Lots of people talk and worry about vinyl records wearing out, but finally here is a controlled, long-term experiment to test how much audible wear actually happens to records played in real-world conditions on a variety of turntables. I highly suggest a quiet listening environment and good pair of speakers or headphones to observe the results. However, the main takeaway from this test is something that experts have already known for the past 75 years: dust, dirt, scratches, fingerprints, improper storage, and a worn stylus are the real enemies of vinyl record life, not the kind of turntable you use. Do your best to avoid those perils, and your records will provide a lifetime of enjoyment, even when played on inexpensive equipment. FYI: The records I tested are slightly transparent when held up to a bright light, indicating they were made with a vinyl formulation which used dye instead of carbon black; these records (marketed under various names such as "Super Vinyl", "Quiex", "UHQR", etc.) are known for their very low surface noise and anti-static properties, but sources differ on whether they last longer or actually wear out more quickly than conventional vinyl. Unedited video of playing a portion of the record on the Quasar 50 more times, for a total of 100 plays at the end of the test: ua-cam.com/video/qee4wp9Swto/v-deo.html Lossless recordings of all four records used in the test (both the entire album side played with the Stanton 681EEE cartridge, and the brief samples I played using the Shure M75): drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UscEjplMoS6l-Rw3RAnWlDdOY06-GhID (Yes, the unplayed record actually has more pops & clicks than the ones that were played 50 times. Maybe it has some dirt in the grooves, and/or was a noisier pressing than the others. None of the LPs came with inner sleeves -- they just put the record directly in the cardboard jacket.) Time flow: 0:00 Introduction 1:17 The equipment 2:55 The records 5:35 How many times? 7:37 How often? 9:58 The test 13:34 The results 17:08 Analysis 22:31 Stress test 26:12 Conclusion p.s. I found the obituary for the father of the group, which says the Marcus Family Singers were formed in 1974 and were active for seven years, and recorded two albums: www.petersonbrothers.com/obituaries/calvin-marcus Also I looked up the songs on the album in the copyright database and several of them were written in 1980, so the album is probably from 1980 or 1981. You can listen to the full album here: ua-cam.com/video/C1jJxwdpX60/v-deo.html
When I was a child, I had an LP of "Help" by The Beatles that played it so many times that it ended actually worn out. The record player was a suitcase Denky turntable.
06:40 - Say what you will about RCA, the fact that they implied (with a straight face no less!) that an audiophile will "show off his sound system to friends" more times than actually listening to the records themselves is both extremely hilarious and fairly spot-on.
I feel one of the reasons for this is that audiophiles play those songs so often for friends that they tire of them and do not want to listen to them when alone. I guess it's too much of a good thing. ~
Honestly it’s a minor miracle in and of itself that these records are playable at all. If they were handed down at a church (which is implied by their quantity) they would be either played to oblivion by fundies or tossed into the most forgotten corner of the house. Maybe the distributor themselves gave them/sold them to the thrift store?
@@someguitardude8462huh.. ngl man that is a pretty legit good point lol fwiw I can easily see it being one of those two vs in between for the lack of dust and yet still warpage in some of them.
Your channel is the only channel that uploads this sort of content. Most channels cater to the audiophile foolery but this channel debunks it. Keep it up!
I am subscribed to both of those channels and love them. They showcase a lot of interesting things but I don't believe they've ever debunked any of the audiophile nonsense that goes on in the world today.
@@azjames8789 Techmoan has debunked audiophile nonsense. For example there was the video where some company sold a device to shave the edges off compact discs. They claimed this increased fidelity. On a CD.
back in the sixties i left a party and returned in the morning to find my brand new Roling Stones album had been left on repeat overnight for several hours, the record showed no signs of wear at all and fifty years later after countless plays it still sounds fantastic on modern equipment.
I agree, we all buy used records and play them on our high end stereo systems and they sound great. You can imagine those same albums were played on all kinds of cheap systems in the past. Stop worrying about the records and enjoy the music you love.
If it was a pressing of "Hot Rocks" I could never find one that didn't have flaws. They came from the factory with flaws, and it always sounded like massive record groove wear.
Ehhhh... I *distinctly* remember hearing severe groove wear out of jukeboxes from time to time. Obviously dependent on a number of factors, but I'm willing to bet that the tracking forces on most of those machines was brutal. I loved watching the fancy automatic changing and playback mechanisms when they had windows, but they always looked like the tonearm was being absolutely slammed onto the record.
@@koozmusic Early ones playing mono records maybe, but the ROWE -AMI juke boxes played at very low pressures, as did NSM's and late Rock-ola's. I still have singles played on my ROWE-AMI that used an ortofon om10, and they're perfect. Rock-ola fitted the ACCU-TRAC tonearm to boxes in the 70's onward which was specifically designed for the geometry of a 7 inch record to minimise record wear.
@@analoglooney Hmm, interesting! The OM10 would definitely fall into the hi-fi category, for sure. Perhaps it was just the industrial-looking tonearm and deliberate, mechanical movement of it all that made me think they were rough on records. Then again, these are memories from the 80's and early 90s and I was a child. My dad had a very nice turntable though and taught me how to properly treat his equipment and records at only like 5-6 years old. While I found them infinitely cool, jukeboxes always appeared to handle them in a barbaric way to me. 😬
@@koozmusic LOL, yes they did look very crude and I didn't care much for the SEEBURG and early Wurlitzers. If you're ever out buying 45's you can always tell if they have been played on a Rock-ola. As the records revolve in the carousel they are kept from falling out by a metal band that passes underneath them. This eventually wears a slot in the edge of the records, especially the ones that aren't played a lot. The vendors didn't care as by the time it happened, no-one was playing the record anymore as they were bored with it! The computer controlled ROWE-AMI-s of the 80's also had jewelled arm bearings. Amazing for a juke.
Man, you just stuffed a whole bunch of vinyl snobs in a place they deserve. This test deserves 1 million views min. Great job with the test. Data proud!
How so? I think "vinyl snobs" are all well aware that with a good table and good cart you can play your vinyl records without fear of harming them. Matter of fact, most of them preach this when folks tend to worry about it.
@@wymotome Vinyl snobs are those folks that came up with utter bs like Vinyl rest, for 24 HOURS. Silly Or that it is time to replace your vinyl after any number of plays. You are correct that those that say, keep your gear clean are spot on. This well thought out and logically performed test put to rest that snake oil statements made by folks generally selling pollihollow thermofuzz fake remedies, are shown to be disingenuous.
Chrysler came out with an under dash record player for your car that played 45 RPM records. I'll bet it didn't take very long to get some record groove wear on those! And then remember those little cars and trucks that would drive around and round on your record and play it while it drove?
This is exactly what the vinyl community needs right now! People are being shamed to buy expensive equipment right from the get go, and treating vinyl like an extremely delicate form of music consumption, when the thing that greatly impacts your listening experience is dust! Congratulations on this lovely video, keep up with the great work man!
Yes, I was gifted one of those little suitcase players by my daughter. A friend immediately commented on my photo telling me to dump it and sped 300 on a 'good' player as I'll really damage my records. I ignored him and 6 years later im still using it with no issues or damage.vinyl snobs suck.
I appreciate the fact that you have seemingly gone out of your way to be reasonable with this test. The music selected was done for the purpose of matching all of them up, nothing to do with what sort of music whatsoever. You maintained a regimen of playing them according to a schedule. Kudos to your dedication to getting trustworthy results.
Would still feel better about playing an expensive record on a good quality table with a good cart vs. a cheapo Crosley. Even that Quasar is superior to a Crosley.
@@frankowalker4662 A Crosley was not tested and I have seen with my own eyes the "Crosley Crop Circles" that those turntables leave behind on newer vinyl. I would not make assumptions based on this video when it comes to Victrola and Crosley as they are different animals than that Quasar. And for the record, a lot of older vinyl was superior to the newer stuff. I'd like to see the test redone with a few modern "clearance" albums from the local Target.
@@wymotome Good point. I've got one of the UK versions of Crosley. (same design, different brand). But I only ever play my 1960's-1980's, (already scratched), records on it. My main deck is a Numark TT 1625 with an Audio Technica cartridge.
That's the problem buying second-hand records. you just don't know how they are going to sound even If they look mint they could be full of dirt and dust and permanently damaged by a worn stylus it's pot luck .
In my 40 plus years of collecting vinyl, I don’t believe I’ve ever come across such an exceptional and thorough vinyl test/comparison! Thank you for taking the time out of your life to do this for us enthusiasts! Folks, enjoy this video for the next 100 years with no quality loss! Job well done and may the good lord be with you all!
I'm not sure. There is a lot of vibration and friction, and vinyl is a relatively soft material. Once every 24h-s is stupid, but playing a record over and over and over and over again, probably creates quite a lot of surface heat.
I studied materias technology at university. Yes it is absurd. It would be a problem only if it were played so fast that it could got the chance to heat up, but It won't heat up not even a little bit and even if it does, it would dissipate it immediately.
@@AnalogSins That would only be possible had the needle continuously ran the same exact groove for hours at a time. Literally impossible. Physics alone disproves this asinine theory of surface heat. I mean, the needle is long past the area it would even put a remote amount of heat on, which is insanely negligible, before it ever started on that groove again.
Funny how everyone says "According to studies" but never EVER cites the actual study. Take the "stressed vinyl" theory with a grain of salt until someone digs up an actual controlled study.
I like that you call out people who waste time on forums, pontificating and arguing about how you should listen to music. They spend more time doing that instead of enjoying their music collection.
