Heaver grade vinyl vs Standard

Two issues being slightly confused here -- heavy vinyl vs. regular weight and reissue vs. original issue.

On heavy vs. regular, I am solidly in the regular weight category. Heavy vinyl just screws up my VTA which is set for the vast majority of my collection (regular thickness). Many of these heavy weight albums come pre-warped (dish warp), the product of an incomplete pressing cycle (thick records need to be pressed much longer and cooled slowly). I have a few that also have crackly distortion, primarily in one channel, that is the product of an incomplete pressing cycle (the vinyl did not fully form around the stamper).

As for reissue vs. original. I generally find the originals to be better, but, that may be the product of deteriorating master tapes rather than the manufacturing process. As far as the manufacturing of new records go, it varies by source. A lot of Japanese records (thick or thin) are done on really good vinyl that is free of ticks and pops and remains so. Same with some German records (e.g., Speakers Corner reissues). The vinyl used on some premium U.S. labels, like Classic Records, is total crap. Not only is it noisy, it gets progressively worse with playing. I hope the Music Matters Bluenote releases don't suffer the same fate (also pressed at RTI).

I am firmly convinced that the reason for heavier vinyl is primarily economic. Buyers are willing to pay a higher price for the same software if it is distributed over additional discs. Although I cannot speak knowledgeably about the cost per vinyl disc, I suspect that it is a fraction of the $10 or so dollars added to the price. The primary cost is still the licensing fee. This may sound cynical, nonetheless I suspect it to be true.

I used to think the heavier vinyl sounded better. But now, I'm not so sure it makes any difference. A couple of my best sounding LP's are from Michael Hedges on Windham Hill. I do agree that the thicker ones mess with your VTA and VTF

At least when you buy 180g or 200g there are, in most cases, 2 albums instead of 1 to show for your money.

Hold the phone. If you are talking about 45 rpm re-issues, that is an entirely different ballgame. To me, nothing - not even SACD versions of albums - sound as good as the handful of 45 rpm re-issues I have.

If you aren't talking about 45 rpm, what 33 rpm re-issues are spreading the album over two records instead of one? The only thing can think of are the Radiohead 10' albums (which, why not make them 12' 45 rpm and up the fidelity - baffling).

Just curious.

I've bought four 180gm albums: the new Shelby Lynne, the EMI reissue DSOTM, the Analog Productions reissue of Waltz for Debby, and MFSL's do up of Aimee Mann's Bachelor No.2. All sound fine, with the EMI topping the list. Still, like 04rdking, I have several Windham Hills that are by far a lot better. All were stamped on standard vinyl, all were bought second hand. The Windhams may be exceptional in that most were half-speed mastered at MFSL studios, but at buck-a-pop resale, it wasn't as if anyone was seriously looking for them.

My 180gm records cost around $120.00 all together. For $120, I can easily find thirty or forty second-hand albums. With the technology and chemicals that are out there to clean records, I can be resonably sure of finding ten to twenty winners in that lot.

In short, I guess the answer to your question is, do you want to spend money or elbow grease? Have fun, whatever you decide.