At what point does a system provide the benefit of a 45rpm over 33rpm vinyl record??

Got it - Thanks!

 

Steve Hoffman's very own Fleetwood Mac Rumours! Pallas pressing. Both are available at Acoustic Sounds.

 

La Futura? Really?

 

Bernie Grundman. So, yes, of course.

 

Yes, I have it.
BG does like the bass.

 

Good it - thanks!

 

It was not just the bass. It is sound of distorted guitar so spooky real. What on CD sounds compressed to death and smashed makes sense on vinyl version.

 

That seems rather definitive methinks

and tbh volume isn’t one of the things I’ve noticed on 45 vs 33

I still say skip the expensive reissues (read OOP) and go OG

 

Cool.
I am less impressed but perhaps it's because I've listened to the ol' London and WB titles for so many years.

 

I listened to them too )) as I have pretty much all ZZ Top in 1st pressings and new remasters )). And yet... )))
May be I've listened to digital version for a while and when I got this 45rpm record it just blowed me away... )

 

I'm not at all knowledgeable on the subject, but it does seem to me that the extra loudness would provide the extra bit of separation of the program material from the noise floor, which would be a benefit in broadcast applications.

I see the main reason for the existence of 45's is for the broadcasting radio stations that play top 40 oriented popular music. The place one 45 on one turntable and then they can cue up another 45 on the other turntable to change songs.



Since the record buying public also would purchase individual songs, then the 45 that was played over the radio, was the same perfect medium to meet retail sales needs.

The 45 was also far less expensive than a LP record album. Aspiring musicians would gather up enough scratch to cut a 45 and then hope to get some airplay and get signed to a record label, then the album would come later.

When disco and dance clubs became popular during the late 70's, then came the popularity of the long playing versions of songs on a large 45 record format, that allowed for more music and dance time.

While I can understand, from a technical point of view, that a 45 R.P.M. speed can provide more detail than a normal 33 1/3 speed record album, I can't see me having any reason to bother with them.

I like the concept of an L.P. record, meaning long play.

Although, with the advent of cassette tapes that you didn't have to manually flip over and CD's, later to be followed by music servers and streaming music, it sure seems like L.P. albums today are shorter in length then I remember back in the old days.

Sometimes, when I put on an album and sit back and get comfy, before I know it, the needle is bouncing around in the run out groove.

 

Actually laughed out loud at that one..

 

I'm so perplexed as to how that plays both sides.. now I'm going to have to go to the google and figure it out. Thanks.. lol

 

So that Both Sides player is something else.. i can't possibly imagine that side playing upside down could have sounded good..

 

Interesting. So when you were working with Music Matters and they had the long "Why 45 RPM?" content on their site, was that all just marketing hoopla?

"After 60 years the good ol’ analog LP is still one of the highest resolution sources of music distribution available. It has a solid, palpable, satisfying sound that no digital format has yet equaled, let alone surpassed. The most unfortunate thing about the LP is that it was really starting to flourish back in the mid-80s, just as the record companies tried to kill it.

Advances in cutter heads (the device that etches the groove in the master lacquer disk) and cutting electronics reached a pinnacle in the early 80s. Digital computers arrived on the scene in their best role: out of the audio chain, but doing machine-control to adjust the groove spacing one the record for maximum playing time and recorded volume. 180 gram virgin vinyl pressings were the next development, and last but not least, around the late 70s, 45 RPM 12” LPs started to appear.

Why 45, you ask? Because it sounds better! In record mastering the tiger the recorded level and frequency, the greater the groove curvature. Curvature isn’t usually a problem, per se, on the outside of a 12” 33 1/3 record, but as the groove moves toward the center, its relative speed slows down and curvature increases. Yes, it is still turning at 33 1/3 revolutions per minute, but consider: one revolution takes 1.8 seconds. That 1.8 seconds at a 12” diameter is covering a lot more territory than at the minimum 4.75” diameter. The result is actually a loss in high frequencies, and increase in distortion as the groove moves to the center. The problems start when the curvature of the groove equals or exceeds the diameter of the playback stylus. What can be done about it? Many things have been tried, but there is no “magic bullet.” Keep the recorded volume at a reasonable level (read: on scale with the meters) is the first thing. Play the record back with an elliptical or line-contact stylus that has a smaller tip radius. And, if possible, make the record short enough to keep the music away from he very end of the disk. This isn’t always possible, of course.

