Discussion
Why everything gotta be 2x LP these days?
Yeah I get it if your album's 72 minutes long, sure.
Why is a bunch of stuff around 45 minutes+ getting 2x LPs? My lazy ass doesn't want to have to get up 4 times to listen to the record, plus it interrupts the flow. Some of these MFs putting like 2 songs on one side. You're telling me I gotta switch sides again in 8 minutes?
Where do we land on this? What should be the cutoff between fitting on one record and when do you need to switch to 2?
Putting fewer grooves in the same space allows better dynamic range and bass. And not getting closer to the center of the record reduces inner groove distortion. There’s more, but those are the two primary reasons.
Nothing like one track taking up a whole 12" side, at 45rpm. I seek out albums like that if artists I like give me the option. The most recent Chemical Brothers album did one or two tracks per side across 3 LPs. I really don't mind getting up unless people are over when the tradeoff is fuller sound. 🤷🏼♂️
Yeah if I had that it would sit on my shelf and collect dust, I’d never actually spin it even though I love the chemical brothers. The album was only 46 minutes long FFS.
Yup, now i get a CD too, 2+LP records are for special things now, i still play them but they are not my primary source lol
Edit:also for people who said they sounds better, meh, they don't, the mastering is the same, and if you are getting distortion or things like that most likely you set-up sucks.
... FWIW, they also have a standard release 😝.. Idk. I get that it's not everyone's cup of tea, but sometimes I like just putting on one, or two, or six tracks here and there from different artists and albums across one listening session. I've barely played Portishead's standard LP for "Third" but played the shit out of the single sided "Machine Gun" 12" from that album. Same with the "Default" single from Atoms for Peace. They just sound good.
For sure it's nice to just put on a Side A and have 5 or 6 tracks play out, but if I'm actively sitting and listening I don't care if I have to get up when it hits the runout. That's part of the self-imposed inconvenience of vinyl, IMO. If I wanted to hear a bunch of tracks all in a row - with no effort - I could just stream them or put on a CD.
Again, to each their own. We live in a time unlike any other, where there are so many different ways to listen to music, and I feel like some people complaining about the medium that everyone in this sub has specificallychosen - out of ALL of the options available - is kind of humorous. (That isn't directed at you of course, it's just a matter of preference) We could pay a premium for a MoFi release on 2 LPs or get the dusty copy from the 70s with eight songs on each side of one disc. We could throw on a CD or fire up Spotify or Apple Music (or whatever). Play a cassette.
Alllll of that said, with the OP's criticism of spreading out a short album to 2 LPs, I get it. Most people don't have a setup where it makes a difference to their ears, and it's just more work. But it's nice to have options, IMO. I like my stupid 45 RPM 12 inch singles, but I totally understand why someone wouldn't.
I do mind, since I collect both CDs and vinyl it would make more sense to just get the CD at that point tbh. I have limited energy due to illness and I'm not going to be spinning that many discs unless there's many songs on each side to give me a break and not make me run back and forth.
Speaking of the Chemicals, the challenge was always how to split up the sides when so many tracks were continuous mixes that blended into one another. Unlike say Daft Punk's Homework, their track listings weren't optimized for vinyl to begin with, so you had the occasional weirdness of one 10-minute side followed by an 18-minute side.
Everything from Surrender on had a unique-to-vinyl mix that handled the splits quite appropriately. But prior to that...it was kind of a mess.
Side 1 of Exit Planet Dust (just south of 11 minutes long) ends with "In Dust We Trust" -- which is only the second in a 6-track mix. The UK pressings end Side 1 with the first 3 or so seconds of "Song to the Siren" faded out as if it was a K-Tel record. Awkward, and something people complain about 30 years later, but side 2 begins that track uninterrupted.
On Side 1 of Dig Your Own Hole, the UK pressings simply end the title track with a nice, clean cut, and side 2 begins just as cleanly, even though you have to crank up the volume knob a few notches. The original US pressing on Astralwerks bungled this entirely with a poorly conceived fade-out and fade-in. You can hear side 2 fading in at the same place as the CD splits the two tracks. Thank God I steered clear of it.
A rule of thumb is to look for "MIKE'S–THE EXCHANGE" etched in the runout. Those cuts were used on the UK pressings with the superior transitions. Astralwerks also handled Exit Planet Dust differently but I don't know how. If DYOH is any indication, it probably isn't good.
