

  "Pure Groove Essence - Ready to use"             

 

Distilled Water                                  679.218  g.         67.9218 %  p.b.w

Ethanol (100.00%).                          296.565  g.         29.6565 %  p.b.w.

Methanol (100.00%)                          20.637  g.           2.0637 %  p.b.w.

BASF Larostat 264A                           2.350  g.            0.2350 %  p.b.w.

BASF Lutensol LA                              1.230  g.             0.1230 %  p.b.w.            

Total:                                             1,000.000 g.            100.00 %  parts by weight

The above 1,000.000 grams will produce:  1.086 liters    

Volumetrically, for those who prefer to view formulations in that format, is as follows:

Distilled Water.                            62.668  %  p.b.v.

Ethanol (100.00%).                     34.600  %  p.b.v.

Methanol (100.00%).                    2.402  %   p.b.v.

Larostat 264A.                              0.214  %   p.b.v.

Lutensol LA                                  0.112  % p.b.v.

Total:                                          100.000 %   parts by volume

Audiogon Discussion Forum

 

I am trying to piece your story together.  First, you say you "recently bought" a TT.  You then say you compared it to your digital system "for quite a while".  So right there is a bit confusing; if you compared your vinyl to your digital for quite a while, how can it be that you just bought the TT, unless by using the term quite a while you mean to indicate a week or two or a month, maybe. Then you go on to say that you own 3000 LPs. That suggests you are a long time vinylista. I have been doing this for more than 40 years, and I too own about 3000 LPs, probably a bit fewer than that.  You also say that most of your (3000) LPs don't sound that good.  But it would take many months or maybe even a year to sample and evaluate even half of 3000 LPs, to enable you to conclude that most of your LPs are lacking.  You go on to say that you recently purchased some new LPs that you like very much.  How recent can that be since you stored your new TT, per the first paragraph?  Regardless of all this, it is good to know you are now pleased with your vinyl.