Awesome!

Too bad it's a double LP again though. More and more bands and labels seem to think that's a cool move.

Written by corrupt on 14.03.2016 at 13:16

Awesome!

Too bad it's a double LP again though. More and more bands and labels seem to think that's a cool move.

The album clocks in at 72 minutes, so, yes, you'd want a double LP because if it were to be pressed on a single LP the wear and tear would be enormous.

^was gonna say the same thing

Some albums just need the double LP.

But corrupt isn't all wrong when you see labels such as Blood Music that fit 42minutes LP on two discs for the sake of being the biggest boxset ever....

Written by Vombatus on 14.03.2016 at 14:01


But corrupt isn't all wrong when you see labels such as Blood Music that fit 42minutes LP on two discs for the sake of being the biggest boxset ever....

That is also the case loads of times. But in the Triptykon case a 2LP is totally justified.

Btw:


12" @33 1/3 RPM:
OPTIMAL - 12 to 14 minutes per side
MAXIMUM - 22 minutes per side
12" @45 RPM:
OPTIMAL - 9 minutes per side
MAXIMUM - 15 minutes per side

as can be read here: http://www.chicagomasteringservice.com/vinyl.html

My Def Leppard - Hysteria first pressing LP is a single LP and clocks in at 61
Queensryche - Operation MIndcrime first pressing LP is also a single LP and clocks in at 59 minutes.

Both deteriorated like mad when played.

Metallica - And Justice For All first pressing LP is a 2LP and rightly so with its 65 minutes

As you can see with the mximum duration it was with a reason most bands full-lengths in the 70s and 80s clokcked in at 45 minutes or shorter.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 14.03.2016 at 13:46
The album clocks in at 72 minutes, so, yes, you'd want a double LP because if it were to be pressed on a single LP the wear and tear would be enormous.

Yeah, OK. In this case that might be true. I do have a few where half a side is runout and they had to press a "bonus" track onto side D just not to leave it blank.

Written by corrupt on 14.03.2016 at 14:11

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 14.03.2016 at 13:46
The album clocks in at 72 minutes, so, yes, you'd want a double LP because if it were to be pressed on a single LP the wear and tear would be enormous.

Yeah, OK. In this case that might be true. I do have a few where half a side is runout and they had to press a "bonus" track onto side D just not to leave it blank.

I have quite a few 2LP's where all the songs are pressed on side A, B & C and side D has a cool etching.
And also own a couple of albums which have 45 minutes in total on side A and B and the remaining two tracks come as an additional 7

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 14.03.2016 at 14:08


Btw:


12" @33 1/3 RPM:
OPTIMAL - 12 to 14 minutes per side
MAXIMUM - 22 minutes per side
12" @45 RPM:
OPTIMAL - 9 minutes per side
MAXIMUM - 15 minutes per side

as can be read here: http://www.chicagomasteringservice.com/vinyl.html

My Def Leppard - Hysteria first pressing LP is a single LP and clocks in at 61
Queensryche - Operation MIndcrime first pressing LP is also a single LP and clocks in at 59 minutes.

Both deteriorated like mad when played.

Metallica - And Justice For All first pressing LP is a 2LP and rightly so with its 65 minutes

As you can see with the mximum duration it was with a reason most bands full-lengths in the 70s and 80s clokcked in at 45 minutes or shorter.

There is something I don't understand here.
It says "MAXIMUM 22 minutes per side". Then you say you have a few single LP's (2 sides) that clock at 60 minutes. Isn't it over the maximum?

I'm no expert when it comes to vinyls. To tell the truth, I hated this format already when I was a young boy and there's no way I would buy anything on this medium I consider as outdated crap today (no offence, it's only my opinion and I'm aware that some people think differently). But I remember that there was something related to limitations for vinyls and tapes back in the 80's and that albums were generally shorter back then for that reason. I recall Martin Birch (Iron Maiden's producer at the time) mentioning in an interview that Iron Maiden albums were especially difficult to produce because they were longer than the normal duration back then.