My family's had many records since the 60s, a lot of them have been played countless times and they are more than 50 years old, but they've always been taken good care of and they've always been played with high quality cartridges with good condition stylus, and many of them still sound awesome.
I've been following your channel for almost 10 years and let me tell you I believe you. You always achieve a great sound on your videos and I started to collect vinyl because of them.
You give such an objective take. I feel like trying to enter into the hobby is so hard because of the amount of purity test and audiophiles making this seem like you need a budget of at least 2000 to even start. You give real advice that doesn't sugar coat, but also doesn't demonize
Those folks fail to understand that telling people, "You're too broke to engage in this hobby" will never, ever get a person into vinyl listening. Get someone encouraged and started on simple equipment, tell them how to use the cheaper equipment to their advantage, and watch them work their way up! All this special noise equipment is hard to understand, and you have to take it in small portions.
THANK YOU for putting another nail in the coffin of the whole "let the vinyl relax" malarkey! I'm not sure why some people in the industry thought it was appropriate to anthropomorphize vinyl records, but it's borderline crazy IMO, especially without data to back up the claim. Much like you, I've found that simply keeping the vinyl clean, and cleaning when necessary, to be the most surefire way to have a great listening experience.
There absolutely are polymer use-cases where you want to give the material time to recover. It is particularly the case with items that deform in use, giving them recovery time slows down polymer creep. EVA shoe soles are an example. I don't for a second think that records are susceptible to this. Hard PVC has very little creep to begin with. To be a little pedantic it's not PVC but according to Brydson's Plastics a blend with... i forgot, and doesn't matter, the mechanical properties are basically identical. To be kept in mind when you replay it, at least a few minutes have passed with material essentially at rest, after it was under impact for one tenthousandth of a second or so, just... different timescales to such a degree, that i don't see how a few more hours would help.
@@SianaGearz Remember the math question about which put more lb/sq in onto the floor, the elephant or the person wearing stiletto heels? The stylus radius being 0.2-0.3 mil for even a high quality stylus, and the amount of the groove wall vertically being contacted being on the order of 1 mil, the force pushing the stylus side to side is then being applied to an area of, ballpark, .0000006 inches square, or a multiplication factor of around 1.5 million. So 1.5 g = .0033 lb force, over 5000 psi. A handwave value for one reference's current recipe of 2/3PVA, 1/3 PVC mix in records is around 4000 psi tensile strength. (Not sure of exact grades mixed, but PVA is quite a bit softer and somewhat less crystalline than PVC.) Plus the stylus is applying a very significant thermal spike for those milliseconds. The surprise is maybe that the record surface /doesn't/ quickly degrade, though certainly the stylus is great at embedding dust and other particles into the groove walls. This test by VWestlife is reasonably scientific to the end result of "does it sound immediately different? No." and all of the commenters' related experiences with how poorly 45's in jukeboxes last are also a good bound to show that degradation is indeed happening from worst case high intensity repetition. I'd bet that 45's in radio stations, while probably kept clean, had even worse lives for the first week or two after the A-side hit the charts. FWIW I know from experience that playing a favorite vinyl album every afternoon after high school before the parents got home, on an ancient record player with a lot of tonearm weight, does indeed wipe out the grooves after maybe two hundred plays. I don't recall playing it multiple times in one day very often. But it certainly sounds like crap now, on a far better rig.
@@pault151 Yes you make a strong case that the stylus has a substantial impact on the groove surface and i agree. I don't know if tensile strength is a good metric since OK there would be tangential tensile impact, mostly compressive, but there is wear for sure. I also made a brainfart, the polymer used in records is a copolymer not a blend and yes polyvinyl acetate is softer. Brydson specifies 15% acetate used for vinyl records. It's ultimately not necessarily cut and dry, i mean, we all remember worn records, but was the gradual damage caused by the stylus contact, or was it caused by contamination such as surface dust, and how much of either? Dust can be substantially smaller than the stylus contact patch, which is bad, and it won't be as nicely shaped as the stylus. It's worse if you're tracking at 6g than at 1.5g for sure. The question here is "letting vinyl relax" and that it does nothing, because whether it relaxes for 3 minutes as you replay the same song over and over, or for 3 days, that's effectively both a very long time compared to the millisecond fractions the groove spends in contact with the stylus. So repeating the record constantly should induce the same wear as playing it for the same amount of time in total but letting it "rest" in between.
I think it's funny that the dudes who swear a Crosley will literally eat a vinyl record are the same ones who will advise playing without a dust cover for some modicum of improved fidelity. Audiophiles are a superstitious bunch
As with any kind of enthusiasm, being an audiophile has an element of subjective emotional response or nostalgia. In the face of that, taking an objective, critical approach to music appreciation, analysis or creation can be challenging. When people feel like their beliefs are being challenged the knives can come out.
I imagine the Marcus Family would be proud that their unused recordings helped in this test, especially since we were all straining, listening so closely to the words and music (albeit for signs of damage 😁) Fantastic work!
My original copy of the Star Wars soundtrack is basically unplayable 45 years later because I abused it, Never cleaned it and played it almost daily for many months in a row. My childhood friend still has his original copy and it sounds fine even though he played his just as much, possibly more. The difference is, I was a slob and never cleaned mine and he was meticulous in handling and removing dust and dirt from his vinyl. I was Oscar, he was Felix.
You might have a problem with mold. Since you have nothing to loose with that record, I suggest you to try my method, which brought back many unplayable records to G+ or even better condition. If a record is highly contaminated with greasy fingerprints and dust, it gives fuel to mold. If I come across a record with unknown history and it is heavily distorted, first I use a high concentration sodium hypochlorite (bleach) solution used for removing mold from walls (called SAVO in Europe), I soak the grooves on both sides for about two minutes, than rinse it thoroughly with tap water. Be careful to avoid the label with the bleach, as it will fade it! You need a solution made for mold removal, regular bleach (at least what they sell in Europe) is not concentrated enough. Than I wipe the record dry with soft paper towels, and this time I soak the grooves with formic acid based limescale remover for about 5 minutes, than I rinse it with tap water, and as a final step, I rinse off the tap water with ~ 1 liter of deionised water per side, and let it dry on its own for a night, hung up on its center hole. The hypochlorite dissolves mold and most other organic contaminants, the formic acid dissolves limescale that might be present in the grooves from a previous flooding or from wet playbacks. After this, you need to replace the inner sleeve as it is probably contaminated with mold spores.
I used to get very OCD about playing records, putting a little dust-collector brush on the records before lowering the arm, wiping each side with a special anti-static cloth, making sure the inner record sleeve went into the outer with the openings at right-angles. If I was very good, I never even got to hear the music, and the dust bug caused the record to slow so the music was noticable off-key. I got fed up with this rubbish in the end, and wished there were a way of listening without all the faff. And then came cassettes!
Holy crap. You weren't kidding about the quietness of that vinyl - specifically the specimen that was used on the Audio-Technica (21:19). Dead silent! Also interesting to hear the left channel dropout in the master (or production master) tape near the beginning of that song (21:24). Maybe the result of poor handling during splicing or cueing, etc. Makes me think it may have been recorded at 7.5 IPS? Haha, I don't really know. It's uncommon to hear tape dropouts on pressed records though, in my experience. Side note: you have quickly become one of my favorite channels on subjects like this. I wholeheartedly agree with your opinions/testing/conclusions, etc. and I love the lack of audiophile snobbery BS. 🥰
I've genuinely wondered this for as long as i have owned records. And i could not find anyone that has made a good comparison like this. Thank you! You keep putting out great videos.
Initially I wasn't going to watch through the whole video non-stop, but then I just did. Fantastic work! You're probably the mastermind in making your videos interesting and engaging.
lol "Fundamendalist Brady Bunch" xDD And i love that you are one of the very few veteran youtubers who still produces quality content without Style-over-substance bus getting to the point to answer some questions in a practical manner that barely anyone else does. Trust me, Kevin. It is MUCH appreciated. I'm still glad i found your channel MAny many many moons ago.
Best way to care for your vinyls is clean with wire brush and store in a hot area preferably in direct sunlight during summer.Will then sound perfect and last for many years with perfect playback.high grit sandpaper is also good for getting into the grooves to give you perfect playback.dont forget to sand your stylus with a sanding disk to allow it to give you much clearer sounds.Thats audiophile stuff there.
My first turntable is in this video! The ATPL50. I gave it to my grandma while I upgraded over the years, sadly she passed and now that Audio Technica ATPL50 is very sentimental
I think what does records in quicker than anything is rough/improper handling and playing them on defective equipment (defective stylus, defective cartridge, improper tracking force, mechanical defects with the turntable, etc.). On that note, I've seen new styli and cartridges that had some sort of defect that caused immediate record damage, and that's why I use junk records for testing when I repair a record player or turntable.
Totally awesome! I've been saying for a number of years now that the audiophiles are spreading urban legends. I very much appreciate your thoughtful, compelling testing of one of these claims. Bravo!
Nice job. There are lots of factors that play into (no pun intended) how much wear a record will show after multiple plays. Keeping them clean and your equipment in good repair are the most impactful. Can't wait for the test regarding colored & new vinyl.
