long live the vinyl
oooooh, what a lucky man, hee waaas!
-but acoustical-. And some synth too.
Strange market vinyl has here... A lot of collections were dumped in the nineties, and there wasn´t enough ¨analogue enlightment¨ in anyone on that years to rescue those gems... so a lot of goodies ended up as landfill, I think. Sad.
Now, the economic malaise -2001 crisis et al- turned people extremely ¨sagacious¨ at the time of selling some goods, be it old vinyl or otherwise. So prices climbed...
And the collections dumped in the streets weren´t recycled by connoiseurs, but ¨vandalized¨ by a lot of poor people that is out in the streets, sadly surviving thanks to the crumbs of a half-developed consumer society. They were digging in the trash to some things to recycle, resell or even to eat, but vinyl wasn´t in the scope of interests. I have seen, years ago, hundreds of broken lp´s along almost three blocks in some avenue here in Buenos Aires. I think that somebody found a dumped collection, and used the lp´s as frisbees. Unreal, but true.
Now, for something good in more/less ¨specialized¨ spots you have to pay some 10/20 u$s. Not cheap, but not terribly expensive either.
But if you walk, sometimes a good deal appears.
oooooh, what a lucky man, hee waaas!
-but acoustical-. And some synth too.Strange market vinyl has here... A lot of collections were dumped in the nineties, and there wasn´t enough ¨analogue enlightment¨ in anyone on that years to rescue those gems... so a lot of goodies ended up as landfill, I think. Sad.
Now, the economic malaise -2001 crisis et al- turned people extremely ¨sagacious¨ at the time of selling some goods, be it old vinyl or otherwise. So prices climbed...
And the collections dumped in the streets weren´t recycled by connoiseurs, but ¨vandalized¨ by a lot of poor people that is out in the streets, sadly surviving thanks to the crumbs of a half-developed consumer society. They were digging in the trash to some things to recycle, resell or even to eat, but vinyl wasn´t in the scope of interests. I have seen, years ago, hundreds of broken lp´s along almost three blocks in some avenue here in Buenos Aires. I think that somebody found a dumped collection, and used the lp´s as frisbees. Unreal, but true.
Now, for something good in more/less ¨specialized¨ spots you have to pay some 10/20 u$s. Not cheap, but not terribly expensive either.
But if you walk, sometimes a good deal appears.
domestic vinyl
Hehehe, Damiàn...
The Great Domestic Pressing:
not-so-virgin vinyl
180 grams -of crud, dust, moulding agent or whatever-
exclusive off-center hole(TM)
Peel-off label(r)
Inbuilt wow and flutter
Non scratch(TM too) toilet paper sleeve
No lyrics insert at all -hey, we argies doesn´t understand them watsoever!-
Artwork by the Xerox Corporation
Hehehe, Damiàn...
The Great Domestic Pressing:
not-so-virgin vinyl
180 grams -of crud, dust, moulding agent or whatever-
exclusive off-center hole(TM)
Peel-off label(r)
Inbuilt wow and flutter
Non scratch(TM too) toilet paper sleeve
No lyrics insert at all -hey, we argies doesn´t understand them watsoever!-
Artwork by the Xerox Corporation
preamp
Sorry, we`re a little off-topic
Eddy, just in case... Here in the forums are some good and simple phono preamps: the VSPS -Very Simple Phono Stage-, the ¨El Cheapo¨ -with a nice thread going on this days-...
And there´s an interesting one in opa606 datasheet, fig 10:
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/opa606.pdf
Maybe it`s time to warm an iron and smell some fumes...
I have made the VSPS and the ¨El Cheapo¨; both are relatively simple; the first one is very good, and the last one is excellent.
And maybe you know that, but in http://www.vinylengine.com/ there are lots of uselful tips to optimize turntables
And in
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/freestuff.htm
you can get some free protractors to check your tonearm geometrics
Cheers!
Sorry, we`re a little off-topic
Eddy, just in case... Here in the forums are some good and simple phono preamps: the VSPS -Very Simple Phono Stage-, the ¨El Cheapo¨ -with a nice thread going on this days-...
And there´s an interesting one in opa606 datasheet, fig 10:
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/opa606.pdf
Maybe it`s time to warm an iron and smell some fumes...
I have made the VSPS and the ¨El Cheapo¨; both are relatively simple; the first one is very good, and the last one is excellent.
And maybe you know that, but in http://www.vinylengine.com/ there are lots of uselful tips to optimize turntables
And in
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/freestuff.htm
you can get some free protractors to check your tonearm geometrics
Cheers!
phono pre-amps, etc.
