Vinyls, covers and gatefolds

quote:
Originally posted by Paul H:
Just got back from work to find my US vinyl copies of the debut and TOLM waiting for me.

A quick inspection of the deadwax provides the following info:

CH: F-3 B-23735-F3 [triangle] 12730 1-2 with the name Wally etched next to Mastered by Capitol. The sleeve and inner have been subjected to that unfortunate practice of hole punching SWHHW referred to upthread. Regardless, the artwork looks so much better.

TOLM: C1-48763-Z1 DMM and C1-48763-Z2 DMM. Interesting that "DMM" appears. Were all copies Direct Metal Mastered or is this a later pressing?


Hmm, that's interesting. Does it definitely check out as a US pressing (TOLM)? I do have a DMM album done at Masterdisk in the late 80s, but on the other hand it also has "Masterdisk DMM" handwritten in the deadwax...

And... How do they sound? Well, I know how the Wally LP sounds- great!
quote:
Originally posted by TruTwisty:
ON the 212, I'm sure the guy said he replace the cartridge. There is a fuzzy place in my brain where I had to call hubby in, but I realize that I forgot to tell you what I already have lol

I have two full surround dvd systems. One is an LG 5 channels and a sub woofer. The other is a little older RCA same deal as the LG.

The guy at the market said that the 212 would work with the existing aux input/out. The 604 wouldn't.

I will take this info with me this weekend and see about the pioneer. I'm far more likely to talk hubby into the $89 than the $180 Wink

Thank you so much for your input Geoff!!


No worries. I still don't think the 212 will work directly into an aux input, so this is...unusual. Either he is missing something, or I am...

Just check them all over for condition as well, because I'm only going off hunches and obviously it depends on the individual units. Would be very interested to know exactly which Pioneer that is, though.
quote:
Originally posted by GeoffR:
Hmm, that's interesting. Does it definitely check out as a US pressing (TOLM)?



Well, all the blurb refers to the US.

quote:
Originally posted by GeoffR:
I do have a DMM album done at Masterdisk in the late 80s, but on the other hand it also has "Masterdisk DMM" handwritten in the deadwax...


TOLM has MASTERDISK-BK written in the deadwax (along with a rather cryptic SP1-1 and SP1-2). I'm just surprised to see DMM used so early - I thought it was a much later development.

Not played either yet. The lack of veg in my fridge took precendence and tomorrow I'm off to the footy.

(Entertaining side note [you only get this with good ole vinyl]: I realise for the first time that the sides are referred to as High Side and Low Side. I like that Smiler )
quote:
Originally posted by Eudoxia:
Oh Paul!



One day I will be as happy as you are now...

-


I truly pray you regularly get to be happier than this. I mean, I'm not exactly grumpy about getting these albums but, frankly, I'm not child-at-Christmas loopy about it either Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by Paul H:
quote:
Originally posted by GeoffR:
Hmm, that's interesting. Does it definitely check out as a US pressing (TOLM)?



Well, all the blurb refers to the US.

quote:
Originally posted by GeoffR:
I do have a DMM album done at Masterdisk in the late 80s, but on the other hand it also has "Masterdisk DMM" handwritten in the deadwax...


TOLM has MASTERDISK-BK written in the deadwax (along with a rather cryptic SP1-1 and SP1-2). I'm just surprised to see DMM used so early - I thought it was a much later development.

Not played either yet. The lack of veg in my fridge took precendence and tomorrow I'm off to the footy.

(Entertaining side note [you only get this with good ole vinyl]: I realise for the first time that the sides are referred to as High Side and Low Side. I like that Smiler )


I thought DMM came in around the mid 80s? Anyway, the DMM album I have is from 1989, if that helps.
How do I know my album is from 1989, or how do I know DMM was around earlier?

My album - I was there when it was bought (not by me...wasn't buying too many albums as a 7 year old).

