Greg Lake (ELP) on why reissues will NOT be on 180g vinyl.

[Johnny Vinyl]

From superdeluxe editions:

http://www.superdeluxeedition.com/news/greg-lake-on-why-elp-reissues-wont-be-on-heavyweight-180g-vinyl/

“To all friends of vinyl.

Ever since producing and recording with King Crimson and ELP, it has been my personal goal to achieve the best possible sound quality and that remains true to this day.

Regarding the audio reproduction quality on vinyl, the popular perception for some time has been that the best sound quality is achieved by using 180gsm weight. The reality, however, is that particularly when using modern decks, the best audio quality is actually achieved using the lighter 140gsm weight. I am honestly not sure why this trend of using heavyweight vinyl came about? Probably because of the ‘more equals better’ in the world we live in. However, in the interests of delivering the best quality audio to our fans we have decided to go for quality rather than quantity.

Just to underpin the above vinyl quality issue, here below is a short explanation/statement from Mr. Helmut Brinkmann of Brinkmann Audio, a leading authority on this subject.”

Greg Lake, 2016

“180 or 200 grams records often don’t sound as good as the thinner ones. In my opinion this comes from the massive acrylic material. As this is plastic of quite some softness, it reacts in the form of resonances during the tracking process.

As good as the recorded music may sound, the plastic sound of vinyl does not…. the music is disturbed by those resonances.

Though the thicker record may be stiffer than a thinner one, the resonances are heavier because of the sheer mass of the material (which is not that stiff compared to the dynamic tracking forces).

We know that the needle is accelerated to a few G gravity, and that causes back force resonances in the vinyl material. The more vinyl is under the needle the more these resonances can arise.”

Helmut Brinkmann, 2016

https://www.brinkmann-audio.de

Thoughts? Opinions?

[Rust]

Interesting conjecture, but nothing offered to back it up. Maybe if some proof was offered such as various weight pressings using the same stampers, twenty or so each, and sent out for independent evaluation...

[Steve Lefkowicz]

Regardless, I'll have to get these. ELP is still one of my favorite bands ever. My original LPs are all from late grade school / early high school, and though they sound great, they do show some signs of wear. They still sound better than the hi res files I have on my server.

[Beaur]

Can't say as I have ever done a comparison but i can't imagine that the weight of the record (assuming proper pressing) makes much difference in the sound quality. I have some of the thinnest records from the mid 70s that sound pretty good and all the people lusting after original Blue Notes shows that it's all about how and what you put on the vinyl not the actual vinyl. Sure it may make a small difference but I have never heard anyone say they weren't buying an LP because it wasn't pressed on 180g or heavier vinyl, but there proably have been a few!!

[Johnny Vinyl]

Same here. Maybe there are scientific principles at play here, but if I can't hear them or it has a physical effect on longevity then what does it matter. I buy the titles I want regardless of vinyl weight.

[Rust]

The very great majority of my collection is plain old standard weight vinyl. No problems caused by the weight, if there are sound quality issues, it's due to poor production values.

One the other hand, what heavy vinyl I have sounds good across the board, how much of this is due to the better production values used (probably most) and how much due to higher quality heavier vinyl is conjecture.

The weight of the vinyl wouldn't preclude my purchasing any particular recording. I'd like a fresh high quality copy of ELPs first release. My previous comments were directed at the, as far as I know, unsubstantiated claims of superiority of standard weight vinyl over heavier versions. I'd also be happy to participate in the comparison I previously described.

[Bill Hart]

Agree with Rust re standard issue- some of those thin records from the early '70s sound fab. And I've heard horrible stuff on "audiophile 180 g virgin vinyl"- not due to the plastic itself, in my estimation, but due to the mastering (where I've compared an original pressing with an "audiophile" remaster).
I have the first ELP record on an UK Island pink label- it isn't a terribly expensive record among pink labels, partly because it wasn't rare (in fact it may have been one of the last records released on the pink label before the pink rim became the standard Island label in the UK). It's pretty "juicy" sounding too. The only issue is obviously condition and shipping cost. I still haven't gotten around to comparing it to the Cotillion pressing, something that MEP asked me to do about 3 or 4 years ago!

[MylesBAstor]

But all things being equal?

