• catchthebeat76 11 months ago

    is there any sound variation between the two speeds if indeed the pressing plant masters them the same?

    Also, has anyone ever heard that 45rpm is more susceptible to getting "hiss" and "pops" if the record isn't handled properly? Is 33rpm more "durable"?
  • White_Bicycle 11 months ago

    45rpm may not sound as good as 33rpm because 45rpm grooves are more compressed than 33rpm so that you can fit more music onto disc however I haven't really noticed a difference myself. The main thing that I find affects sound quality is how thick the vinyl and how deep the grooves are cut.
  • velocity_kendall 11 months ago

    The shorter the song [and faster the RPM of the record], the better the quality. Thickness of vinyl doesn't come into it at all, nor does the deepness of the cut.
  • catchthebeat76 11 months ago

    Let's assume it's ten minutes across each side... In that arrangement, does 45rpm offer any fidelity improvements?
    (I am aware that the DB cannot be that high when you put a lot of material across one side)
    But with only making a 12inch single, even in that format does the 45rpm offer any improvements?
  • meevan 11 months ago

    I have seen a few releases on 12" vinyl that were half-speed masters cut at 45rpm. Supposedly spinning the finished disk at 45rpm produces higher fidelity. The music had to be put on two discs instead of one. I do not have any personal experience with comparing the two so I can not validate the premise. Maybe someone else has and can give us their opinion.
  • soulchap 11 months ago

    The theory is, as far as I can tell, the higher the playback pitch (speed), the higher the (possible) sound resolution (density/quality).

    Think of it this way: if you are recording on tape, as the tape rolls past the recording head, you want as much information to be recorded as possible, so it would make sense to run as much of the tape over the heads as possible in any given moment. A short piece of tape can hold less information than a long one, it's just a matter of how quickly one can get that info on there. For playback, the same is true.

    This is why 45 rpm 12" singles were made; in order to fit more info on the disc, the grooves were made literally longer, covering more ground (and also made wider) for higher sound resolution.

    Is it always true that 45s are of higher quality than 33s? No, definitely not. But that was the intention behind the increase in pitch.
  • velocity_kendall 11 months ago

    On a 12" piece of vinyl at 45 rpm, the best quality you will supposedly get is a track no longer than 9 minutes. Between 9 mins and 15 mins is the max for 45 rpm on a 12" [if you want it to sound good] the DB will start to drop so the cut will be quieter as you approach 15 mins.
  • catchthebeat76 11 months ago

    Thanks soulchap... That makes sense.
    With that info, it also lends itself to the logic that damage is easier made to grooves that are longer? Like as in more susceptible to pops and such?

    Is a 33rpm more durable?
  • DarreLP 11 months ago

    soulchap's tape analogy is pertinent.

    The faster the 'data' crosses the 'reader' the more data can be fed through the system which, at least in theory, can result in a higher fidelity. Ergo, the faster the medium, the better the recording on it can sound.

    Whether that's true in actual implementation is going to vary wildly based on all the other factors involved (how much music are we cramming onto a disc, how large is the disc, how well was is mastered, was it mastered for high end systems or a jukebox, etc...)

    catchthebeat76
    With that info, it also lends itself to the logic that damage is easier made to grooves that are longer?


    In that there is a larger potential area to sustain damage, sure.

    catchthebeat76
    Is a 33rpm more durable?


    The speed a record is played at has nothing to do with its durability.
  • brunorepublic 11 months ago