Wow, this is a fantastic video! The amount of time invested in creating the content, and the level of detail is mesmerizing! Thank you for sharing this with us, it is definitely clear that dust and worn-out styli would be the most detrimental factors for record-groove wear. Congratulations on this great production, keep up the amazing work 🥰
As a Brit who was raised as and remains a full-on atheist with a taste for electronic music and avant-garde jazz, could I just say that I really like this record?! The lead voice is quite striking - strength, clarity, minimum vibrato but no fake folkiness either, like a parlor arrangement of Sacred Harp music - and the piano accompaniment is seriously tight. Oh, and the video is general is valuable, too. : )
I have this same record, and i am amazed, and impressed that you listened as many times as you have. No idea how many times my copy has been played, I inherited it from my grandma, but ive listened to it once in 10 years
Finally a real answer to this question, thank you! I just got into collecting records as a hobby about 2 ish years ago and reading about record care caused me some anxieties. I want to take great care of them so i can listen to them for years to come and people discussing it never seemed to know the truth. I never really knew if i had the right equipment or not due to all the conflicting research. Or even if just playing them too much harmed them. Now this video has helped greatly ease some of these worries, it's not the playing but the method of storage and cleanliness/care of them when not in use. Thank you!
Thank You for the SKILL and TIME you invested into this series of experiments. Talk is cheap but definitive experimentation with published results is conclusive. EXCELLENT SCIENTIFIC DEMONSTRATION !!!
Hat off to do this test, wow. What I did after buying a record, is recording it directly on tape, mostly directly at the first play because the record was free of dust and the surface noise was less/low. When I wanted to hear the record, I played the tape. After this, I put a purchase note (price and date) inside the slipcover and put the record back into it's inner sleeve (with the opening on top) into the slipcover. To protect the cover (and the record), I used transparent plastic sleeves. This brings up a next question, there where some rumours around that using plastic sleeves is bad for the records because of acids used in the transparent plastic. After all those years, the records seems to be fine, looking like brand new. So what is true about plastic sleeves? The only thing I noticed is that some of them starts to get brittle over time. Nice subject and video, thanks for making and sharing.
In 1954 Harold D Weiler conducted a study in New York and wrote up his findings in "The Wear and Care of Records and Styli" (available online at Library of Chicago). Even this early in the life of the microgroove record the danger of dust in record grooves was identified, not only to the record but to the stylus, which if allowed to wear does more damage than the dust. Weiler identified that bushes and cloths were of no use in removing the most dangerous dust - eg the wearing stylus and also identified that binder substances were what had to be broken if dust was to be successfully removed. Weiler's work was the driver for the design of Record Restore, which is extremely effective at bringing old records back to life due to its ability to remove binder substances as well as static electricity, the greatest cause of noise on a record. It's amazing how much static arrives on brand new records today, immediately coating a record with airborne dust as soon as it comes out of the sleeve.
Wow, thanks, VW! What an effort. Great video. My purchased in 1983 Def Leppard Pyromania album was played about 500 times. Yes, it's beat up, but still is OK.
Kudos to you for both this badly-needed test and for the astonishing patience you exhibited by subjecting yourself to the Marcus Family so no one else would have to.
I was only listening to the video while working and I was thinking to myself "Wow, he's spending a long time on this first recording", before looking over and realizing you had actually just spliced them together perfectly. Impressive editing! As for the music, it actually wasn't half bad, despite it giving me "Toe-tapping Country Gospel Music Hour" PTSD flashbacks. Probably unlikely to end up on any of my playlists, though
I panicked about the “rest and relax” bit because I’ve been known to listen to a favorite record multiple times in the course of the day, so your results made me wipe my brow and shout “Whew!” 😊 I really appreciate the time and effort you took with this video… it was both informative and fascinating! Thank you!
Excellent informative video. As a record collector, jukebox collector and restorer, I would add that yes, keeping the records clean is important, as well as brushing dust off the stylus regularly, which you were not able to do. Jukebox records Were 45 rpm records, which often were recorded very loud, which increased playback wear, and esp. ones from the 1960s and 1970s, were not always properly mastered and cut, as they were "engineered" to play loud on the small cheap portable phonos of the day. Finally, about the dust thing, I have a Seeburg Background Music System that plays special 16 rpm records, designed to play continuously for background music, and the entire cabinet has weatherstrip to seal it from dust; they knew how damaging dust can be to records.
Thanks for all the effort in making this one. Just in case no one else said it. If people are still worried about wearing out their disks, they could always do what people did back in the day. As soon as you get your new album back home and play it for the first time, make a copy of it. Be it cassette, cd, or digital. Then you can play it as much as you want and not worry about wearing out the vinyl. And you can carry it around with you.
I had a friend who would do that back in 1978. He had a decent rig at the time, and while the cassette tapes sounded good, I thought that he was being a bit too fussy about preserving his records. I always preferred the vinyl over the sound of the tapes.
Brother, I must say, I get more excited for your videos than anyone else's. I know the algorithm doesn't treat you the way it should, but these videos make my day. Please never quit.
I can hear that those 50 times played records sound a bit less detail and loudness (for the vocal) in comparison with the unplayed one (about .5 to 1 on the scale of 1-10). But overall these still sound great after 50 plays. Thank you for your dedication, it has taken the load off my mind.
You have the patience of a saint 😂. Also I think it should be noticed that nearly all the "studies" come from people with interests in them, of course the record companies will be very happy if you bought the same record time and again because "it has worn out", and the "audiophiles" have to claim they hear things others don't, etc, etc.
This analysis & test protocol was insane. So much great thoughts went into designing the test and the video editing is amazing. Really this hould be seen by everyone.
Technics SL-1900 - "my good turntable" ... Thank you VWestlife for getting me into listening to records again, your SL-1900 review/repair video did it actually, grabbed a "not working" one right away... :)
You sir are a scholar and a gentleman. Thank you for the care, time and scientific approach to informing the masses on proper care and variables associated with equipment relating to vinyl record playback. I have learned a lot.
Thank you so much, for your detailed and extensive effort in doing this. I was a vinyl DJ for decades, and through experience knew that most of the 'bro science' surrounding vinyl was completely exaggerated. While audiophiles spent £5000+ on special record cleaning machines, I would hand wash mine in a sink where I cleaned the dishes, and you know what, my vinyl sounded fantastic.
A "friend" borrowed my near-new copy of the first Montrose album (one of the best packages of enjoyment per gram out there, even today) and returned it caked with pizza fingerprints. After suitably cursing him out, I washed it extremely carefully in the sink with dish detergent. It really still sounds quite decent today! That said, after using Discwasher for decades, I am seriously considering a record cleaning machine. My remaining time is worth it.
Well i have to say that is quite an educational video. Thank you for all the time you took to produce the video. It will make conversations with some much easier when the argument starts lol.
Thing is: even if you buy multiple copies of one record, you won't necessarily own identical records. The production process itself is prone to wear and therefore produces uneven results over a single production batch. Which makes it harder to perform a comparison. This has happened to me more than once: two identical records not sounding identical.
Thank for all the effort making this very interesting video. I have records that I’ve played 100+ times, even with ceramic cartridges, that still sound as new. Keep your records clean and do not use worn needles and the wear is minimal. What I did notice however, was that American pressings from the seventies show even less wear than the cheap French ones I bought back then.
What an absolute beauty of a video! I'm not a vinyl nerd or an audiophile, so I wasn't sure how interesting I would find this video, but, boy, did I! Not only did you spend an inordinate amount of time to simulate real world conditions, but your methodology is implacable. It's such a joy to see rigorous methodology and good, thorough, and relevant testing. Well done! This may all have been my imagination, but from the two passes of the Q record I thought I could hear a very slight decrease in richness of the sound after 50 and then 100 plays. Maybe it was some transient artifact of the UA-cam compression, or maybe it was all psychological, but the side by side comparisons did sound ever so slightly different in richness to me. However, I couldn't say what exactly it was and if I didn't have the comparison a few seconds earlier and really strained to see if I could hear any difference, I wouldn't. It might well all be in my head, but I didn't expect to hear any difference at all, which is why I was surprised. I am very unsure.
I often wonder about service guides from the 50's and 60's. If their facts are correct. I have many of these guides. You've proven that, at least one, guide was correct (RCA). This has me wanting to read more specs in the old user/service guides. Well done!
Another top notch video. I've said for years, that the reason most were ever soured on vinyl was they were careless and lazy with it and that most of their disappointment in vinyl playback was self inflicted. I agree with everything you've demonstrated in this video. It's why I prefer compact disc; I'm lazy. I'm not careless, but I am lazy.
Excellent test. I did hear a small difference in what I think was the Quasar recording, in that there was a very slight reduction in high frequency noise particularly in the right channel, and a slight increase in surface noise. I couldn't hear a difference that I would attribute to the Audio-Technica or Technics. I have done similar tests myself, albeit without a control (as you correctly pointed out at the time) using a cheap GPO-branded turntable. That did cause obvious damage to the record after 50 plays, including significant distortion, damage to the right channel due to the lack of anti-skate, and high surface noise. Some time ago I did a test over at Audio Appraisal where I played a record 50 times on an AT-LP60, almost non stop without allowing a settling period between plays. At the end of that test there was no damage what-so-ever to the record. With all that said I have spent years studying everything I can find concerning vinyl reproduction and turntable design and engineering, as I build turntables. I've come to the conclusion that it isn't tracking force, stylus shape or stylus material taht influences record wear, but the quality of the mechanics at play. For example if your tonearm has wobbly bearings, the stylus can't track the groove properly so will cause more damage. Likewise if the platter is eccentric or undulates as it spins, the result will be more damage. I do believe that the cheapest turntables (the suitcase style things) cause an unacceptable level of damage in a short period of time. But I do also believe that a turntable that gets the basic mechanical elements right, like the LP60, shouldn't cause any damage. For what it's worth the Technics SL-QD33 is one of the best P-mount cartridge turntables they made. The tonearm uses the same 0.7MG low friction gimbal as an SL-1200, it has non-contact end of play sensing, and the coreless direct-drive motor is immune to cogging. It might look like an ordinary albeit half decent autoamtic 80s turntable, but it's actually one of the best of them ever built. Find an original Technics P30 cartridge for it though.