... I discovered as some already know that both of my modern combo / receiver / amplifiers don't have phono pre-amps (modern Marantz & Panasonic current dump type amps).
I do have a prototype Sony current dump pre-amp / amp that does have a nice phono pre-amp, however = an 1984 antique with some other nice features, so I will continue with my revitalized efforts to play old vinyl.
Fredrico: " ... so a lot of goodies ended up as landfill, I think. Sad. ..." " ... Now, the economic malaise -2001 crisis et al- turned people extremely ¨sagacious¨ at the time of selling some goods, be it old vinyl or otherwise. So prices climbed..."
Yes, very sad. Incidently there are several technics available to recover the audio / music from damaged vinyl records, including some interesting technologies like digital optical laser read / capture of the audio from within the individual grooves ... far out techie stuff.
I believe I will set up a system to do something about playback of my collection: a decent, working turntable into Sony pre-amp / amp with capture via tape input/output through to M-Audio capture to digital ( 4 x 6, 24-bit/96kHz I/O = http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/FirewireAudiophile-main.html ) ... I'll post the resulting downloads somewhere for a side by side comparisons with CD output. (I have CDs of several Beatles albums plus a rare "collector's set" of all 13 vinyl Beatles albums, never played.)
Anyone interested in listening? (I'm sure someone has done this or similar before.)
... I discovered as some already know that both of my modern combo / receiver / amplifiers don't have phono pre-amps (modern Marantz & Panasonic current dump type amps).
I do have a prototype Sony current dump pre-amp / amp that does have a nice phono pre-amp, however = an 1984 antique with some other nice features, so I will continue with my revitalized efforts to play old vinyl.
Fredrico: " ... so a lot of goodies ended up as landfill, I think. Sad. ..." " ... Now, the economic malaise -2001 crisis et al- turned people extremely ¨sagacious¨ at the time of selling some goods, be it old vinyl or otherwise. So prices climbed..."
Yes, very sad. Incidently there are several technics available to recover the audio / music from damaged vinyl records, including some interesting technologies like digital optical laser read / capture of the audio from within the individual grooves ... far out techie stuff.
I believe I will set up a system to do something about playback of my collection: a decent, working turntable into Sony pre-amp / amp with capture via tape input/output through to M-Audio capture to digital ( 4 x 6, 24-bit/96kHz I/O = http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/FirewireAudiophile-main.html ) ... I'll post the resulting downloads somewhere for a side by side comparisons with CD output. (I have CDs of several Beatles albums plus a rare "collector's set" of all 13 vinyl Beatles albums, never played.)
Anyone interested in listening? (I'm sure someone has done this or similar before.)
Wow!
Take care of that Beatles collection...
I´m planning something similar, but I have to mount a new ¨adult exclusive¨ PC at home, ´cause the one that I have now is crowded with child`s games, photos, miscelaneous stuff....kids territory there.
Something that I have been asking myself is if somebody has done some serious a/b testing between source (vinyl) and ripped cd`s, to check if something of the sound quality of the vinyl itself is retained in the digital copies... I don´t know.
Of course that your comparisons are interesting; I have made no cd`s from vinyl still, but for what some people comment, in some cases the ripped cd sounds beautiful, better than the current cd edition.
Please check out this forums
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/
There, many people are doin´ this vinyl to cd thing with excellent results. And, regarding the topic of this thread, there`s a lot of interesting information about restoration, mastering, etc.
I have a copy of Highway 61 -thanks, Damiàn!- in the Steve Hoffman remastered version and it sounds lovely, with authentic analogue feel.
Eddy, I forgot... In my new excursions in vinyl territory, I have obtained very good results with the free Stevenson protractor of enjoythemusic.com -I´ve posted the link just yesterday-. Some people said that those free protractors are rubbish, unaccurate, bla,bla, bla... If you happen to see the original protractor that come with some fine tonearms, you`ll notice in some cases nothing more than a marked piece of paper, so don´t worry very much about those comments, discharge one of those protractors and align your cartridge accordingly.For starters is more than enough, and you`ll get a much more accurate rendition of what is in the grooves, and a better retrieval of inner tracks -do you remember how the sound worsened in the last tracks of lp´s?-
Most important: Check your stylus too, maybe you´ll need some spare one, or a new cartridge -there are some cheap and very fine cartidges around-. Vinyl is all about tweaking, care and patience -a labour of love-, but when you have some turntable nicely tweaked, it´s a real joy.
Ah! and be ready to brew some cleaning solution -there are many DIY phormulae in the net, mostly based in isopropanol (isopropyl) or medicinal alcohol (ethanol), distilled water, and a bit of detergent-; you`ll need that stuff to take care of your new records, and to inject new life in flea market stuff, cause the last have, usually, dirt of ages!
