45 rpm...

[bakerman]

Originally Posted by RaceTripper

Yes, there is an advantage in terms of sound quality. Faster speed allows more information to be distributed across a larger groove area, resulting in higher resolution (like running a tape at higher speeds), and there is less distortion due to the curvature of the groove. The 45 RPM audiophile reissues sound fantastic, and are some of the best sounding records I have. I probably have 30-40 of these, including the complete Bill Evans Riverside recordings, which is simply amazing to hear.

Two of the best records I've heard are 45 RPM. Muddy Waters "Soul Singer" and Oscar Peterson "We Get requests," both from Analogue Productions/Quality Record Pressings.

Thank you. I figured it had something to do with the speed. I thought about Googling it but knew I would get a better explanation here.

[sibelius]

I think that "audiophile" records will be made at 45rpm because of the sound quality (as well as the ability to charge $50). These will mostly be re-issued "classics" marketed to the old greybeard baby boomers. Most new music on vinyl will be at 33.

As a baby boomer I will continue to buy a mix of 33 and 45. For classic Jazz (blue note, Impulse) and rock I like the 45rpm format. Yes, it's kind of a hastle getting up and flipping sides but I think the sound quality is worth it. For Classical music, I think the 45 format does not make sense as you often have to make side splits within movements and that interrupts the flow. So I'll generally skip 45rpm on classical music.

[Josquin des Prez]

Originally Posted by sibelius

I think that "audiophile" records will be made at 45rpm because of the sound quality (as well as the ability to charge $50). These will mostly be re-issued "classics" marketed to the old greybeard baby boomers. Most new music on vinyl will be at 33.

As a baby boomer I will continue to buy a mix of 33 and 45. For classic Jazz (blue note, Impulse) and rock I like the 45rpm format. Yes, it's kind of a hastle getting up and flipping sides but I think the sound quality is worth it. For Classical music, I think the 45 format does not make sense as you often have to make side splits within movements and that interrupts the flow. So I'll generally skip 45rpm on classical music.

+1
Is there any 45RPM classical? I'm not aware of any, although I haven't looked for it either.

[djwhog]

ditto ++ on more speed=better tracking space etc and detail

[sibelius]

Originally Posted by RaceTripper

+1
Is there any 45RPM classical? I'm not aware of any, although I haven't looked for it either.

Yes, there is 45rpm classical music. Not nearly as much as Jazz but they come out in dribs and drabs. They also, unfortunately, have started to creep over the $50 price point. Example:

Peter Maag-Mendelssohn Midsummer Nights Dream-45 RPM Vinyl Record | Acoustic Sounds

[FranklinLG]

It seems to me that you'll continue to have a solid mix of 33 and 45. I suspect the 45's will be the preferred issue for some for those special reissues. I like the mix, but prefer the 33, so I don't have to flip...

[MDP]

I agree, love the sound of 45's, but it is a pain to have to flip sides so much.
I do it anyway because the sound quality is stellar !!

[Josquin des Prez]

I have two more 45 RPM albums on the way to me. Issues #5 and #6 from my Verve subscription. I should have them next week.

Ella Fizgerald, "Like Someone In Love"
Ben Webster Meets Oscar Peterson

I really don't mind flipping a record more often. I don't even notice it.

[dubita]

I have a direct-to-disc 45 rpm of Charlie Byrd that I use to check any system changes. When everything is right, it sounds like he's right in my living room.

[hhwilson99]

Originally Posted by dubita

I have a direct-to-disc 45 rpm of Charlie Byrd that I use to check any system changes. When everything is right, it sounds like he's right in my living room.

Hi dubta: I had a similar experience recently also. Hadn't played Charlie in awhile, I was astonished all over again at how truly great this recording is. Kleos loved it!