I picked up an old Cal Tjader LP that plays at 45 rpm a couple of years ago and was amazed at how much more detail was there as compared to the same album that I already had recorded at 33 1/3. I have since found a few 45's of things I have on CD, and have heard a similar difference.
Don't take this to mean that LP's recorded at 33 1/3 sound bad, but you may want to pick up a 45 to see how it sounds.
If done properly a 45 is clearly superior to a 33.
My personal take on it is that if you really like the music and can afford the extra $$ then yes, it is worth it. I have the 45 rpm Classic records of "Kind of Blue" and "Take 5" as well as several others that I would never part with.
Whether the extra cost and hassle is worth it is a personal matter. I would buy a copy of one of your favorites and compare the 2 to see if it is worth it to you.
I think that while they might be superior sonically, it is noe enough to make up for the hassle. 22 minutes is short enough as it is. For me, 33!
But I'd say if you can find a "deal" on one, try it. Like Herman said, it may be worth it to you.
Thanks for the responses. So far everyone says try it. That's what I was afraid of. I was afraid I might like them. $50 an album means lots less albums to buy.
Herman, Kind of Blue would be a good test, as this is one of my favorite recordings as well. I think I'll buy one to try it out.
I just got both Sonny Rollins' Way Out West and Gene Ammons' Boss Tenor on 45 rpm for my birthday this month. I definitely think the 45 rpm versions are worth it for records that you really enjoy. I have both the original mono and stereo versions of Way Out West in vg+++ condition and the 45 rpm version smokes them both. Much bigger and better soundstaging and the sound is more natural. I not going to go out and buy too many 45s, but I'm definitely going to buy 45s of the recordings that I really enjoy.
In THEORY it would make sense... I always thought, for example, that a faster TAPE SPEED with reel to reel tape made all the difference in the world. It just ain't so, however. Often, with magnetic tape, you start losing bass reproduction as speed increases. I'm kind of surprised that a 45rpm disc would be SIMPLY better... I mean - aren't the RIAA curves EQ'ed for 33rpm reproduction? Not trying to make PROBLEMS here... just saying that things are never that simple, or never that clear.
It obviously makes sense which 45s you are talking about. I have all the Acoustic Sounds Fantasy Series 45s issued so far and as a general matter, can say that they are the best sounding jazz albums I have ever heard - hands down. I beleive that this is not only because of the increased speed. Hoffman and Gray are magicians and they have gone right back to the original master and used all tube equiptment. Moreover, RTI seems to do an excellent job on the pressings. There are a couple of albums (e.g. Montgomery Brothers - Grooveyard) which are not as impressive because the original recording was not that great. But the vast majority have a presence, solidity, transparency and naturalness that is truly phenomenal. Yes the price is high, but given that it is only about $20 or so more than the typical audiophile releases, I consider it a real bargain. The need to flip the album over more often is a bit of a pain, but I only play the albums when I want a real treat, so the sacrifice is worth it.
I can't comment on the Acoustic Sounds stuff but my copy of Public Image Limited's "Metal Box" (3 x 45rpm EP's) blows away "Second Edition" (the 33 1/3 LP version). From my experience with that, if I was gonna buy some of those records you are talking about then I would definitely at least, TRY one of them.
Well, I just ordered 3. What the h&ll? It's only money.
Jimmy D. Lane:
$125 + shipping (alright,so I ordered a couple extra items, let's call it $268.92)
They didn't have Miles Davis Kind of Blue or Sonny Rollins Way Out West. For best comparisons I would have liked to get one of these.
With Blue Train I can compare the 45 to the LP and SACD.
I'll let you know my impressions.
Happy New Year,
Remember, with the increased speed,YOU are going to,also,have to increase your own speed to your table,as the sides on a 45 rpm disc run out much more quickly.Better sound?YES!BUT,a(slight)price to pay in convenience.
What really matters is the speed with which the vinyl passes the stylus, and this varies quite a lot from the outside to inside grooves. 33 rpm is perfectly good for the outside grooves, but there is often significant degradation when the inside grooves are played. With a 45rpm recording the inside grooves will not exhibit this degradation. Of course, the 45rpm speed was invented for pop singles with small diameter, and the speed was appropriate for them.