Enjoy this beautiful trip!
just signed up ...
... @ http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/ .... thanks for the tip = a well traveled blog = lots of posters, etc.
" ... Steve Hoffman remastered version(s) ... sounds lovely, with authentic analogue feel ..."
I wasn't aware that he (they) were doing this ... I'll check it all out.
... @ http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/ .... thanks for the tip = a well traveled blog = lots of posters, etc.
" ... Steve Hoffman remastered version(s) ... sounds lovely, with authentic analogue feel ..."
I wasn't aware that he (they) were doing this ... I'll check it all out.
also ...
... noticed a link to some quality DVD-A stuff ( http://www.elusivedisc.com/ ) and proceeded to order up one of my favorites: Muddy Waters & Buddy Guy + other greats = acoustic / electric blues in 24bit/96k format.
(I met Muddy at a party @ the Vulcan Gas Company in Austin Tx ~ 1969 ... he was too stoned to say much, but he sure put on a super show later that night ... a pre-release party for "Electric Mud" ... too )
... noticed a link to some quality DVD-A stuff ( http://www.elusivedisc.com/ ) and proceeded to order up one of my favorites: Muddy Waters & Buddy Guy + other greats = acoustic / electric blues in 24bit/96k format.
(I met Muddy at a party @ the Vulcan Gas Company in Austin Tx ~ 1969 ... he was too stoned to say much, but he sure put on a super show later that night ... a pre-release party for "Electric Mud" ... too
)
Re: The only thing I can see ...
I have had this debate with somebody who has completely different opinions and experiences. But I can only speak of mine, and the last thing I want is digital-to-digital recordings. I want digital-analogue-digital recordings. According to my sourse in the recording industry, you have to transfer it to analogue tape in order to remove the digital "hash."
True. Art historians don't make a distinction between the bad (Raphael), the indifferent (da Vinci) and the great (Michelangelo).
Having that said, this thing is as old as the music industry. Listen to Elvis Presley's Sun sessions or some later master. He was indeed the king for one year at Sun. At least for a white guy. Everything he did after that is junk, courtesy of the studio hacks at RCA.
The same complaint about over-compressed CDs you hear about the movies. People say digital cameras lack colour depth. While true, it's to completely miss the point. If those clowns actually had watched a Hollywood production made the last decade, dating back before the digital camera, they would know that colour depth is something the directors don't want. Most modern Hollywood productions are border-line sepia toned, with one or two prime colours. This the Bauhaus school taught in the 1920s and 30s. Movies are looking increasingly fake. Watch a 1980s production and you get all the colours of the real world. People today tend to prefer the limited colour palette of modern movies. People find the unreal more attractive, and perhaps more real, than the real.
(I caught a few minutes of Kill Bill on TV a couple of days ago, so I know not all Hollywood productions are anaemic-looking. But that one is a 1970s pastiche, and probably not a little influenced by Seijun Suzuki.)
Britney Spears couldn't sing like Britney Spears to save her life, yet there are people who believe it's her we hear on her albums! (It's the same old boring the will to belief is stronger than the will to disbelief.) Nobody has to be able to sing to sound great on album. It's all make-belief.
I like the sound of 1960s recordings. People today don't like it. They like the "wall-of-sound" of today's recording. For the same reason are they likely to get underwhelmed by Peking Opera Blues, one of the best movies of the 1980s.
All that remains to be debated is taste. Then we are down to, "my taste is better than yours."
FastEddy said:
I have had this debate with somebody who has completely different opinions and experiences. But I can only speak of mine, and the last thing I want is digital-to-digital recordings. I want digital-analogue-digital recordings. According to my sourse in the recording industry, you have to transfer it to analogue tape in order to remove the digital "hash."
FastEddy said:
True. Art historians don't make a distinction between the bad (Raphael), the indifferent (da Vinci) and the great (Michelangelo).
Having that said, this thing is as old as the music industry. Listen to Elvis Presley's Sun sessions or some later master. He was indeed the king for one year at Sun. At least for a white guy. Everything he did after that is junk, courtesy of the studio hacks at RCA.
The same complaint about over-compressed CDs you hear about the movies. People say digital cameras lack colour depth. While true, it's to completely miss the point. If those clowns actually had watched a Hollywood production made the last decade, dating back before the digital camera, they would know that colour depth is something the directors don't want. Most modern Hollywood productions are border-line sepia toned, with one or two prime colours. This the Bauhaus school taught in the 1920s and 30s. Movies are looking increasingly fake. Watch a 1980s production and you get all the colours of the real world. People today tend to prefer the limited colour palette of modern movies. People find the unreal more attractive, and perhaps more real, than the real.
