MWR Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) 150 gram, 180 gram 200 gram vinyl records. Can someone please explain what the weight does/mean regarding vinyl records as I have absolutely no idea Edited August 31, 2012 by MWR
handy steel Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 It's the weight of the vinyl pressing. Does it have any bearing on the sound quality of the recording? Not in my experience.
Hergest Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 It's the weight of the vinyl pressing. Does it have any bearing on the sound quality of the recording? Not in my experience. Doesn't half make a difference to the price though. Make it 200 gram and 45 rpm and you can charge a king's ransom for it.
ZEN MISTER Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Of itself, it carries not a lot of import. I have flimsy vinyl from the seventies, containing great cuts, that sound awesome. Conversely, I have a lot of heavy weights that sound disappointing. So, in current usage, it is often little more than a marketing tool. I suspect the manufacturers should, instead, concentrate on better quality vinyls. Those of us collecting in the early eighties during the oil crisis, will have many examples in our collections of noisy, often recycled vinyl, ruining otherwise good cuts. Probably the better vinyls came/come from counties who would not compromise the quality, so Japan, and Germany standout. notably, New Zeland had a great reputation for many decades. The current issues are rather hit and miss. Classic Records get a lot of flack. Rhino is variable. Sun dazed seem to settle for hard vinyls. Etc etc. That said, a thoughtful cut on a good quality heavyweight , can be exhillirating to experience. ZM.
MWR Posted August 31, 2012 Author Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) Very interesting, I thought it would be the weight of the pressing but was unsure as when I bought mine in the 70's you just bought 'an album or single'. So you can purchase the same recording at different weights or they just come as they do 180 or 200grams etc.? If you could afford an album you were doing really well, especially on an apprentice wage, it was often album vs chicks Edited August 31, 2012 by MWR
A J Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Wasn't there a thread not so long ago that went pear-shaped over this issue, From memory someone complained that they weighed their 200g vinyl to find they were a few grams short, followed with a claim that each individual record was cut by a daimond, so heavier vinyl would give more accurate cuts. From that point on I lost interest in how much my vinyl weighed and more about what it sounded like. Bygones - It is my supposition though that a lot of the new vinyl I have bought - generally 180g pressings, don't sound as good as most of my old stuff. There seems to be a good amount of average stuff around.
Guest Muon Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) I have good, and bad (not as good) pressings on both lightweight vinyl and heavy vinyl. What I do like, even though in large It's because the mastering is good, are albums that would normally fit on a single LP, spread across two LP's instead, I'm guessing, but this seems to allow more dynamic headroom? Two examples are Amy Winehouse's Lionness, and Kate Bush's Directors Cut. Edited August 31, 2012 by datafone
Hergest Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 I have good, and bad (not as good) pressings on both lightweight vinyl and heavy vinyl. What I do like, even though in large It's because the mastering is good, are albums that would normally fit on a single LP, spread across two LP's instead, I'm guessing, but this seems to allow more dynamic headroom? Two examples are Amy Winehouse's Lionness, and Kate Bush's Directors Cut. Funny that as i absolutely loathe that way of doing things nowadays and hate the flow of the album being spoilt by constantly changes sides. I agree with you though that it can sound better. Of course it was all buggered up by cds being as long as they are and your average album went from 40 minutes to 70 minutes. 40 minutes fitted perfectly on an lp and also kept artists in check from producing self indulgent rubbish. Once upon a time a 6 minute song was an epic, now it's a standard song with the chorus repeated 36 times. [/grumpy old git mode]
metal beat Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 180gm vinyl, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again. Its what they put on the vinyl that is most important, the recording.
