| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill
Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation. I believe the reason they did this was not a decision made by the engineers nor any of the guys whose primary concern was the sound quality but rather an artistic and marketing decision. First, let's put the hit at the end of the side so that people will be more likely to listen to the tunes leading in. Second, let's arrange this album like a concert so that our best tunes are the last tunes. Let's build this thing up to a climatic end. Besides, popular music has never been to concerned with the audiophile community. The recording and mastering processes have proven this time and again. Sasquatch --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.675 / Virus Database: 437 - Release Date: 5/2/2004 |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
Doc wrote:
I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation. No doubt one reason the industry was so happy to go digital - the technology puts fewer constraints on art and merchandising. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
"Arny Krueger" wrote I just got an LP of the classic 70's album... they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. ... Surely the record companies knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the inner tracks? No doubt one reason the industry was so happy to go digital - the technology puts fewer constraints on art and merchandising. Quack, quack, quack.... |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
"Doc" wrote I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation. Exactly how would a record company know what tracks, if any, the public would come to consider "hits"? Do you think record producers are psychic or what? How come some albums don't have any hits... didn't they know that, too? |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
Powell wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote I just got an LP of the classic 70's album... they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. ... Surely the record companies knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the inner tracks? No doubt one reason the industry was so happy to go digital - the technology puts fewer constraints on art and merchandising. Quack, quack, quack.... If it sounds like a duck it must be a duck. Powell appears to be the only duck posting on Usenet. Quite an accomplishment, I'd say! |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
Powell wrote:
"Doc" wrote I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation. Exactly how would a record company know what tracks, if any, the public would come to consider "hits"? That is one reason why they pay record company execuitives the big bucks. Do you think record producers are psychic or what? No, but they often have an *ear* for hits. How come some albums don't have any hits... didn't they know that, too? Stuff gets released against some people's better judgment. Also, most humans are fallible. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
On Thu, 6 May 2004 08:28:13 -0400, "Powell"
wrote: "Doc" wrote I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation. Exactly how would a record company know what tracks, if any, the public would come to consider "hits"? Do you think record producers are psychic or what? How come some albums don't have any hits... didn't they know that, too? In the olden days, they sometimes used to release a single or two before the full album came out, and knew they were hits. They also made turntables which operated correctly, and when you played a record on one of those the inner tracks had no more distortion than the outer tracks, and repeated plays did not spoil the grooves on the innermost tracks. They still make them today. But, then and now, turntables which work correctly are more expensive and harder to set up. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
R. Totale wrote:
They also made turntables which operated correctly, and when you played a record on one of those the inner tracks had no more distortion than the outer tracks, and repeated plays did not spoil the grooves on the innermost tracks. They still make them today. But, then and now, turntables which work correctly are more expensive and harder to set up. You really need to read up on vinyl technology. Loss of high frequencies and dynamic range on the inner grooves of a LP is well-understood, and absolutely inherent in the technology. There are several AES papers by Ben Bauer (one of the all-time experts in LP technology from CBS labs) that describe this problem and its ramifications in great detail. Basically, the inner grooves of an LP travel past the stylus at a far lower linear speed - something like half. Your 33 1/3 rpm LP becomes more like a 16 rpm LP. The diameter of the stylus effectively doubles so it can't track high frequency undulations nearly as well. I'm sure you've been told that there are magic turntables that can overcome this inherent problem. Anybody who tells you that is either ignorant of the basics of LP technology or a liar. Do the math. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
S888Wheel wrote:
The fact is turntable technology had been improving over the years. Which begs the question when the practical benefits of turntable/arm technological improvements leveled off. The best turntables in the world were designed and built well after the early days of LPs. That would be some time since June, 1948... could you narrow that down a bit? ;-) IMO, the last significant technological improvement in the LP was DMM. Other enhancements like higher-weight pressings just reversed craven cheapening of the product in the past. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
In article , Arny Krueger
wrote: You really need to read up on vinyl technology. Loss of high frequencies and dynamic range on the inner grooves of a LP is well-understood You are talking about two different things. Inner groove distortion is what you are talking about. Inner groove wear caused by tracking error is what the previous poster was referring to. Before you go deciding that someone must be ignorant or a liar, you might want to listen to what the other person is saying. Many cheap turntables caused a great deal of damage to inner grooves because they didn't track as well at that angle as better designed ones. See ya Steve -- *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound 20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/ ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
S888Wheel wrote:
