|
iostream.h posted:What's your 'here's why I listen to vinyl' album of choice? The one that (to you) perfectly exemplifies and shows off your system in ways you're most proud? My Sounds of Children flexi set.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
iostream.h posted:What's your 'here's why I listen to vinyl' album of choice? The one that (to you) perfectly exemplifies and shows off your system in ways you're most proud? Peter Gabriel's So remastered from the 25th Anniversary box set.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Coltrane's Sun Ship and Beefheart's Doc at the Radar Station are the only ones I've heard so far where I've enjoyed it substantually more, so maybe those. It's not really why I buy vinyl though. E: Oh, and Songs About loving, OBVIOUSLY dutch wife abc fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Mar 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
iostream.h posted:What's your 'here's why I listen to vinyl' album of choice? The one that (to you) perfectly exemplifies and shows off your system in ways you're most proud? My system doesn't have much to show off, but the vinyl I've had the most fun with over the years would probably be The (English) Beat's "Special Beat Service." Actually, thinking back, the one record in my collection that absolutely slays in ways the CD hasn't (though I haven't heard the latest remasters, who knows) is King Crimson's "Larks' Tongues in Aspic." I don't think I've played it on my current, diminished setup.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Donald Fagen's The Nightfly Very well made with Donald's obsessive compulsive studio habits really showing through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Hello VinylGoons!  This is my first post in this thread, but if any of you follow a few of the core vinyl blogs, you may have already seen my work. Basically, I'm the guy who successfully taught their dog how to play records. Yeah. Interested? Well listen up. Basically, if you do the math, this works by having the canine spin a record atop an extended claw at 45 or 78rpm, while using the claw of the other paw to carefully tease the music out of the grooves of the vinyl, which is then amplified through the throat muscles (I'm not a biologist, whatever) of the dog. Basically the music is essentially broadcasted via the canine's mouth. In my profile you will find a link to the WikiHow page I created which will teach you how to modify your dog to accomplish this amazing feat, as well as a link to my SA-Mart thread where I am selling upgrades for your hound such as nickel plated false dog teeth (crispier notefeel) and bulk sprouts to be administered orally to the dog unit (this achieves a more trebeley sound). SAGOONS = 10% off
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
I.N.R.I posted:Hello VinylGoons! Will it ruin my flexi discs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Will it ruin my flexi discs? I don't know unfortunately. I already said that I'm not a biologist I.N.R.I fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Mar 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
I.N.R.I posted:Hello VinylGoons! If you're not going to install diamond tipped claws you shouldn't even bother.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
I.N.R.I posted:I don't know unfortunately. I already said that I'm not a biologist Do dogs generally emit crisper sound when it comes to records they like? Because there's a certain Baha Men single that I'm sure they'll be able to appreciate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
I hope this can also be done with cats as I am not really a "dog person".
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
Ron Burgundy posted:I hope this can also be done with cats as I am not really a "dog person". Cats are pretty much the Crosleys of the animal kingdom. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
I tried to play some Aphex Twin through my dog once and blew out his vocal chords 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
I.N.R.I posted:Hello VinylGoons! Is there really a difference between playing my music through a dog and more modern systems? I know a cat is digital and a dog is analogue, but I can't really perceive much of a difference in the sound past a certain bit-rate. Also, do you sell replacement sub-woofers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Ram into one of those 'white van ferret' scams outside Best Buy today, trying to convince me they sounded as good as a cat and way better than any dog. I tugged my fedora down over my eyes and strode FURIOUSLY away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Drop the bass! Drop it! *snap snap* Drop iiiiit
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Kart Barfunkel posted:Drop the bass! Drop it! *snap snap* Drop iiiiit heheheh
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
I can't stop imagining a dog opening it's mouth and having Naked City come blasting out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
One nice thing about m b v on vinyl is that Is This and Yes is the last track on Side A so its easily skippable if you're into that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