[Bill Hart]

Not sure there is ever a situation where all things are equal if you are looking at it from the standpoint of early thinner pressing v 180 gram new vinyl. And not because I'm prejudiced in favor of the originals. I did a comparison a week or two ago between a first pressing of B,S & Tears (second album), CBS -2 eye; and the ORG remaster. The ORG was far better sounding, but I don't think it had anything to do with the weight of the vinyl. Just too many variables, don't you think, to make a comparison based just on vinyl weight. I know people thought the Classic 180 sounded better than the Classic 200 at 33 rpm, but I think that had to do w/ QC problems associated w/ the 200 gram records, not with weight, per se. How would one eliminate the variables for a comparison? Ziggy early UKs are really thin RCA (may even be Dynaflex, can't remember) and the 40th Anniversary was spectacular- I think that was done on heavier vinyl than the original. People are divided on which they prefer- I like the old 6E/4E, but that modern record is damn good and was a bargain when it was released.

[mep]

Still interested in that comparison Bill!

[Bill Hart]

I still have the Cotillion- I saw it a few weeks ago when I was arranging some shelves. I will make a note to self to do this next time I stoke up the boiler and get the system running, MEP.

[JCOConnell]

I think the quality of the source (also whether analog or digital) , the mastering, and the quality of the vinyl affect the final sound quality more than the weight of the record.

[MylesBAstor]

There are so many variables at play that this seems to be extremely naive. To me, the flatness of the album is the number one consideration and these floppy discs err dynawarps are more problematic.

Then there's the issue of cutting grooves in the thinner vinyl and one side of the album affecting the sound of the B-side. Sort of like tape print through.

But aren't platters/material and clamping devices supposed to drain resonances? The real issue is those vibrations that are reflected out of phase back to the tonearm that wreak havoc with the arm and especially dynamics.

If Mr. Brinkmann (and I respect his tables) or Greg Lake wants to find out why HWV was adopted, talk to RTI, Classic Records, QRP and others. It was hardly done willy nilly as they intimate. More is better. Puhleeze....Certainly Classic did a huge amount of experimenting and listening to various vinyl combos and chose the one they thought sounded best.

Oh the important question for Mr. Lake. Will this album be digitized first? Stop worrying about the vinyl.

[rockitman]

Thickness doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Great sound can be had from 150, 180 and 200 gram. While Classic Records had a tougher time keeping 200 gram free of pops and clicks. Quality Records on the other hand presses some of the quietest pressings I have ever heard on 200 gram.

[MylesBAstor]

Ok so what would theoretically the best sounding album release. For me it's a slam dunk. Single sided, 180 or 200 gram release.

By the way, we should ask Chad for his point of view and why he does 200 gm when he could easily save money and do 180 gm?

[MylesBAstor]

I sent an email to several people in the industry and let's see what they have to say!

Still kinda strikes me as everybody else is wrong and I am right situation.

[Beaur]

Having no inside info whatsoever I can think of several reasons besides "sounds better" to use heavyweight vinyl. Number one is because it sells better. The cost of the extra vinyl is trivial so there are probably technical reasons but if it was universal there would be 250 gram vinyl out by now.

Ok so what would theoretically the best sounding album release. For me it's a slam dunk. Single sided, 180 or 200 gram release.

By the way, we should ask Chad for his point of view and why he does 200 gm when he could easily save money and do 180 gm?

[MylesBAstor]

Having no inside info whatsoever I can think of several reasons besides "sounds better" to use heavyweight vinyl. Number one is because it sells better. The cost of the extra vinyl is trivial so there are probably technical reasons but if it was universal there would be 250 gram vinyl out by now.

The issue that I understand it is that the thicker/heavier the record, the harder it becomes to evenly spread the PVC ingot in the press. 200 gram really gave Classic fits for a long time. Perhaps someone else can share some more info.

[Rust]

180 or 200 grams records often don’t sound as good as the thinner ones. In my opinion this comes from the massive acrylic material. As this is plastic of quite some softness, it reacts in the form of resonances during the tracking process.

To which massive acrylic material does Helmut Brinkman refer? The platter upon which the vinyl LP rests?

Rereading the initial post, and Myles subsequent post, it also occurred to me that perhaps it is easier to successfully stamp a standard weight LP with fewer defect than a 180 or 200 gram LP.

Over the years there have been a few (too few) single sided 200 gram 45 rpm LPs of music that I actually liked enough to purchase. They are the best sounding records I have.