I think that 1979-era Quasar turntable with the ceramic cartridge (part of an all-in-one combo stereo) was better designed and manufactured than many low-end turntables made today. I used to have a Technics SL-QD33 and actually miss it, I underestimated its quality but among things it had the lowest noise floor of any turntable I'd ever owned.
@@peacearchwa5103 No doubt it was better built. Even the lowest end BSR of the time didn't generally have much play in the tonearm. The low end turntables of today mostly have a couple of plastic pins as tonearm pivots. I would very much like to see @vwestlife repeat the test with the same record on a Crosley Cruiser or similar now that the control samples have been obtained.
A damaged/bent stylus, a dirty record, or too heavy force, damaging the record handling/storing/cleaning it, storage problems like mold etc. are probably the biggest problems. But those are still things one needs to learn about and newbies/uninformed listeners could accidentally be doing. Just playing it correctly in pretty good conditions seems to be fine!
Loved this video and all your others. Been watching for a long time and from one old timer who believes in the KISS principle no one does this stuff better than you. Thanks for all your work.
30+ years ago, I fell asleep while listening to a record on my fully manual, 'high-end' turntable with a top-of-the-range 'line contact' profile (the highest end type) stylus-equipped, moving coil cartridge. Without auto-return, the stylus ran that outer groove loop all night, 10,000 plays or more. Come lunchtime later that day, I ran from my work in panic to my hi-fi dealer, and I was reassured that I had merely 'run-in' my new cartridge, and it was pointed out to me that there would have been no modulations (no sound) in that lead-out groove. The record, however (a superb, mono original US pressing of Simon & Garfunkel's "Bookends") has been left with a soft, quiet, but very noticeable, constant 'shushing' sound at the end now. That was the last time I ever listened to a record in bed (I've grown up, and these days, my turntable is in my living room).
Just wanted to say THANK YOU for this video - it's really appreciated the time you took, the effort you made and explanations you provided. I have a light tracking turntable (1.2 grams) and can rest assured that with regular washing/maintenance for both the turntable and the records, I can be confident that my records will last several lifetimes
Thanks for doing this test. It explains why records I used to play on a Fisher Price record player back in the 80s still sounded pretty decent. I was taught to handle records carefully as a child and I guess it paid off!
I love your videos so much because they make me feel so much better about using my old equipment without the worry that I'll be destroying it. Seriously, all of your testing and debunking videos are massively appreciated! Btw that humor is on point 👌
"Facts are meaningless - you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! Facts schmacks..." Thanks, Kevin - I really enjoyed the video and I appreciate both the effort you put into it and the consideration you took regarding both approach and presentation. And I wish you a minimum of negative comments from those who refuse to have their beliefs/positions challenged by pesky things like evidence.
Really appreciate the effort you put into this! Answering some questions I've always had and alleviating some worries I've always put in effort to assuage while still actually enjoying my records.
Great video. I think we live in a golden age for cartridges - for just $170 you can get one with a micro linear stylus, the peak of vinyl playback technology. Distortion-free opera and classical vinyl, which is about a challenging as it gets. Even elliptical styli struggle. Audio Technica At-Vm95ml FTW
I was always AMAZED how sharp used and well-maintained Contemporary LPs from the mid-50’s sounded on my modest equipment. They were clearly well loved and the only difference is how they were treated. Off-topic but equally interesting, I just found a cassette tape recorded in ‘84 and is sparkling and shows no wear in the least. So yeah, there will be a day when that changes, but likely not in my lifetime.
You should have used a BSR stackable changer with a ceramic cartridge from the 70's, the turntable most teenagers had in the 70's. Put the record on and lift the stacker arm and move it to the side so the player will go into repeat mode and play that side over and over and over and over and over again to infinity and beyond. Those turntables made inner-groove distortion sound like fingernails on a chalkboard. Fifty plays non-stop on one of those turntables would reduce that record into a noisy mess.
Excellent, fascinating video. Being a fan of vinyl recordings for many decades I've always wondered about progressive degradation through repeated playback. You've approached the subject very scientifically, addressing all the relevant variables, methodical and keeping in mind possible bias through perception and subjective listening. I've spent a lifetime comparing high end audio equipment, even watching UA-cam is fed through a high end hifi amplifier and quality full sized stereo speakers. The unplayed recording sounded almost holographic and is clearly a well produced disc, I'd describe it as though air passes between the voices and the instruments, the high treble sounding clear and unbound from the instruments unlike modern compressed mp3 recordings which feel like the voices are bogged down somewhat. Going on to the played 50 times, I could definitely hear some loss in the upper treble, perhaps because I'm listening through my hifi or perhaps due to my auditory physiology. Back in the '80's I read a research article which stated that Japanese hifi was tuned differently for the Japanese domestic market than it was for items exported to the west as the hearing range was different either through conditioning because the musical instruments played in the east had far more upper treble or because the auditory physiology was different. After reading reviews in hifi magazines I would venture out to a store and listen for myself. Time and again I would find that what was described as neutral or dry, was often dull and muffled and what had been described as bright or coloured was actually more alive and involving. I now find that time has caught up with my original assessments and hifi equipment now has a much broader and open range than back in the '80's but model digital recordings whilst ultra clear are often soul less in a way that vinyl never was. Of course one variable we can't control for, is the ageing process and the eroding of our ability to register the upper frequencies. From personal endless testing with styli, I've found that the lightest weight produces the most detail from the recordings, whilst it may not produce the strongest slam in the bass it gives me some comfort that it's exerting less wear on the grooves of the vinyl. Thank you for your time and effort in the production of this video.
I feel vinyl itself isn’t as fragile as people make it out to be for constant playbacks. It mostly depends on how the record was manufactured, my decades old records still sound good because they were protected in the sleeve.
Thank you very much for sharing your test, I have never really worried about the number of times, I can play an LP, but one thing is for sure, most of the records in my collection that I have listened to quite a lot still sound excellent.
Lots of people talk and worry about vinyl records wearing out, but finally here is a controlled, long-term experiment to test how much audible wear actually happens to records played in real-world conditions on a variety of turntables. I highly suggest a quiet listening environment and good pair of speakers or headphones to observe the results.
However, the main takeaway from this test is something that experts have already known for the past 75 years: dust, dirt, scratches, fingerprints, improper storage, and a worn stylus are the real enemies of vinyl record life, not the kind of turntable you use. Do your best to avoid those perils, and your records will provide a lifetime of enjoyment, even when played on inexpensive equipment.
FYI: The records I tested are slightly transparent when held up to a bright light, indicating they were made with a vinyl formulation which used dye instead of carbon black; these records (marketed under various names such as "Super Vinyl", "Quiex", "UHQR", etc.) are known for their very low surface noise and anti-static properties, but sources differ on whether they last longer or actually wear out more quickly than conventional vinyl.
Unedited video of playing a portion of the record on the Quasar 50 more times, for a total of 100 plays at the end of the test: ua-cam.com/video/qee4wp9Swto/v-deo.html
Lossless recordings of all four records used in the test (both the entire album side played with the Stanton 681EEE cartridge, and the brief samples I played using the Shure M75): drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UscEjplMoS6l-Rw3RAnWlDdOY06-GhID
(Yes, the unplayed record actually has more pops & clicks than the ones that were played 50 times. Maybe it has some dirt in the grooves, and/or was a noisier pressing than the others. None of the LPs came with inner sleeves -- they just put the record directly in the cardboard jacket.)
Time flow:
0:00 Introduction
1:17 The equipment
2:55 The records
5:35 How many times?
7:37 How often?
9:58 The test
13:34 The results
17:08 Analysis
22:31 Stress test
26:12 Conclusion
p.s. I found the obituary for the father of the group, which says the Marcus Family Singers were formed in 1974 and were active for seven years, and recorded two albums: www.petersonbrothers.com/obituaries/calvin-marcus
Also I looked up the songs on the album in the copyright database and several of them were written in 1980, so the album is probably from 1980 or 1981.
You can listen to the full album here: ua-cam.com/video/C1jJxwdpX60/v-deo.html
@@AneeshSeeYay Seriously? That's your problem?
@VWestLife Thank you for going into this level of details for our benefit and enjoyment 😊
Beautifully executed tests, thanks Kevin, I won’t look at my SC-12H with a suspicious eye ever again 😸
When I was a child, I had an LP of "Help" by The Beatles that played it so many times that it ended actually worn out.
The record player was a suitcase Denky turntable.
Well, one thing's for sure...
it didn't get any better.
Your dry humor is lost on a lot of people, but I very much appreciate it.
Oh no, we picked up on the passive aggressive attacks on Christianity.
@@oinkooink Not Christianity, just the horrible music it has "inspired." Although I have to say, this group seems to have had some real talent.
@@drh8h There's a lot of horrible music in any genre. It was a slur on Christianity.
@@oinkooinksnowflake lol. Christians want to feel oppressed so bad 🤣
@@oinkooinkgrow some thicker skin lol
06:40 - Say what you will about RCA, the fact that they implied (with a straight face no less!) that an audiophile will "show off his sound system to friends" more times than actually listening to the records themselves is both extremely hilarious and fairly spot-on.
Yes, audiiophiles listen to their equipment, while the rest listen to the music.
You know about that audiophile stereotype... "Audiophiles use music to listen to their gear."
I feel one of the reasons for this is that audiophiles play those songs so often for friends that they tire of them and do not want to listen to them when alone. I guess it's too much of a good thing.
