Crap. This is some audiophile nonsense imo.

Most of what you get from the higher speed is in the higher frequencies. Considering our average ages and the normal high-frequency hearing loss that comes with it compounded with our musical backgrounds that probably includes a youth (and many of us our current middle-age) spent going to and being in loud bands, in some cases with the best protection (if any) being wads of toilet paper from the Fireside bathroom stuffed in your ears, maybe you'll all forgive me if I think you're fooling yourself a bit in thinking that there's a practical reason to press at 45. Maybe you can hear the difference. Maybe you've convinced yourself you can. IDK. If you're not spending at least 20k on your audio cables though, probably not. Coincidentally I'm starting to make my own having gotten my hands on the Coconuts Audio formula and making improvements. I'm happy to take orders. PM me. I also have some special crystals to put on your dust cover too that are guaranteed to make your records sound more "open" and "full."

Anyway I have serious doubts that anything that's measurably "better" always translates into a dramatic listening difference. 33 cuts that are a reasonable length cut to each side that were processed by competent personnel throughout the process are absolutely great.

penningtron wrote:

DaveA wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2023 6:34 am Technically case by case, but in most instances, the implication with a 45rpm LP is that it'll be all-analog/AAA, sourced from the original tapes (if available).

AAA records are pretty rare now. However, the digital steps of the process are almost never below 24 bits at this point, often beyond 44.1kHz with converters that may go beyond even that. The processes involving the record itself: multi step stamper process, the EQ/summing involved in the cut itself, the RIAA playback curve, a billion variables in peoples' turntable setups, etc. are changing the sound more than the digital steps in the process.

Fair point, but I have more than a few recent LPs, at both 45rpm and 33rpm, that are AAA. This includes reissues of classics as well as newer music. Where the latter's concerned, I would tend to assume that most bands that are still recording to tape circa 2023--which is great--would know the value/upshot of staying within the analog domain. Sure, if the multi-track tapes and maybe the mixdown of an album are in analog and sound good to begin with, but this is all transferred to digital, it's not gonna ruin the vinyl experience, probably, but going that extra mile will usually exhaust any doubts about having aimed for the best fidelity. Unless it's somehow irresponsibly mastered or manufactured after that. Which I'll concede can happen.

Anyway, it's funny to see some people here characterize this as snake oil in the manner of TWEAKS! Woulda thought it'd be common knowledge that songs playing on a 45rpm 12" with more space between the grooves and the songs placed more toward the outer circumference of a record would make for better fidelity, but apparently not. I guess a double blind test with a sample size large enough to fill a football stadium would help, but then again, maybe not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

DaveA wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:28 am

penningtron wrote:

DaveA wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2023 6:34 am Technically case by case, but in most instances, the implication with a 45rpm LP is that it'll be all-analog/AAA, sourced from the original tapes (if available).

AAA records are pretty rare now. However, the digital steps of the process are almost never below 24 bits at this point, often beyond 44.1kHz with converters that may go beyond even that. The processes involving the record itself: multi step stamper process, the EQ/summing involved in the cut itself, the RIAA playback curve, a billion variables in peoples' turntable setups, etc. are changing the sound more than the digital steps in the process.

Fair point, but I have more than a few recent LPs, at both 45rpm and 33rpm, that are AAA. This includes reissues of classics as well as newer music. Where the latter's concerned, I would tend to assume that most bands that are still recording to tape circa 2023--which is great--would know the value/upshot of staying within the analog domain.

Do you know that for sure? I know for at least the first 5 years of Chicago Mastering Service's existence that every vinyl project they did went into a computer, whether it was recorded to tape or handheld recorder or was a Slint or Jesus Lizard reissue from the original master tapes. I think they've since added the ability to do an all analog pass, but it comes with limitations, and after weighing the pros and cons, most of those projects still likely go through a computer. Abbey Road/Sterling Sound mastering works the same way. Things like the Shellac LPs are a rare exception..

DaveA wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:28 am Anyway, it's funny to see some people here characterize this as snake oil in the manner of TWEAKS! Woulda thought it'd be common knowledge that songs playing on a 45rpm 12" with more space between the grooves and the songs placed more toward the outer circumference of a record would make for better fidelity, but apparently not. I guess a double blind test with a sample size large enough to fill a football stadium would help, but then again, maybe not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I was absolutely being snarky by equating this process to TWEAKS, sorry if I struck a nerve (but also yes, I will HAPPILY take money, slide into PMs for special crystals that absolutely were not pilfered from the nickel bin at the rock shop in Galesburg. Again, yes there are actual measurable results that show better higher frequency response by cutting to 45. Do I believe that anyone can actually hear the difference if only because of the reasons I stated? Ehn, please excuse my skepticism. About the furthest I'm willing to go is "yes I believe some folks can hear the difference but a well cut 33 can sound so good, I have a LOT of doubt that 45 could somehow increase the listening enjoyment beyond that."

Equating them to tweaks is that if you are told "this is better" and puts up a chart that shows it by someone in an authoritative manner it goes a long ways to sounding better at least in your head...and I guess who am I to argue that? Better is better, right?

penningtron wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:38 amDo you know that for sure?

Not having been in the room when they were mastered, no. But I have more than a few LPs done at Abbey Road, as well as some UHQR/Analogue Productions releases.

Would I feel betrayed or lose sleep upon learning something I'd thought was done in AAA had in fact had a step in digital? No. At this point, probably not.

Garth wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:55 amI was absolutely being snarky by equating this process to TWEAKS

It's fine. I figured as much.

DaveA wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:56 am

penningtron wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:38 amDo you know that for sure?

Not having been in the room when they were mastered, no. But I have more than a few LPs done at Abbey Road, as well as some UHQR/Analogue Productions releases.

Would I feel betrayed or lose sleep upon learning something I'd thought was done in AAA had in fact had a step in digital? No. At this point, probably not.

On that note.. I forget the company that was somewhat recently exposed for making misleading claims about their "all analog" pressings. And yeah looking up the UHQR thing was about what I expected: super expensive pressings of Kind of Blue and Steely Dan records. I'm sure those did go thru the AAA process but that is literally a dozen titles out of the thousands of newly issued LPs that get released every year.

More importantly, analog (or tape) doesn't automatically equal better. The reason Bob wasn't in a hurry to do all analog cuts at CMS is because their converters are very high quality, and some of the tools available in the digital domain are integral to their cutting process.

penningtron wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2023 9:16 am On that note.. I forget the company that was somewhat recently exposed for making misleading claims about their "all analog" pressings.

MoFi (mentioned above). Lost a pretty big lawsuit.

jfv wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2023 6:58 am

zorg wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2023 3:04 am The main sonic degrader, surface noise, certainly would only be worsened as there is more scratches and dust that you can fit in per minute. I'm not an audiophile, but the other options (digital) must be perfectly suitable by now, especially as I'd have to guess most of these pressings are not promising the lack of a digital intermediary in the recording/mixing/mastering process anyways.

Regarding more scratches per minute, isn’t an issue if one is taking care of their records. If they are not, then yeah, they should stick to digital.

I get that people spending $100 on an album are probably careful, but c'mon, it's a relevant side effect to something that is supposedly evidently superior, you have more surface...thus more surface noise. It's a simple equation. I'm sure you're right, it is negligible, but it's one more thing negating the sonic upgrade. A traditional LP seems to me to be successfully splitting the difference between reason and quality as format.

I’m a fan of the EP format, and 12” 45’s have always been ok in my book. I’m not enough of an audiophile or a vinyl fetishist to justify the expense or the waste of material of making a full-length out of two 12” 45’s. Just seems silly to me. I’ll vote crap.