DMM process - was just what I had in my mind, but a little research confirms DMM has been around quite a while. From an SHTV thread back in 2008:

"DMM stands for "Direct Metal Mastering" and was the last refinement in vinyl record mastering technology issued by Neumann (in collaboration with Teldec and Toolex) in approximately 1982. It consisted of the VMS-82 lathe, the SX-84 cutter head, and the SAL84 amplifier rack, along with associated plating technologies. With DMM the lathe uses a diamond stylus to cut into a layer of copper plated over a steel substrate - as opposed to lacquer mastering which uses a heated sapphire stylus to cut into lacquer coated over an aluminium substrate. A big advantage of DMM is that a nickel stamper can be plated directly from the Direct Metal Master (also known as a copper mother) - eliminating the need for 2 additional plating stages done for lacquer mastering (where it goes -> lacquer master (which is then coated with silver) -> nickel father -> nickel mother -> nickel stamper)."
I meant, how do you know your album was from 89. Of course, being there confirms it can't have been manufactured any later, so I guess the only other option is that it was manufactured in 88!

As for DMM, good sleuthing.

Hopefully, I'll be able to give these babies a quick clean up and a play on Wednesday evening. TOLM will have to go some to better the CD but I have great expectations of the vinyl debut.
Yeah I'm very curious about TOLM - I agree the UK CD sounds really good...

Also thinking about other DMM records - I'm pretty sure my mum's copy of Graceland (which would have been a very early pressing, certainly year of release) is DMM. I keep trying to pinch it off her when I go back to England, but she's not having any of it! Big Grin

EDIT: I possibly retract the bit about Graceland. Mum's copy would be UK, i.e. a European Warner Bros pressing, R/S Alsdorf. Not likely to be DMM. But I think the US pressing was.

Also, I found this interesting article about both DMM and the general difficulties in keeping lathes and cutting heads operational, 30 years after the last ones were made: http://www.resolutionmag.com/p...KNOWHOW/VINYLA~1.PDF
quote:
Originally posted by She will have her way:
quote:
Originally posted by GeoffR:

On the subject of Woodface, have you heard the EMI 100 version? If so, how does it compare to the regular issue?


I'd like to spin both of these again on the new turntable before I give an answer here - it's been a while since I played the EMI 100. Give me a couple of days Smiler


Ok I have done my homework... Big Grin

First off the two copies are not equal in a few ways -

EMI 100 - in M- condition when I got it and is still pretty close. It looked like it had only been played once or twice. Heavy pressing, probably 180g if not then 160g.

Regular Woodface - still a nice deep black gloss but was in VG+ to M- condition when I got it.

(Grading runs on Goldmine standard - more info here)

My verdict is it really depends on what mood I am in. There is no scientific or technical analysis here, that's not my field of expertise in music.

The EMI 100 is warm but still very crisp and clear,but not tinny to me. This one I wanted to sit and listen to and focus on.

The regular pressing has the 'old school' sound about it for me - warmer, clear, but not as crisp as the EMI 100. This one I would put on with a few Frenz in the room and / or if the occasions was settling in as time of a few drinks Wink.

I don't know whether this is down to the difference in condition of the vinyls or some other subjective association. I have the same response to my audiophile True Colours (Canadian pressing with the gold edging) and the Australian pressing.

I guess you can always look out for a copy to give it a try.... Wink.

quote:
Originally posted by GeoffR:
Yeah I'm very curious about TOLM - I agree the UK CD sounds really good


I will reinforce my earlier statement on this - that the TOLM vinyl kills the regular CD.

Disclaimer - I haven't done the Japanese CD vs vinyl compare. I'm sure someone here has.. Wink Smiler

.
quote:
Originally posted by She will have her way:
[Re: Woodface] The EMI 100 is warm but still very crisp and clear,but not tinny to me. This one I wanted to sit and listen to and focus on.

The regular pressing has the 'old school' sound about it for me - warmer, clear, but not as crisp as the EMI 100.


Both of these sound encouraging (although I'm quite happy with the sound of the CD).

quote:
Originally posted by She will have her way:

[Re: TOLM] I will reinforce my earlier statement on this - that the TOLM vinyl kills the regular CD.