~
😂😂😂
@@teeteetuu94 I get it - 'stereo' type ;)
I bet more people listened to the Marcus family in the last day than have ever before.
thought that too... Also wondering if the family is still about and singing.
Honestly it’s a minor miracle in and of itself that these records are playable at all. If they were handed down at a church (which is implied by their quantity) they would be either played to oblivion by fundies or tossed into the most forgotten corner of the house. Maybe the distributor themselves gave them/sold them to the thrift store?
@@someguitardude8462huh.. ngl man that is a pretty legit good point lol fwiw I can easily see it being one of those two vs in between for the lack of dust and yet still warpage in some of them.
@@someguitardude8462 it's possible they were MEANT to be handed out, but just never were for one reason or another
@@someguitardude8462 i'll bet a few of them served as first, second, and third bases for kickball.
Your channel is the only channel that uploads this sort of content. Most channels cater to the audiophile foolery but this channel debunks it. Keep it up!
Not the only one. Might I interest you in a chap called Techmoan?
Also see Record-ology.
I am subscribed to both of those channels and love them. They showcase a lot of interesting things but I don't believe they've ever debunked any of the audiophile nonsense that goes on in the world today.
I love how kind & respectful he is to other channels, even promoting them. Not a fight down competing channel
@@azjames8789 Techmoan has debunked audiophile nonsense. For example there was the video where some company sold a device to shave the edges off compact discs. They claimed this increased fidelity. On a CD.
back in the sixties i left a party and returned in the morning to find my brand new Roling Stones album had been left on repeat overnight for several hours, the record showed no signs of wear at all and fifty years later after countless plays it still sounds fantastic on modern equipment.
same hear he says 50 plays, no way we all played our AC/DC records every weekend for 40 years and they still sound great more like 50 plays a year
I agree, we all buy used records and play them on our high end stereo systems and they sound great. You can imagine those same albums were played on all kinds of cheap systems in the past. Stop worrying about the records and enjoy the music you love.
A good player with a new stylus will leave no audible deterioration with less than 50 plays :)
Facts that happen to me too and my record is like 50 years old still sound good just got to keep them clean n dust free 😂
If it was a pressing of "Hot Rocks" I could never find one that didn't have flaws. They came from the factory with flaws, and it always sounded like massive record groove wear.
These aren't mere clickbait fripperies, these are informational videos for the ages. Basically you can play your records as often as you want.
*as long as you take care of them (which I'm sure most people won't)
Well, in the case of this specific record, it amounts to zero times. 😄
@@kpanic23 She was gone in the twinklin' of an eye, and didn't have time to say goodbye. It may have even been while she was singing the song.
I plan to use the term "fripperies" more often in the future.
@@Think_Up Yes.. And why not! Go all the way Fripperary, fripperial, fripperarity, fripperaritous, fripperaritosity, fripperariousness, fripperious, fripperiousness, fripperiosity, fripperiositous, fripperiositosity, fripperesque, fripperesquosity, fripperariness, fripperanimity, fripperanimous, fripperous, friperousness, fripperositous, fripperositosity, fripper, frippering, frippered, fripperied
Does no one remember that 45s in jukeboxes played all summer long continuously every day without fail?
Ehhhh... I *distinctly* remember hearing severe groove wear out of jukeboxes from time to time. Obviously dependent on a number of factors, but I'm willing to bet that the tracking forces on most of those machines was brutal. I loved watching the fancy automatic changing and playback mechanisms when they had windows, but they always looked like the tonearm was being absolutely slammed onto the record.
Yeah, totally _LoFi_ ...
@@koozmusic Early ones playing mono records maybe, but the ROWE -AMI juke boxes played at very low pressures, as did NSM's and late Rock-ola's. I still have singles played on my ROWE-AMI that used an ortofon om10, and they're perfect. Rock-ola fitted the ACCU-TRAC tonearm to boxes in the 70's onward which was specifically designed for the geometry of a 7 inch record to minimise record wear.
@@analoglooney Hmm, interesting! The OM10 would definitely fall into the hi-fi category, for sure. Perhaps it was just the industrial-looking tonearm and deliberate, mechanical movement of it all that made me think they were rough on records. Then again, these are memories from the 80's and early 90s and I was a child. My dad had a very nice turntable though and taught me how to properly treat his equipment and records at only like 5-6 years old. While I found them infinitely cool, jukeboxes always appeared to handle them in a barbaric way to me. 😬
@@koozmusic LOL, yes they did look very crude and I didn't care much for the SEEBURG and early Wurlitzers. If you're ever out buying 45's you can always tell if they have been played on a Rock-ola. As the records revolve in the carousel they are kept from falling out by a metal band that passes underneath them. This eventually wears a slot in the edge of the records, especially the ones that aren't played a lot. The vendors didn't care as by the time it happened, no-one was playing the record anymore as they were bored with it! The computer controlled ROWE-AMI-s of the 80's also had jewelled arm bearings. Amazing for a juke.
Man, you just stuffed a whole bunch of vinyl snobs in a place they deserve.
This test deserves 1 million views min.
Great job with the test. Data proud!
How so? I think "vinyl snobs" are all well aware that with a good table and good cart you can play your vinyl records without fear of harming them. Matter of fact, most of them preach this when folks tend to worry about it.
@@wymotome Vinyl snobs are those folks that came up with utter bs like Vinyl rest, for 24 HOURS. Silly Or that it is time to replace your vinyl after any number of plays.
You are correct that those that say, keep your gear clean are spot on.
This well thought out and logically performed test put to rest that snake oil statements made by folks generally selling pollihollow thermofuzz fake remedies, are shown to be disingenuous.
@provisionalhypothesis Talk about proving a point, snob..
@provisionalhypothesis You should pick up one of those records he played. Sounds like you need Jesus.
@provisionalhypothesisNOBODY is readin that tweaker rant 😂
The man employs scientific method in his tests, that’s why he is reliable.
Chrysler came out with an under dash record player for your car that played 45 RPM records. I'll bet it didn't take very long to get some record groove wear on those! And then remember those little cars and trucks that would drive around and round on your record and play it while it drove?
This is exactly what the vinyl community needs right now! People are being shamed to buy expensive equipment right from the get go, and treating vinyl like an extremely delicate form of music consumption, when the thing that greatly impacts your listening experience is dust! Congratulations on this lovely video, keep up with the great work man!
Yes, I was gifted one of those little suitcase players by my daughter. A friend immediately commented on my photo telling me to dump it and sped 300 on a 'good' player as I'll really damage my records. I ignored him and 6 years later im still using it with no issues or damage.vinyl snobs suck.
I appreciate the fact that you have seemingly gone out of your way to be reasonable with this test. The music selected was done for the purpose of matching all of them up, nothing to do with what sort of music whatsoever. You maintained a regimen of playing them according to a schedule. Kudos to your dedication to getting trustworthy results.
That proves what I've always thought...
It's not what you play them on, it's how you treat them.
Would still feel better about playing an expensive record on a good quality table with a good cart vs. a cheapo Crosley. Even that Quasar is superior to a Crosley.
@@wymotome I agree, but if all you've got is a Crosley, then you don't have to worry too much.
@@frankowalker4662 A Crosley was not tested and I have seen with my own eyes the "Crosley Crop Circles" that those turntables leave behind on newer vinyl. I would not make assumptions based on this video when it comes to Victrola and Crosley as they are different animals than that Quasar.
And for the record, a lot of older vinyl was superior to the newer stuff. I'd like to see the test redone with a few modern "clearance" albums from the local Target.
@@wymotome Good point. I've got one of the UK versions of Crosley. (same design, different brand). But I only ever play my 1960's-1980's, (already scratched), records on it.
My main deck is a Numark TT 1625 with an Audio Technica cartridge.
That's the problem buying second-hand records. you just don't know how they are going to sound even If they look mint they could be full of dirt and dust and permanently damaged by a worn stylus it's pot luck .
In my 40 plus years of collecting vinyl, I don’t believe I’ve ever come across such an exceptional and thorough vinyl test/comparison! Thank you for taking the time out of your life to do this for us enthusiasts! Folks, enjoy this video for the next 100 years with no quality loss! Job well done and may the good lord be with you all!
That vinyl relaxing period theory sounds absurd
I'm not sure. There is a lot of vibration and friction, and vinyl is a relatively soft material. Once every 24h-s is stupid, but playing a record over and over and over and over again, probably creates quite a lot of surface heat.
I studied materias technology at university. Yes it is absurd. It would be a problem only if it were played so fast that it could got the chance to heat up, but It won't heat up not even a little bit and even if it does, it would dissipate it immediately.
@@AnalogSins That would only be possible had the needle continuously ran the same exact groove for hours at a time. Literally impossible. Physics alone disproves this asinine theory of surface heat. I mean, the needle is long past the area it would even put a remote amount of heat on, which is insanely negligible, before it ever started on that groove again.
Funny how everyone says "According to studies" but never EVER cites the actual study. Take the "stressed vinyl" theory with a grain of salt until someone digs up an actual controlled study.
Its like that crap about CDs being repeatedly played !
Two VWestlife videos in one week? Awesome! Your videos have been superb since the channel first began.
I like that you call out people who waste time on forums, pontificating and arguing about how you should listen to music. They spend more time doing that instead of enjoying their music collection.
But you need those $1000 cables and "hyper shielded power cords" with the 500 lbs concrete turntables to REALLY get clean sound...........NOT!
Music lovers use equipment to listen to their music, audiophools use music to listen to their equipment.
My family's had many records since the 60s, a lot of them have been played countless times and they are more than 50 years old, but they've always been taken good care of and they've always been played with high quality cartridges with good condition stylus, and many of them still sound awesome.
