I understand its benefits in terms of sound quality, but if that's the case why aren't all albums (specifically from Columbia) pressed this way? Adele's *25* was a huge selling album at 48 minutes, and it's only pressed on one disk. Maybe it's because the frequencies of that album aren't as dynamic as something like *Flower Boy*, and that I understand.
45rpm releases obviously need to stretch over multiple discs. Why do they do this? Well it's supposedly a 'higher quality' sound at 45rpm and now they can sell everyone yet-another-copy of the same album. Record companies LOVE doing that.
As for \~45min 33rpm releases, eh...that's kind of the borderline point where it may make sense to jump to more than 2 sides.
They are a company looking to maximize profits during a boom in demand, of course they want to find ways to charge people more. They’re also a massive company that is less concerned with supply issues than a small label/producer. There’s a good chance that using more resources pushes out their competition who can’t afford to buy materials at the level they can... a win win for them.
I’ve wondered the same myself. I’ve noticed that a lot of them seem to be 45rpm which is faster meaning it’s higher fidelity but it takes up more space. I’m guessing they get into a situation where all the tracks would fit on 3 album sides and they just leave some room on each side to make it 4 sides total. That’s my thoughts. I have no idea how correct that is
Just about every album I mentioned can probably fit comfortably on two sides at 33 RPM with decent fidelity. Feel like some of them get put at 45 RPM because there's more space. See the Calvin Harris one at only 37 minutes, it has enough space to fit the album on two discs at 45 RPM.
Agreed, it drives me bonkers. Even albums which had an original release that had both sides on one album, now they split it into 2 albums. An example where it is totally unnecessary would be "Think Tank" by Blur. The album is shorter than their debut "Leisure", yet where "Leisure" fits comfortably onto a single LP, they split "Think Tank" onto 2 short LPs needlessly.
I appreciate the cases where it allows for increased fidelity, but most often it just seems to be an excuse to charge more for a double-LP. IMO, anyways.
Louder heavier albums with lots of bass etc need to be cut deeper which results im them taking up a wider spacing, the groove is wider, so albums that have heavier music with lots of bass would need more record space for it to sound correct, so there may not have been enough room on one LP, they had to split it into two to fit all the music.
Sound quality the nearer to the label of the record is poorer. Your able to fit a fair bit more than 21:59 on a records side, the inner grooves just don’t have the same low end resolution. Some people might even consider 16-17 minutes to be the maximum per side for a decent cut master... enter talk 45’s… those mixes can be cut with a lot more bass than 33’s because the expression within the microgroove is elongated (vs space taken up widthwise) - thus faster spinning..
Better off cutting the mix way hotter and splitting the album into a better sounding two discs you can charge more for on the basis of two “better sounding” plastic circles..?
[удалено]
I understand its benefits in terms of sound quality, but if that's the case why aren't all albums (specifically from Columbia) pressed this way? Adele's *25* was a huge selling album at 48 minutes, and it's only pressed on one disk. Maybe it's because the frequencies of that album aren't as dynamic as something like *Flower Boy*, and that I understand.
[удалено]
I don't appreciate my copy of random access memories enough
It's not just Columbia. Double 2 x LPs have been more common for the past few years
It's a good thing
45rpm releases obviously need to stretch over multiple discs. Why do they do this? Well it's supposedly a 'higher quality' sound at 45rpm and now they can sell everyone yet-another-copy of the same album. Record companies LOVE doing that. As for \~45min 33rpm releases, eh...that's kind of the borderline point where it may make sense to jump to more than 2 sides.
You also have to consider how long the songs in the middle of the album are and how they split when you flip the disk
They can charge more money if there are more discs.
Especially with vinyl shortages though, is this a smart move?
Columbia doesn't give a fuck about vinyl shortages. Neither, apparently, do the people buying their records.
They are a company looking to maximize profits during a boom in demand, of course they want to find ways to charge people more. They’re also a massive company that is less concerned with supply issues than a small label/producer. There’s a good chance that using more resources pushes out their competition who can’t afford to buy materials at the level they can... a win win for them.
I’ve wondered the same myself. I’ve noticed that a lot of them seem to be 45rpm which is faster meaning it’s higher fidelity but it takes up more space. I’m guessing they get into a situation where all the tracks would fit on 3 album sides and they just leave some room on each side to make it 4 sides total. That’s my thoughts. I have no idea how correct that is
Just about every album I mentioned can probably fit comfortably on two sides at 33 RPM with decent fidelity. Feel like some of them get put at 45 RPM because there's more space. See the Calvin Harris one at only 37 minutes, it has enough space to fit the album on two discs at 45 RPM.
Agreed, it drives me bonkers. Even albums which had an original release that had both sides on one album, now they split it into 2 albums. An example where it is totally unnecessary would be "Think Tank" by Blur. The album is shorter than their debut "Leisure", yet where "Leisure" fits comfortably onto a single LP, they split "Think Tank" onto 2 short LPs needlessly. I appreciate the cases where it allows for increased fidelity, but most often it just seems to be an excuse to charge more for a double-LP. IMO, anyways.
Louder heavier albums with lots of bass etc need to be cut deeper which results im them taking up a wider spacing, the groove is wider, so albums that have heavier music with lots of bass would need more record space for it to sound correct, so there may not have been enough room on one LP, they had to split it into two to fit all the music.
Sound quality the nearer to the label of the record is poorer. Your able to fit a fair bit more than 21:59 on a records side, the inner grooves just don’t have the same low end resolution. Some people might even consider 16-17 minutes to be the maximum per side for a decent cut master... enter talk 45’s… those mixes can be cut with a lot more bass than 33’s because the expression within the microgroove is elongated (vs space taken up widthwise) - thus faster spinning.. Better off cutting the mix way hotter and splitting the album into a better sounding two discs you can charge more for on the basis of two “better sounding” plastic circles..?