In a blind taste test...

[captainmorgan]

My girlfriend and I listened to my 180g copy of Axl Rose last night. While we could both hear a difference between the two (especially in the bass/drums), neither of us could pick out the 180g, meaning we didn't think that one sounded objectively better, just different. Granted, I don't have a very fancy set-up.

However, I also own copies of My Bloody Valentine - Loveless and Wilco - YHF on 180g, and my girlfriend swears both sound not only different but noticeably better than her old CD versions. Conclusion? Vinyl sounds better than CD (duh), but 180g vinyl probably doesn't sound much better than regular type, perhaps unless it was originally plated to be pressed on 180g vinyl.

Thoughts?

[deville]

It all comes down to how the album was mixed and mastered. If you're really concerned about achieving the highest quality, then you should listen to 2 inch tapes instead of vinyl.

[flood]

if its the same plates it shouldn't sound that different. alot of the 180 gram presses are based off remasters

[captainmorgan]

if its the same plates it shouldn't sound that different. alot of the 180 gram presses are based off remasters

That's what I was trying to get at. Have you listened to yours?

[kyle]

It all comes down to how the album was mixed and mastered. If you're really concerned about achieving the highest quality, then you should listen to 2 inch tapes instead of vinyl.

That's such a ridiculous statement to make. It is not feasible to listen to 2" tapes on most releases anymore as the amount being made are EXTREMELY limited. www.tapeproject.com is making reel to reel tapes at the price of $329 per title and their catalog is VERY thin.

If you're concerned about the highest quality that is feasibly possible then vinyl is the way to go.

Anyways, regarding 180 gram, there IS a difference, but the plates need to be cut specifically for a 180g record. If you're using the same plates for 180 gram records that you'd use for regular weight records you won't tell a difference. I tried mentioning this on the RAR 180 g thread but I don't think anybody paid any attention to me.

Comparing the 180 gram version of RAR vs the regular version isn't a fair comparison. If you really want to test record weights pick up a remixed and remastered reissue of one of your favorite 'classic' records. There are lots to choose from and many come in both regular versions and 180 gram versions, these are true "audiophile" pressings.

[minty]

I think the 180g RAR sounds very slightly better...but that could just be me wanting to think it does.

[captainmorgan]

I think the 180g RAR sounds very slightly better...but that could just be me wanting to think it does.

That's what I expected, but I had my girlfriend switch them back and forth while I wasn't looking, and I couldn't pick out the 180g.

So Var, how about plating and mastering it for 180g? Just kidding.

[numanoid]

You need to have at least entry level hi-fi in all of your components (tt, stylus, receiver, pre-amp, speakers) to tell a real difference between pressings. Otherwise, everything just kinda sounds mediocre no matter what pressing it is. And then it comes down to mastering as mentioned earlier.

[rtw88]

I'm going to try my 180 gram American Football record vs the first press in a blind test, and see if I can tell the difference.

[kyle]

You need to have at least entry level hi-fi in all of your components (tt, stylus, receiver, pre-amp, speakers) to tell a real difference between pressings. Otherwise, everything just kinda sounds mediocre no matter what pressing it is. And then it comes down to mastering as mentioned earlier.

That's a very good point that I failed to mention.

[vinylme]

I listened to my 11th press purple with the 180 gram and it seemed to me that the 180 sounded a little better. was able to tell the difference when my gf was switching between the 2 but I think the difference was more because it was color vs black.

[pibbals]

You need to have at least entry level hi-fi in all of your components (tt, stylus, receiver, pre-amp, speakers) to tell a real difference between pressings. Otherwise, everything just kinda sounds mediocre no matter what pressing it is. And then it comes down to mastering as mentioned earlier.

That's a very good point that I failed to mention.

However, the turntable itself matters very little. Direct drive is the only big thing that you need, the stylus and the tone arm are the important things, and tone arms can be changed.

[rhythmgtr5]

That's a very good point that I failed to mention.

However, the turntable itself matters very little. Direct drive is the only big thing that you need, the stylus and the tone arm are the important things, and tone arms can be changed.

I thought belt drive was "better than" direct drive for sound quality?

[pibbals]

I hadn't heard that before, I thought Direct was where it's at.

[kyle]

That's a very good point that I failed to mention.

However, the turntable itself matters very little. Direct drive is the only big thing that you need, the stylus and the tone arm are the important things, and tone arms can be changed.

Wrong on pretty much all points. Direct drive is worse off for sound quality. It's simple physics. The motor is couple with the spindle, which spins the record. All the vibrations from the motor are then transferred up the spindle and to the record which are picked up by the stylus and played through the speakers. Belt drive turntables feature de-coupled motors which reduce significantly or completely eliminate these vibrations.

Owners of Technics tables really hate hearing this stuff and get really defensive. They have good, long-lasting tables, but they're not meant for sound quality the way belt driven audiophile 'tables are (Rega, Linn, Oracle, etc).

