|
Hold on a tic, some sites are telling me this turntable you have is a p mount, some are saying it's not. Is this what it looks like?  If it is, just undo that screw, take the old cart out, slip in the new one, tighten the screw, put on a record and enjoy. Ron Burgundy fucked around with this message at 10:34 on Aug 22, 2011 |
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 09:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Everyone had been telling me P-mounts are just plug-and-play so when I got my first T4P player I almost pulled the drat arm off because I didn't notice the screw.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 10:17
|
|
|
Ron Burgundy posted:Hold on a tic, some sites are telling me this turntable you have is a p mount, some are saying it's not. Is this what it looks like? That's exactly what it looks like. It is super easy, awesome! Gonna order that cart ASAP, then go thrift/Goodwill hunting for some speakers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
Latest addition to my collection! Only 50,000 ever made! Astro Creep was the first CD I ever owned. Used to listen to this album every single day and read the lyrics like it was a bloody novel. This was such a HUGE influence on my musical tastes and overall attitude. This is one of my most treasured possessions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 22:56
|
|
|
poo poo that is awesome. Love that album.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-AT6012-Record-Care/dp/B0009IGAPW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1314056106&sr=8-2 Is this a good buy? I need something to clean my records, or am I better off just making some cleaning solution? EDIT: Well I'm poor, so I didn't even own an anti-static brush, so I made picking that up first priority. When I next have money I'll get a cleaning kit. Blast Fantasto fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Aug 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 00:42
|
|
|
I have one of those - in my experience, it works best when combined with an anti-static brush. the cleaning product I always try to recommend is the Onzrow Zerodust - it's expensive, but one will last you basically forever and it seriously works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 01:33
|
|
|
I've had good luck doing the same task with melamine foam cleaning products like magic eraser.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 02:56
|
|
|
Had some Insound drama a few weeks ago. Sent me Nicolas Jaar's remixes by mistake instead of his album so they just gave me them both no charge. Anyway, cumulative summer haul: Nicolas Jaar: Space is only noise, Remixes Vol 1. John Maus: We Must Become Pitiless Censors of Ourselves Washed Out: Within and Without Paperclip People: Throw 12" Beach House: Devotion Nightmares on Wax: In a Space Outta Sound Sam Cooke: At the Copa Al Green: Let's Stay Together Colbert's single
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
Ron Burgundy posted:I've had good luck doing the same task with melamine foam cleaning products like magic eraser. Supposedly the magic erasers can leave behind an abrasive residue. One again this falls under the category of "I'm not sure if this is true, but I'm sure as hell not going to test it".
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 03:56
|
|
|
Can someone recommend a good turntable/cartridge for archiving (recording records to digital) that will cost me around 4-500 total?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
Why do people want to convert their records to digital? I don't get it. Unless you are literally the first person on the planet to convert that particular dic, what is the point?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:Why do people want to convert their records to digital? I don't get it. Unless you are literally the first person on the planet to convert that particular dic, what is the point? Sometimes if something is particularly rare or valuable people choose to record the audio digitally. In fact if you've got old acetates or something of that nature you'd pretty much have to do this because those are not meant to last or be played very many times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
Couldn't they obtain the recording through much easier means as well?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 04:54
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:Couldn't they obtain the recording through much easier means as well? Who knows? There are other reasons to archive. Some people don't like putting wear on their discs and will make copies to reduce this. Or maybe they want to make copies for a friend who doesn't have a turntable. Or possibly just have a portable version of the recording. I don't generally make digital copies of my albums, but there are occasionally reasons and I have done it before. I don't prefer the copies, but it's not an outrageous idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
Many records are not available anywhere else such as radio transcriptions, family recordings, one-off private pressings etc... If you are transferring Fleetwood Mac records to your computer it is trivial, but between the late 19th century and the late 20th century almost all recorded sound was pressed on discs or cylinders, and again, almost all of it is available nowhere else. Popular music makes up only a percentage of what is out there on records. Then there's the billions of feet of open reel tape...