    45 RPM will provide better high frequency response, especially at the end of a side. That last inch or so of wax before the label is usually pretty terrible at 33. Cutting engineers need to lower the highs and/or the overall volume to reduce the inevitable sibilant distortion that you'll get with all but the literally finest styli, meticulously aligned and calibrated. This is why so many LPs have ballads at the end of each side.
  • vinylforever1 11 months ago

    i think a 12'' at 45 sounds way bettter than a 12'' at 33. a have some uk hardcore singles and the ones that play at 45 have some of the best sound quality ive heard off vinyl. the ones that play 33 sound pretty dull. i might post a comparison :)
  • vinylforever1 11 months ago

    i think a 12'' at 45 sounds way bettter than a 12'' at 33. a have some uk hardcore singles and the ones that play at 45 have some of the best sound quality ive heard off vinyl. the ones that play 33 sound pretty dull. i might post a comparison :)
  • lagasta 11 months ago

    nice info in here! i did a lot of research and yes. 45 is better until 15 minutes. but i think that is with just one track. if you put 2 tracks on the side 33 is what you usually get. i dont lnow why but is like that in most of my vinyls : )

    as far as durability i think a 45 will last les than 33, just because it will spin many more time on 45 . )
  • mjb 11 months ago

    All good observations here. I'd that some vinyl is noisier than others—I mean just the whoosh of the groove walls rushing past the needle. Ideally this is down at 55+ dB below peak and thus mostly inaudible, except in quiet parts with the playback volume cranked up... but for example, I find the quiet parts of my 33 RPM picture discs sound better than the 45s. The character of the noise is such that it just is less noticeable, to me, when it's at a lower pitch. I'm not sure if this is true for everybody though.
  • velocity_kendall 11 months ago

    This question of durability pops up every now and then, but i feel it's not rooted in reality.

    I have records from the 60's that have had the arsed played out of them, and they sound great. Worn out ? No.

    I've got records that I've DJ-ed to death, are they worn out ? No !

    What are people doing to their records if they're getting 'worn out' ? It just doesn't happen. I can imagine if you've got fuckin . . . . .200 grams of weight on your tonearm then maybe . . .
  • Jailhouse 11 months ago

    45 definitely better, no question about it. I've done a good bit of singles and e.p's on 45rpm 12's instead of 7's for that very reason. Sound quality is much better. Surprised there is even differing opinions on it..
  • Sombunya 11 months ago

    There were lots of innovations by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab. Half speed mastering and special high quality vinyl to name a few.

    It seems to me that if 45 rpm yielded better sound quality they would have done that.

    DarreLP
    The faster the 'data' crosses the 'reader' the more data can be fed through the system which, at least in theory, can result in a higher fidelity. Ergo, the faster the medium, the better the recording on it can sound.


    While that's true with magnetic tape, I'm not sure there's a linear improvement when it comes to spinning a record. It would be interesting to see a citation.
  • DarreLP 11 months ago

    Sombunya
    I'm not sure there's a linear improvement when it comes to spinning a record. It would be interesting to see a citation.


    The theory is the same...be it tape, a record, or digital bit rate. That said, I can't find a specific citation pertaining specifically to records via a quick google search.

    Sombunya
    It seems to me that if 45 rpm yielded better sound quality they would have done that.


    MoFi has several 45rpm releases. One example: http://www.mofi.com/product_p/mfsl45-011.htm

    But keep in mind, not everyone necessarily values the trade off. I have a few 45rpm releases and for the most part, I would have been find with 33rpm given that I'd have less record flipping to deal with. :)
  • HM-2 11 months ago

    That's a pretty extensive topic. At the end it's always a trade off between overall volume and frequency and distortion. Weight of the record plays zero role though, 180 gram pressings are just hype. Their only advantage is that they tend to warp less than a thinner record. After all the lacquer foil is much thinner than the lightest pressings you have.
    Generally 45 RPM will give you higher volume and frequency response but can have higher tendency for distortion or skipping the closer you get to the center. If you have a fine line stylus (like 0.2 mil), 45 RPM records might also cause higher distortion when the groove is cut widely. So there's a lot of factors basically, how much space is actually used from the 12", how wide the groove is cut, the frequency spectrum of the audio itself, how the audio is mastered etc...
  • 3rdsystem 11 months ago

    I bought Peter Gabriel 1 on vinyl recently, the half speed remaster 180g play at 45rpm job.

    All I can say it is one of the finest quality pressings I have ever heard on vinyl.