Again, this is encouraging as TOLM sounds good on CD to my ears.

I would suggest that fans of Time On Earth check out the vinyl. Apart from the fact that it is beautifully packaged, it has two bonus tracks (Stare Me Out and the blissful Lost Island). More to the point, the vinyl knocks the sharp edges off the mastering. It doesn't sound as I'd like it to (still not enough dynamic range for me) but it improves on the CD.
quote:
Originally posted by Paul H:

quote:

Originally posted by Eudoxia:
Oh Paul!



One day I will be as happy as you are now...

-



I truly pray you regularly get to be happier than this. I mean, I'm not exactly grumpy about getting these albums but, frankly, I'm not child-at-Christmas loopy about it either


As you may have noticed by now, I'm an enthusiast. I'm child-at-Christmas like EVERY time I add a piece to my CH collection...

I wanted to ask more about DMM, but I understand that GeoffR can read my mind (from Australia!) and preceded my request.

Thank you GeoffR!

-
quote:
Originally posted by She will have her way:
quote:
Originally posted by She will have her way:
quote:
Originally posted by GeoffR:

On the subject of Woodface, have you heard the EMI 100 version? If so, how does it compare to the regular issue?


I'd like to spin both of these again on the new turntable before I give an answer here - it's been a while since I played the EMI 100. Give me a couple of days Smiler


Ok I have done my homework... Big Grin



Gold star for you! Big Grin

quote:
Originally posted by She will have her way:
First off the two copies are not equal in a few ways -

EMI 100 - in M- condition when I got it and is still pretty close. It looked like it had only been played once or twice. Heavy pressing, probably 180g if not then 160g.

Regular Woodface - still a nice deep black gloss but was in VG+ to M- condition when I got it.

(Grading runs on Goldmine standard - more info here)

My verdict is it really depends on what mood I am in. There is no scientific or technical analysis here, that's not my field of expertise in music.

The EMI 100 is warm but still very crisp and clear,but not tinny to me. This one I wanted to sit and listen to and focus on.

The regular pressing has the 'old school' sound about it for me - warmer, clear, but not as crisp as the EMI 100. This one I would put on with a few Frenz in the room and / or if the occasions was settling in as time of a few drinks Wink.

I don't know whether this is down to the difference in condition of the vinyls or some other subjective association. I have the same response to my audiophile True Colours (Canadian pressing with the gold edging) and the Australian pressing.

I guess you can always look out for a copy to give it a try.... Wink.


I'm tempted for sure. Probably not in the immediate future, but I'll probably pick one up eventually. More detailed than the original pressing...bloody impressive, although my tastes are usually on the warm side, so will be interesting to compare.

quote:
Originally posted by Paul H:
quote:
Originally posted by She will have her way:
[Re: Woodface] The EMI 100 is warm but still very crisp and clear,but not tinny to me. This one I wanted to sit and listen to and focus on.

The regular pressing has the 'old school' sound about it for me - warmer, clear, but not as crisp as the EMI 100.


Both of these sound encouraging (although I'm quite happy with the sound of the CD).


As much as the CD sounds good, Woodface on LP is simply SUPERB. That is my official assessment of the original pressing. Smiler

quote:
Originally posted by Paul H:
quote:
Originally posted by She will have her way:

[Re: TOLM] I will reinforce my earlier statement on this - that the TOLM vinyl kills the regular CD.


Again, this is encouraging as TOLM sounds good on CD to my ears.

I would suggest that fans of Time On Earth check out the vinyl. Apart from the fact that it is beautifully packaged, it has two bonus tracks (Stare Me Out and the blissful Lost Island). More to the point, the vinyl knocks the sharp edges off the mastering. It doesn't sound as I'd like it to (still not enough dynamic range for me) but it improves on the CD.


Also encouraging to me, because I also think the CD sounds good. Although I think the Woodface CD sounds good, so clearly 'good' can be improved upon.