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:Couldn't they obtain the recording through much easier means as well? You seem to be making the assumption that all music which was ever released on vinyl was rereleased on CD at some later point. This is not, in fact, the case. Much of the music I own was only released on vinyl (or the version released on CD was poorly mastered/a different edit than the vinyl version) Socket Ryanist fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Aug 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 05:18
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:Can someone recommend a good turntable/cartridge for archiving (recording records to digital) that will cost me around 4-500 total? You'd have to double that figure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 05:48
|
|
|
Millstone posted:You'd have to double that figure. Maybe if he's planning on doing this for a museum, university, or someone looking to reissue these recordings. If it's for his own personal use I don't see the need for something that expensive. Other than personal preference, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
If you really want to transfer your Lp's to digital more power to ya but it seems super pointless in this age of technology where someone else has probably already done it for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:If you really want to transfer your Lp's to digital more power to ya but it seems super pointless in this age of technology where someone else has probably already done it for you. Some of the records in question have 500 or less copies in existence, some of which are probably destroyed, many of which are probably sitting in a warehouse or used record store, unsold, and most of which are owned by people with no motivation to record them and post them online. Trance records from the mid-90s are mostly in the possession of people who were DJing at that time, who most likely have dozens to hundreds of said records and probably never even look at most of them because they're either no longer DJing or have switched styles (since absolutely no one plays trance from the mid 90s anymore).
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 06:45
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:If you really want to transfer your Lp's to digital more power to ya but it seems super pointless in this age of technology where someone else has probably already done it for you. Theres no way even all my records are digitised unless someone broke into my house and did it. Let alone every record in the world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 07:38
|
|
|
I want to start a company or nonprofit foundation which goes around hunting down the master copies of various obscure records and digitizing them. Do you think people would be willing to contribute to this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 07:41
|
|
|
Are you talking needle drops of the best available copy or going back to master tapes? Because the record companies honestly have no idea where half of their stuff is. The master tapes for stuff like Steely Dan and The Who are missing. The obscure stuff is going to be hell to find.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 08:05
|
|
|
Ron Burgundy posted:Are you talking needle drops of the best available copy or going back to master tapes? Because the record companies honestly have no idea where half of their stuff is. The master tapes for stuff like Steely Dan and The Who are missing. The obscure stuff is going to be hell to find.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 08:39
|
|
|
That would be cool! Kind of like what the guys over at the tape project are doing except on records and not $400!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 08:42
|
|
|
Ron Burgundy posted:Are you talking needle drops of the best available copy or going back to master tapes? Because the record companies honestly have no idea where half of their stuff is. The master tapes for stuff like Steely Dan and The Who are missing. The obscure stuff is going to be hell to find. Here's the sad thing, a lot of record companies don't even think to hold onto their masters. The way that master tapes are treated, it is criminal. They would just throw them out en masse to save space, cut off the metal leaders to save money, do a variety of things. When Rykodisc got started, and they were reissuing Bowie for the first time, the guy in charge of the project when to the warehouse where RCA holds the tapes. He recalls seeing the guy leading him to the tape kicking aside a Jethro Tull master, and then coming in to find that David Bowie's masters were not properly taken care of. He had to listen to the tapes and document what each one was. Maybe he found another cassette master for "Aladdin Sane," or maybe he would find a track that nobody has ever heard before. But the tapes could have disintegrated, and RCA wouldn't have cared. You also have other problems too. One of Steely Dan's masters were destroyed when some idiot ran the digital tape through an analog tape machine. You have studios who send these things around and don't know where they are. Hell, there's a lot of artists from the 50s and 60s where the only solution is to rip it from a record to get a CD issue since their company decided to get rid of the tapes in order to save space or money. And it's gonna get worse. All this stuff that's recorded digitally... who's holding onto it? Who's taking care of it. Hard drives fail. CDs fail. I know Island used to make analog backups, but who knows if they still do. What happens if the software they used becomes archaic and nobody has a working copy? What happens when the last of some of these digital tape machines break down? You literally have a good chunk of the 1980s best music sitting on tapes that can only be played on one machine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 13:29
