When you think about it, a really cool, higher rez, greater dynamic range variation on the LP would have been a 16" dia. 45 rpm format. Think about it--the gear and production methods were in place in the '50s through the '70s, but as far as I know, no one attempted to put the faster playback speed on the bigger format. Radio stations had turntables that played 16" transcription records. That's why 12" tonearms were sort of a broadcast standard--to span those big platters. 45 rpm on a 16" disc would have given about 20 minutes per side, the 12" arm would have minimized tracking angle error deviations, and the larger diameter and faster speed would have reduced or eliminated dynamic problems as the groove neared the center. BTW, at a record show last weekend I picked up a direct to disc 45 rpm of Laurinda Almeida with a backing combo. Stunning sound. The music is dated '70s-sounding in places, but sonically it's the best in the house now. |
33 = Long Play => same idea as you video camera long play or photo image sixe "small" on your camera (basically compressed). Before CD arrived I used to buy everything I liked and could get my hands on in 45 RPM format for this very reason. Night and day in my mind. Although individually you can get some really great 33's and some reallt bad 45's - so you can't completely generalize... |
Osgorth has answered this well from my experience. The 45 rpm disc, all else being equal, moves a fairly significant step closer to what I would expect from the sound of the master tape: higher resolution, better image focus, improved clarity on the inner grooves. I hear this over and over again on the LPs I've compared where I have both a 33 rpm and a 45 rpm of the same material from the same mastering engineer. For a quick discussion of why, read the comments from mastering engineer Kevin Gray at Music Matters. . |