Anyways, turntable design is VERY important, and there is more to it than simply belt drive vs. direct drive. Plinth design and material is extremely important and the density and weight of the platter plays a huge role as well. The cartridge/stylus are important and the tonearm as well. You can also get into changing out the tonearm wiring and the headshell leads as well as the counterweight. You can add record clamps and vibration reducing cones and feet. What you place the table on is also very important. Solid, heavy racks are good, but wall mounted turntable shelves are usually the best.

Then you get into your amp, the phono section (preamp), speakers, the wiring, etc.

Take all this into account, and you can see why everyone listening to the 180 gram RAR on their USB and DD tables aren't really hearing a difference.

[napalmradio]

I recently bought the Ramones s/t on 180g and it sounds incredible. My set up is just a numark usb turntable running through my t.v. surround sound. But the 180g still sounds outstanding.

Has anyone ever gotten a record on 140g? I bought a repress of Alkaline Trio's Goddammit and from I can gather looking at the disc, I think it's 140g. Much thicker than a regular record, but not as thick as any of the 180g's I have.

[truetilldeath303]

However, the turntable itself matters very little. Direct drive is the only big thing that you need, the stylus and the tone arm are the important things, and tone arms can be changed.

Wrong on pretty much all points. Direct drive is worse off for sound quality. It's simple physics. The motor is couple with the spindle, which spins the record. All the vibrations from the motor are then transferred up the spindle and to the record which are picked up by the stylus and played through the speakers. Belt drive turntables feature de-coupled motors which reduce significantly or completely eliminate these vibrations.

Owners of Technics tables really hate hearing this stuff and get really defensive. They have good, long-lasting tables, but they're not meant for sound quality the way belt driven audiophile 'tables are (Rega, Linn, Oracle, etc).

Anyways, turntable design is VERY important, and there is more to it than simply belt drive vs. direct drive. Plinth design and material is extremely important and the density and weight of the platter plays a huge role as well. The cartridge/stylus are important and the tonearm as well. You can also get into changing out the tonearm wiring and the headshell leads as well as the counterweight. You can add record clamps and vibration reducing cones and feet. What you place the table on is also very important. Solid, heavy racks are good, but wall mounted turntable shelves are usually the best.

Then you get into your amp, the phono section (preamp), speakers, the wiring, etc.

Take all this into account, and you can see why everyone listening to the 180 gram RAR on their USB and DD tables aren't really hearing a difference.

Finally, someone knows what they're talking about! Great explanation on this subject. Having a decent set up is key to enjoying audiophile vinyl.

[jailhouse]

I recently bought the Ramones s/t on 180g and it sounds incredible. My set up is just a numark usb turntable running through my t.v. surround sound. But the 180g still sounds outstanding.

Has anyone ever gotten a record on 140g? I bought a repress of Alkaline Trio's Goddammit and from I can gather looking at the disc, I think it's 140g. Much thicker than a regular record, but not as thick as any of the 180g's I have.

I believe they were done at gz/pirates, at least they look like it, I haven't looked at the etchings near the matrix.

But their standard weight is 140-170 it kind of varies, I have a few pirates press, presses that are up close to 180.

They can be somewhat inconsistent with their weights, and it depends on what colors they are etc, their black vinyl is around 140 while the colored is usually 150 and up.

edit: I meant to say their standard weight is 140-160

[xxmartinxx]

Why would the thickness of the vinyl require the mastering to be different?

[captainmorgan]

Finally, someone knows what they're talking about! Great explanation on this subject. Having a decent set up is key to enjoying audiophile vinyl.

As soon as I have a decent income, this will be one of my first priorities. New furniture? Pshhh. You're just going to sit on it.

[truetilldeath303]

Why would the thickness of the vinyl require the mastering to be different?

If something is mastered like shit, no matter how think the vinyl is, it will still sound like shit. A record doesn't need to be mastered differently for 180g, but if you're going to release a record on 180g, it better sound good to begin with otherwise you're wasting money.

[vinylme]

I licked the 180 gram and then licked a regular press blind folded, THEY TASTED THE SAME.

[pibbals]

I think he was saying if the master is bad, the weight won't help you at all.

[kyle]

Why would the thickness of the vinyl require the mastering to be different?

Well, the mastering isn't as important but the plating is. Basically, fi the master sucks the thickness of the vinyl won't matter. But if it's plated with thin, shallow grooves it won't sound any better than a thinner vinyl

[jailhouse]

Why would the thickness of the vinyl require the mastering to be different?

Well, the mastering isn't as important but the plating is. Basically, fi the master sucks the thickness of the vinyl won't matter. But if it's plated with thin, shallow grooves it won't sound any better than a thinner vinyl

Well the plates are a direct product of the mastering. The mastering is what cuts the grooves,

All in all, there is no difference in plating, or mastering for 180 gram, or plating or mastering for a different weight. The only variable between low weight and 180 gram is the weight.