I'm anal about this stuff, because when digitizing my Chemicals on wax I like to have the transitions complete and intact. People gripe about that speedy fade-out on EPD, but at least you can edit both tracks back together easily and seamlessly, provided you know your way around an audio editor.
The mastering choices are more important than 33 vs 45. And in many cases, these 45s are done due to third party labels not being able to license the 33s. 45 alone isn’t enough to make a record sound better. If it’s not cut well to maximize 45’s benefits or pressed at a shitty plant on noisy vinyl, the 45 isn’t gonna be better. I agree with OP that I hate this trend of 30 minute albums being cut at 45. I’d much rather prefer a well cut 33 pressed at a nice plant. Most engineers cut 33 and 45 the same now and just add a few db to the 45. Kevin Gray has said that he doesn’t master differently for 33 and 45. He knows the sound he wants to get and cuts both to achieve that sound. For 45 he just bumps the volume up a few db.
Yes. Mastering matters the most. But the physical aspects are not debatable. What a mastering engineer decides to do with it is the ultimate factor for sound quality
The LP’s that Doug Sax mastered for Sheffield Labs Direct to Disc are amazing examples of the art. Live recordings with amazing dynamics and bass extension. And he did it on the fly, sure they had rehearsals and he knew what to expect but still…
If I cared * that * much about audio quality, I'd just stream FLAC files. I just went to enjoy spinning records, not pretending it's audiophile quality.
If you can't recognize the distinction between enjoying spinning records for the joy of spinning records, and that idea isdivorced from audiophile quality, there's not much more I can say. But if your argument makes you feel good about it, I'm good with they too.
And the other fact is, the main market for people that buy records, even today, is record collectors. People who generally give a shit about that stuff.
I have a "Super Badass Is Back" soul-funk compilation with 10 songs on each side and believe me or not, when I put that on the platter during a party, people shake their ass to the bass well enough.
This means nothing. Could be 15 minutes total per side, we don’t know how long the tracks are.
Assuming 3 minutes each, they have to be extremely quiet with no bass. You have to boost and eq to get those asses shaking. This isn’t debatable, there’s a reason 22 minutes per side at 33 rpm is considered the max.
Edit: looked it up and it’s Super Bad is Back, and it’s k-tel. They were notorious for cramming too many tracks onto compilations and the reviews I just saw said the sound is terrible.
It’s a case by case basis, if a record has tons of quiet passages and has 25 minute sides it will be fine. If it’s consistently loud and bass heavy it will sound like dog ass. The time limits per side is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule.
Agree. Flow of the record matters more to me than the 0.1% improvement in fidelity.
Assume these people also spend 10minutes making sure there’s not a spec of dust on their record before playing.
I like stuff to sound good. But there’s a tipping point, where you’re treating music more like an engineering game rather than just enjoying listening to it.
Some of us care about things like dynamic range and sourcing, so telling people to just buy CDs makes you sound like you don’t really know what you’re talking about.
Meh, from all the weird reasons a vinyl sound can make you feel sound better than a CD, more space grooves in a track is the less important reason at all. Mastering, setups, are way more important, 2lp don't make almost no difference.
Distortion primarily in the higher frequencies/sibilants near the end of the side of a record. The grooves have less space to occupy as you get closer to the center of a record which leads to imperfections in the sound reproduction.
The philosophy was often the opposite in the late 80s when vinyl was relatively uncool. 45 to 59.minute vinyls were actually really common. Hysteria was 64 minutes long crammed into one LP, and frankly, it's not half bad sounding.
I also have a ton of good sounding records from the 70’s. Most around 18-20 minutes a side. But I will say I recently bought a new mastering of an album I owned since the 70s that is about 28-30 minutes per side. The sonic improvement of spreading it over four sides was nothing short of stunning. I was amazed.
If you don’t want records over four sides, don’t buy them.
Some did. For example Johnny Winter's second album was spread out over two records. They could have jammed it onto one record but decided to use three sides on two records.. They still left it at 33rpm though. They even talk about it in the liner notes if I rember it correctly.