    So there must be something in this half speed/45 scenario.
  • Derfunkmeister 10 months ago

    Mobile Fidelity are currently releasing some of the Miles Davis on 45 rpm. Instead of 1 Vinyl at 33 rpm they come out on 2 Vinyls at 45 rpm. It blows your mind. Never sounded better and the Peter Gabriel on 45 rpm Half Speed sounds fantastic too. There are so many factors that comes in when comparing 33 vs. 45, I've compared some 12" singles that usually came out on 33 rpm in America and 45 rpm in Europe and the 33 from America sounds way better but that has to do with the master tape especially back when it was all analog.
  • merlinstar14 10 months ago

    I have the same 12" single from 2 different countries, one plays at 45rpm and the other at 33. I cannot hear any audio difference or level changes in volume. They both have wide tracks which improves the quality. I thought that 45 version would be better, but not the case.
  • RhubarbRhubarb 10 months ago

    45s much better in my experience, louder and more detailed.
  • RhubarbRhubarb 10 months ago

    I've also bought 45s that look trashed and play mint, and mint looking LPs that sound shit and skip.
  • streetmouse 9 months ago

    Someone initially set the premise that if each disc was the same size, that 33's would sound better. This is the truth, one does not want to compress 33's anymore than one wants to compress the groove length on 45's. There was a reason that original analog recording on tape was done with faster moving tape, and that was because less information was tracked per inch, thus giving a better quality of sound, which is why cassettes were at the bottom of the barrel. The same applies to vinyl, the faster the record spins, the better sound quality.

    No one in their right mind, other than Todd Rungren would try to get over an hours recording time on 2 sides of a vinyl album. The vinyl 45 albums created today, given that they are pressed well, and taken from analog recordings, will deliver far superior sound quality. The only drawback is the shortness in time before you need to flip the record. With that in mind, most artists who are producing 45's will deliver a double album to accommodate the faster spinning time.

    One note you might want to consider ... if you are purchasing a vinyl album that has been taken from a digital recording, you might as well purchase a CD, because all you're getting is a CD covered to vinyl, and not an analog recording, which is what made vinyl records so special.
  • DarreLP 9 months ago

    streetmouse
    Someone initially set the premise that if each disc was the same size, that 33's would sound better


    Did you mean 45's would sound better? Based on...

    streetmouse
    the faster the record spins, the better sound quality.


    streetmouse
    One note you might want to consider ... if you are purchasing a vinyl album that has been taken from a digital recording, you might as well purchase a CD, because all you're getting is a CD covered to vinyl, and not an analog recording, which is what made vinyl records so special.


    Ideally, you'd have an analog master.

    However, high fidelity digital masters--if mastered for vinyl--can still sound amazing on vinyl.

    But, sometimes they just use the same master for vinyl as they did for the CD. That's not nearly as good.

    And sometimes, with bootlegs or public domain labels, they literally just use the CD as the master. There's no point in that.

    So it's not so much that the master is digital vs. analog, but rather what the master was mastered for vinyl.
  • allenh 9 months ago

    One thing that I'm not seeing mentioned here re digital masters on vinyl is the replay method and the way it will alter the reproduced sound.

    If you take a vinyl record that was mastered from the CD and the original CD they will still sound different from each other in playback just because the method of reproducing the sound contained on them is different. The same is true if you record a digital source using a cassette recorder or an open reel machine, the recording process will change the reproduced sound but so will the final method of reproduction.

    A lot of this is down to personal taste of course but it does have a bearing.
  • JRyall 9 months ago

    streetmouse
    One note you might want to consider ... if you are purchasing a vinyl album that has been taken from a digital recording, you might as well purchase a CD, because all you're getting is a CD covered to vinyl, and not an analog recording, which is what made vinyl records so special.


    Do you feel the same about all the cd's produced out of non digital recordings?
  • streetmouse 9 months ago

    JRyall
    streetmouseOne note you might want to consider ... if you are purchasing a vinyl album that has been taken from a digital recording, you might as well purchase a CD, because all you're getting is a CD covered to vinyl, and not an analog recording, which is what made vinyl records so special.

