Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by JasonK, Nov 19, 2007.
Wow. Have you heard it, if so what was it like?
With current cutting standards/technology I reckon you could get about 8+ mins on one side of a 12" 78. Still very restrictive though.
Why 78RPM? Why not 66RPM?
Most of us would have to buy a new turntable anyway if audiophile labels started releasing LPs which are neither 33RPM nor 45RPM. So better create a new standard that allows for optimum sound quality while having room for a decent amount of music per LP side.
It would also be a contribution of the music industry to the fitness of the listeners if people have to get up and turn the disc every 8 minutes, instead of switching on the CD changer and lying on the sofa for 6 hours
Yes I have. It was an absolutely fantastic experience with feeling like having very short cut from the master tape. It sounded so natural and smooth. BTW it clocks 4:52/4:59 on each side.
The recording itself was stunningly spectacular to begin with, even on the normal 33 1/3 rpm vinyl. The material is now available on SACD which is just a hint of what I heard with the 78rpm vinyl.
The recording was made by Japan's legendary audio mixer, Okihiko Sugano, who was a close friend of late John Eargle. They admired each other's works. Sugano's recording of Janos Starker, which is available on SACD here, is also truly amazing. The recording was also mastered on the 45rpm vinyl by Kevin, which I've never listened to.
Because 78 is clearly 12 better than 66 Also, think of all the gramophone mods that could be done! And also 33+45=78 it feels nice.
does this mean the Mothership 4 LP Boxset will sound better than its CD counterpart?
Whoops - somehow managed to miss this earlier! Thanks for that reply Steve!
FWIW, why the cymbals in particular? I thought it was mostly bass that made grooves "wide"?
It has to do with being able for the consumer to track cymbal sounds without splatter or mistracking. As you go towards the label the harder it gets.
In the past were some LP masters made with different EQ on the last track of the side?
No, the playback levels and dynamics of a 45 rpm gramophone record are not superior to those of 33 1/3 rpm, because they do not depend on a groove’s linear speed, but on the size of their grooves which are equal.
Oh, ye-e-s, with a needle “bopping along” on a 45 rpm record 35% faster than at 33 1/3 rpm, a baritone “pressed” on “45” instead of a “33” sounds like Pinoccio’s voice etc…
Your reasoning is not quite clear to me, but the general answer is that, with all other values equal, bigger linear speed of the groove at 45 rpm means smaller groove curvature than at 33 1/3 rpm. And therefore, less tracing distortion.
The sentence is contrary to itself: the linear speed of the groove is function of its diameter.
becomes nonsense, because what for create a new standard “extenuating” disadvantages of mechanical recording, instead of making use of a format existing with both analogue and digital sound modes since 1980: the “Laserdisc” format in its analogue sound mode, free of these disadvantages and even more, free of mechanical wear by the stylus etc.? Or at least, making use of laser LP players also almost free of those mechanical disadvantages...
For what reason and to do what?
I have a *lot* of LPs where the treble has been cut on the last 1 or 2 tracks per side (or last few minutes), presumably to reduce mistracking.
German label Innovative Communication put out a few 45 RPM LPs in the early '80s. Most are about 18 minutes per side. They're cut rather low, but they used good vinyl and they sound excellent.
Ah, well! Gravely distorting the recorded material for the purpose of achieving undistorted recordings! Great!
What he said.
And that’s what I answered already:
To follow this way consecutively, treble must be cut (i.e. recorded material gravely distorted) to reduce mistracking (instead of choosing better profile styli, cartridges of better mechanical properties and fine tuning of their parameters), records to be made of steel to reduce scratching, amps to be of milliwatts power to avoid speakers damage etc…
Are you being aggressive? It's so hard to tell in writing, but it comes across to me as if you are. I was just answering the question you asked me, it seems without seeing your answer, which was posted one minute before mine. That might only be seconds difference in reality.
My original question is: have some LPs been mastered with different EQ on the last track of the side? Both Graham and I seem to think so. Is this true?
Yes, in the old days. Not in the 1960's or later though. The treble falloff on those is just due to operator error.
What is the operator error and what does it do physically? Strangely I was thinking of a 70s album when I asked the question. Sometimes the last track sounds so different from the outset.
It's a matter of compromise. I think most people would agree that reduced highs are much more listenable than inner-groove distortion.
Most records cut BITD were designed with average consumer systems in mind (kind of like how CDs are now mastered with crappy PC speakers, iPod earbuds, and car stereos in mind). And average consumers did not have fancy microline or shibata stylii; they had whatever spherical stylus came with the cheap cart that came with their turntable. Nor would they spend the money to get anything better. Most everyone I know thinks I was crazy to drop over $250 on an AT150MLX, and they seriously thought I'd lost it when I said "actually, for a decent cartridge, that's quite cheap..."
Keep in mind that the records mastered by the likes of our host are aimed at the small number of people who care enough about sound quality to invest in a good system, and who know how to set it up and maintain it. Thus these records can be cut without the compromises that used to be made in the interest of getting the best results on average systems. These new records wouldn't sound very good on the low-end consumer-grade equipment of yesteryear.
That's odd. Most of my records are from the late '70s (Canadian pressings, mind you), and I can name lots of examples where this is the case... what's even more annoying is when the entire side is one long track, and the treble gradually drops as it nears the center. I'm more surprised when I find records where this *doesn't* happen. Then again, that's usually with US or UK first pressings, where they actually cared about who mastered it.
Bad stylus in playback, bad groove being cut, etc. Just careless mastering, trying to get max volume and cranking the compressor and high freq. limiter to the max in addition to a shorter groove span as the record goes on to keep the volume up without having a consumer 20$ tonearm skip out of the groove. Disaster.
Ever hear this happen with anything Kevin Gray or I cut? No, and you won't, hopefully. Assuming you have a good reproducer, of course.
In 1960 with a Westrex/Scully tube lathe the operator would have to back off the top end a bit but by the Neumann era (1967 and on) forget it. Only bad cutting would make this happen.
Geez, Mike The Fish,
You erased your comment? It couldn't have been that bad!
Separate names with a comma.