I've been following your channel for almost 10 years and let me tell you I believe you. You always achieve a great sound on your videos and I started to collect vinyl because of them.
@@lestatdark2621 Thank you!
You give such an objective take. I feel like trying to enter into the hobby is so hard because of the amount of purity test and audiophiles making this seem like you need a budget of at least 2000 to even start. You give real advice that doesn't sugar coat, but also doesn't demonize
Those folks fail to understand that telling people, "You're too broke to engage in this hobby" will never, ever get a person into vinyl listening. Get someone encouraged and started on simple equipment, tell them how to use the cheaper equipment to their advantage, and watch them work their way up! All this special noise equipment is hard to understand, and you have to take it in small portions.
THANK YOU for putting another nail in the coffin of the whole "let the vinyl relax" malarkey! I'm not sure why some people in the industry thought it was appropriate to anthropomorphize vinyl records, but it's borderline crazy IMO, especially without data to back up the claim. Much like you, I've found that simply keeping the vinyl clean, and cleaning when necessary, to be the most surefire way to have a great listening experience.
Maybe they were hoping they could talk people into buying more than one copy of albums and singles they liked.
There absolutely are polymer use-cases where you want to give the material time to recover. It is particularly the case with items that deform in use, giving them recovery time slows down polymer creep. EVA shoe soles are an example.
I don't for a second think that records are susceptible to this. Hard PVC has very little creep to begin with. To be a little pedantic it's not PVC but according to Brydson's Plastics a blend with... i forgot, and doesn't matter, the mechanical properties are basically identical. To be kept in mind when you replay it, at least a few minutes have passed with material essentially at rest, after it was under impact for one tenthousandth of a second or so, just... different timescales to such a degree, that i don't see how a few more hours would help.
@@SianaGearz Remember the math question about which put more lb/sq in onto the floor, the elephant or the person wearing stiletto heels?
The stylus radius being 0.2-0.3 mil for even a high quality stylus, and the amount of the groove wall vertically being contacted being on the order of 1 mil, the force pushing the stylus side to side is then being applied to an area of, ballpark, .0000006 inches square, or a multiplication factor of around 1.5 million. So 1.5 g = .0033 lb force, over 5000 psi. A handwave value for one reference's current recipe of 2/3PVA, 1/3 PVC mix in records is around 4000 psi tensile strength. (Not sure of exact grades mixed, but PVA is quite a bit softer and somewhat less crystalline than PVC.) Plus the stylus is applying a very significant thermal spike for those milliseconds. The surprise is maybe that the record surface /doesn't/ quickly degrade, though certainly the stylus is great at embedding dust and other particles into the groove walls. This test by VWestlife is reasonably scientific to the end result of "does it sound immediately different? No." and all of the commenters' related experiences with how poorly 45's in jukeboxes last are also a good bound to show that degradation is indeed happening from worst case high intensity repetition. I'd bet that 45's in radio stations, while probably kept clean, had even worse lives for the first week or two after the A-side hit the charts.
FWIW I know from experience that playing a favorite vinyl album every afternoon after high school before the parents got home, on an ancient record player with a lot of tonearm weight, does indeed wipe out the grooves after maybe two hundred plays. I don't recall playing it multiple times in one day very often. But it certainly sounds like crap now, on a far better rig.
@@pault151 Yes you make a strong case that the stylus has a substantial impact on the groove surface and i agree. I don't know if tensile strength is a good metric since OK there would be tangential tensile impact, mostly compressive, but there is wear for sure.
I also made a brainfart, the polymer used in records is a copolymer not a blend and yes polyvinyl acetate is softer. Brydson specifies 15% acetate used for vinyl records.
It's ultimately not necessarily cut and dry, i mean, we all remember worn records, but was the gradual damage caused by the stylus contact, or was it caused by contamination such as surface dust, and how much of either? Dust can be substantially smaller than the stylus contact patch, which is bad, and it won't be as nicely shaped as the stylus. It's worse if you're tracking at 6g than at 1.5g for sure.
The question here is "letting vinyl relax" and that it does nothing, because whether it relaxes for 3 minutes as you replay the same song over and over, or for 3 days, that's effectively both a very long time compared to the millisecond fractions the groove spends in contact with the stylus. So repeating the record constantly should induce the same wear as playing it for the same amount of time in total but letting it "rest" in between.
This is by far the most thorough and definitive test of record wear I’ve ever seen! Myth, BUSTED.
I think it's funny that the dudes who swear a Crosley will literally eat a vinyl record are the same ones who will advise playing without a dust cover for some modicum of improved fidelity.
Audiophiles are a superstitious bunch
As with any kind of enthusiasm, being an audiophile has an element of subjective emotional response or nostalgia. In the face of that, taking an objective, critical approach to music appreciation, analysis or creation can be challenging.
When people feel like their beliefs are being challenged the knives can come out.
I imagine the Marcus Family would be proud that their unused recordings helped in this test, especially since we were all straining, listening so closely to the words and music (albeit for signs of damage 😁)
Fantastic work!
LOL but they would be very unhappy it was in the name of science
My original copy of the Star Wars soundtrack is basically unplayable 45 years later because I abused it, Never cleaned it and played it almost daily for many months in a row. My childhood friend still has his original copy and it sounds fine even though he played his just as much, possibly more. The difference is, I was a slob and never cleaned mine and he was meticulous in handling and removing dust and dirt from his vinyl. I was Oscar, he was Felix.
I had a collection from my childhood that went through a lot. I was able to bring most of them back using cleaning vinegar and warm water
You might have a problem with mold. Since you have nothing to loose with that record, I suggest you to try my method, which brought back many unplayable records to G+ or even better condition. If a record is highly contaminated with greasy fingerprints and dust, it gives fuel to mold. If I come across a record with unknown history and it is heavily distorted, first I use a high concentration sodium hypochlorite (bleach) solution used for removing mold from walls (called SAVO in Europe), I soak the grooves on both sides for about two minutes, than rinse it thoroughly with tap water. Be careful to avoid the label with the bleach, as it will fade it! You need a solution made for mold removal, regular bleach (at least what they sell in Europe) is not concentrated enough. Than I wipe the record dry with soft paper towels, and this time I soak the grooves with formic acid based limescale remover for about 5 minutes, than I rinse it with tap water, and as a final step, I rinse off the tap water with ~ 1 liter of deionised water per side, and let it dry on its own for a night, hung up on its center hole.
The hypochlorite dissolves mold and most other organic contaminants, the formic acid dissolves limescale that might be present in the grooves from a previous flooding or from wet playbacks. After this, you need to replace the inner sleeve as it is probably contaminated with mold spores.
I used to get very OCD about playing records, putting a little dust-collector brush on the records before lowering the arm, wiping each side with a special anti-static cloth, making sure the inner record sleeve went into the outer with the openings at right-angles. If I was very good, I never even got to hear the music, and the dust bug caused the record to slow so the music was noticable off-key. I got fed up with this rubbish in the end, and wished there were a way of listening without all the faff. And then came cassettes!
@@suntexi There were also headshell mount brushes
Just WOW!
Big amount of work and systematic approach to tests!
Huge respect!
Many thanks.
That virgin vinyl joke made me die
You're awfully good at writing UA-cam comments, for a dead person.
Sounds a bit dirty - like a doll that's still in its box and hasn't been inflated yet!
Holy crap. You weren't kidding about the quietness of that vinyl - specifically the specimen that was used on the Audio-Technica (21:19). Dead silent! Also interesting to hear the left channel dropout in the master (or production master) tape near the beginning of that song (21:24). Maybe the result of poor handling during splicing or cueing, etc. Makes me think it may have been recorded at 7.5 IPS? Haha, I don't really know. It's uncommon to hear tape dropouts on pressed records though, in my experience.
Side note: you have quickly become one of my favorite channels on subjects like this. I wholeheartedly agree with your opinions/testing/conclusions, etc. and I love the lack of audiophile snobbery BS. 🥰
I've genuinely wondered this for as long as i have owned records. And i could not find anyone that has made a good comparison like this. Thank you! You keep putting out great videos.
Initially I wasn't going to watch through the whole video non-stop, but then I just did. Fantastic work! You're probably the mastermind in making your videos interesting and engaging.
lol "Fundamendalist Brady Bunch" xDD And i love that you are one of the very few veteran youtubers who still produces quality content without Style-over-substance bus getting to the point to answer some questions in a practical manner that barely anyone else does. Trust me, Kevin. It is MUCH appreciated. I'm still glad i found your channel MAny many many moons ago.
Best way to care for your vinyls is clean with wire brush and store in a hot area preferably in direct sunlight during summer.Will then sound perfect and last for many years with perfect playback.high grit sandpaper is also good for getting into the grooves to give you perfect playback.dont forget to sand your stylus with a sanding disk to allow it to give you much clearer sounds.Thats audiophile stuff there.
A lot of patience and hard work were put into the creation of this video. Thank you very much!
My first turntable is in this video! The ATPL50. I gave it to my grandma while I upgraded over the years, sadly she passed and now that Audio Technica ATPL50 is very sentimental
I have 40 year old records played on the same stylus hundreds of times each. They're next to indestructible, just make sure they're clean.
I think what does records in quicker than anything is rough/improper handling and playing them on defective equipment (defective stylus, defective cartridge, improper tracking force, mechanical defects with the turntable, etc.). On that note, I've seen new styli and cartridges that had some sort of defect that caused immediate record damage, and that's why I use junk records for testing when I repair a record player or turntable.
Wow, defective new styli and cartridges with immediate record damage?! You should make a video about that. That's insane!
