The Lifespan of an LP?

Thanks, millercarbon. It's all a lot more complicated than it looks, isn't it? With each incremental improvement in my system over the last few years, the quality of the source has become increasingly important. And as you have observed quality really begins with the quality of the original recording itself and then continues in a chain through mastering and pressing and finally, in the case of vintage records, the last link is how much care previous owners have exercised in handling the record. If there is a single weak link in that chain, the result can be a disappointment. When each link is strong the result is magical -- the listening experience that for me more than justify all the time and money I've been investing. But I have also discovered that as my system has improved, it also seems to draw my attention to any flaws in that chain. I've become a much more critical listener -- for better and for worse.

I went through a phase like that lasted several years, back in the late 1990's I think it was. Around that time I had done a few complete systems for friends, family and co-workers, all of them budget oriented the most expensive being $2500. They all sounded so good they were all thrilled and wondering why anyone would spend any more. I was starting to wonder myself. These systems were all just so much fun! One of them I burned in at home and found myself listening to it every night not even turning mine on for two whole weeks! 

I was honestly pretty well convinced there was a point where the system is so revealing all you are hearing is flaws elsewhere and it was kind of depressing and making me question the whole thing. This was no flash in the pan, this feeling lasted a good several years. 

That all changed a few years ago. Now I can say it is bunk. The problem is not that your system is "too good". If it really is good then there is no such thing. What happens now is every record no matter what sounds so good it is just crazy. Back when I thought the system was maybe "too good" I was careful to play certain "good recordings" for people. Now I honestly do not care. No longer matters. Anything I put on sounds so freaking good you cannot believe it.

Do they all sound like wonderful recordings? No. Of course not. They all sound different. Completely different. No two sound anywhere near the same. People talk about how some recordings sound different than others. Let me tell you, get your system at this level no two records sound the same. Nevermind recordings, they are all completely different. No two copies of the same record even sound the same. That much detail is revealed. It is insane. Yet it is not in the least big analytical, quite the opposite. Detailed as can be- but in a very full smooth relaxed and natural way. 

As with the system, so with the listening. There are stages people seem to have to go through in getting here. They have their reference disk, their listening rituals, the volume must be this, the seating must be that, on and on. These things serve their purpose. Like fielding grounders, practicing your serve, putting in the office. You go through a phase where you have to break it down to master each piece. Ultimately the goal is synthesis. To have mastered the swing to where it happens automatically in every situation every time. 

Get your system like that. Get your ears like that. You never hear me talking about flawed recordings. Instead what I talk about is how many I used to think were flawed, now come to life. Hate to tell you, it is not easy to get here. But totally worth the fare.

The Shure article is good read. Everything one needs to know about the topic is there and seldom talked about these days.

@wolfie- The "Shure" study that you are referring to is likely Harold Weiler’s "The Wear and Care of Records and Styli" published as a book(let) by Climax in 1954. Mike Bodell used it as a starting point for a more recent article on Stylus Wear-- questioning the long lives claimed by some cartridge manufacturers for stylus life. Although some readers were skeptical that Weiler’s findings- using a conical stylus and heavy tracking force--were still relevant, Mike did a good job in pointing out the comprehensive approach Weiler took, including evaluating stylus wear at certain early intervals that were noticeable to people who QC’d records at pressing plants. (Yes, they really did do that once upon a time). One of the folks who helped Mike with the macrophotography did his own running experiment on stylus wear and was able to look at the results at different intervals up to around a thousand hours, when he stopped. (It wasn’t a formal study, but the person did put some controls in place and shared his findings-- very little wear, surprisingly, at much lower tracking forces, lower than those I use currently with modern high end cartridges).
One of Weiler’s postulates-- I’m not sure if it was proven in the paper, I’d have to go back and re-read it-- was that diamond dust from the stylus left an abrasive residue on the record that exacerbated wear of both the record and stylus. As far as I know, there is no scientifically vetted study establishing this, but it raises an interesting point about record cleanliness and stylus wear.
And at a certain point, the worn stylus may damage the grooves. Too many variables to say when with any precision. Chances are once you begin to hear audible degradation, you are at that point-- whether to continue playing records without damage is a question.
The problem is also one of incremental degradation-- you think the thing still sounds fine after 6 years of constant use, but one person who questioned the applicability of Weiler’s work to the modern era with advanced stylus shapes, good tone arms and care decided to send his Decca back to the UK to be gone over despite the fact that he heard no degradation. Turned out the stylus was quite worn, the cartridge rebuilt by the factory and sounded considerably better on its return.
All of this is obviously interrelated to the question of record wear, including proper set up of the cartridge in the first instance.

@glupson, a laser turntable manufacturer in Japan called Edison Laser Player.  One notable disadvantage of the laser technology used is that it will not play clear or colored vinyl, which is sometimes used for novelty singles and promotional material. Another is that while the technology allows for superior sound pickup, it also “reads” all dust and dirt in the grooves rather than pushing it aside, so clicks and pops can become much more pronounced. A thorough and frequent cleaning of the vinyl is therefore required

"Not to be confused with Emerson, Lake & Palmer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELP_Japan