IME the best sounding LPs were not mastered on metal. I think there is evidence via the product it produces that the current cutting lathe at RTI is superior to any lathe preceding it. That would make for a fairly recent improvement in the state of the art in production. The main new technology at RTI appears to be the "Zuma" Zumaudio cutting computer. Other vinyl mastering labs also seem to have them, and at least one has already come up on the used equipment market. Cutting computers primarily increase the amount of audio you can get on a side. Sound quality benefits are secondary. Zumaudio's web site seems to be in the twilight zone. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
Stephen Worth wrote:
In article , Arny Krueger wrote: You really need to read up on vinyl technology. Loss of high frequencies and dynamic range on the inner grooves of a LP is well-understood You are talking about two different things. Inner groove distortion is what you are talking about. Inner groove wear caused by tracking error is what the previous poster was referring to. The OP said: "In the olden days, they sometimes used to release a single or two before the full album came out, and knew they were hits. They also made turntables which operated correctly, and when you played a record on one of those the inner tracks had no more distortion than the outer tracks, and repeated plays did not spoil the grooves on the innermost tracks. They still make them today. But, then and now, turntables which work correctly are more expensive and harder to set up." It is quite clear that the OP mentioned both inner groove distortion and inner groove wear, not just wear as you've falsely claimed. It's deceptive of you to claim he was talking about only one of these well-known problems. Both are inherent in the basic technology. You tried to cover up the evidence that indicts your false claims by eliminating the OP text. It turns out that both the distortion and the wear are due to the wavelength effects of decreasing radius, among other things. Specifically, inner-groove wear increases because the stylus has effectively become larger, compared to the wavelengths of the undulations in the grooves. Among other things, the larger stylus is more prone to "pinch effect". http://smartdev.com/LT/Align.htm "A tip of finite radius will vary its depth of penetration according to the waveform, hence the changing diameter for an exact fit seen in the diagram; the resulting vertical motion of the stylus, known as pinch effect, produces." Furthermore Stephen, your post obfuscates the fact that these effects are inherent in the geometry of existing LPs, which was the point of my post. You tried to divide and conqueror by making a false distinction. We can't fix these geometric effects in most LPs by changing the turntable because legacy LPs are what they are. Note that S888wheel sensibly points out that newer LPs can be cut with a larger inner diameter, reducing these geometric effects to some degree. Before you go deciding that someone must be ignorant or a liar, you might want to listen to what the other person is saying. Stephen, given what you deleted because it undermined your false claims, what I said that you twisted, and what you ignored.... Your post has the classic appearance of a Morien-style hatchet-job, complete with elimination of relevant OP text that disembowels your false claims. Many cheap turntables caused a great deal of damage to inner grooves because they didn't track as well at that angle as better designed ones. Please note that methodologies for designing and building tone arms with minimal inner groove tracking error have been well-known for at least 40 years. Furthermore, it costs little or nothing more to build a tone arm with proper geometry, once even mid-fi price levels are reached. If you think that straight-line tracking is required, consider what the prices of straight line tracking tone arms were in the days when vinyl was king. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/6/2004 1:59 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Stephen Worth wrote: In article , Arny Krueger wrote: You really need to read up on vinyl technology. Loss of high frequencies and dynamic range on the inner grooves of a LP is well-understood You are talking about two different things. Inner groove distortion is what you are talking about. Inner groove wear caused by tracking error is what the previous poster was referring to. The OP said: "In the olden days, they sometimes used to release a single or two before the full album came out, and knew they were hits. They also made turntables which operated correctly, and when you played a record on one of those the inner tracks had no more distortion than the outer tracks, and repeated plays did not spoil the grooves on the innermost tracks. They still make them today. But, then and now, turntables which work correctly are more expensive and harder to set up." It is quite clear that the OP mentioned both inner groove distortion and inner groove wear, not just wear as you've falsely claimed. It's deceptive of you to claim he was talking about only one of these well-known problems. Both are inherent in the basic technology. You tried to cover up the evidence that indicts your false claims by eliminating the OP text. It turns out that both the distortion and the wear are due to the wavelength effects of decreasing radius, among other things. Specifically, inner-groove wear increases because the stylus has effectively become larger, compared to the wavelengths of the undulations in the grooves. Among other things, the larger stylus is more prone to "pinch effect". http://smartdev.com/LT/Align.htm "A tip of finite radius will vary its depth of penetration according to the waveform, hence the changing diameter for an exact fit seen in the diagram; the resulting vertical motion of the stylus, known as pinch effect, produces." Furthermore Stephen, your post obfuscates the fact that these effects are inherent in the geometry of existing LPs, which was the point of my post. You tried to divide and conqueror by making a false distinction. We can't fix these geometric effects in most LPs by changing the turntable because legacy LPs are what they are. Note that S888wheel sensibly points out that newer LPs can be cut with a larger inner diameter, reducing these geometric effects to some degree. To a pretty large degree. Before you go deciding that someone must be ignorant or a liar, you might want to listen to what the other person is saying. Stephen, given what you deleted because it undermined your false claims, what I said that you twisted, and what you