Time On Earth - I still don't like how it sounds. Agree on the packaging, the front cover is sooooo gorgeous. Can you do my OCD a favour and post deadwax info for the Parlophone please? I want to know whether to bother replacing my ATO copy with one. If they are from different cuts then possibly your copy sounds better than mine...

Cheers.
quote:
Originally posted by GeoffR:
Can you do my OCD a favour and post deadwax info for the Parlophone please? I want to know whether to bother replacing my ATO copy with one. If they are from different cuts then possibly your copy sounds better than mine...

Cheers.


Awww...Geoff, I relate first-hand to your OCD comment! Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by GeoffR:
Can you do my OCD a favour and post deadwax info for the Parlophone please? I want to know whether to bother replacing my ATO copy with one. If they are from different cuts then possibly your copy sounds better than mine...

Cheers.


Consider your OCD indulged Big Grin

My Parlophone copy is 3960271 (A-1,B-1,C-1, D-1)

On Side A there is an error in the number with an extra digit between the zero and the 2; it looks a 5 but looks like an error has been made and it has been scratched out - so the number looks like this - 3960( dodgy scratched 5)271 A-1.

3960271 appears clearly on sides B, C, and D and also is the same as the reference in the info line at the bottom edge of the back cover.

The extra detail about the appearance of the number on side A should keep the OCD in check for a while Wink Big Grin
Thanks for that, Tania. They are different!

ATO -

Side 1: S-62516 ATO-0038-88088-21582-1-A xavier
Side 2: S-62517 ATO-0038-88088-21582-1-B MANMADE
Side 3: S-62518 ATO-0038-88088-21582-1-C xavier
Side 4: S-62519 ATO-0038-88088-21582-1-D MANMADE


I'm not sure whether to be pleased that there may be a better sounding option out there, or annoyed that I now have to track down a Parlophone copy to find out! Roll Eyes It's tough collecting records sometimes. Wink
OK, I really lost it..

Can you please explain to a mere human being, in simple words, what you are talking about?
And if you are so kind to do so, can you please explain this too:

quote:
originally posted by GeoffR:

Sealed LPs can be great (you know it won't be worn or scratched). The only issue is you can't get the seller to look at the matrix codes on the deadwax should you wish to confirm something (like which exact pressing it is, who cut it etc)


What do you mean? Who cut it? You are able to understand that and you KNOW which person you want the cut to be made from??? Confused

This is a whole part about vinyls I'm perfectly ignorant, What a shame!

And while we are at it: what's the difference if the numbers are machine-written, or hand-written? I've been looking to my SE vinyls and I have 2 machine made vs 1 scratched.

-
quote:
Originally posted by GeoffR:
Thanks Paul, that's very kind of you. Don't go spending ages on one though, I don't want to take up lots of your time on it. Smiler


It'll take no time at all; it's already done for my own benefit. All I have to do is send you some samples.
quote:
Originally posted by Eudoxia:
OK, I really lost it..

Can you please explain to a mere human being, in simple words, what you are talking about?
And if you are so kind to do so, can you please explain this too:

quote:
originally posted by GeoffR:

Sealed LPs can be great (you know it won't be worn or scratched). The only issue is you can't get the seller to look at the matrix codes on the deadwax should you wish to confirm something (like which exact pressing it is, who cut it etc)


What do you mean? Who cut it? You are able to understand that and you KNOW which person you want the cut to be made from??? Confused

This is a whole part about vinyls I'm perfectly ignorant, What a shame!

And while we are at it: what's the difference if the numbers are machine-written, or hand-written? I've been looking to my SE vinyls and I have 2 machine made vs 1 scratched.

-


All albums (records, CDs, everything) have to be mastered by someone. In simple terms, this includes adjusting the volume of each song to "fit" together well; making changes to the sound (adding more bass or trebble for example) and other adjustments.

But vinyl has an added complication: how you actually make the template from which all copies are pressed can influence how a record sounds. Some engineers developed a reputation for making these templates very well. So some people will want to make sure they get a pressing made by a particular engineer.

Additionally, over time the template will become worn out. This usually only affects albums that sold in vast quantities and needed re-pressing. Sometimes, therefore, it can be important to check which pressing you're getting. The earlier the better (usually).

