Just a suggestion -
As you are specifying the purpose of the pressing and that therefore you require a high quality pressing, the pressing plants could provide their specifications on their quote.
This way, you can compare the different quotes (assuming more than one quote is obtained) and use this information to base the purchasing decision.
This might be simpler than arbitrarily picking parameters for the specification that might not be achievable.
Is there a target price for this test LP?
As you are specifying the purpose of the pressing and that therefore you require a high quality pressing, the pressing plants could provide their specifications on their quote.
This way, you can compare the different quotes (assuming more than one quote is obtained) and use this information to base the purchasing decision.
This might be simpler than arbitrarily picking parameters for the specification that might not be achievable.
Is there a target price for this test LP?
Couple of things:
Firstly, added a link to our tracklist to the Plant / Mastering letter as it's likely to be relevant.
Second: we have only 11 min 53 sec. total runtime... that means we could shoot for a 45rpm 12".
Third: Instead of blank space between tracks we could do what's called a Locked Groove or even a Roulette record. See the description below (Taken from Aardvark Mastering, original here)
Like the double groove records, but with between 4 and 40 distinct tracks interlaced. Times have to be equal for each groove. See the chart for times and groove ranges.
Also, take a look at Aardvark's Mastering info.
And their "Apollo Masters"
Fourth: Sent out some emails to mastering houses to see what their two cents is. Also, I encouraged them to contribute to the conversation here if they should choose. Might be informative to us all.
Firstly, added a link to our tracklist to the Plant / Mastering letter as it's likely to be relevant.
Second: we have only 11 min 53 sec. total runtime... that means we could shoot for a 45rpm 12".
Third: Instead of blank space between tracks we could do what's called a Locked Groove or even a Roulette record. See the description below (Taken from Aardvark Mastering, original here)
Like the double groove records, but with between 4 and 40 distinct tracks interlaced. Times have to be equal for each groove. See the chart for times and groove ranges.
Also, take a look at Aardvark's Mastering info.
And their "Apollo Masters"
Fourth: Sent out some emails to mastering houses to see what their two cents is. Also, I encouraged them to contribute to the conversation here if they should choose. Might be informative to us all.
That's side A. Side B is currently at 10 mins. See the second tab of the spreadsheet.
Agreed!! (45 sounds better.)
I would've thought the ultimate Test LP being discussed here should have 1 side at 33 and the other at 45. There should be an anti-skate track in the middle of each side, so we can investigate whether bias needs to be increased at 45 ... compared to 33.
Andy
I agree. If you want the tests to be meaningful, they should be done at the proper playing speed. Somehow I can't see how setting a cartridge and table up at 45 RPM is useful when most of the material will be 33 1/3 rpm.
The idea of a second record at 45 rpm was to be part of the set was floated early on. I'm not opposed to that at all. The primary tests would be done at 33 1/3 rpm.
-Chris
The idea of a second record at 45 rpm was to be part of the set was floated early on. I'm not opposed to that at all. The primary tests would be done at 33 1/3 rpm.
-Chris
Yes, the primary tests would be done at 33 1/3 rpm.
However, I suggest it is worth being able to try "anti-skate buzzing" tests at 45rpm, just to see if the higher speed requires a different (I would suggest higher) anti-skate setting.
Andy
Hi Andy,
My Thorens tables indicate a different setting for 45 rpm.
I thought the best way to set anti-skating was with a tone and balance the channels for level. This force is said to vary depending on modulation of the grooves. I read that somewhere way back in the mists of time.
-Chris
My Thorens tables indicate a different setting for 45 rpm.
I thought the best way to set anti-skating was with a tone and balance the channels for level. This force is said to vary depending on modulation of the grooves. I read that somewhere way back in the mists of time.
-Chris
That's very interesting. I've always had a gut feel that the higher speed probably required a higher anti-skate setting ... but I've never seen anyone actually suggest this.
Yes, the amount of anti-skate required depends on the modulation of the grooves. Hence the Test LPs that I have, play a tone at increasing dB levels - the idea being at a higher level, your cart may start buzzing ... so you can adjust anti-skate accordingly. But of course, your cart's suspension may not be able to track the highest-level track, irrespective of your anti-skate setting!
I haven't heard that you set anti-skate by balancing the R & L levels - presumably, you need a CRO for this? (If so, I'll try it out!
)Andy
Hi Andy,
I've never bothered to set it that closely. I'm not sure how much it would vary with level, so I view an anti-skating adjustment as an approximation. With the Thorens tables, I normally set anti-skating at the level recommended on the (factory) tonearm label.
I can just see someone all set up with a 'scope getting frustrated with how much it does change with level. It would be a good experiment. You would need a mono track for this.
-Chris
I've never bothered to set it that closely. I'm not sure how much it would vary with level, so I view an anti-skating adjustment as an approximation. With the Thorens tables, I normally set anti-skating at the level recommended on the (factory) tonearm label.
I can just see someone all set up with a 'scope getting frustrated with how much it does change with level. It would be a good experiment. You would need a mono track for this.
-Chris
What are the benefits that a 45rpm 12” give us, related to the purposes of the test record?
They are considered better fidelity, but my understanding is they were used for dance singles because they could be cut at increased loudness. What other benefits does the groove width provide?
How would that translate into improved performance in this situation?
In other words, why?
From: Chicago Mastering Service--CD and Vinyl Mastering Facility in Chicago, IL
12" @33 1/3 RPM:
OPTIMAL - 16 to 20 minutes per side
MAXIMUM - 25 minutes per side
12" @45 RPM:
OPTIMAL - 6 to 12 minutes per side
MAXIMUM - 15 minutes per side
So, we are good for both sides at 45rpm within optimal range, according to this mastering company.
However it would seem sensible to have one side at each speed setting for good measure.
They are considered better fidelity, but my understanding is they were used for dance singles because they could be cut at increased loudness. What other benefits does the groove width provide?
How would that translate into improved performance in this situation?
In other words, why?
From: Chicago Mastering Service--CD and Vinyl Mastering Facility in Chicago, IL
12" @33 1/3 RPM:
OPTIMAL - 16 to 20 minutes per side
MAXIMUM - 25 minutes per side
12" @45 RPM:
OPTIMAL - 6 to 12 minutes per side
MAXIMUM - 15 minutes per side
So, we are good for both sides at 45rpm within optimal range, according to this mastering company.
However it would seem sensible to have one side at each speed setting for good measure.
Last edited:
Status update:
Replied to GZ
Replied to GottaGroove (Matt has been insightful and helpful)
Replied to QRP
Dialogue is in the group buy gmail account I set up. Pano and some others have access. If you’d like to provide specific input or see some of the convo just pm me... would be much too confusing to string it all into the thread.
We are getting close to some real numbers and quotes based upon our requests. QRP seems open to putting specs within their capability into our contract. Gave them access to track lists for review as this may play a role.
I think it sensible now to keep the stamper and pressing under one roof, to ensure that either can’t blame the other for variances and the same technician can hopefully oversee the process from start to finish.
Replied to GZ
Replied to GottaGroove (Matt has been insightful and helpful)
Replied to QRP
Dialogue is in the group buy gmail account I set up. Pano and some others have access. If you’d like to provide specific input or see some of the convo just pm me... would be much too confusing to string it all into the thread.
We are getting close to some real numbers and quotes based upon our requests. QRP seems open to putting specs within their capability into our contract. Gave them access to track lists for review as this may play a role.
I think it sensible now to keep the stamper and pressing under one roof, to ensure that either can’t blame the other for variances and the same technician can hopefully oversee the process from start to finish.