Question about vinyl side length vs quality

iamthecosmos · Post by **iamthecosmos** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:42 pm

I've got a new record which I'll be looking to put out on vinyl, which is 46 minutes long. I'd prefer to keep it on one record, but all the information I've found online cautions against having more than 22 minutes per side at 33rpm. Is this a realistic idea?

What's the maximum you'd have on one side of vinyl? Plan B is two records at 45rpm!

Gregg Juke · Post by **Gregg Juke** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:55 pm

Well, 46 minutes would be 23 a side, right? Is that what you mean? One minute extra could be pretty significant, from what I understand, but it might be pretty expensive to get into two discs (double the cost, plus odd packaging, unless you're just going to stuff them into one sleeve).

Although, technically, 45rpm would "sound better," right?

Tough call. Why don't you e-mail United Record Pressing in Nashville? I haven't had anything pressed with them yet either, but met some of the guys and got a tour of the plant and came away pretty impressed:

http://www.urpressing.com/

If you mention that you are considering vinyl, and aren't sure what to do, they will take the time to talk you through it, I'm sure.

GJ

Nick Sevilla · Post by **Nick Sevilla** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:35 pm

iamthecosmos wrote:I've got a new record which I'll be looking to put out on vinyl, which is 46 minutes long. I'd prefer to keep it on one record, but all the information I've found online cautions against having more than 22 minutes per side at 33rpm. Is this a realistic idea?

What's the maximum you'd have on one side of vinyl? Plan B is two records at 45rpm!

The rule of thumb I remember is that the more low end, the wider the grooves have to be. I may be wrong.

What I would suggest is that you make a list of side A and side B, with the lengths of the songs visible, and then try to make as many fit as possible per side.
The other thing to consider is running order... do you have one established yet? That would restrict how much material you place on each side.

Other things : Making fadeouts, if you MUST have all songs in the album, or making sensible "Radio Edits" of one song per side or so, to shorten them a bit.

That was done regularly when songs got too long.

Cheers

Gregg Juke · Post by **Gregg Juke** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:48 pm

There's also certain places on the side that can handle more or less of certain frequencies. Like "piano ballads always go at the end of side 1," or something like that, because the grooves don't reproduce enough bass. Those rules (whatever they are) exist, to be sure, but I'd check with someone that actually masters and cuts vinyl, or at least an ME that has experience prepping tracks for vinyl production.

GJ

kslight · Post by **kslight** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:03 pm

+1 on contacting United Record Pressing.

I do think this is one reason why there will be non-album B-sides on singles released to vinyl...sometimes the single not even on the album...especially true with Third Man Records releases. Or maybe that's a marketing thing...

Anyway, IMHO I would be totally sure you *can't* cut the length of the record before either potentially causing problems with "too long" or pushing a double record. Make sure you've got "all killer no filler," and if this is the case then I'd start making generous radio edits...you may be surprised what you get when you get aggressive with cuts, I actually prefer the radio edits I came up with of my band's songs, they just hit harder and are to the point, they are no longer long enough to have people itching for the fast forward button. One song I was able to cut from 4:50 to 2:54...and another from 5:14 to 3:58.

Matt C. · Post by **Matt C.** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:47 am

I'd recommend calling John Golden at Golden Mastering. super nice guy who spent a good half hour on the phone with me talking about this same issue, even though I hadn't even sent him a project yet. much better customer service than I ever received at United.

chris harris · Post by **chris harris** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:30 am

My first advice is, if you can afford it, just do two 12" records at 45 RPM. It will sound waaay better.

And, my suggestion for who to call about it is Chicago Mastering Service.

But, the best advice is to call WHOEVER will be cutting your lacquers and ask them.

T-rex · Post by **T-rex** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:59 am

My band had a song included on a compilation pressed by United and I thought it sounded pretty bad. I can't say whether this was the mastering etc. that took place after the single left my studio, but the overall compilation I thought didn't sound very good at all. It was a big double album, so I don't know the details on the pressing, but that was my only experience with them.

