Was ELP's Welcome Back, My Friends designed with record changers in mind?

[lak611]

Audiophiles have long eschewed record changers due to the slippage and excessive wear that result from stacking multiple records on a turntable.

However, the records are numbered in such a way that one cannot listen to the album in order unless stacking the records on a record changer or actually swapping the records, rather than simply flipping over each record after listening to it.

Was this a common convention with albums in the 70s? How did audiophiles feel about this back in the day?

Does anyone know if the reissued album will keep this numbering convention?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[Mister Triscuits]

Was this a common convention with albums in the 70s? How did audiophiles feel about this back in the day?

Yes, it was a common convention with double and other multi-LP sets, known as automatic sequence, as opposed to manual sequence. It always seemed to me that the two formats appeared about equally. The Concert for Bangla Desh was another '70s triple set in automatic sequence. Using the changer was controversial, as some insisted that records were damaged by rubbing against each other when falling from the changer; others claimed that the raised edge and label areas prevented the groove areas from touching so no such damage occurred. Of course you don't have to use the changer to play a set pressed in automatic sequence, but it does make manual play slightly less convenient.

[Mister Triscuits]

P.S.: I have at least once or twice encountered a double LP (and IIRC even a multi-disc box set) that was neither in automatic nor manual sequence: e.g., Sides 1 & 3 on one disc and 2 & 4 on the other, which makes no sense at all.

[chescorph]

Just watching a record drop on top of another and momentarily skate over another one made me never want to use or own a stackable turntable. Although on later models you could replace the spindle.

[Yellow Jester]

Audiophiles have long eschewed record changers due to the slippage and excessive wear that result from stacking multiple records on a turntable.

However, the records are numbered in such a way that one cannot listen to the album in order unless stacking the records on a record changer or actually swapping the records, rather than simply flipping over each record after listening to it.

Was this a common convention with albums in the 70s? How did audiophiles feel about this back in the day?

Does anyone know if the reissued album will keep this numbering convention?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

I was a very common occurrence to design multi-disc LPs in this way for convenient play on record changers. I have several albums in my collection that have Side 1 on one side and Side 4 on the other (including ELP's "Welcome Back..."). I knew someone in the '1970s who HATED record changers feeling that they caused additional wear and tear on records by stacking them. Don't know if the reissue of "Welcome Back.." will follow this numbering convention.

[lak611]

Yes, it was a common convention with double and other multi-LP sets, known as automatic sequence, as opposed to manual sequence. It always seemed to me that the two formats appeared about equally. The Concert for Bangla Desh was another '70s triple set in automatic sequence. Using the changer was controversial, as some insisted that records were damaged by rubbing against each other when falling from the changer; others claimed that the raised edge and label areas prevented the groove areas from touching so no such damage occurred. Of course you don't have to use the changer to play a set pressed in automatic sequence, but it does make manual play slightly less convenient.

Manual play definitely is far less convenient also due to the design of the Welcome Back album cover. The records have a tendency to fall out of the album cover, so I have to be especially careful when I swap records to play this album in order.

I'm hoping that the reissue keeps in mind that newer turntables tend to be manual and don't have record changers.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[JJ88]

The 1/4 on one and 2/3 on the other is very common. No, it's definitely a British thing as well. I've come across it a few times on British records, but my feeling is that it was only in a specific period here, possibly late 70s.

[lak611]

The 1/4 on one and 2/3 on the other is very common.

Do you know if albums originally numbered that way keep that numbering format if they are reissued?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[musicislife]

Do you know if albums originally numbered that way keep that numbering format if they are reissued?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

If you know who's reissuing it, go to their website and ask them directly. Most of these people are usually very helpful.

[lak611]

If you know who's reissuing it, go to their website and ask them directly. Most of these people are usually very helpful.

That's a good idea. 😊

However, I'm going to wait for reviews of the reissued Welcome Back... here to see what the sound quality on the BMG reissue is like. I bought the reissued Trilogy on the Razor & Tie label from Amazon and sent it back, since it was too quiet. I had to turn up the volume twice as loud as on any other record I own. I ended up buying a used Atlantic/Cotillion original Trilogy LP from a used record store in my neighbourhood.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[pb2015]

The 1/4 on one and 2/3 on the other is very common.

On Zappa's Sheik Yerbouti even the lyric sheets are laid out with sides 1/4 and 2/3.

[musicislife]

That's a good idea. ��

However, I'm going to wait for reviews of the reissued Welcome Back... here to see what the sound quality on the BMG reissue is like. I bought the reissued Trilogy on the Razor & Tie label from Amazon and sent it back, since it was too quiet. I had to turn up the volume twice as loud as on any other record I own. I ended up buying a used Atlantic/Cotillion original Trilogy LP from a used record store in my neighbourhood.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

My impression (as someone who doesn't buy vinyl anymore) is that very few companies these days can produce something that exceeds the quality of original vinyl. Of course, results vary on a case by case basis. I know what the problems are with this particular record (since I have it). If I were looking for an upgrade, I'd probably worry about a re-do on the quad to stereo folddown most. Otherwise, I'm not positive the sound could/would be improved.