Finally, in the pre-digital age, there was only one master tape of the finished album. This would usually be used by the record company in the country the album was made (UK for the Beatles, America for Crowded House's early albums). For oversees releases those master tapes were copied and the copies were sent abroad for use.

Sound quality deteriorates the more it is copied so audiophiles will often attempt to track down pressings they know were made from the actual masters rather than from copies.

In some cases, you'd be hard pressed to notice a difference. I've just bought US copies of CH and TOLM because I know they were made from the actual masters and because I found them quickly! In truth, I doubt I'd tell the difference between a US copy and a UK copy.

Sometimes, though, it DOES make a difference. Listen to an original US Beatles vinyl album and compare it with an original UK Beatles vinyl album and, well, you'd be shocked.

So, Geoff is saying that sealed copies make it impossible to find out which pressing the album is because you can't ask the seller to check. This may (or may not) be important to you. Personally, it doesn't bother me.
Thank you Paul, all quite clear and "human". Two things are still puzzling me:

quote:
All albums (records, CDs, everything) have to be mastered by someone. In simple terms, this includes adjusting the volume of each song to "fit" together well; making changes to the sound (adding more bass or trebble for example) and other adjustments.

But vinyl has an added complication: how you actually make the template from which all copies are pressed can influence how a record sounds. Some engineers developed a reputation for making these templates very well. So some people will want to make sure they get a pressing made by a particular engineer.


Ok, but HOW do you know who did that? The engineer is known, so I understand, but I had the impression the master was made by another person: am I wrong? Forgive my naivety, but I'm a beginner on technical matters. Frowner

quote:
Additionally, over time the template will become worn out. This usually only affects albums that sold in vast quantities and needed re-pressing. Sometimes, therefore, it can be important to check which pressing you're getting. The earlier the better (usually). (...)

Sound quality deteriorates the more it is copied so audiophiles will often attempt to track down pressings they know were made from the actual masters rather than from copies.


Same as before: how do you know which pressing are you dealing with? Can you detect that from the serial numbers, or do you need extra information?

(I can see GeoffR shaking his head in dibelief. Yes, some of us is soooo ignorant. OK, only me)

-
quote:
Originally posted by Eudoxia:
Thank you Paul, all quite clear and "human". Two things are still puzzling me:

quote:
All albums (records, CDs, everything) have to be mastered by someone. In simple terms, this includes adjusting the volume of each song to "fit" together well; making changes to the sound (adding more bass or trebble for example) and other adjustments.

But vinyl has an added complication: how you actually make the template from which all copies are pressed can influence how a record sounds. Some engineers developed a reputation for making these templates very well. So some people will want to make sure they get a pressing made by a particular engineer.


Ok, but HOW do you know who did that? The engineer is known, so I understand, but I had the impression the master was made by another person: am I wrong? Forgive my naivety, but I'm a beginner on technical matters. Frowner


Well there is the studio/recording engineer who engineers the actual recording while the band are in the studio, and then there is the mastering engineer. The mastering engineer is employed after the record has been recorded and mixed down to two track (stereo) from the original multi-tracks. He is provided with the finished mix, and his job is to make it sound as good as he can, whether it be for vinyl, CD, mp3, whatever. As Paul said, in the case of vinyl it is a bit more involved as he actually uses a record lathe to cut a master into a blank lacquer disc. Without going in to every stage, that is then plated, and "Mothers" are made, which are sort of 'reverse-stampers' which are then used to create te stampers which press the records. Stampers are only good for a couple of thousand records at most, before they are either worn out or break. So, when all your mothers and stampers have been used up, somebody has to go back and cut another lacquer master from the stereo tape again. This may or may not be the same person that did the original pressing. If it is different, the credits on the sleeve will not usually be updated, so to find out who really cut YOUR copy, you have to look at the deadwax info.

quote:
Originally posted by Eudoxia:
quote:
Additionally, over time the template will become worn out. This usually only affects albums that sold in vast quantities and needed re-pressing. Sometimes, therefore, it can be important to check which pressing you're getting. The earlier the better (usually). (...)