Alright, I just finished spinning all 3 of the new 45's. Yes, the sound is absolutely amazing. The horns have so much bite they feel like they're right in the room. Blue Train blows away the SACD sonically. Ergonomically, it's a pain in the a$$. Blue train is on 4 one sided LP's!!! Every 8 minutes you have to get up and change the disc, no flipping sides here. The price one pays for realistic sound is not cheap. The 45's are much quieter too. Although I have a feeling that at $50 a pop and getting up every 7-8 minutes (although I could use the exercise), 33 1/3 will still be my first choice.
BTW, you HAVE to check out the Jimmy D. Lane It's Time 45. If you love the blues, it's a MUST have!
Now all we need is a turntable with the first Audiophile-Grade record changer system!
Call me weird, but I sort think it's neat to have to get up every 8 minutes to change the disc. I think half of it's psychoacoustical because since it's just a PITA is **HAS** to be better, right? Vinyl's all about rituals and I 'suppose we're all fetishists. :-)
if your talking handguns, the answer is yes.
I guess since I have tons of 7" singles and have had people over for sesssions where I play nothing but singles (and have been doing this for decades) I don't see the problem. In fact, in some way, when playing singles, attention gets devoted to the song in a way that sometimes doesn't happen with an LP. With an LP(or a CD) it's just going on and on so you can read or whatever. With a single, your attention is right there for the next three minutes. When I have people over this is cool because people listen more closely when you are playing them just one song. They'll cut the chatter and listen.
One of the downsides of the fancy-pants turntable that makes me still miss that old Dual I gave up years ago for the "high-end", is that when a record was over that Dual would lift the tonearm and shut off.
So, for your 8 minute sides, well in my world of 45's that an awfully Extended Play.......
John after months of reflection what do you think of the 45s?
The hell with 45s, let's talk 78s and really get quality sound!
As you are well aware no one is making 78's and there is no reason to believe that they would sound good based on the quality of playback equipment available. Any more stupid comments?
Not any more stupid than claiming that all 45s are better than 33s! Again its not the speed, but the application of the technology. Some old 78s did indeed sound pretty good when played back with good equipment and the proper equalisation curve.
Salut, Bob P.
I've bought a couple more 45's, and I do think the sonic improvement is audible. Slightly richer, more lively and vibrant. However, that being said, I don't think the difference is worth the extra price and effort. Vinyl easily beats digital, IMHO. 45's better 33 1/3's by a much smaller margin. The recent 45 series releases from Acoustic Sounds sound very good, but at $50 a record are kind of hard to justify buying many of them. You also have the getting up to change album every 6-9 minutes too.
So, is it worth paying more than twice the price to change album sides more often? Not IMO. I do listen mostly to LP's, but I do still highly recommend the Jimmy D. Lane It's Time recording, and I do still play and enjoy the sound of my 45's when I'm in an energetic listening mood, and/or demoing the rig.
John I spent the weekend with Albert Porter and three other AudiogoNers. We listened to a bunch of music including several 45 from Mosaic and other, and even a master tape of Feron Young. The master tape was astounding, but the 45s weren't far behind. I ordered four 45s from Music Direrct earlier today based on what I heard in Dallas. I'll let you know what I think when I hear 'em. Thanks for the response.
Nate, that sounds like fun. Was Pat there?
I don't think I'll ever be getting master tape's, so 45's are about as good as it gets. I do wish they weren't so expensive though. Of the four 45's that you ordered, are there any duplicates for direct comparison with LP? I have CD's, SACD's, LP's and 45's, I try not to replicate for the most part. I only haveone 45 that I can directly compare to the LP, and that would be John Coltrane's Blue Train, which I also own on SACD.
The 45 sounds the best, as it should, costing $50 and needing (4) 200 gram vinyl platters to play 5 songs. It edges out the $20 LP sonically. I think the sonic difference is greater between the LP and the SACD than the 45 and the LP though. Of course I don't have enough material to make a sweeping judgement. It could be a case of that particular recording. I have around 600 LP's and around 500 CD's, but only around a couple dozen SACD's and 45's. For the most part, I try not to replicate recordings. I'm not overly interested in that audiophile tradition of direct A/B comparison in a level matched enviornment. I would love to expand my collection, but I need to find more room for storage. I'll have to wait for one of the boys to move out I suppose, as building a $50K addition so that I can expand my collection seems a bit excessive (to my wife at least). :-)
I'll be interested in reading your impressions when you receive your 45's. Keep me posted.
