like a ninja from heaven (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} deriksmith) wrote,@ 2009-02-16 12:44:00 |
|
| Entry tags: | narrative structure, pattern finding, patterns, phonograph, rants, records, zeno's paradox |
On the structure of Record Albums
My “why” phase was legendary. When I was in second grade, I synthesized Zeno’s Paradox and spent a very frustrating car ride trying to explain it to my mother. It was around the same time that I first noticed a nagging pattern in my parent’s old record albums; the “good” songs (an entirely subjective judgment) tended to be bunched together towards the beginning of the album, with maybe one decent song on the b-side. Graphed over time, the relationship would look like this:
I’m not a major audiophile, but this has always bugged me, because I could never figure out why the albums were patterned this way. …until last night.
The following is a transcript of a discussion between myself and Joe Rovang:
Me : *points finger in a vaguely revelatory manner*
Me : PHONOGRAPH RECORDS HAVE VARIABLE BITRATE!
Joe: Ah
Me : OR WHATEVER YOU CALL BITRATE WITH ANALOG SOURCES
Me : seriously, think about it!
Me : in geometry terms, on a CD, a 3 minute song might take, say, “14 inches” worth of length, wrapped around the disk, right?
Me : and that same 3 minute song gets 14 inches regardless whether it’s the first song or the last song.
Joe: Ah, I gotcha
Me : But on a PHONOGRAPH record though, the song at the beginning might have 24 inches, and the one at the end 8 inches! Because of the radius of the disk diminishes as the playnehead moves in, but the rotation speed does not accelerate to compensate!
Me : on CD’s it does. (or at least it does metaphorically– it’s not reading the data in realtime.)
Joe: Uh huh
Me : so that means that there is MORE audio information in the first track than the last
Me : CONSIDERABLY more.
Joe: Why, they’d have to vary the frequency whenever they made a new size of disc! Oh, but they did. :)
Me : the first track is higher fidelity, the last track is lowest.
Joe: Erm, I doubt that…
Joe: Well, actually, perhaps you’re right.
Me : I AM right
Me : records are rates in RPM
Me : rotations per minute
Me : that’s constant
Me : at the outer edge, the radius is larger. 22 RPM of that radius are liek 3 times as much data
Me : That BLOWS MY MIND
Joe: Well, I get that part, but I’m not sure the stretchiness affects the fidelity of the encoded audio.
Me : The tracks, if you read them out with a laser and played them at a rate corresponding circumference (? inches… of track?) to playback speed, the songs would get faster and faster as you played them
Me : “affect” in theoretical or practical terms?
Joe: Practical
Joe: :)
Me : in PRACTICAL terms, the “footprint” a particle of dust has on late-occurring tracks is mucht higher
Me : Pops become more severe, more noticeable, longer
Me : I grant you– analog medium. Any change in quality caused by the diminishing data density is probably below the level of human hearing…
Me : …if the player were in a vacuum box. But exposed to the environment, I argue, there actually IS a diminishment of quality.
Me : This makes so much SENSE
Me : I always wondered why albums don’t follow an act structure!
Me : I mean– you know, with a big finale
Me : instead the singles tend to be tracks 2-4… and the end song is NEVER a big finish except on concept albums where they’re deliberately imposing a structure
Joe: I’ve not found anything online to corroborate your theory.
Me : Tracks 2-4 are the SWEET SPOT, where music will sound BEST
Me : (track 1 would be abnormally susceptible to scratching, since you put the playhead down there.)
Joe: Hmm
Me : and– given that vinyl or plastic records are degraded every time you play them…
Joe: Well, it SOUNDS plausible
Me : putting the most-listened-to tracks in the high-density area maximizes their wear resistance!
Me : …that is so COOL!
Joe: Hmm
Joe: Well, I can’t find anything to disprove your reasoning, so I’ll go with it for now.
Me : I mean– I’m not a big music guy… but the structure albums seem to follow has always BUGGED me. I could never figure out why the “good songs” seemed to statistically cluster like that
Me : Not the first OR last, but not spread out evenly either.
Me : Musicians probably aren’t even aware they’re doing it anymore… it’s just TRADITION.
Me : Albums that had their good songs arranged in the sweet spots would sound slightly better, get a better response, and thus their structure influenced how subsequent musicians structured their albums!
Joe: Sure
Me : this tiny statistical pressure has, over time, created a self-reinforcing “rhythm” to how an album “should” be structured…
Me : that remains in effect even after we switched to CD’s where this isn’t an issue– an artifact of the originating medium!
Me : *grabs Joe by his shirt collar*
Me : DON’T YOU SEE HOW AWESOME THIS IS?
Me : THINGS MAKE SENSE!