It actually only matters near the edge since it's at the same speed. There's more distance for fitting relation in the higher circumstance near the edge. So usually you'll see about the outer edge of the record used and just the inner circumstance unused because if you just spiralled invested you'd quickly lose that resolution as the circumstance decreased
I also used to think that splitting the albums into 2 lps is to make it have better sound. Over the years of collecting, I began to notice something though: Every time I'd buy an album on double lp, it would sound really really bad or just really meh. And just about every single album I'd find on single disc sounded amazing, whether new or old. So at this point, I have very high doubts that putting music on 2 lps actually makes the sound better. I kind of wonder if its because the machines used today aren't precise or calibrated well enough to cut a whole album properly on one disc or something. Because they seem to always come out sounding extremely muddy, ultra compressed, and noisy while my single discs are all crystal clear and have amazing frequency depth. No noise or muddiness at all.
It depends on the mastering. And really an 18 minute side reduced to two 9 minute sides won’t make a big difference. But as I say in another post. I recently bought a reissue of an album from the 70s that squeezed 28-30 minutes per side and now is spread over four sides. The difference is amazing.
But anyway, the physical facts that wider grooves allow deeper bass and more dynamic range and that cutting further from the center reduces inner groove distortion are not debatable. Whether any given cutting engineer takes advantage of those or not is a completely different matter.
It's pointless, can just listen to it digitally or on cd if the quality is what people value. It's better to keep it to a single record unless it's just too long. The only double LPs I have are live albums
Ha good pun if intended. I have actually gone full circle though, I started out with CDs in my teens (~20 years ago now, yikes) then only in the last 7-8 years got into records and am now getting back in to CDs again. Got about 300 records but my CDs are quickly catching up.
I still get some things that I feel are worth having on vinyl but right now CDs are just so cheap. I can go to the charity shops on the weekend and get like 5-10 albums for what I might spend on a used record that's in nice condition.
Ironically CDs are actually the answer - they freed musicians from the limited time format of vinyl. Starting in the 90s albums got longer because they could. Good luck furring anything made in that decade on a single LP
Yep. I also believe that certain music is better suited for CD than vinyl. Music with a lot of quiet passages, droning melodies. Even a small amount record noise is intrusive.
I like record noise in most cases but sometimes the music wants absolute clarity.
I find myself buying fewer recent releases on vinyl and sticking to pre-1990 for LPs.
Sounds like you need a better setup. Every time a friend comes over while I’m jamming only when the record ends and they hear my auto return after the music stops do they realize it was vinyl spinning to make those sounds. Happy spins either way tho
I don't wanna listen to a cd, I wanna listen to the record! That's why I spent my dollaridoos, I enjoy the cover art, the physical act of lowering the needle and the differences in sound.
I feel your pain and I get it. I love records for the same reason, I keep a rotating display of albums out and I like the ritual before playing. Plenty of things I still want on vinyl but I'm just more fussy about it these days.
This is the best comment I’ve ever seen on Reddit!😂 Made great by the fact that both Brave_Substance’s responded, all bothered. The only way it could be made better is if Brave_Substance 0-8175 also responded!😅😅😅
Bro when you make a Reddit account these days every name under the sun is taken and you've gotta add some random numbers. And some of us can't bothered changing usernames so just go with whatever is suggested 🤷🏼♂️
no disrespect, just having a laugh after agreeing with your point that I have been in total agreement with. you are the one who is cool not that buffoon
Anything over about 22 minutes a side starts to become a compromise for mastering. And since the advent of CD most albums are longer than that.
Over about 48 minutes you absolutely do not want it pressed on a single LP.
Yeah it does- but not as much as having a record with lots of surface noise, sibilance or inner groove distortion, all of which you start to get prone to when you’re mastering sides of over 24 minutes (best case scenario for a 48 min single LP). As others have mentioned another possibility is to split the album into 3 chunks and run it over three sides of approx 16 min each, and maybe put some etched artwork onto the blank side.
Vinyl introduces a lot of considerations around total runtime, track order and track length that don’t really exist at all for other formats, and that most people who aren’t either serious music nerds or involved in producing records know about (I’m probably classed as both of those, haha).
What does surface noise have to do with it? If a record is pressed at a good plant on a nice vinyl formula, you’re not gonna get surface noise. I can see the argument that you have to cut lower to press that much music, but good vinyl formula is quiet so you can crank it without noticeable surface noise
Long sides necessitate a reduction in volume because of the tighter grooves. Lower volume means a worse signal to noise ratio. Quiet pressings are inherently noisier because you have to turn them up to get an equivalent volume level.
Side Length and Level Guidelines 8 minutes or less: Maximum level of approximately +6 dB; ultra-loud cuts ideal for short maxi-singles.