(I caught a few minutes of Kill Bill on TV a couple of days ago, so I know not all Hollywood productions are anaemic-looking. But that one is a 1970s pastiche, and probably not a little influenced by Seijun Suzuki.)
Britney Spears couldn't sing like Britney Spears to save her life, yet there are people who believe it's her we hear on her albums! (It's the same old boring the will to belief is stronger than the will to disbelief.) Nobody has to be able to sing to sound great on album. It's all make-belief.
I like the sound of 1960s recordings. People today don't like it. They like the "wall-of-sound" of today's recording. For the same reason are they likely to get underwhelmed by Peking Opera Blues, one of the best movies of the 1980s.
All that remains to be debated is taste. Then we are down to, "my taste is better than yours."
how heartless !! ...
" ... I have had this debate with somebody who has completely different opinions and experiences. But I can only speak of mine, and the last thing I want is digital-to-digital recordings. I want digital-analogue-digital recordings. According to my sourse in the recording industry, you have to transfer it to analogue tape in order to remove the digital "hash."
" After all, 90% of art is trash. "
True. Art historians don't make a distinction between the bad (Raphael), the indifferent (da Vinci) and the great (Michelangelo). ...
Ah, I would have almost put the list above in reverse order ... Raphael is great, De Vinci is great, Michelangelo was a church hack = probably dizzy from painting upside down ...
" ... I have had this debate with somebody who has completely different opinions and experiences. But I can only speak of mine, and the last thing I want is digital-to-digital recordings. I want digital-analogue-digital recordings. According to my sourse in the recording industry, you have to transfer it to analogue tape in order to remove the digital "hash."
" After all, 90% of art is trash. "
True. Art historians don't make a distinction between the bad (Raphael), the indifferent (da Vinci) and the great (Michelangelo). ...
Ah, I would have almost put the list above in reverse order ... Raphael is great, De Vinci is great, Michelangelo was a church hack = probably dizzy from painting upside down ...
Re: how heartless !! ...
You say? Michellangelo was attacked by the church for indulging in formalism at the expense at devine devotion and because of it had a hard time scoring commissions. What set Michelangelo appart, aside from being light-years ahead of his contemporaries, is that he was an artist.
I guess you can't account for taste.
FastEddy said:Ah, I would have almost put the list above in reverse order ... Raphael is great, De Vinci is great, Michelangelo was a church hack = probably dizzy from painting upside down ...
You say? Michellangelo was attacked by the church for indulging in formalism at the expense at devine devotion and because of it had a hard time scoring commissions. What set Michelangelo appart, aside from being light-years ahead of his contemporaries, is that he was an artist.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I guess you can't account for taste.
Taste? ...
phn: " ... What set Michelangelo apart ... is that he was an artist. ... I guess you can't account for taste. ..."
Yes, a great artist, no question. My comment was not to degrade his work at all, but to put the other artists you mentioned into perspective. They are/were all great and few can touch these artists today.
FE: " ... Raphael is great, De Vinci is great ..."
phn: " ... Art historians don't make a distinction between the bad (Raphael), the indifferent (da Vinci) and the great (Michelangelo). ..."
Not too shabby: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Sybils_Raphael.jpg
Nor is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Leonardo_da_Vinci_(1452-1519)_-_The_Last_Supper_(1495-1498).jpg
And this is great as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Last_judgement.jpg
phn: " ... What set Michelangelo apart ... is that he was an artist. ... I guess you can't account for taste. ..."
Yes, a great artist, no question. My comment was not to degrade his work at all, but to put the other artists you mentioned into perspective. They are/were all great and few can touch these artists today.
FE: " ... Raphael is great, De Vinci is great ..."
phn: " ... Art historians don't make a distinction between the bad (Raphael), the indifferent (da Vinci) and the great (Michelangelo). ..."
Not too shabby: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Sybils_Raphael.jpg
Nor is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Leonardo_da_Vinci_(1452-1519)_-_The_Last_Supper_(1495-1498).jpg
And this is great as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Last_judgement.jpg
panomaniac said:I suppose a lot of you have read Dylan's gripe about "Modern Music" in the news today.
Of course he seems to be talking mostly about bad mastering and over use of compression. Nice to have someone of his fame complaning about the problem. Think it will do any good?
Still, I find it a bit funny that the man who has spent an entire career singing thru his noise is complaning about SQ. Blowing in the wind, Bob, blowing in the wind
Hiliarious. Maybe he's worried the compression could lead to everyone sounding like him? It'd probably take a heavy dose of third harmonic mixed in though.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.