Vinyl records now in crisis: Apollo Transco Mastering lacquer plant is a total loss*

Can you link the post in which Steve has said this?

Not playing gotcha here, just would like to read what he said in context.

 

Steve said that the difference between 45 rpm and 33 rpm is that the 45 rpm is louder. Here is a quote by Kevin Gray that describes the differences in detail, which contradicts what SH said. Perhaps SH doesn't believe most people will notice other benefits.


Why 45 rpm? by Kevin Gray, AcousTech Mastering

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 cutterheads (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 on 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 higher 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 to a reasonable level (read: On scale on 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 the very end of the disk. This isn’t always possible, of course.

BUT, if we spin the disk at 45rpm 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!

 

Thank goodness. I remember going to LA in the 70s and my eyes would burn every time. No longer happens today.

 

In reading about this I began to wonder about GZ pressings and DMM. I was listening to Wye Oak/"Louder I Call..." which is a GZ pressing and I have some issues with it's sound quality (albeit minor) and then wondered if this is a DMM processed pressing? I ask because the issues I have with it are in line with what I read people tend to be critical about it. (sight harshness, top end edginess, etc). Are all GZ pressings done via the DMM process? I'm wonder if @GeorgeZ can chime in here as I understand he's somehow attached to the company (is that correct?). thanks!

 

I’m 63 and still prefer the nature and qualities of analog but will listen to digital and enjoy it if analog isn’t available. It’s a preference at this point. My preference is in the minority. Analog cassettes. Yet I still have my turntable that I haven’t used since 1989. I probably would really enjoy vinyl if I jumped back into it. But am too invested in too many cassette decks and cassettes to add vinyl back into the mix. Plus the cost of new vinyl and what I see as the hit or miss of the used vinyl market. I’ve learned how to fix messed up used prerecorded cassettes that I buy but not sure I would know how to fix used messed up vinyl that I would buy. Am listening to digital via a car CD player right now, about to go to an event, and it’s definitely better than not listening to music. Unless I’m in the mood for silence or the radio.

 

Thanks for posting that article link. I don’t know if it’s industry spin or not, but at least it seems like there is some industry momentum in finding a solution.

I realize that there is never a good time for something like this to happen, but at least the vinyl market is strong right now. If this had happened ten years ago, before the vinyl revival really took off, it would have been far less likely that anyone would be even thinking about reviving lacquer production.

 

Because it contradicts what Kevin has written is why Id like to see exactly what Steve has said. Here lately Ive seen many folks say Steve has said that but I dont ever recall him saying it. Not saying he didnt, just would like to see it within the context of the thread posts.

 

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

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

 

Oh yeah it's great.
Did you get a haircut? No, I got em all cut.

Hahaha

 

No, no, no, no. All available materials show go exclusively to Mobile Fidelity and they should focus on 45 rpm releases.

 

I think we will be OK.

I would add digital recordings to the list.

I think the those doing AAA will be just fine.

 

I think you’re right, but man, it sounds like the opening of a great story!

 

About 17-18 years ago, I sat down with my wife and played 33RPM and 45RPM versions of Classic Records reissue of Sonny Stitt - Plays the Blues. My wife loves music and good sound, but is also happy listening on her iPad. She was with me as a music lover, not an audiophile. We played both versions, and she liked the 45 RPM better, but not sure how to describe why. I liked the 45 RPM better, but not in the way I expected. I thought it would be more transparent, or smoother. Instead, the difference I heard, was the rhythm or pacing seemed to be more together. And this was an important difference. Both the 33 RPM and 45 RPM sounded very good, butt the 45 RPM was better to both of our ears. Not all 45 RPM's are fantastic. The Music Matters 45 RPM reissues of Blue Note titles, and MFSL 45 RPM reissues of Miles Davis titles have been really great.