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:I want to start a company or nonprofit foundation which goes around hunting down the master copies of various obscure records and digitizing them. Do you think people would be willing to contribute to this? How is this different than the myriad other reissue labels that already exist? Not pissing in your cheerios or anything, but sourcing records for reissue isn't a new thing. Nor is it especially easy or profitable considering you have to either discover and source something that's good enough/has wide enough appeal to warrant a re-issue or you have to secure the rights to something that would recoup (plus manufacturing, distro, etc etc). There's a grip of labels that already do this for niche genres/markets and a couple that do it for the audiophile/classic album market. I've talked to a handful of unknown/obscure artists while trying to hunt down copies and the odds of them having masters and willing to deal with a reissue are very, very slim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 13:32
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Here's the sad thing... Yeah I post that same Bill Holland article from Billboard in here every few months. The industry as a whole just doesn't give a poo poo apparently. Article posted:The most spectacular case of wholesale vault trashing is the decision by RCA in the early '60s to demolish its warehouse in Camden, N.J. The warehouse, according to collectors and industry veterans, held four floors of catalogue product, pre-tape-era material ranging from metal parts, acetates, shellac disc masters and alternate takes to test pressings, master matrix books and session rehearsal recordings. What the gently caress. Cemetry Gator posted:And it's gonna get worse. All this stuff that's recorded digitally... who's holding onto it? Who's taking care of it. Hard drives fail. CDs fail. I know Island used to make analog backups, but who knows if they still do. What happens if the software they used becomes archaic and nobody has a working copy? What happens when the last of some of these digital tape machines break down? You literally have a good chunk of the 1980s best music sitting on tapes that can only be played on one machine. That's the great thing about analog. In the distant future someone can pick up a tape and say "Ok, this thing ran across a magnetic head at 15ips" and then go build something to play it back because the signal is not encrypted. Hell they'd probably figure out the speed after a while anyway. If they picked up a digital tape they couldn't figure out how to play it back just by looking at it. Ron Burgundy fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Aug 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 14:36
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:Much of the music I own was only released on vinyl (or the version released on CD was poorly mastered/a different edit than the vinyl version)  ), in my experience it usually is, at least from the mid 90s onward.Ron Burgundy posted:Yeah I post that same Bill Holland article from Billboard in here every few months. The industry as a whole just doesn't give a poo poo apparently. I'm not sure I fully believe this (whoever did the conversion leaked some song outtakes leading me to believe they had all of the session masters) but in light of that article, I also wouldn't be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 16:06
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:If the industry hadn't been so caught up with the "Loudness Wars" I really don't see myself getting into vinyl. I'd always been perfectly happy with the sound and convenience of a CD. While it's not always true that vinyl is better mastered (Death Magnetic In all honesty, the "loudness wars" is hardly the worst thing that the music industry does. Yes, there is a lot of music out there that is overly compressed, but that's existed for a long time. You listen to 60s pop music, and you'll hear loud. Hell, I remember some people complaining about the loudness on Hip-Os Motown singles sets, and the reality was that Hip-O was just reflecting how loud and hot the original singles were mastered at. Here's what record companies have done. They've done terrible tape researched and used whatever was on hand, even if it was a worned EQed copy, rather than the originals. They've used noise removal to the point of adding artifacts. They've added slight phasing due to bad mastering. They've added overdubs. They've hosed up stereo and mono tapes, sometimes using them pretty much at random. They've sourced from records, and often times they didn't even use a clean disk, even though the tapes actually existed (this happened on a Boxtop compilation I have, where they sourced a B-side from a worn 45, yet when Sundazed put out the albums, they found the original tape). They've mastered things at the wrong speed. They've chopped off endings. They've mastered stereo discs in mono by accident. They've used remixes rather than original mixes. Sometimes they just don't use the right mixes. They've used single edits in place of the album version on the actual album. If you have the older Rolling Stones CDs, you also get the joy of seeing a track switch from stereo to mono, although often what happens is that the intro will be in stereo and then once the song proper starts, it's mono. Deluxe editions can be fun. I have the "Songs from the Big Chair" deluxe 2CD set, and while overall it's great, for some reason Mercury put the "7" version" of "Everybody Wants to the Rule the World" on the 2nd disc, which collects the single version. Only problem is that the 7" version is the album version as well. There's no unique edit. I have the new Kinks remasters, and for some reason, there are random "ñ" all over the place in the booklet for Something Else. Trust me, clipping is the least of your worries when it comes to reissues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 16:45