Joe: Yes, that’s pretty cool
Me : …your lack of enthusiasm disappoints me
Me : haven’t you ever noticed patterns in the world around you that baffle you? You look at them and you’re just- “But that MAKES NO SENSE! Why is it that way? And it’s that way EVERYWHERE. It’s too consistent not to be real!”
Joe: Yes, your discovery is pretty cool.
Me : THERE IS A REASON FOR HOW ALBUMS ARE PACED!
Me : <– is happy
Joe: I approve, I do
Me : PHONOGRAPH RECORDS HAVE VARIABLE BITRATE!
Joe: Ah
Me : OR WHATEVER YOU CALL BITRATE WITH ANALOG SOURCES
Me : seriously, think about it!
Me : in geometry terms, on a CD, a 3 minute song might take, say, “14 inches” worth of length, wrapped around the disk, right?
Me : and that same 3 minute song gets 14 inches regardless whether it’s the first song or the last song.
Joe: Ah, I gotcha
Me : But on a PHONOGRAPH record though, the song at the beginning might have 24 inches, and the one at the end 8 inches! Because of the radius of the disk diminishes as the playnehead moves in, but the rotation speed does not accelerate to compensate!
Me : on CD’s it does. (or at least it does metaphorically– it’s not reading the data in realtime.)
Joe: Uh huh
Me : so that means that there is MORE audio information in the first track than the last
Me : CONSIDERABLY more.
Joe: Why, they’d have to vary the frequency whenever they made a new size of disc! Oh, but they did. :)
Me : the first track is higher fidelity, the last track is lowest.
Joe: Erm, I doubt that…
Joe: Well, actually, perhaps you’re right.
Me : I AM right
Me : records are rates in RPM
Me : rotations per minute
Me : that’s constant
Me : at the outer edge, the radius is larger. 22 RPM of that radius are liek 3 times as much data
Me : That BLOWS MY MIND
Joe: Well, I get that part, but I’m not sure the stretchiness affects the fidelity of the encoded audio.
Me : The tracks, if you read them out with a laser and played them at a rate corresponding circumference (? inches… of track?) to playback speed, the songs would get faster and faster as you played them
Me : “affect” in theoretical or practical terms?
Joe: Practical
Joe: :)
Me : in PRACTICAL terms, the “footprint” a particle of dust has on late-occurring tracks is mucht higher
Me : Pops become more severe, more noticeable, longer
Me : I grant you– analog medium. Any change in quality caused by the diminishing data density is probably below the level of human hearing…
Me : …if the player were in a vacuum box. But exposed to the environment, I argue, there actually IS a diminishment of quality.
Me : This makes so much SENSE
Me : I always wondered why albums don’t follow an act structure!
Me : I mean– you know, with a big finale
Me : instead the singles tend to be tracks 2-4… and the end song is NEVER a big finish except on concept albums where they’re deliberately imposing a structure
Joe: I’ve not found anything online to corroborate your theory.
Me : Tracks 2-4 are the SWEET SPOT, where music will sound BEST
Me : (track 1 would be abnormally susceptible to scratching, since you put the playhead down there.)
Joe: Hmm
Me : and– given that vinyl or plastic records are degraded every time you play them…
Joe: Well, it SOUNDS plausible
Me : putting the most-listened-to tracks in the high-density area maximizes their wear resistance!
Me : …that is so COOL!
Joe: Hmm
Joe: Well, I can’t find anything to disprove your reasoning, so I’ll go with it for now.
Me : I mean– I’m not a big music guy… but the structure albums seem to follow has always BUGGED me. I could never figure out why the “good songs” seemed to statistically cluster like that
Me : Not the first OR last, but not spread out evenly either.
Me : Musicians probably aren’t even aware they’re doing it anymore… it’s just TRADITION.
Me : Albums that had their good songs arranged in the sweet spots would sound slightly better, get a better response, and thus their structure influenced how subsequent musicians structured their albums!
Joe: Sure
Me : this tiny statistical pressure has, over time, created a self-reinforcing “rhythm” to how an album “should” be structured…
Me : that remains in effect even after we switched to CD’s where this isn’t an issue– an artifact of the originating medium!
Me : *grabs Joe by his shirt collar*
Me : DON’T YOU SEE HOW AWESOME THIS IS?
Me : THINGS MAKE SENSE!
Joe: Yes, that’s pretty cool
Me : …your lack of enthusiasm disappoints me
Me : haven’t you ever noticed patterns in the world around you that baffle you? You look at them and you’re just- “But that MAKES NO SENSE! Why is it that way? And it’s that way EVERYWHERE. It’s too consistent not to be real!”
Joe: Yes, your discovery is pretty cool.
Me : THERE IS A REASON FOR HOW ALBUMS ARE PACED!
Me : <– is happy
Joe: I approve, I do
This unexplained pattern has itched at the back of by my brain for twenty years.
It feels good to scratch.