    Do you feel the same about all the cd's produced out of non digital recordings?


    A CD created from a non-digital source would be listed as [for example] AAD or ADD, there are many CD's created from analog recordings, that's the only manner in which they could be placed onto CD, since they were initially laid down in analog format. However, that being said, it's still a digital format of an analog recording, and something is going to be lost in the process. A digital recording laid down to CD/digital is what it is, a digital copy of a digital recording or DDD, nothing lost, nothing gained.

    Digital copies should be taken from the master tapes [and the preemies here is analog sound], if it's digital from digital it's all hype, sound quality should be as close to the original as possible. This is the reason so many people in the 60's and 70's looked toward reel to reel tape as their means playing music ... no surface noise, just a direct copy from the original tape to another. My point was that if you are purchasing a record created from a digital source, it's basically a digital recording, played on an analog system. That's why rights to the original masters is so expensive and treasured. The whole vinyl revolution casts a wide net, and people are being taken advantage of.

    Most people won't hear any difference until they step up to a CD player or turntable with speakers that are rather pricey. I run a McIntosh system with B&W Diamond Speakers ... I can hear the difference. I know that sounds like I'm bragging, but I've waited my whole life to have 50K of disposable income to spend on this system.

    When all is said and done, facts are facts, but what a person is happy hearing is all that matters in the end. There are even more purists than me, people who believe the Mono is the only way to go, and reprocessing for Stereo creates a gap, or another step from the original recording.
  • kurts.ear.candy 9 months ago

    kurts.ear.candy edited 9 months ago
    What seems to be forgotten is that we only get what the engineers give us. A 45 on paper is supposed to sound better than a 33. But in the end it all depends on the master used and the quality of the vinyl itself. A mono release on something recorded on 4 tracks is a mixdown and an engineer's interpretation of what it should sound like.

    Just 3 days ago, I pulled out Initiation and ripped it for archive. Haven't played it since it was new, ripping it to cassette and putting it away per the instructions. Long ago, I did buy the CD and Treatise has been a regular listen, 5 or 6 times a year. Even with all the restrictions on vinyl technology when it was made, the vinyl is still light years better than the CD. The dynamic range is much better revealing more detail. But my 16 bit 48khz wav recording is going to sound like exactly like the vinyl played. Its not going to change sound because its now a digital file.

    All vinyl is different, too. A couple of months ago, I ripped a MFSL copy of Abbey Road. Now I'm ripping the 1973 GB 3rd pressing. I was impressed by the MFSL, but this copy is sounding pretty damn good, maybe better, I'll do and A/B shortly just to find out which one I want to keep for light remastering and listening.

    I've got 4 vinyl copies of Dark Side, the MFSL, the GB quad, a US early if not original pressing and another I've picked up along the way. that and about 4 versions of CD at least. But regarding the vinyl, the quad mix is distinctively different and my favorite. I wholly expect the MFSL to sound different and then the other pressings to sound different. They all come from the same source, all vinyl from the peak of vinyl in its day.

    Your linear contact stylus is going to sound different from my shibata. There are so many variables, but its not just because something is digital and something is not or how fast it spins. About the only thing left to say is that I can put my vinyl rip on a CD and play the vinyl and then the CD burned rip through the same system and expect to hear no difference.

    Not all engineers, lathe cutters and operators are created equally. Until we have heard better, there is no way of knowing what we're missing from what a certain engineer decided to give us.

    cheers.

    ps. an after thought. One of the beauties of a nice vinyl rip is that you can play it as loud as you want and you won't get any feedback through the turntable.
  • DarreLP 9 months ago

    kurts.ear.candy
    What seems to be forgotten is that we only get what the engineers give us


    Everything you say is certainly true.

    But purely from an "all other things being equal..." I think it's fair to say that a record spinning at 45rpm vs 33rpm can produce (at least technically speaking) higher fidelity output.
  • DarreLP 9 months ago

    We need a test pressing...one song, same master, cut at 45 on one side, 33 on the other. :)
  • Sombunya 9 months ago

    If you want a technical answer by an (probably) engineer, go to this forum and ask the question.