Thank you for your thorough work to put to bed all those audiophile theories. Well done sir!
"I'm getting a fundamentalist Brady Bunch vibe from it." Thanks, that gave me a good laugh.
Just saw a Yahoo headline today... It said that all of the Brady Bunch kids were 'hooking up' back in the day.
Totally awesome! I've been saying for a number of years now that the audiophiles are spreading urban legends. I very much appreciate your thoughtful, compelling testing of one of these claims. Bravo!
Nice job. There are lots of factors that play into (no pun intended) how much wear a record will show after multiple plays. Keeping them clean and your equipment in good repair are the most impactful. Can't wait for the test regarding colored & new vinyl.
Thank you for all that work. Truly appreciated, as was the cameo by Vaughn Monroe!
Answering all the questions again. Thanks for the good work on the channel!
Boy: Mr. Owl, how many times does it take to wear out an LP record?
Mr. Owl: Let's find out. One. Two. Three [violent scratch noise]. Three!
My ex girl friend said once, she uses multistacking. Note ex gf.😂
I haven't been to church in 30 years but suddenly I feel the need to go...
Why?
Because of that strange song about a fictional person?
@@sjefhendrickx2257 Reddit is down the hall, to the left.
Me, I'm off to the local coven to do a bit of chanting to offset this.
@@sjefhendrickx2257brotha have some respect please 🙏
@@sjefhendrickx2257 You doubt that Jesus existed?
Wow, this is a fantastic video! The amount of time invested in creating the content, and the level of detail is mesmerizing! Thank you for sharing this with us, it is definitely clear that dust and worn-out styli would be the most detrimental factors for record-groove wear. Congratulations on this great production, keep up the amazing work 🥰
As a Brit who was raised as and remains a full-on atheist with a taste for electronic music and avant-garde jazz, could I just say that I really like this record?! The lead voice is quite striking - strength, clarity, minimum vibrato but no fake folkiness either, like a parlor arrangement of Sacred Harp music - and the piano accompaniment is seriously tight. Oh, and the video is general is valuable, too. : )
I have this same record, and i am amazed, and impressed that you listened as many times as you have. No idea how many times my copy has been played, I inherited it from my grandma, but ive listened to it once in 10 years
The power of JEsus must be like STRONG in your house right now ... hahaha
Much Respect for the amount of time and patience that this test took in order to make this video! Well done!
The lord works in mysterious ways....even with vinyl.
But only with virgin vinyl! 😁
@@marks-the-spot All right, no more religious jokes 😅
Finally a real answer to this question, thank you!
I just got into collecting records as a hobby about 2 ish years ago and reading about record care caused me some anxieties. I want to take great care of them so i can listen to them for years to come and people discussing it never seemed to know the truth. I never really knew if i had the right equipment or not due to all the conflicting research. Or even if just playing them too much harmed them.
Now this video has helped greatly ease some of these worries, it's not the playing but the method of storage and cleanliness/care of them when not in use.
Thank you!
Thank You for the SKILL and TIME you invested into this series of experiments. Talk is cheap but definitive experimentation with published results is conclusive. EXCELLENT SCIENTIFIC DEMONSTRATION !!!
Thanks for putting in the months to make this video. Loved it. My Soul is now restored.
Hat off to do this test, wow. What I did after buying a record, is recording it directly on tape, mostly directly at the first play because the record was free of dust and the surface noise was less/low. When I wanted to hear the record, I played the tape. After this, I put a purchase note (price and date) inside the slipcover and put the record back into it's inner sleeve (with the opening on top) into the slipcover. To protect the cover (and the record), I used transparent plastic sleeves. This brings up a next question, there where some rumours around that using plastic sleeves is bad for the records because of acids used in the transparent plastic. After all those years, the records seems to be fine, looking like brand new. So what is true about plastic sleeves? The only thing I noticed is that some of them starts to get brittle over time. Nice subject and video, thanks for making and sharing.
In 1954 Harold D Weiler conducted a study in New York and wrote up his findings in "The Wear and Care of Records and Styli" (available online at Library of Chicago). Even this early in the life of the microgroove record the danger of dust in record grooves was identified, not only to the record but to the stylus, which if allowed to wear does more damage than the dust. Weiler identified that bushes and cloths were of no use in removing the most dangerous dust - eg the wearing stylus and also identified that binder substances were what had to be broken if dust was to be successfully removed. Weiler's work was the driver for the design of Record Restore, which is extremely effective at bringing old records back to life due to its ability to remove binder substances as well as static electricity, the greatest cause of noise on a record. It's amazing how much static arrives on brand new records today, immediately coating a record with airborne dust as soon as it comes out of the sleeve.
Wow, thanks, VW! What an effort. Great video. My purchased in 1983 Def Leppard Pyromania album was played about 500 times. Yes, it's beat up, but still is OK.
Kudos to you for both this badly-needed test and for the astonishing patience you exhibited by subjecting yourself to the Marcus Family so no one else would have to.
I was only listening to the video while working and I was thinking to myself "Wow, he's spending a long time on this first recording", before looking over and realizing you had actually just spliced them together perfectly. Impressive editing!
As for the music, it actually wasn't half bad, despite it giving me "Toe-tapping Country Gospel Music Hour" PTSD flashbacks. Probably unlikely to end up on any of my playlists, though
I panicked about the “rest and relax” bit because I’ve been known to listen to a favorite record multiple times in the course of the day, so your results made me wipe my brow and shout “Whew!” 😊
I really appreciate the time and effort you took with this video… it was both informative and fascinating! Thank you!
It’s beautiful how much effort went into designing the methodology and thoroughly described in details in the video
Excellent informative video. As a record collector, jukebox collector and restorer, I would add that yes, keeping the records clean is important, as well as brushing dust off the stylus regularly, which you were not able to do. Jukebox records Were 45 rpm records, which often were recorded very loud, which increased playback wear, and esp. ones from the 1960s and 1970s, were not always properly mastered and cut, as they were "engineered" to play loud on the small cheap portable phonos of the day. Finally, about the dust thing, I have a Seeburg Background Music System that plays special 16 rpm records, designed to play continuously for background music, and the entire cabinet has weatherstrip to seal it from dust; they knew how damaging dust can be to records.
Thanks for all the effort in making this one. Just in case no one else said it.
If people are still worried about wearing out their disks, they could always do what people did back in the day. As soon as you get your new album back home and play it for the first time, make a copy of it. Be it cassette, cd, or digital. Then you can play it as much as you want and not worry about wearing out the vinyl. And you can carry it around with you.
I had a friend who would do that back in 1978. He had a decent rig at the time, and while the cassette tapes sounded good, I thought that he was being a bit too fussy about preserving his records. I always preferred the vinyl over the sound of the tapes.
Back in the day, I used to make a cassette copy of a new album. I even made an 8 track copy of one record, believe it or not.
Brother, I must say, I get more excited for your videos than anyone else's. I know the algorithm doesn't treat you the way it should, but these videos make my day. Please never quit.
Any video from you is worth my time to watch it! You simply rock, man!
I can hear that those 50 times played records sound a bit less detail and loudness (for the vocal) in comparison with the unplayed one (about .5 to 1 on the scale of 1-10).
But overall these still sound great after 50 plays. Thank you for your dedication, it has taken the load off my mind.
You have the patience of a saint 😂. Also I think it should be noticed that nearly all the "studies" come from people with interests in them, of course the record companies will be very happy if you bought the same record time and again because "it has worn out", and the "audiophiles" have to claim they hear things others don't, etc, etc.
This analysis & test protocol was insane. So much great thoughts went into designing the test and the video editing is amazing. Really this hould be seen by everyone.
Technics SL-1900 - "my good turntable" ... Thank you VWestlife for getting me into listening to records again, your SL-1900 review/repair video did it actually, grabbed a "not working" one right away... :)
You sir are a scholar and a gentleman. Thank you for the care, time and scientific approach to informing the masses on proper care and variables associated with equipment relating to vinyl record playback. I have learned a lot.
Thank you so much, for your detailed and extensive effort in doing this.
I was a vinyl DJ for decades, and through experience knew that most of the 'bro science' surrounding vinyl was completely exaggerated.
While audiophiles spent £5000+ on special record cleaning machines, I would hand wash mine in a sink where I cleaned the dishes, and you know what, my vinyl sounded fantastic.
A "friend" borrowed my near-new copy of the first Montrose album (one of the best packages of enjoyment per gram out there, even today) and returned it caked with pizza fingerprints. After suitably cursing him out, I washed it extremely carefully in the sink with dish detergent. It really still sounds quite decent today! That said, after using Discwasher for decades, I am seriously considering a record cleaning machine. My remaining time is worth it.
Well i have to say that is quite an educational video. Thank you for all the time you took to produce the video.
It will make conversations with some much easier when the argument starts lol.
Compliments from Belgium for your profound testing! Really enjoyed!
Thing is: even if you buy multiple copies of one record, you won't necessarily own identical records. The production process itself is prone to wear and therefore produces uneven results over a single production batch. Which makes it harder to perform a comparison.
This has happened to me more than once: two identical records not sounding identical.
And there rounding the last corner! It's neck to neck as they come to the needle!!
Thank for all the effort making this very interesting video. I have records that I’ve played 100+ times, even with ceramic cartridges, that still sound as new. Keep your records clean and do not use worn needles and the wear is minimal.
What I did notice however, was that American pressings from the seventies show even less wear than the cheap French ones I bought back then.
New VWestlife video on the Fourth of July! I didn’t know there was presents on 7/4 but I accept!
What an absolute beauty of a video!