Yeah, Pat was there. It was one of those 'weekend of a lifetime.' Cello and Vetterone were there too, great guys! And we listened to a lot of good music, with some crap mixed in to keep everyone awake. I think the crap was stuff I brought along.
One of the LPs I bought on 45 is Dave Brubeck "Time Out" which I have the original first pressing, and a 200g 33 1/3 so it will be fun to compare. I also bought a Rosemary Clooney and Jacintha "Here's to Ben" I think it's called. And I can't for the life of me remember the 4th one. I picked up 27 LPs in three different record shops in Dallas, that I'm looking forward to hearing. I also ordered a Sota Cosmos cuz I'm tired of my Star, and want something even better.
I'll let you know how I like the 45s.
Man that sounds like some party. I'm sorry I missed it.
I have that Jacintha Here's To Ben on 45, the vocals are stunning! Absolutely breath-taking. If I wasn't so inherently lazy, I'd play the 45's more often when I think of how good they sound. The Coltrane's, Jacintha, Jimmy D. Lane's, etc all sound outstanding. I do have many very good sounding LP's too though. My VPI SDS makes the speed change simple, just the push of a button changes from 33 1/3 to 45 and back. That should give you some idea of just how lazy I am. It's all I can do to get up every 20 minutes and clean another record side. I just can't do it every 6-9 minutes.
Not as often as I'd like anyway.
BTW, what is your analog setup? Do you still have the Classe Omega amp?
John you should be the poster boy for something, I'm just not sure what : ) Yeah the Classe is still in place. I have a Sota Star, but just ordered a Cosmos. I also have the Rega RB 900 with a Benz Glider. The Glider is big time over rated. I can't believe I wasted that much money one an okay cartridge when there are lots of better offerings for the same or less money. I'm looking at new cartridges but thats another issue... I have lots of issues as you know!
The Sota is nice for 45s since I only have to push a button. I'm not sure about the Cosmos though as far as speed control is concerned.
The other 45 is Simon and Garfunkel "Bridge Over Troubled Water" I didn't remember, they arrived this morning. When are you coming over for a listen?
I'll be right over, just a pit stop for a good bottle of bourbon, and I'm there!! Let's see....I go west...right?
I've heard good things of the Sota 'tables, but haven't had an opportunity to check one out yet.
I agree with you about the Glider, I had one a couple years back and never really took a shine to it. My current reference is a Lyra Helikon, I love it. I choose it over a Benz Ruby 2H and a Koetsu Rosewood Signature. I almost went for a Titan, until economic sense got the better of me. I'll only own a Titan in my dreams. The Helikon is great though, you should check one out.
I have heard ambivilent reports about the Lyra from some people, but I would not discount it yet. Cello, Vetterone and Lugnut all seem to think very highly of the ZYX cartridges, but I ain't heard nun of 'em.
I'm waiting for a friend to call back with some advice.
West is a good start, I'll send my address so you can use mapquest. What time should I expect you? It can't be more than 20hrs with a few pitstops and one night in a motel.
Well, I guess like all things audio, it's system/taste dependant. My system does tend to lean to the warm side, so the Koetsu and Benz were too much warmth. The Lyra added the right touch of detail, without sounding lean or overly analytical in my system. I have also heard good things about the ZYX cartridges, and the Shelter ones also. I haven't yet had the opportunity to try one of these yet though. I'm in no hurry either, as I'm very happy with the Lyra. After a few years of rolling through the Dynvector/Koetsu/and Benz's (Glider and Ruby), I'm satisfied enough with the Lyra to not be currently hunting for a cartridge.
Especially after just finishing that exhaustive preamp world tour! 8 preamps in less than one year...whew... I'm tired of making changes, I just want to sit and listen for a while. :-)
I figure I should be able to get to your place by about 6 AM tomorrow morning. How's a Western omelette and Irish coffee sound to go with that Simon and Garfunkel 45?
I've got a fork in my hand and the LP qued up. Don't be late
So Nate.... what do you think of the 45's???
I haven't listened to most of them since I'm not sure about my cartridge right now. I don't keep track of hours so I don't know how many hours I have on it. I bought it about three years ago, but some of my good vinyl is beginning to sound a tiny bit worn, and I don't want to take a chance of damaging anything good.