ignored.... Your post has the classic appearance of a Morien-style hatchet-job, complete with elimination of relevant OP text that disembowels your false claims. Many cheap turntables caused a great deal of damage to inner grooves because they didn't track as well at that angle as better designed ones. Please note that methodologies for designing and building tone arms with minimal inner groove tracking error have been well-known for at least 40 years. Furthermore, it costs little or nothing more to build a tone arm with proper geometry, once even mid-fi price levels are reached. If you think that straight-line tracking is required, consider what the prices of straight line tracking tone arms were in the days when vinyl was king. I was not aware of any mid-fi price leveled linear tracking arms that were actually good though. Linear tracking arms have their own baggage. What inexpensive (mid fi priced) linear tracking arms are out there that aren't dogs? Do you know of any? |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/6/2004 2:03 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 5/6/2004 1:26 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: IME the best sounding LPs were not mastered on metal. I think there is evidence via the product it produces that the current cutting lathe at RTI is superior to any lathe preceding it. That would make for a fairly recent improvement in the state of the art in production. The main new technology at RTI appears to be the "Zuma" Zumaudio cutting computer. Other vinyl mastering labs also seem to have them, and at least one has already come up on the used equipment market. Cutting computers primarily increase the amount of audio you can get on a side. Sound quality benefits are secondary. Zumaudio's web site seems to be in the twilight zone. There is this. Our philosophy is to provide the most transparent audio system possible. Any desired coloration, therefore, may be added by signal processing, not the system itself. In order to fulfill this goal, most of the analog electronics were built from scratch. Our system features custom transformerless, discrete, pure Class-A electronics from tape head to cutterhead. It was designed to retain all of the warmth, punch and detail recorded on your master. That sort of thing is hardly an innovation. It is a means, not an end in itself. I suppose so but if it makes the best product that would make it SOTA. I might add that it seems Steve Hoffman does throw in some tube amplification into the chain to color the sound when he is involved in the mastering. The folks at King Super Analog also do a terrific job of mastering records. Some times the best technologies aren't all that new. Sometimes SOTA comes through refinements of existing technologies. It could be that no inovations have impacted the SOTA in LP mastering for quite some time. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 5/6/2004 1:59 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Stephen Worth wrote: In article , Arny Krueger wrote: You really need to read up on vinyl technology. Loss of high frequencies and dynamic range on the inner grooves of a LP is well-understood You are talking about two different things. Inner groove distortion is what you are talking about. Inner groove wear caused by tracking error is what the previous poster was referring to. The OP said: "In the olden days, they sometimes used to release a single or two before the full album came out, and knew they were hits. They also made turntables which operated correctly, and when you played a record on one of those the inner tracks had no more distortion than the outer tracks, and repeated plays did not spoil the grooves on the innermost tracks. They still make them today. But, then and now, turntables which work correctly are more expensive and harder to set up." It is quite clear that the OP mentioned both inner groove distortion and inner groove wear, not just wear as you've falsely claimed. It's deceptive of you to claim he was talking about only one of these well-known problems. Both are inherent in the basic technology. You tried to cover up the evidence that indicts your false claims by eliminating the OP text. It turns out that both the distortion and the wear are due to the wavelength effects of decreasing radius, among other things. Specifically, inner-groove wear increases because the stylus has effectively become larger, compared to the wavelengths of the undulations in the grooves. Among other things, the larger stylus is more prone to "pinch effect". http://smartdev.com/LT/Align.htm "A tip of finite radius will vary its depth of penetration according to the waveform, hence the changing diameter for an exact fit seen in the diagram; the resulting vertical motion of the stylus, known as pinch effect, produces." Furthermore Stephen, your post obfuscates the fact that these effects are inherent in the geometry of existing LPs, which was the point of my post. You tried to divide and conqueror by making a false distinction. We can't fix these geometric effects in most LPs by changing the turntable because legacy LPs are what they are. Note that S888wheel sensibly points out that newer LPs can be cut with a larger inner diameter, reducing these geometric effects to some degree. To a pretty large degree. Before you go deciding that someone must be ignorant or a liar, you might want to listen to what the other person is saying. Stephen, given what you deleted because it undermined your false claims, what I said that you twisted, and what you ignored.... Your post has the classic appearance of a Morien-style hatchet-job, complete with elimination of relevant OP text that disembowels your false claims. Many cheap turntables caused a great deal of damage to inner grooves because they didn't track as well at that angle as better designed ones. Please note that methodologies for designing and building tone arms with minimal inner groove tracking error have been well-known for at least 40 years. Furthermore, it costs little or nothing more to build a tone arm with proper geometry, once even mid-fi price levels are reached. If you think that straight-line tracking is required, consider what the prices of straight line tracking tone arms were in the days when vinyl was king. I was not aware of any mid-fi price leveled linear tracking arms that were actually good though. Linear tracking arms have their own baggage. What inexpensive (mid fi priced) linear tracking arms are out there that aren't dogs? Do you know of any? Nothing new! Perfectionists like to turn their noses up at the clutch of mid-fi linear-tracking arms, many integrated with turntables, that came out in the late 70s and early 80s. OTOH, many people have reported that they were happy with them. They clearly addressed the geometry problem. Agreed that tracking arms at a wide variety of price levels often introduce serious issues of their own. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 5/6/2004 2:03 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 5/6/2004 1:26 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: IME the best sounding LPs were not mastered on metal. I think there is evidence via the product it produces that the current cutting lathe at RTI is superior to any lathe preceding it. That would make for a fairly recent improvement in the state of the art in production. The main new technology at RTI appears to be the "Zuma" Zumaudio cutting computer. Other vinyl mastering labs also seem to have them, and at least one has already come up on the used equipment market. Cutting computers primarily increase the amount of audio you can get on a side. Sound quality benefits are secondary. Zumaudio's web site seems to be in the twilight zone. There is this. Our philosophy is to provide the most transparent audio system possible. Any desired coloration, therefore, may be added by signal processing, not the system itself. In order to fulfill this goal, most of the analog electronics were built from scratch. Our system features custom transformerless, discrete, pure Class-A electronics from tape head to cutterhead. It was designed to retain all of the warmth, punch and detail recorded on your master. That sort of thing is hardly an innovation. It is a means, not an end in itself. I suppose so but if it makes the best product that would make it SOTA. Different issue. I might add that it seems Steve Hoffman does throw in some tube amplification into the chain to color the sound when he is involved in the mastering. That would be a step back from SOTA. The folks at King Super Analog also do a terrific job of mastering records. Some times the best technologies aren't all that new. There is also the issue of best technologies within a given context. This would be a given context. Sometimes SOTA comes through refinements of existing technologies. I look at the words "SOTA" and see that if you refine a technology, you change waht constitues SOTA. However, at best that constitues a move from old-SOTA to new-SOTA. It could be that no inovations have impacted the SOTA in LP mastering for quite some time. It could be. ;-) |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
"Powell" wrote in message ... Exactly how would a record company know what tracks, if any, the public would come to consider "hits"? It's magic.. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/6/2004 3:16 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 5/6/2004 2:03 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 5/6/2004 1:26 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: IME the best sounding LPs were not mastered on metal. I think there is evidence via the product it produces that the current cutting lathe at RTI is superior to any lathe preceding it. That would make for a fairly recent improvement in the state of the art in production. The main new technology at RTI appears to be the "Zuma" Zumaudio cutting computer. Other vinyl mastering labs also seem to have them, and at least one has already come up on the used equipment market. Cutting computers primarily increase the amount of audio you can get on a side. Sound quality benefits are secondary. Zumaudio's web site seems to be in the twilight zone. There is this. Our philosophy is to provide the most transparent audio system possible. Any desired coloration, therefore, may be added by signal processing, not the system itself. In order to fulfill this goal, most of the analog electronics were built from scratch. Our system features custom transformerless, discrete, pure Class-A electronics from tape head to cutterhead. It was designed to retain all of the warmth, punch and detail recorded on your master. That sort of thing is hardly an innovation. It is a means, not an end in itself. I suppose so but if it makes the best product that would make it SOTA. Different issue. As the threads wind their way sometimes it is hard to keep track of the issue. I was under the presumption that we were discussing improvements in technology for LP playback since the "early days" of LP. I might add that it seems Steve Hoffman does throw in some tube amplification into the chain to color the sound when he is involved in the mastering. That would be a step back from SOTA. I suppose that would be a matter of perspective. If the effect is prefered it would be a step forward I think. The folks at King Super Analog also do a terrific job of mastering records. Some times the best technologies aren't all that new. There is also the issue of best technologies within a given context. This would be a given context. I think the older technology, laquer masters, have wrought better sounding records than the newer technology, metal masters. Sometimes SOTA comes through refinements of existing technologies. I look at the words "SOTA" and see that if you refine a technology, you change waht constitues SOTA. However, at best that constitues a move from old-SOTA to new-SOTA. Agreed It could be that no inovations have impacted the SOTA in LP mastering for quite some time. It could be. ;-) OTOH I think many inovations over the years have improved the sound from the table/arm/cartridge part of LP playback since the early days of LPs. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
S888Wheel wrote:
OTOH I think many inovations over the years have improved the sound from the table/arm/cartridge part of LP playback since the early days of LPs. I remember listening to LPs about 4 years after they were introduced. To say that the sound quality of playback equipment improved since then is a gross understatement. IMO, the rate of improvement was fairly decent until the early 70s. There was then a long dry spell in significant improvements of front-end quality until CDs came out. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