BUT, if we spin the disk at 45 RPM we now have a 35% increase in groove velocity at any point on the disk. This is a huge advantage! Yes, the groove still slows down as it moves inward, but the effects are greatly reduced. The only problem is that the amount of recorded time is now also reduced by 35%. What do you do about that? (Hint: split up the LP into 4 sides on 2 records.) Now you’re cookin’, Doc! Yep, twice the mastering cost, plating cost, pressing cost, label and jacket costs. It’s enough to make the bean-counters break down and cry. But, the sound! Oooooh, yeah! This isn’t sales hype, it’s physics. Listen for yourself. You tell me if it’s worth it. A lot of music lovers think so… and they are right!"

 

So then would it be "safe to assume" that for classical music 45 rpm is the way to go? I would guess for dynamics especially.

 

Hmm, it depends. A lot of LPs from my "old days" are 35-40 minutes in length, sometimes shorter. With CDs having almost 80 minutes capacity new albums are often run much longer, resulting in 55+ minutes LPs with reduced dynamics (one of my favorite records of last year Dukes of the Orient is one of them). Many even longer, and then they are split into 2 records, shorter of course, often 25-30 minutes - I suspect those are giving your back a workout, just like 2X45 releases ))

 

Production GZ Vinyl

What are the main differences between 33&1/3rpm and 45rpm records?

Basically, it is similar to MP3 sound quality issues in the digital world. MP3 audio files encoded with higher kbps options (192, 256 or even 320 kbps) will sound significantly better than the ones encoded with lower kbps options (128 or 160 kbps). The reason is that the MP3 decoder can benefit from more sound information per second stored in the higher kbps MP3 files. Vinyl records (and magnetic tapes as well) sound better if higher speeds are used. The higher the rpms, the more vinyl that passes under the playback stylus per second. Therefore, we gain more accurate reproduction of the sound stored in grooves.

Scientifically speaking, the longer wave-lengths, the smaller angles in the grooves and the less complicated geometry at 45 rpm help us to cut very precise grooves with even the finest details. Also, the conical and elliptical playback styli track grooves better at 45 rpm – resulting in less inner groove distortion (pinch effect distortion, horizontal and vertical tracing distortion etc.). Due to the higher rotation speed, the available playing time per side is reduced at 45 rpm which often results in double albums, e.g. 45rpm audiophile 2LP editions with up to 15 minutes per side. For the best possible sound quality, we recommend ordering records cut at 45 rpm.

 

vinyl premastering | Studio Schoenrock
A record with 33 RPM may sound inferior to a cut with 45 RPM because of the lower resolution (again: less relative speed = less length of grooves for the same amount of time = less resolution). Primarily the high end of the frequency range will possibly sound much better on a 45. BUT on a 33 more material (longer playtime) can be cut with a higher volume. So the tradeoff for a 45 is less playtime, especially for higher levels, whereas the tradeoff for a 33 is lower resolution.

 

The 45rpm pressing comes into its own when you have loud or dynamic passages at the end of a side or when the mastering engineer is forced to cut the 33rpm pressing to a very tight inner groove. In those cases the difference should be noticeable on even a very modest system.

 

The Elys 2 cartridge comes with a basic elliptical stylus right?
The conical and elliptical playback styli track grooves better at 45 rpm – resulting in less inner groove distortion (pinch effect distortion, horizontal and vertical tracing distortion etc.
Production GZ Vinyl
If this is true, a 45rpm record will sound better than a 33rpm record (same mastering) in your "modest setup", at least in theory.

 

Ya, none of this matters. It's "the mastering"... I personally believe there is a (possible) advantage having wider grooves. For example, what happens when they try to put too many songs on a record side? Not good.
Also, depending on the type of stylus that you have, the wider grooves may be an advantage. Are there better sounding Doors records than the 45rpm pressings? I don't think so.

 

Good info.

 

So you say none of it matters but then go on to say why it does matter?

I have A/B’d several 45 rpm sets to their 33 rpm counterparts and can hear clear differences. Even when done by the same engineer on the same equipment. The Rumours album done by Steve and KG is a great example. I have both the 33 and 45 and the 45 sounds substantially better to my ears. I have A/B’d tracks from both for non-audiophile friends (blindly) as well and they said similar things. I hear a bigger sound stage, more slam, more precise imaging, and overall just more effortless/natural sounding music coming from the speakers. And I am sure to volume match both discs when comparing.

 

Was being sarcastic. I agree with your assessment.