Recording 33 rpm LPs at 78 rpm

JeffK

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2004
4
0
18,510
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

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.

Has this been done? Has it been done without wrecking the music?
 
G

Guest

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.

Not a good idea.If you had a 33 1/3 record with a 20 KHz sound recorded on
it, that 20 KHz would be would be at about 48 KHz when played at 78 rpm. But
your cartridge can't track well or respond with flat response at such a high
frequency. Results: a lack of high frequency response and increased
distortion.

> Has this been done?

I'm sure.

>Has it been done without wrecking the music?

Probably not.
 
G

Guest

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

In article <xAync.6771$dN4.2560@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>,
"JeffK" <jaykay@pacbell.net> 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.
>
> Has this been done? Has it been done without wrecking the music?

The record player needle will float over the groove, skipping along the
peaks. It will sound very bad.
 
G

Guest

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

>The thought occurred that I could save time by recording at 78 rpm, and
>altering the tempo later via software.
>
>Has this been done? Has it been done without wrecking the music?
>

Apart from consideration of the different eq required, has your
cartridge (in particular) and the rest of your recording chain got
good performance at over twice the highest frequency it was expecting
to have to deal with?
 
G

Guest

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
> JeffK wrote:
> > Has this been done?
> I'm sure.
> >Has it been done without wrecking the music?
> Probably not.

And probably not without wrecking the cartridge,
stylus, and record as well. A remarkably bad idea.
 
G

Guest

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

KM [Sun, 09 May 2004 23:31:36 -0700]:
>The record player needle will float over the groove,...

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.

--
40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
iPlay : the ultimate audio player for iPAQs
mp3, ogg, mp4, m4a, aac, wav, and then some
 
G

Guest

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

<hel@40th.com> wrote ...
> KM [Sun, 09 May 2004 23:31:36 -0700]:
> >The record player needle will float over the groove,...
>
> 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.
 
G

Guest

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

On Mon, 10 May 2004 08:01:04 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

>And probably not without wrecking the cartridge,
>stylus, and record as well. A remarkably bad idea.

No need to be TOO alarmist ;-) We've all played a 33 at 78 at some
time haven't we? Either by mistake, or just to see what it sounded
like? It may not have sounded very nice. But nothing broke.
 
G

Guest

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

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? :)
 
G

Guest

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

In <xAync.6771$dN4.2560@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>, on 05/09/04
at 10:50 PM, "JeffK" <jaykay@pacbell.net> said:

>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.

>Has this been done? Has it been done without wrecking the music?

As others have stated, this is not a great idea -- especially if you
want top quality.

If, however, all you want is a quick and dirty transfer to CD, it will
work. You be the judge.

One of the early challenges you will face is inaccurate RIAA
equalization. It is also possible that your phono preamp will ignore
all or most of the high frequency information. Finally, your phono
cartridge will be operating outside of it's comfort zone. While I don't
think there will be any physical damage to your cartridge, it will tell
you that it is not happy with the task.

Perhaps a better solution is to use an unattended record changer. Load
it to the max, start recording, and walk away. Later, you can edit the
results and burn your CD's at whatever X you have. This technique will
not improve the elapsed time, but will minimize your "on station" time.
Others will argue that the changer will not provide adaquate quality --
you be the judge.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
G

Guest

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

"Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:40a0253b$2$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com...
> In <xAync.6771$dN4.2560@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>, on 05/09/04
> at 10:50 PM, "JeffK" <jaykay@pacbell.net> said:
>
> >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.
>
> >Has this been done? Has it been done without wrecking the music?
>
> As others have stated, this is not a great idea -- especially if you
> want top quality.
>
> If, however, all you want is a quick and dirty transfer to CD, it will
> work. You be the judge.
>
> One of the early challenges you will face is inaccurate RIAA
> equalization. It is also possible that your phono preamp will ignore
> all or most of the high frequency information.

It won't have to ignore the HF. The will likely never make it
out of the pickup. The pickup/stylus will most likely not only
not trace it, but will make mincemeat of whatever it does
manage to plow through. Even if you could get it to track,
you'd have to have an exceptional pickup with HF response
to 47KHz to have the equivalent of 20KHz at 33.3RPM If I
had a pickup that good, I certainly wouldn't abuse it by trying
to track LPs at 78RPM.