"Arny Krueger" wrote I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation. Exactly how would a record company know what tracks, if any, the public would come to consider "hits"? That is one reason why they pay record company execuitives the big bucks. Please define..."record company execuitives?" How would you identify this role in a large or small company? The "big bucks" metaphor, I already know... *prejudiced view and intolerant of those enjoying greater financial success over Arny K.*. Do you think record producers are psychic or what? No, but they often have an *ear* for hits. Yes, sometimes that’s relevant. Other times it’s not relevant to the product’s success. There is a multitude of factors to consider and individual “hits” is way down the list. Money and management are first on any companies survival list. No record producing company makes a living surviving off “hits.” It’s a pitty you never took any business classes in pre-engineering school. You wouldn’t be spending your days planted like a flower in front of your CRT  .How come some albums don't have any hits... didn't they know that, too? Stuff gets released against some people's better judgment. How could you possibly know (empirical) the politics of marketing and production dynamics? For your edification two books: This Business of Music, the definitive guide to the music industry, 588 pages ($30). Legal Aspects of the Music Industry, an insider’s view of the legal and practical aspects of the music business, 494 pages ($30). |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
In article , Arny Krueger
wrote: It is quite clear that the OP mentioned both inner groove distortion and inner groove wear, not just wear as you've falsely claimed. It's deceptive of you to claim he was talking about only one of these well-known problems. Both are inherent in the basic technology. You tried to cover up the evidence that indicts your false claims by eliminating the OP text. Good lord! You are a clown masquerading as a lawyer! I was agreeing with you that some records had problems with inner grooves independent of wear. But that doesn't mean that all records have inner groove problems. If side timings are kept to a reasonable length, and the groove pitch is well judged, there is no difference between the inner and outer grooves. And if a good turntable is aligned properly, you can play this record a thousand times with no real difference in wear between the inner and outer grooves. Feel free to bluster and pontificate though. I enjoy it. See ya Steve -- *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound 20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/ ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
In article , George M.
Middius wrote: Stephen, meet the Krooborg. Don't waste your time trying to "fix" him. He's broken and he's going to stay that way. I like him. He's silly! See ya Steve -- *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound 20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/ ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
|
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
|
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 5/6/2004 4:28 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: OTOH I think many innovations over the years have improved the sound from the table/arm/cartridge part of LP playback since the early days of LPs. I remember listening to LPs about 4 years after they were introduced. To say that the sound quality of playback equipment improved since then is a gross understatement. IMO, the rate of improvement was fairly decent until the early 70s. What was SOTA in the early seventies? There was no agreement. I still had the TD-125 I bought in the late 60s all through the 70s and into the 80s. While there were new models, most if not of its innovations and refinements had been picked up by others. The AR table? Not hardly. It was a child of the 60s, and by the 70s it was clearly obsolete. I bought my first one around 1965. Its arm was falling behind cartridge technology by 1969. What cartridge? Again, it depended who and what you believed. Shure was flogging the V-15 series quite successfully. I had several. The ADC XLM was impressing some people. I had one. MC cartridges were becoming more popular. What arm? Again, who to believe, what to believe? I had a 3009II, but it was not the latest-greatest any more. That is way before my time. I got into it around 83. Then the Goldmund Reference was state of the art. That was superceded by the Versa Dynamics 2.0. IMO a pretty noticeable improvement. In what sense? Then the Rockport then the Forsell. Each a noticeable improvement over the one before it. In what sense? These tables all pretty much all kill the old AR tables. The AR turntable was always a value play, not a SOTA play. It was a rehash of earlier technology. Weathers did a clock-motor lightweight turntable in the late 50s. Empire had done a turntable with a soft damped suspension and hidden separate platform for the table and arm (598) a few years earlier. The AR arm was never all that good - it had friction problems. The charm of the AR TT was its price, which initially started at just over $50, which was also the street price of Garrard's second-most-expensive changer. You could have a Garrard AT-6 or a AR TT for about the same money. The Garrard rumbled, had a stiff, undamped suspension and tinny chassis, and was actually a cheaper model with fancier arm, turntable overlay, and trim. Dual was still finding their niche. The first changer they exported was a sight to see. Quirky is an understatement. The cartridge retracted and the tone arm rode over the turntable on little wheels looking for the edge of the record. If it didn't find the edge of the record it presumed the record was 12". It had only a 10" TT platter. Due to the mechanical complexity it was not the most reliable thing. The competitive Miracord changers looked great but rumbled, fluttered and had questionable tone arms. Empire sold a lot of massive turntables for far higher prices, but their massive tonearms were not well-suited for high-compliance cartridges. Phillips had a neat-looking turntable in the late 60s called the GA-312 that was sort of a low-priced mass-produced clone of the TD-125. There was also the Lenco turntable that looked cool, but had a high-friction arm. People were still buying Rek-O-Kut turntables which hadn't changed much since the 50s. Arms by ESL and B&O were seen around. Japanese arms were not being imported in large volumes until the early 70s. ADC did not come out with the Pritchard arm until then. I replaced my AR with a TD-125 in the late 60s and I was very happy with the combination for over 10 years. Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes with these more modern tables? I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens TD-125. The only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the TD-125's introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped records to try to flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything like broad application. The soft but well-damped suspension, belt drive, electronic speed control, low rumble, low flutter and wow, were all there in the late 60s. As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago. Appropriate miniature low-friction bearings were and are off-the-shelf items. The big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published before-and-after frequency response curves showing that there were resonances in the best earlier designs that the big-tube design eliminated? |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/7/2004 1:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 5/6/2004 4:28 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: OTOH I think many innovations over the years have improved the sound from the table/arm/cartridge part of LP playback since the early days of LPs. I remember listening to LPs about 4 years after they were introduced. To say that the sound quality of playback equipment improved since then is a gross understatement. IMO, the rate of improvement was fairly decent until the early 70s. What was SOTA in the early seventies? There was no agreement. I still had the TD-125 I bought in the late 60s all through the 70s and into the 80s. While there were new models, most if not of its innovations and refinements had been picked up by others. The AR table? Not hardly. It was a child of the 60s, and by the 70s it was clearly obsolete. I bought my first one around 1965. Its arm was falling behind cartridge technology by 1969. What cartridge? Again, it depended who and what you believed. Shure was flogging the V-15 series quite successfully. I had several. The ADC XLM was impressing some people. I had one. MC cartridges were becoming more popular. What arm? Again, who to believe, what to believe? I had a 3009II, but it was not the latest-greatest any more. That is way before my time. I got into it around 83. Then the Goldmund Reference was state of the art. That was superceded by the Versa Dynamics 2.0. IMO a pretty noticeable improvement. In what sense? The major technical difference between the two table/arm systems was the use of low tolarance high preasure bearings and a vacuum clamp in the Versa. They already shared advancements in damped sprung suspensions tuned to a very low frequency along with inovations use of materials to create plinths and platters that were both very stiff and dead. The sonic difference between the two IME was a noticable reduction in colorations that I thought were inherent in the medium. Groove noise was reduced, Loud passages became uncongested and efforless. The dynamics were better. So much of the typical vinyl colorations were reduced to the point of apparent removal in comparison to the Goldmund or any other table I had heard. Then the Rockport then the Forsell. Each a noticeable improvement over the one before it. In what sense? From the Versa to the Rockport the big technical differences were the suspension,the Rockport settled on an active pneumatic suspension, and the drive system, The Rockport pretty much rethought the whole idea of driving a platter. The drive system in the Rockport is very sophisticated and very inovative. The Rockport took the use of materials for the purpose of creating a system that maximized stiffness and vibrational inertness to higher levels as well. The audible improvement was one of further refinement of all the things the Versa did well along with the elimination of the brightness that could be heard with the Versa. That was the Versa's one distinguishable audible problem. From the Rockport to the Forsell, I am at a loss to talk about technical "improvements." On paper the Forsell looks inferior to me. But in a direct head to head comparison the Forsell took the Rockport to the cleaners. The Forsell had the same reduction of colorations associated with vinyl playback that the Rockport had but it was richer, warmer, livelier and simply more realistic and beautiful sounding than the Rockport. Why? I dunno. The one thing it did not do as well as the Rockport was handle loud complex passages as effortlessly. I found that a suspension system took care of this one problem quite effectively. These tables all pretty much all kill the old AR tables. The AR turntable was always a value play, not a SOTA play. It was a rehash of earlier technology. Weathers did a clock-motor lightweight turntable in the late 50s. Empire had done a turntable with a soft damped suspension and hidden separate platform for the table and arm (598) a few years earlier. The AR arm was never all that good - it had friction problems. The charm of the AR TT was its price, which initially started at just over $50, which was also the street price of Garrard's second-most-expensive changer. You could have a Garrard AT-6 or a AR TT for about the same money. The Garrard rumbled, had a stiff, undamped suspension and tinny chassis, and was actually a cheaper model with fancier arm, turntable overlay, and trim. Dual was still finding their niche. The first changer they exported was a sight to see. Quirky is an understatement. The cartridge retracted and the tone arm rode over the turntable on little wheels looking for the edge of the record. If it didn't find the edge of the record it presumed the record was 12". It had only a 10" TT platter. Due to the mechanical complexity it was not the most reliable thing. The competitive Miracord changers looked great but rumbled, fluttered and had questionable tone arms. Empire sold a lot of massive turntables for far higher prices, but their massive tonearms were not well-suited for high-compliance cartridges. Phillips had a neat-looking turntable in the late 60s called the GA-312 that was sort of a low-priced mass-produced clone of the TD-125. There was also the Lenco turntable that looked cool, but had a high-friction arm. People were still buying Rek-O-Kut turntables which hadn't changed much since the 50s. Arms by ESL and B&O were seen around. Japanese arms were not being imported in large volumes until the early 70s. ADC did not come out with the Pritchard arm until then. I replaced my AR with a TD-125 in the late 60s and I was very happy with the combination for over 10 years. Well. thank you for the history lesson. When I got into hifi I never really paid much attention to the older equipment. Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes with these more modern tables? I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens TD-125. That would make for an interesting test. If I had access to such a table I would happily make a CD-R with it and my with my Forsell for comparisons. I think the improvement would prove to be quite dramatic. The only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the TD-125's introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped records to try to flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything like broad application. The soft but well-damped suspension, belt drive, electronic speed control, low rumble, low flutter and wow, were all there in the late 60s. I think air bearings are a substantial technological advance. I think suspension systems have advanced substantially as well. That is easily measured. I think the use of materials to reduce internal resonances is also a substantial advancement. The improvement in motor/platter isolation is also pretty big. But the proof is in the listening. As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago. Appropriate miniature low-friction bearings were and are off-the-shelf items. Low friction compared to an air bearing? The big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published before-and-after frequency response curves showing that there were resonances in the best earlier designs that the big-tube design eliminated? How about compared to the modern arms? |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 5/7/2004 1:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes with these more modern tables? I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens TD-125. That would make for an interesting test. If I had access to such a table I would happily make a CD-R with it and my with my Forsell for comparisons. I think the improvement would prove to be quite dramatic. The most important thing would be to get the two turntables running at the same speed. You can fix even speed in the digital domain, but it's far and away the iffiest of the available adjustments. Other than that time matching and level matching are easy enough to get a tight comparison. The only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the TD-125's introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped records to try to flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything like broad application. The soft but well-damped suspension, belt drive, electronic speed control, low rumble, low flutter and wow, were all there in the late 60s. I think air bearings are a substantial technological advance. They sound like a great idea, but like straight line tonearms, they introduce their own quirks to the system. The air is not perfectly silent as it flows. Air bearings generally have to have large areas which drives up the mass of tone arms. I think suspension systems have advanced substantially as well. That is easily measured. I think the use of materials to reduce internal resonance's is also a substantial advancement. The improvement in motor/platter isolation is also pretty big. But the proof is in the listening. Agreed. The proof can be refined and analyzed by means of measuring. I've measured effects related to turntables and other components and then gone back to the listening test, and asked myself if I can hear that thing that I'm measuring but didn't notice yet. If the listening test is a DBT any imaginary artifacts wash out in the statistics. Therefore, the listener can imagine his heart away, without fear of false positives. As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago. Appropriate miniature low-friction bearings were and are off-the-shelf items. Low friction compared to an air bearing? Low enough. When the arm moves around there are also changes in stylus pressure due to the mass, not just friction. The big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published before-and-after frequency response curves showing that there were resonance's in the best earlier designs that the big-tube design eliminated? How about compared to the modern arms? That's what I mean - there seems to be a trend for modern arms to use large tubes and tapered tubes for the main part of the arm. Looks cool, satisfies intuitive engineering, but what does it do in the real world? |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/7/2004 2:40 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 5/7/2004 1:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes with these more modern tables? I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens TD-125. That would make for an interesting test. If I had access to such a table I would happily make a CD-R with it and my with my Forsell for comparisons. I think the improvement would prove to be quite dramatic. The most important thing would be to get the two turntables running at the same speed. You can fix even speed in the digital domain, but it's far and away the iffiest of the available adjustments. Other than that time matching and level matching are easy enough to get a tight comparison. The Forsell allows for very precise speed adjustments. I cannot speak for any of the Thorens tables. Level matching is a bit tricky. I suppose recording some test tones would be the best way. The only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the TD-125's introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped records to try to flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything like broad application. The soft but well-damped suspension, belt drive, electronic speed control, low rumble, low flutter and wow, were all there in the late 60s. I think air bearings are a substantial technological advance. They sound like a great idea, but like straight line tonearms, they introduce their own quirks to the system. The air is not perfectly silent as it flows. Air bearings generally have to have large areas which drives up the mass of tone arms. Agreed. Air bearing tone arms are not simple to design well. I think suspension systems have advanced substantially as well. That is easily measured. I think the use of materials to reduce internal resonance's is also a substantial advancement. The improvement in motor/platter isolation is also pretty big. But the proof is in the listening. Agreed. The proof can be refined and analyzed by means of measuring. I've measured effects related to turntables and other components and then gone back to the listening test, and asked myself if I can hear that thing that I'm measuring but didn't notice yet. If the listening test is a DBT any imaginary artifacts wash out in the statistics. Therefore, the listener can imagine his heart away, without fear of false positives. A fair subjective test would one in which the listener does not know what the sources are. But I must say, even in sighted listening comparisons my ears were not always in agreement with my expectations or my biases. As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago. Appropriate miniature low-friction bearings were and are off-the-shelf items. Low friction compared to an air bearing? Low enough. When the arm moves around there are also changes in stylus pressure due to the mass, not just friction. The big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published before-and-after frequency response curves showing that there were resonance's in the best earlier designs that the big-tube design eliminated? How about compared to the modern arms? That's what I mean - there seems to be a trend for modern arms to use large tubes and tapered tubes for the main part of the arm. Looks cool, satisfies intuitive engineering, but what does it do in the real world? My arm uses a pretty thin tube made of laminated carbon fiber. I like what I hear. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
