Do any of the jazz gurus on here know why some double-set records have this curious side labeling where record 1 has sides A and D, and record 2 sides B and C? It does not make much sense to me, and I wonder what purpose it serves other than to confuse the listener. I noticed this with a couple of Coltrane records from the '60s, recently with "The Other Village Vanguard Tapes."
It wasn't only with jazz. I've got a copy of "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" with the same arrangement, and I remember having some other rock and roll double albums back in the day that had sides 1 and 4 on one disc and 2 and 3 on the other. Don't recall the last time I saw a record changer, though. -- Howard
Thanks guys. I suppose it makes more sense now, but I'm still surprised that record companies would label sides with LP changers in mind, rather than what made more sense for standard turntables, which surely outnumbered changers by a wide margin.
"surely outnumbered changers"" ?? hey, back when those records were pressed most folks had record changers. ORDINARY people had record changers. Only the few crazy audiophiles had single play turntables..
The only advantage to automatic sequencing is that it can be handy for listening to some operas. There are a few that have interesting opening material and great endings with a lot of "filler" in the middle. If you can just flip over a record to go from side 1 to 4 or 1 to 6 or 1 to 8, that might be an advantage--I might do that with, for example, Der Rosenkavalier."
Many of my gatefold albums from the seventies or before come in that format. Most of them are bluegrass music. I just love to play them on my good old BSR with a ceramic cartridge tracking at about six grams or more. The sonics are to die for!
I try to avoid auto-sequenced sets, which are a *pain* to deal with if one has a manual TT. When buying used multi-LP sets, I always ask if the records are in auto or manual sequence. Auto sequence is usually a deal breaker for me.
It's really amazing me that this is such a surprise! I guess I'm showing my age.
Normal people who played records back in their heyday wanted some level of convenience. Automatic start and stop and record changers in particular were the norm by far. Most were very cheap and made for mass consumption, but that was the norm. Dual is the only brand I recall that made decent quality changers. I still have mine, a Dual 1264 in my second system. It is serviceable but not up to snuff for most audiophile vinyl affectionados. I do not recall any changers that were much better. CDs took convenience to the next level. Now, music servers take it further. And performance need not suffer along the way.
Mapman, I grew up in the '70s and early '80s way before the CD era and LP changers were not the norm, at least in Europe. In fact, I didn't even know they existed until this thread. Juke box changers, sure, but not products for individual use.
There is a nice article on record changers on wikipedia. It seems to indicate changers bdcame common in the us from the 50s through the seventies with bsr dominating the market. Thats consistent with my recollection growing up during that time. Convenience of cds did them in though single play manual turntables obviously survived. Dual, garrard and telefunken made changers in europe it seem but perhaps less common there than in us brand console and integrated systems that were quite common back then. Bic was another popular mid fi brand that made changers that took mm cartridges. Most bsr and similar mass produced changers took lower performance, high tracking force ceramic carts that were responsible for a lot of wear on many records in us homes back then.
I may be the oldest f*rt to post on this thread (born in 1947), and of course I remember record changers. I did own a Dual 1015 in the late 60's, but never stacked records on it. Rightly or not, I was concerned that it might damage my records: I reasoned that no good could come of dropping a non-spinning LP on top of another moving (at 33 1/3 rpm) LP.
I can recall a few nightmare scenarios with a record changer. A friend had one and we were listening to some records. When we heard the same album being replayed, it was time to panic. That meant that the next record in series had not fallen completely (i.e., it was hung up) so the arm returned to playing the same record it had just played. The next record could be just barely hanging on, waiting to drop and sandwich the tonearm.
I remember my parents had a record changer in their console that had a device with a claw like clamp that would flip the record over (78 rpm). If memory serves me right it was a Stanton. Now that was progress , early 1950's.
No doubt vinyl today is valued for its sound quality and most things revolve around that. Well, maybe album art and some enjoy physically interacting more with their recordings than digital usually permits.
But from the 50-70's, when vinyl and apparently also changers were king, it was more about musical selection and convenience. That's what most people played records for. Audiophile type users were a very small minority.
When the LP came out, it was a quantum leap in so many ways over the 78--way better sound, it held far more music, and was far more durable as well. It never occurred to most people that the LP was capable of far better sound than they were hearing, and many wouldn't have given up the convenience anyway. The audiophiles who went for better sound with more expensive cartridges, careful handling, and single-play manual turntables were definitely on the fringe.
Until the '80s changers still outnumbered single-play 'tables.
I have a couple copies of the Capitol Beatles 2-LP compilation titled "Love Songs." One is pressed and numbered for a changer (1&4, 2&3) and the other is for single play (1&2, 3&4).