And then, as you have already observed, you'd need a special
RIAA equalization that was scaled up by 78/33'rds.
 
G

Guest

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

"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?
 
G

Guest

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

"Karl Uppiano" wrote ...
> Remember the 1/2 speed audiophile discs they made in the '70s?

The only "1/2 speed" (16 2/3 RPM) disks I remember were
the "talking book" ones made for the sight-impaired.

The "audiophile" disks I recall (and still have a coupule)
are 45RPM. When you think about it, lower speed makes
detailed high frequencies even more difficult to reproduce
(in vinyl just as in mag tape).
 
G

Guest

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

On Tue, 11 May 2004 06:57:38 -0700, Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
>"Karl Uppiano" wrote ...
>> Remember the 1/2 speed audiophile discs they made in the '70s?

>The only "1/2 speed" (16 2/3 RPM) disks I remember were
>the "talking book" ones made for the sight-impaired.

I think "1/2 speed" meant that the disc was cut at 1/2 speed.


>The "audiophile" disks I recall (and still have a coupule)
>are 45RPM. When you think about it, lower speed makes
>detailed high frequencies even more difficult to reproduce
>(in vinyl just as in mag tape).

And track 2 was always the best track for songs that needed as much fidelity
as possible. (track 1 was too subject to warp)
 
G

Guest

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

In <10a0jl7kc613rf8@corp.supernews.com>, on 05/10/04
at 08:55 PM, "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> said:

[ ... ]

>you'd have to have an exceptional pickup with HF response to 47KHz to
>have the equivalent of 20KHz at 33.3RPM

[ ... ]

Assuming it still works, an old CD-4 cartridge might be interesting.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
G

Guest

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

In <10a1mui3rbroq32@corp.supernews.com>, on 05/11/04
at 06:57 AM, "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> said:

>"Karl Uppiano" wrote ...
>> Remember the 1/2 speed audiophile discs they made in the '70s?

>The only "1/2 speed" (16 2/3 RPM) disks I remember were
>the "talking book" ones made for the sight-impaired.

>The "audiophile" disks I recall (and still have a coupule) are 45RPM.
>When you think about it, lower speed makes
>detailed high frequencies even more difficult to reproduce (in vinyl
>just as in mag tape).

The audiophile 1/2 speed discs were cut at half speed and designed to
be played at full speed. The reasoning was that a more accurate master
could be made at the lower speed.


-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
G

Guest

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

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.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
 
G

Guest

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

On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:25:20 -0500, TCS
<The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 11 May 2004 06:57:38 -0700, Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
>>"Karl Uppiano" wrote ...
>>> Remember the 1/2 speed audiophile discs they made in the '70s?
>
>>The only "1/2 speed" (16 2/3 RPM) disks I remember were
>>the "talking book" ones made for the sight-impaired.
>
>I think "1/2 speed" meant that the disc was cut at 1/2 speed.

Quite so.

>>The "audiophile" disks I recall (and still have a coupule)
>>are 45RPM. When you think about it, lower speed makes
>>detailed high frequencies even more difficult to reproduce
>>(in vinyl just as in mag tape).
>
>And track 2 was always the best track for songs that needed as much fidelity
>as possible. (track 1 was too subject to warp)

Not if you have vacuum hold-down! :)

Yup, it's often forgotten that the linear groove speed varies by a
factor of 50% across the disc, with concomitant effects on treble
response.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
 

Gman

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
194
0
18,630
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

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.
 
G

Guest

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

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:10a1mui3rbroq32@corp.supernews.com...
> "Karl Uppiano" wrote ...
> > Remember the 1/2 speed audiophile discs they made in the '70s?
>
> The only "1/2 speed" (16 2/3 RPM) disks I remember were
> the "talking book" ones made for the sight-impaired.

Half speed *Mastered* means that the lathe was run at half speed to provide
better HF response, not the playback TT.

> The "audiophile" disks I recall (and still have a coupule)
> are 45RPM. When you think about it, lower speed makes
> detailed high frequencies even more difficult to reproduce
> (in vinyl just as in mag tape).

Yep, and they were still no match for CD unfortunately. One of the ones I
have was recorded 16/48 digital anyway, before CD players were available.

TonyP.