[bRETT]

]The Concert for Bangla Desh[/I] was another '70s triple set in automatic sequence. .

Also, Woodstock. The rare exception was Yessongs.

[lak611]

Tales from Topographic Oceans is a double LP but it is 1/2, 3/4, not 1/4, 2/3.

Maybe Yes felt that most of their listeners don't like record changers.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[rcarlberg]

P.S.: I have at least once or twice encountered a double LP (and IIRC even a multi-disc box set) that was neither in automatic nor manual sequence: e.g., Sides 1 & 3 on one disc and 2 & 4 on the other, which makes no sense at all.

What do you mean, "makes no sense at all"? You load both platters on your changer, play sides 1 & 2, then flip over. This is the default automatic sequence, so far as I know.

[Edit: According to Wikipedia, the 1/3, 2/4 sequencing is called "relay sequencing" and is designed for radio DJs to be able to play multiple disc sets non-stop.

Not that they ever did?]

[rcarlberg]

Does anyone know if the reissued album will keep this numbering convention?

Who uses changers anymore?

Changers were always a sort of "anti-audiophile" format, and now that records are the sole domain of self-described audiophiles I can't imagine changers are a quantifiable percentage of the market. Certainly the new USB turntables aren't changers, and the used turntable market seems to be for high-end basic platterspinners only.

So it would be extremely stupid to reissue anything in automatic sequence.

[chescorph]

What do you mean, "makes no sense at all"? You load both platters on your changer, play sides 1 & 2, then flip over. This is the default automatic sequence, so far as I know.

Flipping them over gets you side 4, then side 3.

[Mister Triscuits]

What do you mean, "makes no sense at all"? You load both platters on your changer, play sides 1 & 2, then flip over. This is the default automatic sequence, so far as I know.

[Edit: According to Wikipedia, the 1/3, 2/4 sequencing is called "relay sequencing" and is designed for radio DJs to be able to play multiple disc sets non-stop.

Not that they ever did?]

As chescorph says, this sequencing doesn't work with flipping a stack. But the DJ explanation makes sense: relay sequencing would allow you to play a multi-disc set nonstop if you have two turntables, as in a radio station. So they could play, say, a complete opera without a record-flipping break.

[rcarlberg]

That makes sense.

I can remember, back in the day, having some sets numbered 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5 or 1/6, 2/5, 3/4. Although it was a rare boxed set that was designed to be played straight through.

[Progbear]

The only album I ever owned like that was Dance of the Lemmings [sic] by Amon Düül II. I knew what it was for, but I was well past owning record players with changers by that point.

[lak611]

I purchased my turntable in 1985, and record changers were not popular at that time.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[Trane]

The 1/4 on one and 2/3 on the other is very common.

Maybe Alzheimer is striking me, but I don't have much memories of thos (except for the ELP triple live album)

On Zappa's Sheik Yerbouti even the lyric sheets are laid out with sides 1/4 and 2/3.

Ok, but that one doesn't really need a sequenced listen, IMHO

Tales from Topographic Oceans is a double LP but it is 1/2, 3/4, not 1/4, 2/3.

Maybe Yes felt that most of their listeners don't like record changers.

It wasn't just Yes. I totally distrusted that awful gizmo... no better way to damage your vinyls.

Who uses changers anymore?

Changers were always a sort of "anti-audiophile" format, and now that records are the sole domain of self-described audiophiles I can't imagine changers are a quantifiable percentage of the market. Certainly the new USB turntables aren't changers, and the used turntable market seems to be for high-end basic platterspinners only.

So it would be extremely stupid to reissue anything in automatic sequence.

well, as I said above, I don't remeber this being a common occurence anyways.

I purchased my turntable in 1985, and record changers were not popular at that time.

TBH, I only ever saw that being used at parties, as for the housemaster not to have to worry about changing music every 15 to 20 mins

Good hi-fi tt didn't have these things ... this was reserved for crappy "stereo chains"

[lak611]

Has anyone purchased the reissue of the album on vinyl? Does the reissue still follow the 1/6, 2/5, 3/4 numbering convention on the records?

I emailed BMG, but they never replied to my email.

There's nothing wrong with my original vinyl, but I'd buy the reissue if it meant less swapping of records to listen to the album in its entirety.

[lak611]

I purchased the reissue on vinyl. The reissue is no longer numbered for use with record changers. The excessive swapping of records is unnecessary now.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[JeffCarney]

I purchased the reissue on vinyl. The reissue is no longer numbered for use with record changers. The excessive swapping of records is unnecessary now.

Given the reasonably priced availability of originals, I'm more perplexed that there is even a market for this as a priced-up "reissue."