Scott Wheeler wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 5/7/2004 2:40 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 5/7/2004 1:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes with these more modern tables? I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens TD-125. That would make for an interesting test. If I had access to such a table I would happily make a CD-R with it and my with my Forsell for comparisons. I think the improvement would prove to be quite dramatic. The most important thing would be to get the two turntables running at the same speed. You can fix even speed in the digital domain, but it's far and away the iffiest of the available adjustments. Other than that time matching and level matching are easy enough to get a tight comparison. The Forsell allows for very precise speed adjustments. I cannot speak for any of the Thorens tables. Level matching is a bit tricky. I suppose recording some test tones would be the best way. As far as trying to compare 2 turntables running at exactly the same speed, there are also several electronic speed controllers, made by both VPI and Walker, that can be used in tandem with most AC synchronous motors and that have a range of adjustments. While definitely not SOTA, I use a VPI PLC (power line conditioner/electronic speed controller) on my Aries, and while I haven't conducted any measurements, it definitely sounds better *with* the appropriate speed "dialed in" (approximately) than when leaving it to chance and/or the vagaries of the current feeding the table. Of course, VPI makes a newer, more sophisticated electronic controller, the SDS, that is reported to provide even greater subjective improvements in the experience of most listeners. The only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the TD-125's introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped records to try to flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything like broad application. The soft but well-damped suspension, belt drive, electronic speed control, low rumble, low flutter and wow, were all there in the late 60s. I think air bearings are a substantial technological advance. They sound like a great idea, but like straight line tonearms, they introduce their own quirks to the system. The air is not perfectly silent as it flows. Air bearings generally have to have large areas which drives up the mass of tone arms. Agreed. Air bearing tone arms are not simple to design well. Also agreed. I had an Eminent Technology 2.5 air-bearing linear tracking arm for a while, and it performed quite well. But it was quite massive, and the pump was fairly noisy, so there are some tradeoffs sometimes involved. The ET, at least (still in production) also requires a relatively sturdy platform and is not hard to mount on VPI's, but would be more problematic perhaps on a spring suspension turntable or one providing a less stable platform. I think suspension systems have advanced substantially as well. That is easily measured. I think the use of materials to reduce internal resonance's is also a substantial advancement. The improvement in motor/platter isolation is also pretty big. But the proof is in the listening. Agreed. The proof can be refined and analyzed by means of measuring. I've measured effects related to turntables and other components and then gone back to the listening test, and asked myself if I can hear that thing that I'm measuring but didn't notice yet. If the listening test is a DBT any imaginary artifacts wash out in the statistics. Therefore, the listener can imagine his heart away, without fear of false positives. A fair subjective test would one in which the listener does not know what the sources are. But I must say, even in sighted listening comparisons my ears were not always in agreement with my expectations or my biases. As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago. Appropriate miniature low-friction bearings were and are off-the-shelf items. Low friction compared to an air bearing? Low enough. When the arm moves around there are also changes in stylus pressure due to the mass, not just friction. The big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published before-and-after frequency response curves showing that there were resonance's in the best earlier designs that the big-tube design eliminated? How about compared to the modern arms? That's what I mean - there seems to be a trend for modern arms to use large tubes and tapered tubes for the main part of the arm. Looks cool, satisfies intuitive engineering, but what does it do in the real world? My arm uses a pretty thin tube made of laminated carbon fiber. I like what I hear. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
"Paul Dormer" wrote No record producing company makes a living surviving off "hits." Ever heard of Stock, Aitken and Waterman.... aka "The Hit Factory"? Thank you. Interesting article below. http://www.cafe80s.freeserve.co.uk/interv/saw05.htm |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??
"Powell" wrote in message ... "Doc" wrote I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation. Exactly how would a record company know what tracks, if any, the public would come to consider "hits"? Do you think record producers are psychic or what? How come some albums don't have any hits... didn't they know that, too? you dont need to be psychic. 'hits' are a formula. i can tell (i being no one special, exept a guy with too many records) if a song will be a 'hit' after hearing it twice. when it fits the formula (wich im sure we could come up with if we spent some time talking instead of flaming) and is marketed right (agressively), it WILL be a hit. |
Linear Mode