Sound quality deteriorates the more it is copied so audiophiles will often attempt to track down pressings they know were made from the actual masters rather than from copies.


Same as before: how do you know which pressing are you dealing with? Can you detect that from the serial numbers, or do you need extra information?

(I can see GeoffR shaking his head in dibelief. Yes, some of us is soooo ignorant. OK, only me)

-


Firstly I'm not shaking my head in disbelief. There is no reason you should have known this stuff. I picked it up from forums over the years myself, and back when records were the main medium, only a tiny proportion of record buyers knew or cared about this stuff. It's just a record collector thing, because it can identify the best sounding copies of a particular album.

You can tell which actual 'cut' you have by looking at the information in the deadwax. As you mentioned, sometimes this is machine stamped, and sometimes it is handwritten. It wasn't done to your album, but done by the mastering engineer to the master lacquer after he finished cutting it. It is then transferred just like the grooves themselves, down the chain to the stamper and then to your album.

Info in the deadwax usually has a couple of identifiers- it will show which album it is, which side, and usually which cut (including mono or stereo if both are available). There are a couple of ways this can be written, but usually the long part of the number is the album catalogue number, and it can then be followed up with the side, and then the cut number. So, "923465-A/1" would be the first cut of side a of an album whose catalogue number is 923456, "93456-A/2" would be the second cut of side a, "93456-B/2" would be the second cut of side b etc. I made that one up, but they usually work like that or similar.

With huge selling albums there could be many, many cuts made. I have an 80s UK pressing of Tubular Bells, and the matrix numbers end something like "A/24" and "B/27"!

Beatles LPs usually just have a side number (including denoting stereo or mono) followed by a cut number, e.g. "XEX 606-1" is first cut of side 2 of mono "Revolver", "YEX 606-1" is the first cut of side 2 of stereo "Revolver".

Mastering engineers also often sign their work, hence "Wally" being on the original US press of the debut- that is Wally Traugott, who worked at Capitol. This is the most accurate way of telling who cut the master your record was made from.

The only other thing is that sometimes some cuts were never used for whatever reason, so a first mono pressing of "Revolver" would have "XEX 605-2" on side 1 and "XEX 606-1" on side 2. The first attempt at side 1 must have been rejected, because it was never issued. So you need to know what you are looking for on a particular album, I guess.

Information overload yet? Big Grin
Eudoxia, I was thinking maybe a video showing the process of going from tape to record might be cool, unfortunately the only one I could find that dealt with the whole process without any omissions was this 30 minute one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6IMuRICNP0

So probably only worth a watch when you have some time on your hands.

On the plus side, it has Mel Blanc (voice of Bugs Bunny) in it as a record dealer who, trying to sell a record to somebody who doesn't want to buy one, decides to show him how much work was involved in making it.

It also has some cool shots of LA in the early fifties. You may also notice the lack of gloves/protective clothing/eyewear in use by guys handling quite nasty chemicals. Sure was different back then!

There is another video, 10 minutes, which adds boring stuff at the beginning (how lacquer blanks are made etc), but misses the fact the father/metal master and mother stages out. However the mastering bit is quite good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...dhSA&feature=related
quote:
originally posted by geoffR:

Firstly I'm not shaking my head in disbelief.



GeoffR, I was only jocking! Since you're able to answer to my posts while I'm only thinking them, I pretended to be able to see what happens on the other side of the world. Wink

Thank you (seriously) for all the information. it's very interesting. You're right, when I was younger and dealing with vinyls I didn't care that much, but now I'm much more interested.

quote:
(idem) There are a couple of ways this can be written, but usually the long part of the number is the album catalogue number, and it can then be followed up with the side, and then the cut number. So, "923465-A/1" would be the first cut of side a of an album whose catalogue number is 923456, "93456-A/2" would be the second cut of side a, "93456-B/2" would be the second cut of side b etc. I made that one up, but they usually work like that or similar.