I'm not a vinyl nerd or an audiophile, so I wasn't sure how interesting I would find this video, but, boy, did I! Not only did you spend an inordinate amount of time to simulate real world conditions, but your methodology is implacable. It's such a joy to see rigorous methodology and good, thorough, and relevant testing. Well done!
This may all have been my imagination, but from the two passes of the Q record I thought I could hear a very slight decrease in richness of the sound after 50 and then 100 plays. Maybe it was some transient artifact of the UA-cam compression, or maybe it was all psychological, but the side by side comparisons did sound ever so slightly different in richness to me. However, I couldn't say what exactly it was and if I didn't have the comparison a few seconds earlier and really strained to see if I could hear any difference, I wouldn't. It might well all be in my head, but I didn't expect to hear any difference at all, which is why I was surprised. I am very unsure.
I often wonder about service guides from the 50's and 60's. If their facts are correct. I have many of these guides. You've proven that, at least one, guide was correct (RCA). This has me wanting to read more specs in the old user/service guides. Well done!
I used to play my Dad's Bert Kaempfert records all the time and they were still good 15 years later.
Another top notch video. I've said for years, that the reason most were ever soured on vinyl was they were careless and lazy with it and that most of their disappointment in vinyl playback was self inflicted. I agree with everything you've demonstrated in this video. It's why I prefer compact disc; I'm lazy. I'm not careless, but I am lazy.
Excellent test. I did hear a small difference in what I think was the Quasar recording, in that there was a very slight reduction in high frequency noise particularly in the right channel, and a slight increase in surface noise. I couldn't hear a difference that I would attribute to the Audio-Technica or Technics. I have done similar tests myself, albeit without a control (as you correctly pointed out at the time) using a cheap GPO-branded turntable. That did cause obvious damage to the record after 50 plays, including significant distortion, damage to the right channel due to the lack of anti-skate, and high surface noise. Some time ago I did a test over at Audio Appraisal where I played a record 50 times on an AT-LP60, almost non stop without allowing a settling period between plays. At the end of that test there was no damage what-so-ever to the record.
With all that said I have spent years studying everything I can find concerning vinyl reproduction and turntable design and engineering, as I build turntables. I've come to the conclusion that it isn't tracking force, stylus shape or stylus material taht influences record wear, but the quality of the mechanics at play. For example if your tonearm has wobbly bearings, the stylus can't track the groove properly so will cause more damage. Likewise if the platter is eccentric or undulates as it spins, the result will be more damage. I do believe that the cheapest turntables (the suitcase style things) cause an unacceptable level of damage in a short period of time. But I do also believe that a turntable that gets the basic mechanical elements right, like the LP60, shouldn't cause any damage. For what it's worth the Technics SL-QD33 is one of the best P-mount cartridge turntables they made. The tonearm uses the same 0.7MG low friction gimbal as an SL-1200, it has non-contact end of play sensing, and the coreless direct-drive motor is immune to cogging. It might look like an ordinary albeit half decent autoamtic 80s turntable, but it's actually one of the best of them ever built. Find an original Technics P30 cartridge for it though.
I think that 1979-era Quasar turntable with the ceramic cartridge (part of an all-in-one combo stereo) was better designed and manufactured than many low-end turntables made today. I used to have a Technics SL-QD33 and actually miss it, I underestimated its quality but among things it had the lowest noise floor of any turntable I'd ever owned.
@@peacearchwa5103 No doubt it was better built. Even the lowest end BSR of the time didn't generally have much play in the tonearm. The low end turntables of today mostly have a couple of plastic pins as tonearm pivots. I would very much like to see @vwestlife repeat the test with the same record on a Crosley Cruiser or similar now that the control samples have been obtained.
A damaged/bent stylus, a dirty record, or too heavy force, damaging the record handling/storing/cleaning it, storage problems like mold etc. are probably the biggest problems. But those are still things one needs to learn about and newbies/uninformed listeners could accidentally be doing. Just playing it correctly in pretty good conditions seems to be fine!
Maybe splashing them with some holy water would make them last even longer.
But it must be de-ionised or distilled holy water, otherwise it might contaminate the groove with limescale!
Loved this video and all your others. Been watching for a long time and from one old timer who believes in the KISS principle no one does this stuff better than you. Thanks for all your work.
30+ years ago, I fell asleep while listening to a record on my fully manual, 'high-end' turntable with a top-of-the-range 'line contact' profile (the highest end type) stylus-equipped, moving coil cartridge. Without auto-return, the stylus ran that outer groove loop all night, 10,000 plays or more.
Come lunchtime later that day, I ran from my work in panic to my hi-fi dealer, and I was reassured that I had merely 'run-in' my new cartridge, and it was pointed out to me that there would have been no modulations (no sound) in that lead-out groove.
The record, however (a superb, mono original US pressing of Simon & Garfunkel's "Bookends") has been left with a soft, quiet, but very noticeable, constant 'shushing' sound at the end now.
That was the last time I ever listened to a record in bed (I've grown up, and these days, my turntable is in my living room).
Just wanted to say THANK YOU for this video - it's really appreciated the time you took, the effort you made and explanations you provided. I have a light tracking turntable (1.2 grams) and can rest assured that with regular washing/maintenance for both the turntable and the records, I can be confident that my records will last several lifetimes
Thanks for doing this test. It explains why records I used to play on a Fisher Price record player back in the 80s still sounded pretty decent. I was taught to handle records carefully as a child and I guess it paid off!
I love your videos so much because they make me feel so much better about using my old equipment without the worry that I'll be destroying it. Seriously, all of your testing and debunking videos are massively appreciated!
Btw that humor is on point 👌
"Facts are meaningless - you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! Facts schmacks..."
Thanks, Kevin - I really enjoyed the video and I appreciate both the effort you put into it and the consideration you took regarding both approach and presentation. And I wish you a minimum of negative comments from those who refuse to have their beliefs/positions challenged by pesky things like evidence.
I applaud your careful scientific approach to seeking the answers. I am relieved that I can play my collection as much as I wish.
I like how people who make the music always say music is made to be played to be listen too and enjoyed
Really appreciate the effort you put into this! Answering some questions I've always had and alleviating some worries I've always put in effort to assuage while still actually enjoying my records.
This is some dedication.
You're doing science.
Out of everything that has happened in 2024, this was probably the BEST use of 50 days
Great video. I think we live in a golden age for cartridges - for just $170 you can get one with a micro linear stylus, the peak of vinyl playback technology. Distortion-free opera and classical vinyl, which is about a challenging as it gets. Even elliptical styli struggle.
Audio Technica At-Vm95ml FTW
I have one of these, and I play a lot of classical music. If you can afford it, get one. You will be amazed.
I was always AMAZED how sharp used and well-maintained Contemporary LPs from the mid-50’s sounded on my modest equipment. They were clearly well loved and the only difference is how they were treated. Off-topic but equally interesting, I just found a cassette tape recorded in ‘84 and is sparkling and shows no wear in the least. So yeah, there will be a day when that changes, but likely not in my lifetime.
You should have used a BSR stackable changer with a ceramic cartridge from the 70's, the turntable most teenagers had in the 70's. Put the record on and lift the stacker arm and move it to the side so the player will go into repeat mode and play that side over and over and over and over and over again to infinity and beyond. Those turntables made inner-groove distortion sound like fingernails on a chalkboard. Fifty plays non-stop on one of those turntables would reduce that record into a noisy mess.
Excellent, fascinating video. Being a fan of vinyl recordings for many decades I've always wondered about progressive degradation through repeated playback. You've approached the subject very scientifically, addressing all the relevant variables, methodical and keeping in mind possible bias through perception and subjective listening. I've spent a lifetime comparing high end audio equipment, even watching UA-cam is fed through a high end hifi amplifier and quality full sized stereo speakers. The unplayed recording sounded almost holographic and is clearly a well produced disc, I'd describe it as though air passes between the voices and the instruments, the high treble sounding clear and unbound from the instruments unlike modern compressed mp3 recordings which feel like the voices are bogged down somewhat. Going on to the played 50 times, I could definitely hear some loss in the upper treble, perhaps because I'm listening through my hifi or perhaps due to my auditory physiology. Back in the '80's I read a research article which stated that Japanese hifi was tuned differently for the Japanese domestic market than it was for items exported to the west as the hearing range was different either through conditioning because the musical instruments played in the east had far more upper treble or because the auditory physiology was different. After reading reviews in hifi magazines I would venture out to a store and listen for myself. Time and again I would find that what was described as neutral or dry, was often dull and muffled and what had been described as bright or coloured was actually more alive and involving. I now find that time has caught up with my original assessments and hifi equipment now has a much broader and open range than back in the '80's but model digital recordings whilst ultra clear are often soul less in a way that vinyl never was. Of course one variable we can't control for, is the ageing process and the eroding of our ability to register the upper frequencies. From personal endless testing with styli, I've found that the lightest weight produces the most detail from the recordings, whilst it may not produce the strongest slam in the bass it gives me some comfort that it's exerting less wear on the grooves of the vinyl. Thank you for your time and effort in the production of this video.
I feel vinyl itself isn’t as fragile as people make it out to be for constant playbacks. It mostly depends on how the record was manufactured, my decades old records still sound good because they were protected in the sleeve.
Thank you very much for sharing your test, I have never really worried about the number of times, I can play an LP, but one thing is for sure, most of the records in my collection that I have listened to quite a lot still sound excellent.
Suddenly The Marcus Family is the #1 selling album on Discogs
It's not even on Discogs!
@@vwestlife hey um I found this onn cd cassette boombox and it's getting great reviews so I wonder if it has a CSG Cassette mechanism?