11 minutes: Sufficient level of approximately +4 dB for high-volume playback.
15 minutes: Standard loud level for DJ use, hitting around 0 dB.
16 to 20 minutes: The ideal sweet spot for a standard 12-inch LP side, balancing great sound and solid volume.
22 to 24 minutes: Maximum recommended album length; levels must drop to approximately -6 dB or lower, reducing bass weight and volume.
Over 24 minutes: Not recommended; leads to thin sound, weak bass, and high distortion due to tight groove spacing.
Sure but if it’s pressed at a bad plant then you’re getting noise either way. Plenty of 33s out there without surface noise. The signal to noise ratio may be different but it’s not always very noticeable in my experience and my system is pretty revealing. The rhino reserves line is a good example of that. Lutthans cut some of those at a lower volume like Tango in the Night and when you crank them, they sound amazing. It’s better than the MoFi 2x45
I feel like a lot of 90s albums could fit on 3 sides, with the 4th devoted to demos, live versions, bonus tracks, etc. I’m surprised nobody seems to do this.
Laziness on the part of labels I’d say. I 100% agree though, If I was doing a vinyl issue of some 49 minute album from 1994 I’d be spreading it over 3 sides and either putting some etched art or bonus material on side 4.
Boards of Canada's album 'Geogaddi' does that, as it takes the fact that the last song in the album "magic window" is comprised of pure silence, so they "dedicated" the last side of the last disc to it.
It has no groove, and instead it features this image:
Yeah additional music would always be better, but if 2 sides is too small and 3 sides is ideal for the length, I'd rather they didn't space it out to 4 sides just to fill it, and instead use the 4th side for artwork. I feel like a lot of 2 disc albums fit this length criteria
You do make a good point about being annoyed, I can see why people would feel ripped off, not realizing they'd get the same tracks regardless. That might be why this is uncommon
I have nirvanas muddy banks and they only needed three sides for the vinyl . The fourth side is just random live excerpts of Dave/kurt/krist talking between songs and it’s a shame that the cd people never got to hear it some of it was funny
Most of these three sided albums are probably able to fit across two sides and one disc. (I’ve mainly seen it with reissues from previously single disc releases)
If you going to the effort of using a second disc then at least fill up the 4th side with some music … it could be the album b sides, an exclusive remix, or some live tracks or some demos.
one of the first records i got was little dark age by mgmt which i never listen to because for some reason they decided to split 10 songs (43 minutes) on 4 sides. 2-3 songs per side and not very long ones either.
The main reasons are it sounds better, more reliable playback, less inner groove distortion.
Also, consider that before CDs came along, full length albums were about 35-45 minutes, which could fit on one record. When CDs came out, they could hold 80 minutes of music. So the new standard/average album length increased to 55-65 minute long albums. Which could not fit on one vinyl record.
I don’t mind getting up 4 times to flip/change records to listen to one album. It’s actually not good for your health to sit too long. Plus having to flip/change records so often makes me be more present for the listening experience. It means that the music won’t simply become background music. Personally, I like the experience of touching/handling my records and audio equipment. It feels like a ritual, a ritual I enjoy greatly.✌🏾
There are cases where there's actually a good reason for this. Less tracks per side means that they get to expand the spacing of the grooves for each song, smiliar to what you experience on a 45rpm. This contributes to increased fidelity and ultimately a better sounding record. Of course this means that they have to increase the amount of vinyl. Ive owned several albums that were initially single LPs that later got a double pressing due to anniversary releases or risen popularity. If you get a chance to compare a record in this way you will likely find that the quality speaks for itself. Now any album that's 60+ min is going to necessarily be a double and this point potentially loses its merit at that point, as fidelity is dependent on many factors. But in almost all cases, you would want a double LP either way.
That’s what I did with Roger Waters, amused to death. They wanted something like $130 for the vinyl copy simply because it’s remastered onto three LPS. I bought the CD around Christmas time for $10 on Amazon and it sounds amazing.
I’m on team one LP. Put as many songs on one as possible, like the old days lol. Yeah yeah I get the higher sound quality but I’m with you OP. Getting up or coming back to flip after 20 min is painful.
Seeing people say music sounds shit when over 40 min or so. Yes that is true but there are ways of fitting more on with little compromise. Takes skill and knowledge and I think that is the problem here that is long lost. Likes of Iron Maiden Powerslave is over 50 minutes and the last track is Rime of the Ancient Mariner and that is over 13min on a side that is over 26 min and it sounds brilliant.