Good news, my SE vinyls seems to be all first cuts, bas news, one was printed in Italy (usually means garbage), another in Holland and one in USA.

Anyway I will treasure all this and the whole thread as soon as I will be hunting my own CH vinyls!

Thank you for the videos, too, I didn't watch them yet, but I will in the week-end.

-
quote:
Originally posted by GeoffR:

Hello hello, I recognise that turntable from a certain other place! I had no idea you were a member over here. Welcome back.

So a DMM copy is less bright than the US CD? Interesting... I wouldn't have expected that.


Checking in ....once a week is about the only time I have. Good to see your TT is up and running with that new cart Smiler.
Paul kindly sent me two tracks ripped from his Parlophone vinyl copy of TOE, so I could compare it with my ATO vinyl copy.

This didn't really provide answers so much as provide more questions, but it was interesting. What I heard was radically different in tone compared to the ATO playing on my turntable. The ATO (aside from being slightly noisier than the Parlophone) had much more treble prescence and airiness, but seemed positively anemic in the bass. The Parlophone had a lot more bass heft (which also helped sort of trick me into thinking it had better micro-dynamics), but felt comparatively closed in with the loss of airiness at the top end.

This could be due to mastering differences, or it could just be differences between my vinyl setup and Paul's. Or a bit of both. Only one way to tell, track down a Parlophone copy to compare directly.

What I will say (as I mentioned to Paul) is that I felt the darker tonality of the Parlophone was a definite help on She Called Up, which to my ear has an unpleasant glassiness/edginess to it. The lesser treble energy helped tame that. The generally better sounding Nobody Wants To (the only other Parlophone track I've heard) I thought was helped by the airiness of the ATO. Still wouldn't mind a bit more bass though...
Geoff, just wanted to say a quick "thanks" for pointing us in the direction of that old Capitol "making of" film.

Once you get past the daft "plot" the nuts and bolts were really interesting. Seems a very convoluted process though.

The most amazing aspect was the lack of health and safety around handling all those chemicals... Smiler
quote:
OPB GeoffR:

Paul kindly sent me two tracks ripped from his Parlophone vinyl copy of TOE, so I could compare it with my ATO vinyl copy.

This didn't really provide answers so much as provide more questions, but it was interesting. What I heard was radically different in tone compared to the ATO playing on my turntable. The ATO (aside from being slightly noisier than the Parlophone) had much more treble prescence and airiness, but seemed positively anemic in the bass. The Parlophone had a lot more bass heft (which also helped sort of trick me into thinking it had better micro-dynamics), but felt comparatively closed in with the loss of airiness at the top end.

This could be due to mastering differences, or it could just be differences between my vinyl setup and Paul's. Or a bit of both. Only one way to tell, track down a Parlophone copy to compare directly .


And if you're going to do that, please let us know if you confirm your impression, or if you changed your opinion.

I suppose it's kind of a dream to find the perfectly balanced album (technically wise), but at least anyone could choice following his/hes tastes.

(Ok, the sentence sounds awful, but I don't know how to put it better than this. Sorry Roll Eyes)

-
Really in to vinyl right now.I have all the Crowdie albums (including Recurring dream)on vinyl.

I've recently bought three 10" Crowdie singles on ebay.The vinyl and packaging are in marvellous condition.A copy of TA went for about £30 a few days ago!

I'm actually just waiting on an American import of Pajama Club being delivered...

P.s. Geoff - love your avatar.I'm a big fan of Fullers London pride myself... Smiler
Heh, thanks Stuart! We can get it on import here in pint bottles ($8 each!) and it's very nice, but it's oh so much nicer on draught. I will definitely be drinking quite a bit of it when I go back home in July, woohoo!

I assume those 10"s are the TA era singles? How do they sound? Always meant to get hold of them, never have yet.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
    All times London, UK.

    ©1998-Eternity, Frenz.com. All post content is the copyrighted work of the person who wrote it. Please don't copy, reproduce, or publish anything you see written here without the author's permission.
×
×
×
×
×