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Trust me, clipping is the least of your worries when it comes to reissues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 16:57
|
|
|
But you see, that actually seems somewhat interesting. At least it's better than the super deluxe Station To Station issue, which included the remastered album, the original 1985 CD master because... uh... I don't know why you'd remastered a CD just to include the original mastering of the same material, a CD of the single edits, a live album, the album on vinyl, the live album on vinyl, a DVD featuring surround sound mixes. Compared to the original album remastered, the B-sides, demos, BBC recordings, a live show, the original mix that lead everyone to decide to get Andy Wallace to mix it, that's absurd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 17:17
|
|
|
I agree it sounds interesting. And I'd be all over it. If it didn't cost $150. The "deluxe" edition comes with the same two first CDs for $20. That's an excellent price (the vinyl is $60 for 4 discs which I also think is reasonable)! By that price, for the "super deluxe" calculation of $10 per CD (4 and one of them is just the DVD audio) and $20 for the DVD (not even Blu-ray!) and maybe $30 for the packaging and reprint material, that comes out to less than $100. I've been waiting for weeks to hear what makes it worth $50 more. I was hoping that maybe they'd include the deluxe vinyl which would make it worth it to me. Maybe a last minute addition of a CD contining the other Sound Studio tracks that appeared on WTLO and those that haven't been released yet (like Sappy). When it was revealed that the extras are just reprint paperwork (http://www.cdwow.nl/CD/nirvana-nevermind-super-deluxe-limited-edition-4cd-dvd/dp/22571195#bc=8fbd) I was even more dissapointed. At this price the industry seems to be encouraging 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:In all honesty, the "loudness wars" is hardly the worst thing that the music industry does. Yes, there is a lot of music out there that is overly compressed, but that's existed for a long time. You listen to 60s pop music, and you'll hear loud. Hell, I remember some people complaining about the loudness on Hip-Os Motown singles sets, and the reality was that Hip-O was just reflecting how loud and hot the original singles were mastered at. poo poo like this probably explains why it took so long for them to release some Beatles CDs that didn't sound like a bowl of liquid feces.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 19:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Maybe if he's planning on doing this for a museum, university, or someone looking to reissue these recordings. If it's for his own personal use I don't see the need for something that expensive. Other than personal preference, maybe. He said "good" turntable and cartridge for archiving. That would run about $5000-$7500 normally, but can be done for about $1000.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:
I don't understand the problem with digital files; they are backed up with speed and ease. This is how digital piracy is such a problem. Copy the files to a number of secure places and there you have it. Why would nobody have a working copy of Pro Tools at any point in time, the most popular recording software? I'm sure before or at the time that Pro Tools or what have you gets discontinued, there will be more than enough warning and compatibility. As far as digital tapes, they will continue to get pretty hosed up. But as the master multitracks and stereo mixdowns for historic recordings get digitized in high-res PCM or DSD, they become the definitive masters instead. Ron Burgundy posted:
What the gently caress. Are we supposed to be designing the next Lady Gaga record for Martians or something? Is magnetic tape expected to survive the apocalypse? Cheesus posted:Don't even get me started on this upcoming "super deluxe" edition of Nevermind... What about it? Has someone heard it? Is it as bad as it probably is expected to be? There's always the MFSL CD. Joe 30330 fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Aug 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
Millstone posted:What about it? Has someone heard it? Is it as bad as it probably is expected to be? There's always the MFSL CD. At this point I'm leaning toward the deluxe vinyl which mirrors the content of the deluxe CD set. As for the one CD only available in the "super deluxe" that I want (Butch Vig's original mix of the album; the version of Breed from that set is in the With The Lights Out box set), well...
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Cheesus posted:Yeah, as I said in my followup, my complaint is more about the pricing for what's in the package. I don't know what the remastering is like but expect the CD/digital versions to be brickwalled as poo poo. The ORG reissue of Nevermind sounds really good, so there's always that. Plus it's been out for a year or two, so you can just buy that whenever. I wish they'd focuse more on reissuing things that are hard to find (Beck's 90s material) than albums that already have multiple reissues. Or better yet not loving up the reissues of the rare stuff they do put out (mostly everything I bought on record store day). I suppose it's more important that I own six different versions of Nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 00:40
|
|