Recording 33 rpm LPs at 78 rpm

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <c7rq5t$t8b$1@terabinaries.xmission.com>,
glenzabr@xmission.com (GMAN) wrote:

> In article <dTZnc.184887$L31.102905@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, "Karl Uppiano"
> <karl_uppiano@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:qlbv90tb5c5bpsn447pig4u8t7sp9qrvaq@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 10 May 2004 09:06:57 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> >> <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Playing at 16 2/3rds RPM might be worth a try, though,
> >> >> if you have a turntable that can. I don't. Should
> >> >> help for warped vinyl anyway.
> >> >
> >> >It sounds like the OP's intent was to transfer a lot of stuff
> >> >quickly. Running at 1/2 speed seems antithetical to the
> >> >original intent.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You want it done QUICK or you want it done RIGHT?
> >
> >Remember the 1/2 speed audiophile discs they made in the '70s?
> >
> >
> Theres a HUGE difference between cutting a record at 1/2 speed and copying
> one at half speed.

Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus velocity
and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for both cutting
and reproducing LPs.

In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just too
much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I still think
(IF done right) it would make considerably superior copies.

Isaac

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9o02a0lgraiqratdqp85m18cpddscjnpp6@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 05:53:13 GMT, "Karl Uppiano"
> <karl_uppiano@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:qlbv90tb5c5bpsn447pig4u8t7sp9qrvaq@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 10 May 2004 09:06:57 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> >> <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Playing at 16 2/3rds RPM might be worth a try, though,
> >> >> if you have a turntable that can. I don't. Should
> >> >> help for warped vinyl anyway.
> >> >
> >> >It sounds like the OP's intent was to transfer a lot of stuff
> >> >quickly. Running at 1/2 speed seems antithetical to the
> >> >original intent.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You want it done QUICK or you want it done RIGHT?
> >
> >Remember the 1/2 speed audiophile discs they made in the '70s?
>
> I trust you're remembering that these were *mastered* at half-speed,
> but intended for 33.33rpm replay, to allow high levels of 15-20kHz to
> be cut without melting the cutter head! And then of course there were
> the 12" 45rpm 'ultra fidelity' discs, which genuinely did have
> extended frequency response.

I have a Mobile Fidelity half-speed master of The Beatles Abbey Road. It
still sounds pretty incredible.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
> Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus velocity
> and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for both cutting
> and reproducing LPs.
>
> In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
> collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just too
> much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I still think
> (IF done right) it would make considerably superior copies.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
values) downward by an octave.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
>> Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus
>> velocity and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for
>> both cutting and reproducing LPs.
>>
>> In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
>> collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just
>> too much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I
>> still think (IF done right) it would make considerably superior
>> copies.
>
> Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
> re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
> values) downward by an octave.

The cartridge is going to work differently, too.

Were I to try such a thing, I'd record a reliable test record's frequency
response tracks, and work from there.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <10a4app4gl5mu71@corp.supernews.com>,
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

> "Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
> > Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus velocity
> > and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for both cutting
> > and reproducing LPs.
> >
> > In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
> > collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just too
> > much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I still think
> > (IF done right) it would make considerably superior copies.
>
> Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
> re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
> values) downward by an octave.

That's not a very good way to do it, because it ignores any "structural"
effects a given cartridge might introduce. And I suspect there would be
some.

I think the best (only??) way is to use a properly recorded reference
disc.

Isaac

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

JeffK wrote:

> I'm transferring some 33 1/3 LPs to MP3s.

> The thought occurred that I could save time by recording at 78 rpm, and
> altering the tempo later via software.

No. The cartridge can not track the records properly and will damage the
grooves. Not "may", WILL damage.

> Has this been done?

All kinds of folly has been done. This would indeed be grave folly.

> Has it been done without wrecking the music?

No. There is no way it could be done without wrecking music AND vinyl.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http/www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************