    I've gone there and asked seemingly simple questions and gotten full, accurate answers, not opinions or conjecture.
  • DarreLP 9 months ago

    Sombunya
    I've gone there and asked seemingly simple questions and gotten full, accurate answers, not opinions or conjecture.


    I assume you're implying there's nothing accurate in this thread?

    There's not really a counter argument here on the specific issue of speed...ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, the more data you can push through the pipe (ie, bandwidth) the more fidelity you can push through. This is true digital, analog, tape, record, bits, audio, video, whatever.

    Now whether a person can HEAR that difference is a whole other debate and is certainly open to all sorts of differing analysis and opinions and, likely, facts as well.
  • Sombunya 9 months ago

    DarreLP
    I assume you're implying there's nothing accurate in this thread?


    Did I say that?

    Sombunya
    If you want a technical answer by an (probably) engineer, go to this forum and ask the question.


    Take a look. There's a lot to learn from that forum, much more than you will find here. I assume you haven't been there.
  • DarreLP 9 months ago

    Sombunya
    Did I say that?


    No...hence me asking if that was what you were implying. :)
  • DarreLP 9 months ago

    But here's a bit of science to add here.

    This is from the article here: http://citymusiccollective.com/blog/2014/02/05/does-the-sound-quality-of-a-record-change-from-the-outside-to-the-inside/

    Which references Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record#Vinyl

    A further limitation of the gramophone record is that fidelity steadily declines as playback progresses; there is more vinyl per second available for fine reproduction of high frequencies at the large-diameter beginning of the groove than exist at the smaller-diameters close to the end of the side. At the start of a groove on an LP there are 510 mm of vinyl per second traveling past the stylus while the ending of the groove gives 200–210 mm of vinyl per second — less than half the linear resolution.[60] Distortion towards the end of the side is likely to become more apparent as record wear increases.
  • chiz 9 months ago

    chiz edited 9 months ago
    Indeed. Here's a comparison I did of linear velocities (the speed the record is moving past the stylus) for common formats, assuming the most extreme cutting radius I could find in any specification (33 1/3 stated as 33 for tidiness, not rounded down):

    12"/33 inner radius 57.5mm = 20.07 cm/s
    7"/45 inner radius 53mm = 24.98 cm/s
    12"/45 inner radius 57.5mm = 27.10 cm/s

    7"/45 outer radius 84.15mm = 39.65 cm/s
    12"/33 outer radius 146.5mm = 51.14 cm/s
    12"/45 outer radius 146.5mm = 69.04 cm/s

    7"/45 average = 32.32 cm/s
    12"/33 average = 35.61 cm/s
    12"/45 average = 48.07 cm/s
  • djksette2 6 months ago

    velocity_kendall
    On a 12" piece of vinyl at 45 rpm, the best quality you will supposedly get is a track no longer than 9 minutes. Between 9 mins and 15 mins is the max for 45 rpm on a 12" [if you want it to sound good] the DB will start to drop so the cut will be quieter as you approach 15 mins.


    I don't know if that's really true. Remember,the British 12'' of Deep Purple's "Perfect Strangers" had the 10:00 instrumental "Son of Alerik" on the B Side,and that ran at 45 RPM.
  • djksette2 6 months ago

    DarreLP
    We need a test pressing...one song, same master, cut at 45 on one side, 33 on the other. :)


    Can the song be "Never Going Back Again" by Fleetwood Mac?
  • ThomasP64 6 months ago

    DarreLP
    We need a test pressing...one song, same master, cut at 45 on one side, 33 on the other. :)

    Classic Records has done that.
    Dusty Springfield - The Look Of Love
    Roy Orbison - Pretty Woman
  • djksette2 5 months ago

    kurts.ear.candy
    What seems to be forgotten is that we only get what the engineers give us. A 45 on paper is supposed to sound better than a 33. But in the end it all depends on the master used and the quality of the vinyl itself. A mono release on something recorded on 4 tracks is a mixdown and an engineer's interpretation of what it should sound like.