Written by Lord_Regnier on 15.03.2016 at 00:00
There is something I don't understand here.
It says "MAXIMUM 22 minutes per side". Then you say you have a few single LP's (2 sides) that clock at 60 minutes. Isn't it over the maximum?

I'm no expert when it comes to vinyls. To tell the truth, I hated this format already when I was a young boy and there's no way I would buy anything on this medium I consider as outdated crap today (no offence, it's only my opinion and I'm aware that some people think differently). But I remember that there was something related to limitations for vinyls and tapes back in the 80's and that albums were generally shorter back then for that reason. I recall Martin Birch (Iron Maiden's producer at the time) mentioning in an interview that Iron Maiden albums were especially difficult to produce because they were longer than the normal duration back then.

You can vary groove thickness by sacrificing dynamics. Basically you squeeze out a few more minutes per side by making the grooves thinner, put them closer together, and let them go into run-in and run-out. That is usually accompanied by the negative effects described by Marcel, which is why the LP standard was defined with a playing time of up to 25 minutes per side.
As far as your "vinyl is crap" theory goes, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. While CDs theoretically have more dynamic range, it is hardly used. Today's production is so heavily range compressed that the lower half is basically wasted. Vinyl has a more natural sound there as you simply cannot compress dynamic range that much on the medium (and frankly, why would you?). And then there's the big thing with frequency. CDs range up to exactly 22.5 kHz. Many people are able to hear a lot more than that (depending on age and ambient noise) and the rest of your body is sensitive up to between 50 and 80 kHz. CDs and most digital music is limited to the acoustic frequency range. That is, by the way, why some phono equipment is so insanely expensive. You can buy phono preamps with a range of 20Hz to 20Hkz, killing the experience advantage of the medium, and those with up to 150kHz and as low as 10Hz. Vinyl suffers from a range of disadvantages as well, one of them being static and it's sensitivity to dust and other residue in the grooves producing audible cracks. But with proper handling and care of your LPs you can minimize that. Other aspects like clipping and frequency distortion are usually mitigated by your phono hardware. Luckily you can buy equipment once worth thousands of dollars for a few bucks on ebay these days, making good phono sound available to pretty much anyone.
Had SACD become a real thing, your claims would have more of a basis. Compared to audio CDs, however, a good phono setup can always give you a run for the money.

Written by corrupt on 15.03.2016 at 00:58

Written by Lord_Regnier on 15.03.2016 at 00:00
There is something I don't understand here.
It says "MAXIMUM 22 minutes per side". Then you say you have a few single LP's (2 sides) that clock at 60 minutes. Isn't it over the maximum?

I'm no expert when it comes to vinyls. To tell the truth, I hated this format already when I was a young boy and there's no way I would buy anything on this medium I consider as outdated crap today (no offence, it's only my opinion and I'm aware that some people think differently). But I remember that there was something related to limitations for vinyls and tapes back in the 80's and that albums were generally shorter back then for that reason. I recall Martin Birch (Iron Maiden's producer at the time) mentioning in an interview that Iron Maiden albums were especially difficult to produce because they were longer than the normal duration back then.

You can vary groove thickness by sacrificing dynamics. Basically you squeeze out a few more minutes per side by making the grooves thinner, put them closer together, and let them go into run-in and run-out. That is usually accompanied by the negative effects described by Marcel, which is why the LP standard was defined with a playing time of up to 25 minutes per side.
As far as your "vinyl is crap" theory goes, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. While CDs theoretically have more dynamic range, it is hardly used. Today's production is so heavily range compressed that the lower half is basically wasted. Vinyl has a more natural sound there as you simply cannot compress dynamic range that much on the medium (and frankly, why would you?). And then there's the big thing with frequency. CDs range up to exactly 22.5 kHz. Many people are able to hear a lot more than that (depending on age and ambient noise) and the rest of your body is sensitive up to between 50 and 80 kHz. CDs and most digital music is limited to the acoustic frequency range. That is, by the way, why some phono equipment is so insanely expensive. You can buy phono preamps with a range of 20Hz to 20Hkz, killing the experience advantage of the medium, and those with up to 150kHz and as low as 10Hz. Vinyl suffers from a range of disadvantages as well, one of them being static and it's sensitivity to dust and other residue in the grooves producing audible cracks. But with proper handling and care of your LPs you can minimize that. Other aspects like clipping and frequency distortion are usually mitigated by your phono hardware. Luckily you can buy equipment once worth thousands of dollars for a few bucks on ebay these days, making good phono sound available to pretty much anyone.
Had SACD become a real thing, your claims would have more of a basis. Compared to audio CDs, however, a good phono setup can always give you a run for the money.

