45 RPM 12" --- Why?

[concretecowboy71]

A friend gave me his newest vinyl release today. Total running time was 11minutes for side A and 10 minutes for side B.

It is a twelve inch release running 45RPM.

Is there any sonic quality loss or gain by doing this or were they trying to use up space? Are they just being different to seem cool.

I understand why tape sounds different at faster speeds, but do any of the same principles apply? Are there a different set of circumstances for vinyl?

Just wondering.
Thanks

[concretecowboy71]

I am going to take it to the shop in a fews days and look at it under the scope. Should I expect to see wider grooves?

[monkey1553]

Hey there,

Yes, I think you'll see some wide grooves under the microscope. You should be able to get it to sound a bit better/louder recording 12" at 45 rpm.

[opcode66]

Well, grooves are grooves. Depending on the volume, they will stray wider laterally or deeper vertically. But, that is independent of the speed of the record.

You can vary the number of lines per inch (LPI, pitch) of the records. That determines how closely packed the grooves are. Again, this has no direct correlation to the speed at which the record turns. You could set your LPI value the same (lets say 180) for cutting both a 45 or a 33.

What you do get is more or less total recording time with 45 vs. 33. Also, you can get a higher quality of sound the faster the record turns.

The reason is that you get more audio data per second of playback the faster the platter spins the record. The equivelant in digital realm is listening to a Wave that was recorded at 22K vs. one recorded at 44.1K or 48K. These values represent the number of samples per second that are being played back. The fewer the samples, the lower the quality of the audio. The larger the number of samples, the more crisp and realistic the audio sounds.

So, there is a distinct advantage to cutting records at 45. Especially for DJ use since they will simply sound better. I would say at least half of my DJ records are 45's. As long as your song is short enought (under 10 minutes) it makes sense to cut it at 45 RPM because it will sound better on playback than it would at 33.

FYI, inspecting the record under magnification will likely be neat. But, not very useful for answering your question. Those grooves will look very similar to the grooves on a 33. The spacing between them is a function of the pitch computer on the lathe that cut them. You could cut 45s and 33s at the same fixed pitch if you wanted and the grooves would look really similar. The main difference is that one would look more pulled/stretched/elongated than the other.

There is a book called Basic Disk Mastering in PDF form on this forum. I higly suggest you download and read it if you want a good introduction to the mechanics of a vinyl record.

Take Care,

Todd

[opcode66]

Yes, I think you'll see some wide grooves under the microscope.

It really depends on the LPI that you set or that is controlled by the pitch computer on the lathe. LPI is an independent setting to RPM....

[Aussie0zborn]

I understand why tape sounds different at faster speeds, but do any of the same principles apply?

Yes.

12" 45rpm discs are not new. They have been that way since the disco boom of the 70s (except in the US where they started cutting 12" singles at 33.3rpm for some reason).

[concretecowboy71]

Thanks for the info. I did read the Basic Disc Mastering book on here and thought it was great!

[tape]

Thia has nothing to with the subject as such. I just came to think of frequency response in vinyl. Compared with the 'sample rate' analogy, the faster a vinyl disc spins, the better high frequencies are played back.
But is there a limit where the rotation pr minute can get to high and distor the output?
I guess this would happen when the rotation speed exceeds the high frequency wavelengths on the record...

Could be that I get this all wrong

[andybee]

I have a 12inch with 15:45 min playing time on one side
it´s donna summers "I Feel Love"
not that loud, but sound is good!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4l5G8PBnItc/SxivuUoZQwI/AAAAAAAAG0Q/DRT8FyIeMpY/s1600-h/1.jpeg

IMHO, sound is always much better @ 45, especially at
inner diameters....

[piaptk]

And also, it could have been partly an economic decision... 10 min a side is too long for a 7" and a 10" costs exactly as much as a 12" (and sometimes more). So you have to go with a 12". I've fouind that people are more likely to pay a little more for a 12" than a 10's because regardless of the amount of content, they feel like they are getting more. And if you are going to do a 12", you might as well get the best possible sound at 45rpm.

[Aussie0zborn]

Back in the heyday of vinyl, cutting 12" 45rpm singles was tricky... we cut them at the pitch required to avoid overcutting which often meant there was a lot of "dead wax" area which some consumers complained about - "Look at all that blank vinyl - they could have put another song there!!!"

Some customers would ask us to increase the pitch and fill the entire side so that the consumer would feel he is getting good value for money. Quality shoul dbe the fist consideration and if you ccan keep the music away from the inner diameter if it dones't need to go there, then so much the better.

[opcode66]

if you ccan keep the music away from the inner diameter if it dones't need to go there, then so much the better.

Great point!!! I think it is worth repeating. You get the worse frequency loss at the inner diameter vs. the outer. The closer you get to the center of the disc, the less vinyl per second that passes under the playback needle. That results in frequency loss at the high end. The unfortunate mechanics of vinyl.

[blacknwhite]

Some customers would ask us to increase the pitch and fill the entire side so that the consumer would feel he is getting good value for money. Quality shoul dbe the fist consideration and if you ccan keep the music away from the inner diameter if it dones't need to go there, then so much the better.