I did listen to Patricia Barber's Cafe Blue. The sound was simply amazing. I have a hard time describing what I hear, but it's different than what I'm used to hearing. I'm thinking of picking up a Shelter 901 to get me through till the new turntable, arm and cartridge are in place.
You think thats good.Well I have a surprise for Albert Porter,But I guess its not a surprise since I'm posting this.
I mailed Albert some prerecorded reel to reel tapes,and in the mix I included a copy of a Master Tape I made with our semi pro jazz band.This was all recorded live on 2 track,no compression of signal,straight in straight out.The sound quality is out of this world.I also play bass trombone in the group.We never got around to putting it on CD.The group dibanded and several have passed away.I hope you get a chance to hear the tape at your next Audiophile Tape Party.
It's simple, really. Analog recordings - faster speed allows more fidelity because the recording contains more data for a given period of time. In the same way a recording studio would use an analog tape machine running at 30 inches per second with wider tape (more magnetic material gives you better dynamic range) as opposed to a wimpy cassette that is trundling along at a snail's pace. That's why old masters sound lots better than a storebought cassette (which was dubbed en masse at 15 or 30 IPS, essentially recorded on 'fast forward').
In the digital realm, it would be like comparing 12-bit digital to 16-bit to 24-bit, or 22k to 44.1k to 48k. More data = better fidelity.
78 > 45 > 33.
That alone doesn't mean everything, of course. You still gotta have clean sound, nice mics, etc... but more data is always good when you're recording. You can hear the difference. Whether the difference is worth it to you is up to you to decide. As others have pointed out, there are tradeoffs like less playing time for 45s vs 33s.
I just picked up an 8 LP box set from Classic Records 45 RPM
Harry Belafonte Live at The Carnagie Hall.This set me back $120.00,But I never regret paying the price.Simply amazing like your right their at the concert.So much more dynamic and transparent.It is definately worth the ticket especially if you have some money tied up into your cartridge or front end.
Jcground, there isn't more data contained on 78s or 45s than on 33s. The same data is spread over a SAME period of time, but the amount per sq. inch on the medium is less. It is easier for the recording medium to do justice to the data (less distortion) if the amount of data per sq. inch (density) is less, hence faster speed usually gives better sound quality. Of course, I don't think that 78s have better sound than 45s or even 33s!
Salut, Bob P.
Thanks, Bob P,
The way I think about it, at higher RPM, the needle is going through a longer groove in the same period of time, so if you stretched out the groove into a straight line the line would be longer for a 78 RPM recording of one minute of music than it would be for a 33 RPM recording of the same music. That's what I meant by more data.
My description of digital recording is probably more clear that way. I think anybody who has heard 12-bit recordings at 22kHz sampling rates would eagerly attest that red book CD audio (16-bit at 44.1kHz) sounds far superior, and similarly a professional 24-bit 48kHz digital recording will have a noticably more defined bottom end and highs that are less harsh and more natural sounding (all other things being equal).
78s often get knocked because their heyday predates all sorts of improvements to audio recording, however the higher RPM itself is a good thing (as long as you don't mind discs that can't hold as much music).
Agreed on the potential for 78s to have better performance, but using 8 sides to listen to Beethoven's 5th isn't my idea of fun. The 33s did turn out to be a good compromise and 16s were good for speech only.
Salut, Bob P.
Forget 45's, 78's beat all media. Consider these facts:1) early 78's were all individually mastered, only a dozed were made at each session. 2) they were all high speed direct to disc 3) Little or no electronics were used in the recording process 4) No pre-equalization was used to record and no equalization was used for playback 5) No preamplifier is required, the cartridge ouput is high enough to go directly into the amp. 6)No compression is used in the recording 7) Only one microphone was used for recording 8) the shellac disc can be played back thousands of times with a modern stylus and shows no wear 9) the 78's do not warp with heat or sunlight 10)A new, unplayed 78 sounds as good or better than a 33rpm and just as quite 11) The musicians were masters at their art, not like todays studio muscians 12) ALL the greatest classical performers are on 78, Heifitz et al. 13) changing 78 discs keeps you physicall active 14) 78 records give you a time machine like glimpse into the musicakl tastes of the distant past. 15) 78's are fantastic with SET triodes and full range speakers which they were designed to playback with.
Mint604, agreed! Now tell that to Nrchy and Albert Porter!