So, in short, the values Marcel mentioned are the recommended values and you can go over that but you sacrifice quality in the process? Different, of course, but same principle as compressing music more on a CD. The more you compress, the more quality you loose.

As for the difference between CD's and vinyls, well I have no problem with "losing the lower range". I always crank up the bass to max when using MP3 readers. There's enough bottom range for my taste.
Frequency, frankly I don't know.
You mentioned a reason why I dislike the sound on vinyls: static. So often we can hear static that is not supposed to be there. I mean, there is sometimes lots of static on raw records, especially Black Metal, but it's part of the sound. It's not like the static on vinyls. For example, you can know it sometimes when people upload music from vinyls just by the static. I hate it.
But the main reason why I dislike vinyls and don't care for it is I think it's way too much trouble for what it's worth.
So inconvenient in so many ways.

Written by Lord_Regnier on 15.03.2016 at 01:33
But the main reason why I dislike vinyls and don't care for it is I think it's way too much trouble for what it's worth.
So inconvenient in so many ways.

I don't completely disagree. That's the part I was complaining about with double LPs. You don't only have to turn over one disc but put it back into its sleeve, take out a second one, put it on and turn that over later, too. But it also has a certain charme to it. Listening to an album becomes a much more physical experience this way. I don't always listen to vinyl records, not even CDs all the time. But every other day I pull out an album, sit down with a tea and listen to it. The whole process puts a lot of emphasis on the concept of an album. There are a number of bands who put great care into arranging their songs so they work on an LP and the break while to turn the disc becomes a relaxing part of the arrangement. Of course I also feel way more connected to the albums I physically own that the vast amount of digital downloads you get every day. That is not to say I don't listen to mp3s (or flac mostly) when I just want some music in the background. But the ritual you perceive as inconvenient is actually quite magical.

Written by corrupt on 15.03.2016 at 01:47

Written by Lord_Regnier on 15.03.2016 at 01:33
But the main reason why I dislike vinyls and don't care for it is I think it's way too much trouble for what it's worth.
So inconvenient in so many ways.

I don't completely disagree. That's the part I was complaining about with double LPs. You don't only have to turn over one disc but put it back into its sleeve, take out a second one, put it on and turn that over later, too. But it also has a certain charme to it. Listening to an album becomes a much more physical experience this way. I don't always listen to vinyl records, not even CDs all the time. But every other day I pull out an album, sit down with a tea and listen to it. The whole process puts a lot of emphasis on the concept of an album. There are a number of bands who put great care into arranging their songs so they work on an LP and the break while to turn the disc becomes a relaxing part of the arrangement. Of course I also feel way more connected to the albums I physically own that the vast amount of digital downloads you get every day. That is not to say I don't listen to mp3s (or flac mostly) when I just want some music in the background. But the ritual you perceive as inconvenient is actually quite magical.

When I said inconvenient, I had something else in mind, though what you mention here is also true.

I meant that it takes a lot of space, it is quite fragile, it requires a turntable (that also takes place and is sensitive to any vibration, for example if people walk a bit loudly or if you live in an apartment like me) and that it can't be carried with you, while it is so simple to have thousands of songs on a MP3 player nowadays and it barely takes any space.

And just for your information, I'm not a fan of digital downloads. I like to have a physical copy. Pretty much all the music I'm listening to, I own it on CD. I rip the CD's with my computer and transfer them to my MP3 player. Not only is it more convenient than using a CD player, it also has the advantage of keeping my CD's brand new.
Also, I have a copy of all my music files on a USB key kept at a relative's home, so in case my apartment is destroyed (by fire or other catastrophe), I would not lose all my music.