I managed to appropriate a large amount of my parent's record collection on the condition that I digitize a handful, those from the personal collection. The others have all been shelved in the basement for a while and I just took whatever looked interesting. I'm excited because I haven't listened to any of these before and there are a lot that seem like they'll be pretty good. Instead of pasting a huge list into the thread, here's a link for those who want to look. Edit: It looks like those Nick Drake records are both original UK pressings and worth quite a bit. I might not be adding them to my collection after all. Cloks fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Mar 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
I appropriate personal collections a bit on the proviso that I digitize them. I just  because digitizing records is a pain in the rear end and more trouble than it's worth.Maybe 10 years ago when the internet wasn't full of every single album ever including 25 cent box stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Cloks posted:Edit: It looks like those Nick Drake records are both original UK pressings and worth quite a bit. I might not be adding them to my collection after all. Holy balls, do not sell that copy of Bryter Layter. Also the newest reissue of Pink Moon is cut from the original tapes and pressed in Germany. The edition of Bryter Layter to be released will be given similar treatment, but will not be from the original tape because it's lost. edit: I picked up the Pink Moon reissue and it sounds fantastic. Easily one of the best pressings of anything I've ever come across.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Holy balls, do not sell that copy of Bryter Layter. Also the newest reissue of Pink Moon is cut from the original tapes and pressed in Germany. The edition of Bryter Layter to be released will be given similar treatment, but will not be from the original tape because it's lost. This. Listen to me, you hold onto that album and you keep it in your family and you never let it go. If you must sell it or offload it, pass it to someone who legitimately knows their poo poo and will take proper care of it. For the love of god, do not let that album end up in a rummage sale or a leaky garage or as scratching practice for some neighbor's wannabe-DJ kid. That there is a straight-up treasure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
From what I heard they only pressed around 5000 copies of that album when it was released and it also sold poorly. So considering that, the fact that a lot of people might have scratched, worn out, thrown away, or lost their copies over the years. Potentially there might only be a few hundred copies of Bryter Layter hanging around. And on top of that the original tapes are lost so an original UK pressing is the absolute best you can or will ever get.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Man, vinyl is dramatic
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
WASDF posted:Man, vinyl is dramatic Nick Drake was quite dramatic himself, so it's awfully fitting. He's sadly far more appreciated now than he was in his life time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Shooting the poo poo with the band after the show is by far the best part of any live performance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
I'm definitely not going to sell it and yeah, I'm probably just going to the actual music. It seems like my mom might hang on to them (again, not to sell) though, she bragged about being into Nick Drake before anybody else was. This seemed like hipster posing until I looked the albums up on discogs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
WASDF posted:Man, vinyl is dramatic An original copy of Bryter Layter is like the Zapdos of record collecting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Today, I got my hands on a mono copy of Bookends by Simon and or Garfunkle. I am so happy to now be able to take friends back to my apartment and ask them "Do you like Simon and Garfunkle, and then put on the mono version
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
eBay is so stressful. I don't even know why I do this to myself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Hey guys, I have a download code for Sufjan Steven's Silver and good none of my IRL friends want. Redeem at: sufjan.bandcamp.com/yum Code: 9hap-csbh It's a great set, I got a digital pre-order already and this came with the box.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Today, I got my hands on a mono copy of Bookends by Simon and or Garfunkle. I am so happy to now be able to take friends back to my apartment and ask them "Do you like Simon and Garfunkle, and then put on the mono version That's really cool- but more from a collector's perspective than anything else, right? As far as I'm aware, the mono release was super limited- but it's not like it was particularly better than the stereo cut. This isn't like Revolver or anything like that where the original stereo release sounds worse than the mono one. Double edit: The code didn't work. No biggie though, it's just a Christmas album. 