frankn Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Funny that as i absolutely loathe that way of doing things nowadays and hate the flow of the album being spoilt by constantly changes sides. I agree with you though that it can sound better. Of course it was all buggered up by cds being as long as they are and your average album went from 40 minutes to 70 minutes. 40 minutes fitted perfectly on an lp and also kept artists in check from producing self indulgent rubbish. Once upon a time a 6 minute song was an epic, now it's a standard song with the chorus repeated 36 times. [/grumpy old git mode] You have a finite distance to fit music onto an LP. Analouge recording is a continious groove with wobbly bits for the broad frequency spectrum - so you can only fit X amount of mins of recording onto a side. Try to cram too many grooves per side and you will reduce the dynamic range / cause tracking problems for styli. Having less music per side means that the groove can be cut with more definition or using a slower speed - usually means better reproduction Downside is getting up more often - think of it as audiophile exercise
Hergest Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 The thing is, i have 2 lps both 60 minutes long, Mike Oldfield's Amarok and a BBC transcription lp of John Martyn at Glastonbury in 1986. These are 30 minutes to a side but both have superb dynamics and there is absolutely no shortage of bass grunt so it can be done. I don't know how it can be done as most of my lps that are around 50 minutes long do suffer in that lack of dynamics but someone knew how to master an lp of such length.
Krispy Audio Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Heavier grammage = more resistant to stylus wear, and lower propensity to warp. Downside is that once warped, it's more difficult to rectify. There are also turntables like mine that have a vacuum platter, and so for me, the thinner the record, the more efficient my vacuum works.
Jake Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Wasn't there a thread not so long ago that went pear-shaped over this issue, From memory someone complained that they weighed their 200g vinyl to find they were a few grams short, followed with a claim that each individual record was cut by a daimond, so heavier vinyl would give more accurate cuts. From that point on I lost interest in how much my vinyl weighed and more about what it sounded like. Bygones - It is my supposition though that a lot of the new vinyl I have bought - generally 180g pressings, don't sound as good as most of my old stuff. There seems to be a good amount of average stuff around. Yeah, I was one who weighed, and found them lacking. I don't give a stuff what they weigh, and in fact the flimsier stuff doesn't warp so much, but when they sell something as being 180g with a great advertising spiel, then you weigh it at 160 or whatever....I call Shenanigans!!!
Toisich-Jnr Posted September 1, 2012 Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) My recently arrived Black Sabbath 180gm LPs sound extremely good. However I think a big part of the reason for that is: 1. They are seventies recordings well translated to vinyl 2. Because of their age, there's none of the dreaded compression 3. I'm used to old second hand versions, some on very thin vinyl Agreed a lot of the more traditional weight vinyl sounds excellent - especially well looked after sixties & seventies stuff. However in the Eighties it went a bit pear shaped and a lot of vinyl became ridiculously thin! So 180 gm is maybe better in these cases, given the same recording. But for sure 180 gms is no indicator of sound quality. And prone to being received warped. Edited September 1, 2012 by Toisich-Jnr
Hergest Posted September 1, 2012 Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) 140g Most excellent. Wafer thin Japanese vinyl from around 1976. My favourite of the lot. [media=] Edited September 1, 2012 by Hergest 1
frankn Posted September 1, 2012 Posted September 1, 2012 Heavier grammage = more resistant to stylus wear, and lower propensity to warp. Downside is that once warped, it's more difficult to rectify. There are also turntables like mine that have a vacuum platter, and so for me, the thinner the record, the more efficient my vacuum works. I'm not convinced of the heavier = less warp. I own a bunch of 180/200, quite a few purchased in the last two year and it is my experience that those have more warps than the old thinner ones I have from the 80s & 90s. It seems to me that the newer ones have worse QC - especially "audiophile" versions. I've sent ones back only to receive replacements worse than the originals. In desperation and forever being p****d off I've now purchased a vinyl flattener.
jeromelang Posted September 1, 2012 Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) It's nigh high impossible to have apple to apply comparisons between 120gm and 180gm vinyls. That's because there are so many things not being equal. Edited September 1, 2012 by jeromelang
Toisich-Jnr Posted September 1, 2012 Posted September 1, 2012 It's nigh high impossible to have apple to apply comparisons between 120gm and 180gm vinyls. That's because there are so many things not being equal. Including some Eighties production jobs
Recommended Posts