45rpm vs 33rpm - quality? - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- 45rpm vs 33rpm - quality?

Posted by DJ_Hailstone on Jan-05-2005 13:30:

45rpm vs 33rpm - quality?

Is there a difference between 45rpm and 33rpm in quality?

I bought Oakenfold - Southern Sun/Ready Steady Go 2x12"
http://www.discogs.com/release/50822
theres 2 tracks on each side of vinyls, so it must be pressed with 33rpm speed.
Another release of Southern Sun 2x12"
http://www.discogs.com/release/65254
has only 1 track on each side of vinyl. So it has 45rpm I guess.

So which release is better? When 45rpm isnt better quality, I think its better to take the first release, right? You have more remixes at almost same price.

Posted by Sunnyside on Jan-05-2005 14:07:

As far as I know, the grooves are cut deeper on 45rpm vinyl. 33rpm the grooves are shallower, which allows for greater track length - usually done when the track's been made slightly too long to fit on a 45rpm pressing or there are two tunes on one side (always a bonus)

I prefer 45's though - louder and more dynamic.

Posted by Sunnyside on Jan-05-2005 14:09:

Sorry - to answer your question, I believe 45rpm pressings are of higher quality.

Posted by dukes on Jan-05-2005 14:12:

45 is better sound quality....BUT....who cares get the one you want more. its the whole point of getting records. get what you want and love and fuck everything else!

Posted by Jake Conlon on Jan-05-2005 15:31:

33rpm record with two mixes on one side are usually poor quality the first record is good but then due to groove distortion the hiend of the second record sounds crap...perfect example the b-side of coldharbour selection vol.1 solidglobe sahara sounds brilliant but then indian hasshish sounds crap.

Posted by Tegu on Jan-05-2005 16:58:

yep, 45 has better sound quality

Posted by DannyO on Jan-05-2005 17:21:

Basically, at 45rpm there is more information passin under the needle at one time compared to at 33rpm, and so since theres more information you then get a better sounding track, think of it as bitrate, like 33rpm is 128K and 45rpm is 192k (I know thats not what there equivalent to, but you get the picture).

Posted by DJ_Hailstone on Jan-05-2005 17:26:

quote:
Originally posted by DannyO
Basically, at 45rpm there is more information passin under the needle at one time compared to at 33rpm, and so since theres more information you then get a better sounding track, think of it as bitrate, like 33rpm is 128K and 45rpm is 192k (I know thats not what there equivalent to, but you get the picture).

This is what I think too, but also, doesnt the 33rpm have so good quality, so it can be better?

I mean, vinyl has good quality because of analog source, not for speed. Maybe at 33rpm are passing the same information, only at 45rpm is the sound more "stretched".

Posted by DannyO on Jan-05-2005 20:11:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ_Hailstone
This is what I think too, but also, doesnt the 33rpm have so good quality, so it can be better?

I mean, vinyl has good quality because of analog source, not for speed. Maybe at 33rpm are passing the same information, only at 45rpm is the sound more "stretched".

hmm maybe, I dunno for sure.

Posted by `pr0digy on Jan-07-2005 03:30:

I've never been able to tell the differance IRL myself... I really wouldn't worry about it, I'd rather have the extra mixes.

Posted by Tegu on Jan-07-2005 07:43:

so then 78rpm records must have amazing quality?

Posted by beats and beeps on Jan-07-2005 20:42:

To me, I always think that a 45 sounds like a cd does when played in a pioneer cdj (with the legato thing, or whatever its called)

I'm sure it doesnt technically, but thats always what it reminds me of.

Posted by Tegu on Jan-07-2005 21:03:

quote:
Originally posted by Nou
TECHNICALLY they should, but at the time most were pressed, the cutting technology wasnt nearly as good as it is today... so really they sound like ass...

Tho a bunch of 78's my grandparents have are cut on vinyl thats such high grain that it feels like metal... and they are only 7" disks, but they must weigh at least as much as 4 or 5 normal records pressed today... amazing.

Cool. Thanks a lot for the info. That's really interesting.

Posted by Scottaculous on Jan-07-2005 22:04:

The difference in quality is so inconsequential....

Posted by Eis on Jan-08-2005 22:18:

quote:
Originally posted by beats and beeps
To me, I always think that a 45 sounds like a cd does when played in a pioneer cdj (with the legato thing, or whatever its called)

I'm sure it doesnt technically, but thats always what it reminds me of.

Same here

Posted by `pr0digy on Jan-09-2005 00:05:

quote:
Originally posted by Scottaculous
The difference in quality is so inconsequential....

^

Posted by auujay on Jan-09-2005 00:14:

quote:
Originally posted by Nou
Tho a bunch of 78's my grandparents have are cut on vinyl thats such high grain that it feels like metal... and they are only 7" disks, but they must weigh at least as much as 4 or 5 normal records pressed today... amazing.

Those are probobly shellac and not vinyl. It is much heavier and more brittle, therefore more fragile.