trilobite terror fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Mar 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:That's really cool- but more from a collector's perspective than anything else, right? As far as I'm aware, the mono release was super limited- but it's not like it was particularly better than the stereo cut. This isn't like Revolver or anything like that where the original stereo release sounds worse than the mono one. It is really cool from a collector's perspective, but the mono actually does sound better than the stereo. For example, "Someone Save The Life of My Child" in mono has a lot more punch, and just sounds a lot heavier than it could in stereo, because everything is spread across the field. The stereo just sounds really empty and sparse, and doesn't really work for the song. But the quieter songs work alright in stereo, and I could honestly see how someone would say they smell better. But really, anything that has drums just sounds much better in mono. Basically, it's like a lot of 60s stereo vs. mono - the mono just sounds more cohesive and natural. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO3gWIGzH3A - America - the stereo album version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQILDbkW0fY - America - the mono single version. The mix is the same as the album version, just much more compressed. The stereo isn't terrible though. It's just sixties stereo. And if you really don't like it, the mono will be a better fit. However, I also have the mono single for "Sounds of Silence," and that, my friend, is much better in mono. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=155X0twGV08. It just hits like a boxer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
Everything that was originally mixed in mono always sounds better played in mono. Stereo mixes from the mid-late 60s almost always sound terrible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:However, I also have the mono single for "Sounds of Silence," and that, my friend, is much better in mono. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=155X0twGV08. It just hits like a boxer. That should sound better in mono, it's from 1965. Any stereo mix of it would have to have been folded down from an original mono mix. By 1967, that was much less the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Stereo mixes from the mid-late 60s almost always sound terrible. AKA: Instant karaoke/a cappella records.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:By 1967, that was much less the case. I disagree. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I disagree. Using an album released in '67 to disagree with his point that starting in '67 stereo albums started to sound better? mmmm '67 is around the time 8 track recorders started getting installed, which meant less tracks had to be bounced down during recording and gave the engineers more options for stereo panning. For some of the earlier stereo mixes the mastering engineer would be given the 4 track of the mono mix and just assigned the tracks to left, center or right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:That should sound better in mono, it's from 1965. Any stereo mix of it would have to have been folded down from an original mono mix. It gets a little complicated. There's a few things that are going on here, and so we have to tread carefully. Just one quick thing. You can't fold stereo down from mono. You can fold mono down from stereo (which we'll get into). Now, if you didn't do a stereo mix, you could rechannel mono, however, "Sounds of Silence" is in true-stereo. In America, starting around 65 or 66, eight track tape recorders were becoming a lot more prevalent. While there were still studios using four track tape machines, most of the big studios had switch to eight tracks. However, you still have to consider what that could mean in terms of making a decent stereo mix. For instance, Pet Sounds, which most of the sessions were recorded on eight track tape recorders, could not really be mixed properly into stereo until the 90s. Basically, Brian Wilson recorded one tape of music, mixed that down to mono, and then used the other 7 tracks for vocals and overdubs. And then he mixed that down to mono. Bookends, for instance, could have 4 tracks of vocals. So that leaves you with 4 tracks to do whatever else you need to do. Well, you got drums, bass, you might some guitars, and various overdubs. That makes it fun. So, sure, you have 8 tracks, but with the intricate recording that was in vogue at the time, you still were pushing the tapes to the limits, and you might still need to bounce down. But a big hindrance to stereo mixing was mono compatibility. If you look at a lot of records from the late 60s and even into the 70s, you will see something along the lines of "Stereo, also playable on mono." (Funnily enough, on the mono Bookends, the back cover for the mono has a statement saying "Stereo records are compatible with today's mono record players. They will last as long as regular mono records. When played on a stereo turntable, you will also get full stereo sound." Whoops!) Basically, when you fold stereo down to mono, a lot of funky stuff will happen. For instance, the stuff in the center will get louder by 3 decibels. So you could throw a mix really out of balance really quickly. You can also have all sorts of phase issues, and a variety of poo poo happening. So for a bunch of really obvious reasons, record companies didn't want to keep issuing two types of records for the same album. So a lot of stereo mixes were made to sound good when someone would fold them down to mono. Now, throughout the sixties, there were a lot of people who were interested in trying to make stereo sound good. For instance, the Elvis Is Back sessions. There was never a mono mix. The guy who recorded it mixed it to stereo so it would sound good in stereo and sound great when folded down to mono. The funny thing is, when you listen to those tracks, they don't sound bad at all in stereo because he knew the value of a strong center channel. That's why the drums are mostly centered. Listen to Stuck on You in stereo. It's early 60s, but it sounds much better than most other stereo mixes because the guy used the whole field, not just the left and right. In fact, it almost sounds like a modern stereo mix. George Martin mixed "Rubber Soul" hard left and right with no center because he wanted to try and make a stereo mix that would sound good in mono. The problem of course was that the stereo sounded terrible. But even in 1967-68, you still had a lot of problems with stereo compatibility and mono. For instance, on the Kinks "Something New," if you folded the stereo "Tin Soldier Man" and "Situation Vacant" into mono, you'd lose the lead vocals! On the White Album, the stereo "Birthday" does not do very well folded into mono. So yes, there were still issues with compatibility that late. But over time, as stereo equipment became more prevalent, as recording and mixing styles changed, as more tracks became available, and as people learned how to make good stereo mixes that folded down into mono nicely without sounding like rear end, eventually stereo didn't sound so lovely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 05:42
|
|