Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I just found and played a mint condition copy of Australian Crawl's Semantics 45rpm EP.   Wow, it really slams with great sound. They seem to have cut it quite hot, and with the extra speed, there's a lot of sound coming from those grooves.

 

It reminded me of the very few other 45 rpm albums I have, for example, the Denon 45 rpm Demonstration Record.  Seems each time I play a 45 rpm recording like this I have to acknowledge the better sound.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Volunteer
7 minutes ago, eltech said:

Yes. 45 rpm is better. More information per second. Better high frequencies. Good stuff!

 

24 minutes ago, AussieMick said:

Yep. Theoretically the extra speed has the possibility of far superior accuracy and detail. Gold when used properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I must say I don't quite follow. 

Surely the same information is there in both ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of "data" that can be stored "per second" is greater because you have more distance to "encode" it.

The shape of the Dutch also has more room and (especially) loud bits don't bleed into quiet bits. Again, extra room.

Hence, it's easier for the stylus to track it because the shapes within the ditch change more gradually.

So especially modern remastering takes advantage of it. Not sure about old practises.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites





Love the sound of 45's and for the same reasons I like 78's more. Longer running time and so much information. Unfortunately more speed also equals more surface noise as everyone knows. 

 

i just don't have the patience to flip 45's every 2.30 odd seconds and the rabbit hole of collecting those things is an expensive hobby as everyone knows. If I come across a collection of Blues 45's someone's going to have to hold me back. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume we are all talking  about 12'' 45rpm singles.

As 7'' 45rpm singles do not have the same level of sound quality due the amount of space for the groves.

 

I have some great sounding XTC 12'' singles .

Unfortunately it is not the case for all 12'' 45rpm singles, some still sound crap. Garbage in garbage out.

 

And just to catch you out and confuse things  I have some 12'' singles that play at 33rpm

Edited by EV Cali
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, EV Cali said:

I assume we are all talking  about 12'' 45rpm singles.

As 7'' 45rpm singles do not have the same level of sound quality due the amount of space for the groves.

 

I have some great sounding XTC 12'' singles .

Unfortunate it is not the case for all 12'' 45rpm some still sound crap. Garbage in garbage out.

 

And just to catch you out and confuse things  I have some 12'' singles that play at 33rpm

 

Yes 12" 45s.   

 

...and conversely, I have quite a lot of 7" records , mostly classical, that play at 33 rpm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Schnuck said:

Love the sound of 45's and for the same reasons I like 78's more. Longer running time and so much information. Unfortunately more speed also equals more surface noise as everyone knows. 

 

i just don't have the patience to flip 45's every 2.30 odd seconds and the rabbit hole of collecting those things is an expensive hobby as everyone knows. If I come across a collection of Blues 45's someone's going to have to hold me back. 

 

 

Have you tried a vinyl 78?   I have a couple that were made towards the end of the era, and they sound fantastic.  

 

I solved the problem of 7" 45s.  Not a new solution, but I restored a nice Garrard changer to the point where it works as a changer using a magnetic cartridge.  Probably the closest thing to a jukebox I will ever own.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, aussievintage said:

 

 

Have you tried a vinyl 78?   I have a couple that were made towards the end of the era, and they sound fantastic.  

 

I solved the problem of 7" 45s.  Not a new solution, but I restored a nice Garrard changer to the point where it works as a changer using a magnetic cartridge.  Probably the closest thing to a jukebox I will ever own.

 

No never tried vinyl 78, sounds interesting. I try and stay away from that stuff 

:)

 

The Garard changer also sounds interesting. I'd definitely look into something like that at some stage. 

 

Apologies to others as I was talking about 7". I like lofi mono when it hits you feel ok. 

 

 

Edited by Schnuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer
20 hours ago, AussieMick said:

The amount of "data" that can be stored "per second" is greater because you have more distance to "encode" it.

 

I must confess that I still don't get this. You have more distance but you are covering that distance more quickly so the data comes in at the same rate. 

 

 

20 hours ago, AussieMick said:

Hence, it's easier for the stylus to track it because the shapes within the ditch change more gradually.

 

Again the shapes change more gradually but the stylus is moving more quickly relative to the groove. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

 

 

 

Again the shapes change more gradually but the stylus is moving more quickly relative to the groove. 

 

 

Try it this way, for the same given recorded frequency, the distance between each peak in the groove's wiggle, is twice 1.36 times as much  (45/33).  So, you can fit higher frequencies on the record without them getting too close together.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Volunteer
4 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

 

Try it this way, for the same given recorded frequency, the distance between each peak in the groove's wiggle, is twice 1.36 times as much  (45/33).  So, you can fit higher frequencies on the record without them getting too close together.

 

Sound of penny dropping. 

Thanks !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
To Top