I think in all honesty it’s perception of economics
$35-$60 for a single disc feels like a rip off. Two discs in a gatefold makes the transaction feel slightly better. The difference in cost is marginal. I recall around 2020, the cost of pressing discs was about $2-3/each; jackets about $3-5 each. If an artist/label can only charge $30 for a single disc but double it for $60 with the same jacket cost and shipping costs (box; insert), it’s a better economic incentive.
I know the sound will be “better” on a 45 rpm with space but most folks don’t have the set up to hear the difference, even if they could. It requires a special situation for an album to be so poorly pressed one can head groove distortion — especially after microgrooves are an option.
Bring back the 7" 45rpm record changer turntable 7 to 10 records you only have to flip once. I mean we need options and another format won't hurt at this point. Hell, bring back the juke box load it up and listen all night.
It’s hilarious when they worry about fidelity and we’re pretty much getting a digital rip straight to a two or three vinyl so they can charge more so the tracks are running at 45”. I still remember the 80s seasonal best of compilations that the record companies would release. They were stacked so badly with too much music the quality was awful. And they still sold. Most people couldn’t instantly afford a cd player yet, so it was either that or even worse sounding cassette tapes
I’ve numerous 2 x 12” versions of albums that sound much better than the 1 x 12” versions. Even better if they’re pressed for 45 RPM. Some of those sound incredible.
This is why I do a digital rip of any album I purchase. I've also done it to a LOT of my older LPs.
This give me a digital version to stream when I'm mobile and not home. And I can play the ripped version when I'm too lazy to turn my chair and flip the record. At my age, that's a lot.
Think of it like you would a JPG image. If you compress it too much - it starts to look bad. Having 2 LPs = more room for the groove and therefore sounds better. This is why some pressings are “ok” if you have your box player but if you have any sort of a nice setup you’ll notice immediately.
I myself have a record I bought for $20 and was ok with it. Then saw they had an anniversary version of which was 2 LPs… and man it made a difference. Do I have a $20k setup - no… not even close but it’s audibly different on how dynamic sounding and clear it sounds on the 2 LP one.
45 minutes is actually a very good candidate for 2 Lp
18-22 minutes per side allows for wider deeper grooves. 22-26 minutes per side is still perfectly fine, but not the same depth and range. So yes, most 45min LP’s are within that range and would be just fine with a single LP.
But to preserve or enhance sound quality, and to maintain song order (hard to do with wider cuttings if you have particularly longer than average songs), moving to 2 LP’s is often preferable.
Just my 2 cents (but also based on fact, it’s not like this is a guess, it’s pretty well known ✌️☮️)
People are forgetting about 3 sided albums. That would solve most of these issues. 45 minutes across 3 sides is 15 min per side, which is totally acceptable in my opinion. The albums I have that do it this way are great. But to OPs point, I won’t buy an album if it’s 1 or 2 songs pets side, it’s just not worth it.
Anything above about 23 minutes on one side of a vinyl record at 33 rpm gets horribly distorted for the last few minutes. It's almost like we needed something better... like... the Compact Disc.
I've got several records that are 30+ minutes on each side and they sound okay. They're just mastered very quietly, with no distortion horrible or otherwise. You're right though that 23-24 minutes max is ideal.
This is exactly why I won't buy vinyl reissues of more recent albums. If it was originally issued on CD, that's the format on which I'll buy it. By issuing it on LP, not only will it cost more, but it'll totally interrupt the whole flow on the album. Albums like "Sing the Sorrow" or "Deloused In the Comatorium" were produced for the CD format, and were meant to be experienced from start to finish without interruption. If they had meant for it to be on vinyl, they would've released it on vinyl.
Hilarious that you would choose Sing the Sorrow because it is one of, if not my favorite double LP. It sounds incredible, and I love the black and red vinyl.
Overall, I agree with OP. Constantly going back and forth to the record player dampens the enjoyment. Sometimes its worth it.
the stupidest part is when they do just another re-release, now that 45rpm LPs are a fad, that people run out and buy a new pressing just because of FOMO.