Gregg Juke · Post by **Gregg Juke** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:55 am

Hey T,

Did United put out the comp themselves? Did they do the mastering?

It would surprise me if the quality was low; they seem to have a handle on quality control and they are doing work for all of the majors (new music, reissues, whatever). Jack White is pretty much exclusive with them as far as the Third Man stuff, afaik.

GJ

T-rex · Post by **T-rex** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:56 pm

I am not sure to be honest. Its totally possible that someone butchered the mastering job and then sent it to United like that. It was a couple of years ago so I will have to pull out the record and see if there are any credits.

dfuruta · Post by **dfuruta** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:52 pm

I think it really depends on your goals. One band I recorded put out the material as a 33rpm 7", with over 8 minutes per side. It sounds punk as fuck.

IanWalker · Post by **IanWalker** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:12 pm

So, since the record turns at a constant rate, you get higher quality at the outside edge of the record.

The vinyl at the outside edge moves past the needle at a higher rate, providing more information per second than it does near the center.

So basically, sure, you might be able to fit more than 22 minutes on a side, but as you get towards the end of the side, you're going to lose fidelity.

Width of the grooves has something to do with sound quality as well, but I can't speak to that more than others already have here.

Like people said, call the experts, and ask if that extra minute if going to be a big deal.

Its a game of trade-offs. How big a trade-off it is? I can't really say, but yes, you're going to lose sound quality with longer side lengths.

An old friend (and former studio-mate) of mine has put out a number of vinyl albums, and a 12" 45rpm is among them. The sound difference is noticeable. They're kind of awesome, and you don't see them very often.

(somewhat related side note - CDs not only read from the center out, but spin at variable speeds to ensure consistant bit rate)

drumsound · Post by **drumsound** » Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:53 pm

I believe the longs a side is, the lower the bass level and the overall level can be to avoid the stylus literally jumping put of the groove.

I know I have one older record (I think it's Todd Rundgren's A Wizard a True Star) that says something on the sleeve about this and that they compromised to have a longer record at the sacrifice of level.

themagicmanmdt · Post by **themagicmanmdt** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:06 pm

tony - totally right.

note: there have been talks of record quality coming from URP being not that good.

i went with RTI, it was more expensive, but legendary. no qualms. worth it.

anyways:

i've had this talk with a few people including those at chicago mastering as well as stan ricker (founder of half speed mastering, MFSL, etc - he cut a lacquer for me)

anything past ~18/side, you start reducing the cutting level and packing the grooves closer. quieter record; higher noise floor; more music inside the inner 1/3'rd of the record also means more distortion, since inner grooves have more distortion than outer grooves, with the least distortion generally in the middle 1/3rd of the record.

also:

to reduce distortion, the ending song on a side (highest distortion part) should, hopefully, be a quieter song, if you can help it. it's the loudness at inner grooves that cause it to crack up...

stan never recommended anything over 22 minutes per side; i'd probably agree. longest record side i own probably clocks in at ~26 minutes, but it's quieter music (robert johnson, king of the delta blues singers).

this is where it may make sense to *gasp* cut a song... or two... make it fantastic and wanting more... use the other two songs as a single...

Judas Jetski · Post by **Judas Jetski** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:47 am

I seem to recall a couple records from the early '80s with some sort of disclaimer on them... something like "In order to fit more music on this record, we've reduced the overall level. PLEASE PLAY THIS RECORD LOUD." At the time it seemed fine to me, but going back now (with decent stereo equipment) these records sound flat and lifeless. I think Genesis' Duke and ...And Then There Were Three were culprits. These records didn't seem to hold up well, either... prone to skipping.

At the same time, U2's Under A Blood Red Sky is one of my all-time favorite slabs of vinyl: just about 33 minutes, 33 1/3 rpm. The groove is spread out so far you can track it with the naked eye. Sounds AWESOME.

The downside of a 12" 45 rpm double is that it feels like you're flipping a record every two freaking minutes. But they do sound truly spectacular.

Message Board

Question about vinyl side length vs quality

Question about vinyl side length vs quality

Re: Question about vinyl side length vs quality

Who is online