« Musicians Against Air Travel: Stevie Ray Vaughan | Home | The Joy of Music »
45 RPM Vinyl LPs: Do They Sound Better?
By Alan | November 10, 2008
45 RPM Record
When most people think of 45 RPM records, they think of the small records often used for jukeboxes and singles. While it's true that many 45's released are singles, there are also 45 RPM LPs out there. These records play at a faster speed than the usual 33 RPMs of a standard LP, and because of this, are often doubles. While on a 33 RPM record, you can fit an entire album's worth of music, 45 RPM LPs can usually only fit about 12-15 minutes of music on each side--usually not enough space for an entire album.
So, what's the big idea? It seems like these 45 RPM records are more trouble than they're worth! According to audiophiles, the 45 RPM format sounds better because more musical data is fit into a smaller space than with 33 RPM records. This logic is also applied to digital music formats such as MP3s. A 256kbps MP3 is said to sound better than a 128kbps MP3 because more data is contained in the file. Just like a computer must read through more data in a 256kbps MP3 than with a 128kbps MP3, a turntable stylus must pick up on more nuances and details in the record groove in a 45 RPM record than in a 33 RPM record.
In theory, it all sounds well and good. It makes sense that a 45 RPM record sounds better than a 33 RPM record. However, can humans perceive the improvements in sound? In my opinion, the jury is still out. I can tell the difference between a 128 kbps MP3 and a 256kbps MP3, however I can't tell the difference between a 256kbps MP3 and a CD. I can, however, tell the difference between a CD and a vinyl record. I just purchased my first 45 RPM LP, and I can tell you that it sounds fantastic, but I can't tell you if it sounds better than the same album pressed on a 33 RPM record. Whew! A lot of perception going on here...
Anyway, the album I purchased was one that I had only listened to on CD and MP3 up until a few days ago. I can tell you that it sounds WAAAAY better than the CD, and definitely better than the MP3. However, I don't have a 33 RPM pressing of the album to do a side by side comparison. Too bad... I need to give the album another intense rotation or two to really get a feel for the superiority of the sound over CD, but again, this proves the theory (again) that vinyl really does sound better.
If you find an album that you love, and it is available in the 45 RPM format, it's probably worth picking up, because in addition to the theoretically better sound, it is also probably a heavier format, made with virgin vinyl, and may even include some nice extras. Enjoy the music...in 45 RPMs!
Join the Conversation: Post a Comment!
Topics: Sound Quality | 5 Comments »
November 12th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
[...] my lap. Rapid Transit: All of your releases thus far have only been on vinyl. Why do you think vinyl is still a strong medium in the age of iTunes and [...]
March 31st, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Anyone who can’t tell the difference between a 256kbps mp3 and a cd should not be writing any audio format comparison reviews. And I don’t think that you just ‘proved’ vinyl is better than cd (although it has the potential to be)
March 31st, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Thanks for the comment, but I disagree. 256kbps MP3 files sound really good, and to be honest, I find it hard to believe that most humans can perceive the difference. I’m not saying that there aren’t differences between a CD and 256kbps MP3 (there are), but the sound quality of 256kbps MP3s are good enough to mimic the sound of a CD, at least to a human. See here:
http://whatisnoise.com/2008/12/cd-vs-mp3-can-you-tell-the-difference.html
http://erikjheels.com/?p=1236
I am skeptical of die-hard audiophiles who talk about how some piece of gear sounds better because it has .01% less THD. The same argument is made with regards to MP3s (and other stuff too). If you didn’t have the spec sheet in front of you, would you really be able to discern such a small difference? Human ears are not precision instruments, and while it may be true that some humans can perceive smaller nuances in sound than others, it doesn’t mean that an especially perceptive human can make the same judgments as a precision instrument or computer.
As for “proving that vinyl is better”, I have proven it to myself, but maybe other people aren’t convinced. That’s fine, because the only person’s opinion that matters when it comes to how something sounds is my own. I encourage you and everyone else that reads this to make up their own minds about what sounds best to them.
Anyway, thanks for the comment. I am glad that I’ve got some lively discussion going!
May 19th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
why compare cd vs mp3 if they are both bad! Vinyl or 24/96 is another thing.
“Human ears are not precision instruments” that’s right but human brain has more perception. to prove yourself the “diferences” go to a demo in a hi-fi/high-end shop.
May 24th, 2009 at 10:45 am
My belief is that audiophile gear sounds better not because it boasts all sorts of good specifications (THD, s/n, slew rate, blah blah, etc), but because most audiophile gear is very high powered, which then allows the listener to enjoy music much louder, with less distortion. With the volume up, you hear those subtle nuances in the sound, plus you get that realism of hearing the music at natural volume levels, making the music sound better.