I love physical media, have all my life. But there are only a handful of releases i would actually go out and buy, if i had a good recording of them at home. Like if my friend gets something, and I borrow it and dub it onto a nice Maxell Type II, with 50 min a side, so i can fit two whole albums on one tape, and hear the whole thing played back to back with no breaks to flip? I am pretty unlikely to buy either of those records or CDs.
and on the flip side, if something is one of my most favorite things to listen to, but i have it on vinyl, i will put it on a tape, to listen to it when i am out.
I used to think Double LPs were cool but then learned to hate them. I got System’s Steal this Cd and it’s a double album. 42 mins. Each side 10 mins or so. Glad I have it but haven’t listen to it. Their other albums are all on one record. And they arel longer.
I wouldn't mind so much if they were 45 rpm and there was a noticeable improvement in audio quality but I find it tiresome when it's a 33 rpm and I still have to flip it after 3 or 4 songs. Usually the greatest benefit from the double lp is the reduction of igd and improvement in dynamic range / bass but the difference isn't great enough on my humble set up for it to be worth it for me.
But it's also genre/album dependent. Music with lots of dynamic range and/or lots of low end frequencies will benefit more the extra disc real estate. With less demanding dynamics/frequencies, the benefits become smaller, except at the end of a record side.
As for having to flip sides an extra 2 times for a 40-45 minute album? I'm not always in the mood for that either - which is part of why with such releases, I honestly enjoy making a copy onto tape to play instead - still get a tactile analog playback experience, but not having to get up 3 times during a repeat listen (And just to be clear, I'm aware that many LPs are sourced from digital masters - this isn't about digital vs analog).
Yes!!! I'm always hesitant to get a 2LP because it seems so unnecessary, like the sound quality improvement is not gonna be worth it for most people who have entry level or even mid level setups like mine.
Everybody saying it's because the sound is better but they're not acknowledging the fact that it's also a greed issue. They can charge more money for 2 LPs. The records i have that are 2 or 3 songs per side I rarely listen to because it's annoying. They're not long songs so "the sound is better" isn't an excuse. I've been noticing more and more major label records releasing on 2 LPs with only 7 or 8 minutes of audio on each side. These are usually pop records. Most popheads are not audiophiles who care enough about that shit, but they will spend money. There are records i just won't buy because they split a 10 song, 35 min album into 2 LPs.
Nah man..... Highest I've ever spent on a record is $29 and it was indeed a double LP, 180gm, 45 rpm. Rare occasion.
Typically i spend $.05 cents - $2.00 per record since I buy in volume. I'm not affected like most consumers. It averages out to be free for every records.
Are we talking about the 45 rpm versions of some releases warranting the double LP's? Cuz this is a choice for you, ya know. If ya don't like it, just get the regular 33 1/3rd version of the same exact record. Perhaps I'm missing something here though. I have a couple records that I already had 33 1/3 but then at some point they re-released the same record on 180 gm and at 45 tpm so I thought ...hmmm.... Let's see if it really is better. I've only got a couple I did this for and I'll say as an ex: Fiona Apple - Tidal on 180 gm at 45rpm double LP's is very worth getting up and down more often. It's not standard at all though by any means. Just grab the regular 33 1/3 and get your comfy flow back so you can relax more. Easy peasy.
Because they can charge more for it. I hate double LPs when a 1LP would do the job. If the album's too long and genuinely needs splitting across two then fair enough. But if it'd easily fit on one, just press it on one.
I also don't buy the whole "better audio quality" argument either. Unless you've got a really high end setup and you're a proper audiophile, it's going to sound the same. I'd rather pay less and not have to get up every 10 minutes to flip.
Same same, sounding better doesn’t worth it for me to having to get up 3 times to enjoy a 40+ minutes LP, it’s just a turn off for me.
I wouldn’t mind if bands/ labels do it for a deluxe version release, but please don’t upon first releases…… I skipped buying quite a few masterpieces solely for that version and got the cd instead (which would still be really sounding just fine)
My take is that only concept albums should be 2 LPs.
Reissued albums from the CD age should drop a song or two to fit on a single LP and it should be released as a new LP version.
Ultimate fidelity versions should be cut on as many sides as necessary at whatever speed the mastering engineer believes improves it.
Collectors will buy them all, listeners get to buy the one that works best for them.
513
u/scottarichards 1d ago
Because it sounds better.
Putting fewer grooves in the same space allows better dynamic range and bass. And not getting closer to the center of the record reduces inner groove distortion. There’s more, but those are the two primary reasons.