Mint, I suppose you are just pulling our leg here? While I agree that there is a vast treasury of historical recordings on 78s, and that if they were produced today that the higher speed would result in better fidelity, the limitations of the old 78s are numerous.
1) early 78's were all individually mastered, only a dozed were made at each session. 2) they were all high speed direct to disc
Do you mean none were stamped? They played the music a dozen times to make a dozen records? Maybe the very first records made but that could not have lasted very long. Stamping records was the way the vast majority were produced, just like today.
3) Little or no electronics were used in the recording process 4) No pre-equalization was used to record and no equalization was used for playback
There are a variety of equalization curves
used by various manufacturers.
5) No preamplifier is required, the cartridge ouput is high enough to go directly into the amp.
Only when played with one of these.
8) the shellac disc can be played back thousands of times with a modern stylus and shows no wear
The shellac is very fragile and very easily damaged with only a single playing. Playing one thousands of times would destroy the record.
9) the 78's do not warp with heat or sunlight
They get soft if heated and can warp, and are very easily cracked or broken in two.
10)A new, unplayed 78 sounds as good or better than a 33rpm and just as quite
The sound quality of old 78s is limited by the technology of the times. They are extremely limited on both frequency extremes and are in no way comparable to the fidelity we get today from a modern record.
Don't know anything about 78s, but the Louis Armstrong 45 I heard at Dougdeacon's house was, without any doubt, the best sound reproduction I have heard anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Breathtaking, to say the least.
Herman: 78 RPM records up until approx. 1925 were recorded direct to disc only ten to twenty at a time, no stamping process used. The muscians would perform into an array of ten to twenty huge long (ten foot)horns, each horn connected to an acoustic disc recorder, NO electronics in the path. Thus to produce 400 records the muscians would have to make 20 recording sessions. Enrico Caruso thus sounds like he is singing in your livingroom.You can actually state that it actually his voice you are hearing (not digital bits or remixed and re-recorded many times like today) Each record was a master. Around 1925 only minimal triode amps were used for the recordings, also direct to disc( remember at high speed). These used no equalization. The electronic path,one microphone, was the ultimate in simplicity, compared to the 10 miles of wire and thousands of components in todays 48 multichannel recordings. Yes, a 78 played with a steel victrola needle wears out the 78 quickly BUT a new magneticcartridge fitted with a diamond stylus can play the shellac thousands of times with no record wear.The bottom line is that the sound of a new 78 is much more realistic and enjoyable due higher signal to noise ratio(on the ten inch ) resulting from the extreme minimal of recording and playback electronics utilised. The early magnetic cartridges (1930-1940) had an output of 3 VOLTS not 3 milli or 3microvolts and this signal needed no preamplifier. A clean unplayed 78 sound is indistinguishable from a 33RPM and much more enjoyable, especially played with triodes and field coil full range speakers. 78 records contain the actual music not some creation of a awkaward creation of a recording enginer that has manipulated 48 channels thru multiple recording sessions often where the various muscians are recording onto one of digital 48 tracks that already has had the other muscians previously recorded on it. A large orchestra on 78 record sounds exactly as the composer intended it to , whereas todays recording engineer splices, edits, compresses, rearrainges the tracks as he pleases producing a Frankenstein version. The early orchestras would rehearse for one month prior to the recording, not like todays studio muscians who record on the first day with virtually no rehersals. I heard a 78(Bing Crosby) yesterday played thru an early 1928 console that sounded exactly like (or better than) a 33 played over $20K of highend (300watt)gear thru Altec A7.
I have heard back-to-back playback of ancient recordings (c 1910) raw (as recorded), and after digital restoration. The raw sound was very noisy and lacked any high or low frequency signal. However, it has been discovered in the course of analysis of the digitized signal (unexpectedly) that highs and lows do exist in the groove, but at a level so attenuated, and so overlaid with noise, that it requires a computer program to extract the information. However, when the noise is removed by various ingenious methods, and appropriate equalization used, the almost unlistenable 1910 recording sounds about like an early vintage 33 rpm recording.
Thank you Mint for sharing this information. I will be the first to admit I am not an expert on pre 1925 recording technology, but I must remain skeptical about your claims of super fidelity from these recordings. However, since I have not heard them I wll keep an open mind until I have a chance to do so.
