If the information is stored at some value of bits per cm… There’s less bitrate (bits per revolution) in the middle of the record vs the outer edges.
I like the idea of you bringing your record player and records into the shower with you. (Is there a community here simalar to vinyljerk?)
That is just how rotating things work. This is why vehicles need a differential, so that when you turn a corner the inside wheel can rotate at a different speed as the outside wheel.
That’s why true audiophiles only listen on phonograph cylinders.
Which is why Macintosh floppy disk drives were changing their rotational speed depending on which cylinders were being accessed, so that the information density would in fact be uniform.
Which is why a Mac floppy could hold 400/800k compared to a DOS floppy’s 360/720k.
So do CDs. 💿 If you have a player with a see-through lid, you can see the disc rotate around 2.5 times slower on the last track of a near-74/80-minute disc as opposed to the first. This might not apply with modern (2000+) and/or portable ones with cache (ESP) − MP3 support is a good clue it has the advanced electronics for that. And yes, CDs’ track starts at the center to enable shorter, smaller disks.
Players regulate the motor speed based on the data clock (and burners too: there is a pre-recorded “timing” signal even on blank CD-Rs) so technically, a constant-angular-velocity CD could be pressed and played on most players, just with no real benefits.
Huh. Cool facts.
That’s a lot of complexity added for 80kb. Curious if there was much software that just wouldn’t have fit on a single floppy otherwise.
It’s an 11% increase, that’s huge. Floppies weren’t just used to store programs, also to store files.
Some of the first real home/office PCs had only one floppy drive and 640kb of RAM. Fancier machines had a second floppy. If you were a millionaire, you could get a HDD with upwards of 30Mb storage.
The outerwards part of the record can hold louder signal without the needle jumping.
That’s why there’s actually a record that plays backward https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Afikv6k1-c because Bolero gets louder and louder as the song progresses,
I always assumed that the initial cutting of the record accounts for the variation in speed as the needle moves towards the center. If that’s the case, the information density would be relatively consisten, because the size of the bits of information would get smaller as the speed increases. Like a second of the song could be measured in radians, with the centimeters on the arc getting smaller. But I don’t actually know if that’s how it works.
I checked, audio quality can degrade at the center, I guess since the needle can’t read fine enough details. Also probably why the label size is similar on full size records and singles…
Yep its called IGD or inner groove distortion , reason why old albums almost always had the quiet ballads at the end.
Rush 2112 has real bad igd because it ends very loudly.
I’ll find a copy just to hear for myself, that’s neat
Its a killer album as well haha
Absolutely, I hope the reissue LP is a reasonable price we’ll see
They pressed a lot of them, shouldn’t be more than $20 even for an og
The angular velocity is always the same during recording and playback
So the arc speed increases as the radius decreases, both in cutting and reading.
Lines and angles and curves, too, I bet.
That makes sense. The record always rotates at the same speed, therefore the surface speed of the needle vs the record is slower towards the center and faster towards the outside. The music towards the middle is literally compressed. Never thought about that, mind kinda blown.
I’ve heard that good songs were put on the outside and the shittier ones were relegated to the inside since the quality is worse. But a vinyl has two sides to it, which lead to the phenomenon that when listening to a CD, there was suddenly a big loud and busy number right in the middle of the album, after a lull.
I used to work for a few record companies, including a small one that was very influential, and I was in the middle of everything, from album concepts, through recording and production, artwork, liner notes, etc., as well as the largest record company in America at the time, and never once in 30 years did I ever hear anybody suggest that the “shittier” songs should be relegated to the inner rings, because the sound is inferior.
That’s just nonsensical on multiple levels, and it has NEVER happened.
News flash: vinyl records existed before 1995.
Thanks for playing.
That’s correct. Reason why the inside track will usually be a song with less bass, etc…
Or you have the bit rate high enough so you only max it out at the inner song and just don’t need it at the start.
There’s a lot pumped into a single groove, based on
video on how stereo works on vinyl.
That depends on the quality of the turntable and the vinyl, and the rotation speed. Early on, the quality wasn’t enough for dense stamping, so vinyls played at 78 rpm. With time, 45 and 33 rpm became possible as the tech improved, allowing for longer play times per vinyl.
Regardless, from what I’ve heard, back in the day the producers took care to put more demanding tracks on the outside, which led to the phenomenon of CDs suddenly having some busy and loud tracks in the middle of the album.
As I said on another post, I’ve never heard of that sort of programming in over 30 years in the record industry.
During the vinyl days, albums were the art form, and artists and producers made great effort to program their tracks listings for the best listener experience. So it would usually start with a big banger to kick off the album, followed by a few fun songs, and ending the side with another banger, just maybe not as big as the opening track, but not always. The idea that it would have less bass, have less fidelity, or was a throwaway song that didn’t require decent sound quality is dumb.
Often the first side ending song was a big number, that would have required the best sound available. Perhaps the best example is Stairway to Heaven, which closes the first side of Led Zeppelin IV, and I defy anyone to call that a second rate track with poor fidelity, and that’s why it was relegated to the inner ring.
