SEVENS vinyls: thinner than ever...

12346»

Comments

  • picola
    picola Posts: 40
    so you have a very different point of view than mine.

    i have got no problem with people who disagree with me.

    it's more difficult with people who don't read the thread carefully and disagree to things I've never said and with people who only stop by to make fun at someone for free.
  • AndySlash
    AndySlash Posts: 3,291
    edited January 2014
    picola said:


    edit : come on Andy, so nothing to add about that ?? I quitted school at 28, but it wasn't exactly because i needed time to understand things ...

    i added my thoughts much earlier in the thread. frankly, i think you are nitpicking and, as others have said, the issue of thin vinyl being a cause of groove destruction isn't one that i'm familiar with. misaligned stylus? yes. heavy tracking? yes. thin records? no. and i like to think that i know some things about spinning vinyl. since you know more than we do, perhaps you could share with us where we can find information suggesting thin records are a cause of groove destruction. mind you, i'm not talking about thin records being more susceptible to warping or damages if they are not properly cared for- if you can't take care of your records, thin or thick, they're going to have issues, and that's on the buyer, not the seller. on that note, i will point you to this website: http://www.recordpressing.com/2010/03/top-ten-vinyl-record-myths-2/
    MYTH # 1
    You can cut deeper grooves in a 180 gram record than in a thinner record

    False.
    A record press can only produce grooves that are as deep as the cuts in the lacquer master. This depth is far shallower than any record thickness. Consequently, the thickness or thinness of the record has no impact on the depth of the grooves. Considering this, there has yet to be a record made where the two sides of the grooves meet in the middle meaning a thicker record is not necessarily advantageous. However, some artists, producers and consumers prefer the benefits of a thicker record which include reduced warp, less breakage, longer lasting quality, and that the weight of the records make them nicer to hold.


    also, whether or not it is your english, your attitude in this thread has been confrontational and accusatory at times, and so the responses you are getting are similar. don't play the victim when people respond with sass when you do the same.
  • FR181798
    FR181798 Posts: 2,166
    edited January 2014
    I see someone beat me to it about Myth #1.
    As I said earlier - a thick vinyl is always a bit steadier on the turntable and a bit more rebust. I doubt if anyone has really bought this to play the hell out of it anyway. Its a collectors piece.
    Post edited by FR181798 on
  • picola
    picola Posts: 40
    edited January 2014
    Andy said:


    MYTH # 1
    You can cut deeper grooves in a 180 gram record than in a thinner record

    False.

    I have never said something like this ...(again...)
    Andy said:


    also, whether or not it is your english, your attitude in this thread has been confrontational and accusatory at times, and so the responses you are getting are similar. don't play the victim when people respond with sass when you do the same.

    Listen, read the first page, and what happens first.


    Post edited by picola on
  • picola
    picola Posts: 40
    edited January 2014
    Empty Glass said:

    mrk2 said:

    bootlegger10 said:

    You paid $55 for music you could already hear in multiple formats. There are a lot of people laughing about that.

    Laughing or jealous?

    Laughing from this guy, for sure


    Page 1 ... and i was so polite before that (and even after that) , and anyway, I hadn't the time to be rude, this guy for example was to fast for me ...

    Post edited by picola on
  • covered in bliss
    covered in bliss chi-caw-go Posts: 1,332
    picola said:

    covered in bliss said:

    To the average person, 140 gram is not inferior to 180 gram vinyl. Google it.

    True, this is not my point here
    What exactly is your point? I just weighed my 93 fan club single and it weighs less than the most recent one. Every PJ single released by epic is very thin. Are you trying to say in a roundabout way that PJ is ripping us off by pressing 140 gram instead of 180 gram? I don't see it that way at all. Maybe pressing heavier would have upped the shipping charges?

    off topic but does anyone else remember the flexi discs that were in Mad Magazine? those were the bomb...



  • picola
    picola Posts: 40
    Incredible :

    "what is your point , I just weighed..."

    please ... : I NEVER TALKED ABOUT WEIGHT
  • picola
    picola Posts: 40
    covered in bliss said:



    off topic but does anyone else remember the flexi discs that were in Mad Magazine? those were the bomb...

    yes, I heard about them !!

  • picola
    picola Posts: 40
    edited January 2014
    So, I have to quote myself (!!) because it seems that people don't read :
    picola said:

    For a small 7", I don't think so, for a 12" for sure

    On a 7" vinyl, weights are quite the same (see the post from our friend who weights them all), and the weight is concentrate mainly on the center parts, not a vinyl part .. the % of vinyl is very small on a 7" if you compare it to the total weight
    (here excuse my english, difficult to explain, but you see what I'm saying)

    so :
    covered in bliss said:

    Are you trying to say in a roundabout way that PJ is ripping us off by pressing 140 gram instead of 180 gram? I don't see it that way at all. Maybe pressing heavier would have upped the shipping charges?

    Post edited by picola on
  • covered in bliss
    covered in bliss chi-caw-go Posts: 1,332
    you said they were thinner today. I can't find my magnifying glass and special ruler that measures 1/10 millimeters so I weighed them. :p
  • picola
    picola Posts: 40
    covered in bliss said:

    you said they were thinner today. I can't find my magnifying glass and special ruler that measures 1/10 millimeters so I weighed them. :p

    LOL !

    funny

    I understand

    But, that's right, I only say that they are thinner than ever. that's all. And that's a shame.

  • jamburger
    jamburger Posts: 1,775
    covered in bliss said:

    you said they were thinner today. I can't find my magnifying glass and special ruler that measures 1/10 millimeters so I weighed them. :p

    Due to most vinyl being made from the same material, wouldn't the thinness/thickness directly correlate to the weight?

  • picola
    picola Posts: 40
    jamburger said:

    covered in bliss said:

    you said they were thinner today. I can't find my magnifying glass and special ruler that measures 1/10 millimeters so I weighed them. :p

    Due to most vinyl being made from the same material, wouldn't the thinness/thickness directly correlate to the weight?


    for a 12" record, yes, i think so

    but, for a 7", most of the weight is from the center parts
  • jamburger
    jamburger Posts: 1,775
    picola said:

    jamburger said:

    covered in bliss said:

    you said they were thinner today. I can't find my magnifying glass and special ruler that measures 1/10 millimeters so I weighed them. :p

    Due to most vinyl being made from the same material, wouldn't the thinness/thickness directly correlate to the weight?


    for a 12" record, yes, i think so

    but, for a 7", most of the weight is from the center parts
    But if the center part was heavier, and therefore thicker, the record would not lay flat on the turntable. Is that the case?

  • picola
    picola Posts: 40
    I don't say that. the center part is always the same. I say that you can't compare weights for 7" vinyl because most of the weight is concentrate on the center part and not on the vinyl part which is too small to weight a lot (whereas it's a big part of the total weight on a 12")
  • picola
    picola Posts: 40
    OK

    I give up, have a great weekend

Categories