I agree that many if not most of today's recordings are over processed but there are many that are not. While I can accept that there is some quality to these direct to disc records that is very appealing especially one of limited range like a vocal, and I have no trouble accepting your point about the musicianship of the orchestras, I cannot accept that these discs played on a 1928 console will have better fidelity than today's recordings and equipment. Yes, they may have captured something that is lacking from todays records due to the minimalist recording technique, but are you claiming that this console sounds more like an orchestra than today's state of the art rigs and recordings?
I have a few other questions.
Why haven't these high fidelity 78s been transferred to CD where everyone can appreciate them? The 78s that I have heard transferred to CD were of very poor quality. Even if the sound is degraded in the transfer it would still be better than what is recorded today if the source is better.
Discs that survived in pristine condition from pre 1925 made in such limited quantities must be extremely rare and valuable. Any idea what they are worth?
Didn't the performance begin to suffer after a while? If they played the same piece 20 times in a row it would hard to maintain the inspiration.
Any idea where I can go to hear this for myself?
Of course I also saw where you consider 99.999% of all equipment ever made to be pure junk, that 1970's Japanese receivers will outperform any separates made today regardless of price, and that you now listen to a Magnavox table radio, so I doubt we are going to see eye to eye on this one either.
I remain skeptical but hopeful.
Herman...I have a boxed LP set of Benny Goodman recordings from 1937 Broadcasts. The masters for these recordings are "off-the-air" (AM radio) check recordings, made, no doubt, direct to disc. The AM transmission was likely the limiting factor on audio quality.
I treasure these LPs, but I recently bought the same recordings on CDs. I don't know how the recordings were remastered, but the results are excellent. There is very effective software available to remaster old recordings, and I don't know why anyone who was transfering to CDs would fail to use it.
Herman: I agree that the Pre-1925 (cactus stylii era tracked at 5 lb. thru acoustic victrola horns) 78's were noisy and distorted since no electronics were used. On the other hand, the 78's manufactured between 1928 and 1948 had superb fidelity, recorded using Western Electric and RCA triode tube equipment and microphones and high quality lathes. These lathes recorded DIRECT-To-DISC since there were no taperecorders. Thus minimal processing ,mixing, equalising, compressing, re-recording. These 78's are capable of very impressive sound fidelity through large 1928 to 1948 era consoles (thats all anyone had to playback diccs with) that used type 45, 2A3 and type 50 triodes and 12 inch and 15 inch full range field coil speakers. This high level of recording and playback tube technology of that era has not been equalled by any current multichannel recording OR playback equipment. I seriously doubt that there are more than a handful of speaker or tube amplifier designers today that can design speaker or tube equipment as well as the engineers of the 30's and 40's If you are using triode tubes in your system for playback then you should also use a sound source that used triode amps (not solid state or digital) for recording, namely 78 RPM. The top recording engineers of today are just now beginning to relise that by using a single recording microphone suspended over the orchestra (such as how 78's were recorded) there are great audio advantages compared to using a dozen mic's. When the early 78's were recorded only only 10 to 20 records at a time were made ,after 20 recording sessions the resultant muscians performance was actualy improved.Some of these muscians stated thqtonly after 40 rehersals and 20 recording "takes" that they only began to understand what the composer had in mind. I am certain that these master muscians have rendered the great classical composers works much more accurately and authentically than any of todays premier orchestras or studio muscians who rehearse once or twice(and somtimes NO REHEARSAL, simply reading the score sheets) prior to recording. Unfortunately,today, 78's are nearly worthless,a one sided Caruso is only worht $5 to$10, primarily since it has become a lost art to reproduce these properly. 78's have a life and warmth and realism to the sound that is entirely lacking in the coldness and of 33's. The classical muscians that recorded the 78's had a different attitude towards music, it was their art and life and goal to faithfully record the classical master composers, few made any money at it. The Western Electric engineers were the pioneers , perfected sound technology by 1940's and there has been no improvement in sound reproduction since then.
Thanks again for the info Mint, I would love to try it at home, but if I get one of those consoles and start dragging home 78s my wife may walk out on me. Come to think of it, that would free up some more space for record storage.
Herman: She might love you more since you have upgrded the sound.
If you can find it used, do try the Reference Recording of Respighi's "Church Windows" on 45rpm. It's a stunner for a variety of reasons. Very vivid Classical with swirling strings and pipe organ and I believe anyone would like it. The gargantuan soundstage and wall-shaking bass left me dumbfounded.