The second side is a restart, and often has an interesting opening track, like Within You Without You on Sgt Pepper. ELP’s Karn Evil #9, Part 2. (Part 1 closes the first side) Is probably the all-time best second side opener, with its Carnival Barker call: “Welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends…”
But the biggest clue that the idea of the worst songs being relegated to the inner rings is nonsense is the fact that most albums try to have big finish. Again, Led Zeppelin IV perfectly illustrates the issue. It closes with When The Levee Breaks, featuring John Bonham’s thunderous drums, which have since become iconic. It certainly wasn’t a low fidelity track with Plant’s wailing keen, the screaming harmonica, and those monster drums giving it one of the widest dynamic ranges of any rock classic.
Without the side break, the side 1 closer, and the side 2 opener end up side-by-side. The fact that there is a big blast of “busy music” in the middle of the CD, contradicts the assertion that the side closers are lower quality tracks.
In the vinyl days, the programming of album tracks was a major artistic decision, and the fidelity of the track was never a factor. If a song wasn’t good enough that it required being put in a “second-rate” position on the album, why would they be putting it on the album at all?
The examples of good closing tracks are indeed a better argument than “I’ve been in the industry since 1995, the golden age of vinyl”.
If a song wasn’t good enough that it required being put in a “second-rate” position on the album, why would they be putting it on the album at all?
You claim to have been in the industry, and you never heard of selling albums full of crappy songs on the strength of the singles? Boy you have plenty of stuff to learn yet.
I never said I’ve been on the record business since 1995, I said I spent 30 years in the record business, starting in 1977, the peak of the age of vinyl, cassette, and 8-tracks, and I saw the introduction of the CD, and the end of all those other formats. Recalculating, I actually spent another 7 years or so beyond that, on a consulting basis.
I know vinyl, I’ve got a huge vinyl collection, and I know the business from the inside. The fact that there were far more terrible albums than great albums has nothing to do with the silly idea that they programmed the shitty tracks on the inside because the sound quality was worse. That’s just stupid.
‘Vinyl Mastering 101: What You Need to Know Before Cutting a Record - Mix & Master My Song’
Place tracks with more complex or high-frequency content towards the beginning of each side, where the sound quality is inherently better.
The last tracks on each side are more susceptible to inner-groove distortion, which can degrade sound quality. Reserve these positions for tracks that are less sonically demanding or have less high-frequency content.
‘Inner Groove Distortion: The Problem No One Wants to Talk About’
Bright, aggressive EQ that sounds fine on the outer grooves becomes an exercise in sibilant torture by track four.
Putting your most complex, frequency-dense track at the end of a side is engineering malpractice. When an album sequence allows for it, loading the outer grooves with demanding material and saving simpler arrangements for the inner tracks is smart mastering. The original Blue Note engineers understood this instinctively in the 1960s.
Pink Floyd “The Dark Side of the Moon” (original UK Harvest): say what you will about vintage pressings, but the mastering engineers understood sequencing. The album’s most demanding moments land on outer and mid-grooves; simpler material occupies inner real estate.
Any Bernie Grundman cut for a major artist: Grundman’s reputation exists for a reason. His cuts consistently demonstrate that proper EQ adjustment for inner grooves, pulling back excessive brightness, managing phase issues, makes a profound difference.
Many modern rock reissues with “hot” mastering: excessively bright, compressed mastering that sounds aggressive even on outer grooves becomes actively unpleasant by the inner tracks.
Placing tracks with high-energy, bass-heavy content towards the outer grooves and tracks with softer, acoustic elements towards the inner grooves can mitigate distortion.
‘Vinyl Record Inner-Groove Distortion (A Simple Explanation) - Sound Matters’
Mastering engineers will attempt to mitigate end-of-side distortion by pressing quieter songs, with moderate bass and lower HF energy towards the center of each side.
These and other articles highlight that higher frequencies in particular suffer from the inner-groove distortion.
Keep learning, grandpa.
Putting your most complex, frequency-dense track at the end of a side is engineering malpractice
Sure, that’s why you don’t find complex and/or dynamic songs like Stairway to Heaven, When The Levee Breaks, A Day In the Life, Jungleland, Won’t Get Fooled Again, You Can’t Always Get What You Want, Purple Rain, etc. as the last song on the album, or side. Oh, wait…
I’m not saying there aren’t engineers/producers who never put the ease of their jobs ahead of musical decisions, but musical artists whose artistic vision is more important than simple commerce aren’t concerned about “engineering malpractice.” The engineer serves the musical vision of the artist, and whining about “inner ring distortion” isn’t going to go far.
I’ve been in A&R meetings with internationally famous, Grammy winning engineers, producers, editors, etc., and have NEVER heard any of them voice concerns about programming based on “inner ring distortion.”
This is a lot of really cool discussion guys
in theory, maybe yes. but this is not how analog signalling and producing vinyl works
deleted by creator
You mean it doesn’t depend on how much groovin’ is on the record?