 

The only way you can come to your own conclusion is to buy a 33 and 45 of the EXACT same album mastered by the same engineer with everything cut the same. I really wanted to put this issue to bed so I did exactly that. Two copies of Rumors. Both pressed at Pallas and the only difference in the chain is the speed. Maybe the 45 was a bit louder, but I have a volume control on my system so I could care less. Other than that, I heard nothing that would compel me to disagree with Steve’s thoughts. They sounded identical, and a few have agreed., a few didn’t regarding Rumours. Generally, some here swear they can hear a difference on other albums and others don’t. But what I found interesting is the one’s that didn’t were also not using an album that was cut the same for both speeds by the same engineer. That just isn’t going to work if you really want a fair test. I have bought a few, inc Dire Straits and others, and frankly I will avoid 45 in the future as even if they were slightly better, it isn’t worth it to get up every 2-3 songs and flip it. And using Rumours as an example, it really messes up the flow of the album for me. I never play my 45. I think as amazing as the One Steps have been, I don’t feel based on my test that 45rpm has a thing to do with it. It just justifies a higher price and I think if they released the exact smae mastered album as a 33rpm people could then do a fair comparison. As long as we keep paying $125 plus (I think the Plus is coming) we will never see a 33rpm. Given the Apollo issue, I see it as incredibly wasteful. I don’t mean to disrespect those that are convinced they hear a difference. If you really do, great! We all hear things subjectively and differently. I would just like to see surviving lacquers used diligently and right now I don’t think other releases should be sacrificed for any minor increase in SQ, if indeed there is one.

 

I

Great counter post by another well respected person! I don’t doubt his point of view. But...At the end of the day, all that matters is if you can hear a difference. I will change my personal opinion, which admittedly isn’t really worth a hill of beans, when I do. Just glad too see these audiophile pressings coming out and I will certainly buy the 45’s if that’s all they have. Really enjoy those 45rpm Dire Straits releases, but would have got 33’s had that been an option.

 

Well, actually that would be fine by me. Very little they have put out has ever disappointed me!

 

As I sure many of you already know the term Album came from a collection of (generally) up to 4 78rpm discs enclosed in what looked like a Photo Album.

If 45 is really better than 33 (and I too doubt it) is anyone thinking of trying 78 again (10" nearly 3.5 minutes playing time/ 12" nearly 5 minutes).

 

45 rpm offers better geometrical parameters of grooves than 33 rpm offers,esp. for louder cuts and inner grooves. But it depends also on the particular audio master,so there can be a big difference sometimes and almost no diff. for another title. Longer audio at 33 rpm must be cut with lower cutting levels so risk of distortion and worse sound is lower.

 

No. It's been confirmed that GZ cuts both lacquer and metal masters. They also often get lacquers and metal parts from other mastering studios around the world to manufacture from.

BTW, here's a nice AAA DMM cut done in-house by GZ in 2013. Wish there was more...

Antonín Dvořák, Mstislav Rostropovich, Czech Philharmonic Orchestra*, Václav Talich - Cello Concerto in B Minor, Op. 104

 

95-99 % of master plates cut in our studios are cu plates for dmm, it varies every month. Then there are quite a lot of lacquers and metal parts supplied from other studios and galv.facilities. However,the majority of all titles pressed at GZ and Precision are produced from our in-house DMM cut plates.

 

I agree. I think it depends on how much "nth" bit of resolution one is seeking. I have a few 45 rpm LP's and to be honest, I prefer not to get up every 12 minutes. Could you imagine Dark Side of the Moon at 45rpm? The listening experience would be a bit disruptive IMO (Of course most companies would not release a "continuous" album 45 rpm edition). Plus if I want the last bit of resolution, a 24/96 or 24/192 release might be the way to go.

 

Just freeze the reissue market and prioritize on actual new releases instead. (Alleged) problem solved for the short term.

 

Wye Oak masterings in general are not exactly audiophile quality, DMM or not. Still love their albums though.

 

In reality, though, priorities will probably follow the money...