    Just 3 days ago, I pulled out Initiation and ripped it for archive. Haven't played it since it was new, ripping it to cassette and putting it away per the instructions. Long ago, I did buy the CD and Treatise has been a regular listen, 5 or 6 times a year. Even with all the restrictions on vinyl technology when it was made, the vinyl is still light years better than the CD. The dynamic range is much better revealing more detail. But my 16 bit 48khz wav recording is going to sound like exactly like the vinyl played. Its not going to change sound because its now a digital file.

    All vinyl is different, too. A couple of months ago, I ripped a MFSL copy of Abbey Road. Now I'm ripping the 1973 GB 3rd pressing. I was impressed by the MFSL, but this copy is sounding pretty damn good, maybe better, I'll do and A/B shortly just to find out which one I want to keep for light remastering and listening.

    I've got 4 vinyl copies of Dark Side, the MFSL, the GB quad, a US early if not original pressing and another I've picked up along the way. that and about 4 versions of CD at least. But regarding the vinyl, the quad mix is distinctively different and my favorite. I wholly expect the MFSL to sound different and then the other pressings to sound different.


    Have you heard the Pathé Marconi EMI French pressing of Dark Side Of The Moon?

    https://www.discogs.com/Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon/release/606677

    Easily blows away the EMI Remasters, the MFSL and MoFi pressings and probably the newest issue - Pink Floyd Recordings.
  • Vylkeer about 1 month ago

    Hi, I was reading the replies of this thread and just joined the group.

    After reading through most of what you wrote, I have just one question to ask you all:

    Is a 45RPM 12" better sounding than a 7" 45RPM or a 12" 33 1/3 RPM when it comes to singles only?
    If we compared the quality of a song from a typical 12" 33 1/3 RPM LP to the same song as a single on a 12" 45 RPM, which one would be the best one or would they be sounding identically?

    When it comes to singles, I think everyone said that 12" 45RPM (when it's possible since it's not common) it's the way to go, compared to 12" 33 1/3 RPM or the typical 7" 45 RPM.
    But how would a 12" 45RPM single compare to its counterpart taken from a 12" 33 1/3 RPM LP?

    Thanks!
  • webkrawler about 1 month ago

    webkrawler edited about 1 month ago
    There are a lot of variables that come into play when looking at "better sounding" other than JUST the size of the disc(7", 10", 12") and the speed (RPM).

    So, a poorly recorded piece or poorly transfered piece is going to sound worse against another item that was better recorded or transfered.

    That being said, let's assume we are talking about the SAME high quality recording at the SAME pressing plant using HIGH quality material and transfers just changes to the RPM and disc size.
    The pressing in question is a 4.5 minute song on the 12"/7" single 45rpm and a 22 minute 12" LP 33rpm which contains the same 4.5 minute song somewhere.

    12" 45rpm are going to have the BEST quality becuase the grooves are going to be the widest and that makes the signal louder from the source (clearer, cripser) with less need to amplification. And, the 45rpm speed gives you higher resolution which gives you better fidelity (more data passing under the stylus in a certain amount of time)

    Next, 7" 45rpm is going to be good as well because again the grooves are going to be wider so you have a louder (crisper, clearer) sound with less needed amplification. Since the 12" record is bigger, the grooves can be even wider which is what gives the 12" single the edge.

    The last is going to be the LP at 33rpm because with the slower speed, the signal is larger but because it's 22 minutes, it has to be transfered much softer to fit all the data on the disc (thinner grooves). Which needs more amplification which can impede the sound.

    Hope this helps.
  • scottok about 1 month ago

    DarreLP
    We need a test pressing...one song, same master, cut at 45 on one side, 33 on the other. :)


    The only problem is that the same song would not be mastered identically for 45 playback as it would for 33-1/3 playback. It may be close, but still not be an identical apples-to-apples comparison.

Log In You must be logged in to post.