Anyone else strongly dislike 2LP 45rpm albums?

Agree on "Accelerate" in particular, a brief album that would have been perfectly well served on a single 33 rpm pressing...nothing about the sonics of that recording cry out for 45 rpm treatment.

 

I literally got a copy of that for free, otherwise there was no way I would've paid for it, even though I'm a huge REM fan (and really liked that album, musically). I played it once to make a rip for my media server, and that was it. I think it evens out to about 9 minutes a side. Why bother?

 

I'm with this !!! I tend to like the 33rpm better , less $$$ and i don't know why but in a lot of cases i like the 33 RPM sound better , something about them seems to be better on the low wend or something .......
I do have a bunch of the 45 rpm one's , but i'd rather have 33 provided they are not stuffed with info over 20 minutes .

 

If the album is long enough to require too discs anyway (say, 55 minutes), and results in all four sides staying under 15 minutes or so, then they might as well make it 45 RPM. Such common sense is usually either A) not done or B) marketed as premium product when it is done. A nice exception are the albums by Elbow. They are 45 RPM doubles and cost about the same as any other new album. The new Pineapple Thief album on Kscope should have been done this way as well.

 

I don't believe that's true. Bob Dylan's Freewheelin' is 50:04 and sounds stunning at 45rpm on 2 discs. Vitalogy is only 5:26 longer.

Bob Dylan's Blonde on Blonde on the other hand (a true double album), required 3 discs because it clocks in at 72:57. Not to mention, "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" (11:22) needed a dedicated side.

 

I call them "exercise records"

 

I own quite few 45 rpm albums from ORG, Music Matters, Analogue Productions, and MFSL, and enjoy them. If the main reason a person doesn't want to buy these albums is because you have to get up and turn them over more often then it's no wonder that two out of three people in the US are considered overweight. I can understand the extra expense being a deterrent.

 

It's not the physicality that sucks. I start relaxing and getting into it and suddenly I gotta break from it.

 

I know they sound better, yes they do, but short-sided 33s with no inner groove distortion sound pretty darned good and I do dislike changing the speed, checking to make sure it's spinning right, etc. So it's a pain. I can think of a great album that I bought but I would listen to it a lot more if it were at 33. Sorry I'm in the pain in the neck camp. I don't listen to singles that much for the same reason. I don't mind the flipping part, just the speed changing part.

 

I really have no problem with asking Jeeves to flip the record on my Continuum Caliburn turntable every 12 minutes. What's your problem, old chap??? True, good help is hard to find -- and train.

I love the sound of my old 45RPM direct to disk records, but I always thought of them as a novelty, a proof of concept, perhaps a star for hi-res digital to shoot for. I personally can't imagine buying new albums on double 45 format, even if I could afford the great number that I might theoretically like to own. It doesn't seem very practical to me, on any level.

 

I can understand that.

 

I think it's a great option for those of us looking to get the ultimate copy of a favorite album. In fact, I would strongly like the option of buying more of the greatest rock albums of all time in this format. AP needs to re-press that darn Led Zep trunk set now!

 

Mostly dislike. I bought that last Eno/Hyde not knowing it was a double 45 LP. I think I listened to it once... That kind of music needs to go for more than 12 minutes at a time. But someone else mentioned the Father John Misty. That I've played a lot. Same format. different kind of music. I've not minded flipping that one. But still. Mostly dislike....

 

My biggest problem with them is price. It is hard to justify the $50 price tag on most of these titles. Plus I prefer vintage pressings over most reissues anyway.

 

If not 100% flat mistracking is severe, much more than 331/3.
Smaller normal 45's better, flatter most of the time. My mono 45's from the fifties are the best: valve amp's used, no compression in any case not like today's platters and CD's. (omit made for radioplay or jukeboxes)
Some reissues on 45 12 inch, for example Buddy Holly are absolute top, I bought many in the day's of discosingles, normal music however never made it.

 

Did people ever have a strong dislike for buying 45 singles and flipping/changing per song? Aside from having a jukebox, you figure there'd be a real strong dislike, based on the op's feelings, but we're still immensely popular back in the day.

I know they're pricey, but the sound is that much better, so I love it and don't mind getting off the couch.

 

I find it helps you pay better attention to the music.

 

What a pain! It's a format for audiophiles. I can't imagine more normal folk would want to pay so much for an album and deal with the additional hassle.

The 'improved' sound is not enough for me to keep flipping sides every 10-15mins. I only own one 2x45 album, and only bought it to check out what the fuss was about.

Soon they'll introduce 4x78rpm records for greater 'improved sound'.

 

Great, now I'll have to buy the Doors catalog once more.

 

Let's re-do all these as 16-inch records. 33-1/3 RPM would be fine because the bigger disk gives you increased linear velocity at the outer diameters. Just don't cut anywhere near the label. Of course you'll want to re-align your cart, as you're changing the optimal null radii, but you won't have to change speeds!

 

Pretty sure it's not the exercise that people are afraid of.

If you've listened to LP's for the last 20, 30 or 50 years like me you are kind of trained for around 20 minutes of uninterrupted pleasure.
After 2 songs you are just settling in and it's a pain in the ass to have 3 breaks in an album when you are used to one.

Your mileage may vary ...

 

I love the ones I have.

 

I had to buy Steve's mastered Rumours, of course, but aside from that I don't think I have any others. What I dislike more is the tendency to do double vinyl albums to accommodate overblown CD tracklists, then you end up with three songs on each side so you are still turning them over too much. At least at 45 rpm you are getting an improvement in sound.

 

It's not that I would not appreciate the sound...I just could not be bothered with the format at this stage...

 

I can...I loved my vast collection of 12" singles from the 80's...and of course my 7" singles when I was younger...