BIG-time vinyl buyer / collector chiming in here:

I've bought LOTS of new releases on vinyl, and talked to many others who have also, and we have somewhat of a complaint to lodge to cutters, on this matter:

What always seems to be forgotten is TRACKABILITY on ALL record players.

For "club singles" which is the main topic of this thread, sure, OK, Great - I agree with folks here. These will probably only EVER be played on modern (1980s and later) very-high-compliance magnetic pickups.

But on all other kinds of vinyl, TRACKABILITY on ALL PLAYERs is important.

All the kids out there who want to buy their favorite new bands on vinyl so they can play the records on their grandma's old 1970's ceramic-cartridge BSR stereo player, DO COUNT. Their money is GREEN also!!!

And folks like myself who spent EXCESSIVE time, effort & money restoring classic vintage 1950s vacuum-tube "Golden Era of Hi-Fi" jukeboxes and console players, WE DO COUNT also!!!

And we FREQUENTLY complain about there Not being enough land between grooves to track on ANYTHING but a magnetic pickup. Ceramics just won't track.

So, please keep this in mind: on all but "disco / club / DJ singles", extra land between grooves IS important for trackability (i.e. no "kissing" grooves with just a thin flexible wedge of vinyl between them, easily "jumped" by ceramic pickups).

It's NOT just for "aesthetics" to space grooves out more, but, for TRACKABILITY.

Agreed, cramming the grooves the hell up close together, does help avoid the inner diameter.. but at what cost? When you do that, you get all these good money-paying folks complaining that "New vinyl is CRAP, ALL old vinyl made before 1990 plays PERFECTLY, but newer stuff skips; I'm going back to only buying old vinyl!"

I've posted this before... but it seemed like this segment of the Money-Paying vinyl market is easily / quickly forgotten by most cutting engineers...

Thanks, (stepping off the soapbox)

- Bob

[mossboss]

Hey Bob
Get back on that Box again mate and say it louder I agree with you
It is not only the cutters it is the client as well
They seem to go penny pinching which results in the same issue like 6-7 minutes on a 7" at 33 1/3 what a damn nuisance
We just wont do it any longer we just refuse quite bluntly to do 33 1/3 on 7" regardless Just a waste of effort it just never sounds good besides the trackability issues that it presents
Yes we been there before and I was inundated with many an example of who did what on 33 1/3 on seven's Great I will not do it
We always try to provide as much space as it is possible fot the reasons that you bring up some times it works other times well clients
May be you get a bigger box with enough room for me on it as well
Cheers

[concretecowboy71]

Is there any rule of thumb that dictates how much land there should be for increased trackability (is that a word?).

[blacknwhite]

Thanks Chris. And in fairness, yes, now, I DO remember what you and others had said the last time, that often it's the client's "demands".

Is there a good resource to learn about different phono cartridges? I would love to find out more. Should that be a different post?

First, know this would NOT apply to "DJ" / club singles. I hate to speak for Everybody, but I would say, generally, those aren't Expected to play on anything but a modern magnetic DJ turntable.

For all other vinyl records: My suggestion would be to do what I'm told cutting houses ALL used to do, and what the better modern ones (like United Records in Nashville, TN) STILL do:

TRY PLAYING A TEST-CUT BACK ON AN OLDER 1970's ceramic-pickup player from a local goodwill store, or Craigslist, or eBay. NOT a total piece of junk, but, a decent-condition, Fully-Working player, with a NEWLY - replaced needle (use Carole at www.stereoneedleslady.com because her selection is great, her prices are low & she never snaps at you if you ask her a question).

The newer Crosley players are made with newer-styled ceramic pickups, so you could buy one of those, BUT they're not quite the same; an original older, good-condition 70's player would be cheaper, and a better, more accurate "real-world" test of older-player compatability.

Some 70s players were made with ceramic carts, and some with magnetic. How can you tell which are ceramic? You KNOW you've got a ceramic one, when you see the narrower headshell: Some examples of the different appearance of 1970's wider magnetic heads vs. narrower ceramic:

. . . .

If ANY cutter on here seriously wants to cut record playable on all kinds of players, but doesn't want the hassle of tracking down & finding a cheap working older ceramic player, PM me; I can point you to ones on eBay that look like good, cheap bets.

- Bob

[mossboss]

Hey all here
If it plays on a Garard changer it will play on anything that has a bit of wd40 squirted in the bearings as well as the tone arm pivot
Most garards run of the mill stuff not th transcription ones had a ceramic cartridge
They must have made millions of them and they never changed the dies as late as the early 80's one could still buy them with 16 rpm setting as well on them even though around 98% of the people never seen a record at that speed
It always had me wondering why they did it but the did
Cheers

[concretecowboy71]

As I get my footing here and was reading the responses to this question, I just noticed that my last post was edited down to one sentence.

Did I post something inappropriate? Was I off topic?

I really have enjoyed the information here and want to make sure I respect the forum as well as contribute in the most usable fashion.

Thanks

[blacknwhite]

I didn't do it.

[concretecowboy71]

Figured out what happened. No worries.