moonbeams Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 There is a lot of talk of color being related to sound quality and so on, but I don't buy it. I strongly believe, that the depth and and warmth of a record's sound is directly related to the wear and tear of the stampers. Today I received the colored NOFX Frisbee in the mail. Upon opening it, the first thing I noticed was that matrix was identical to the first pressing. I listened to parts of both pressings a few times over and hands down, the first pressing is deeper, fuller and warmer. It makes the new pressing unlistenable. The sad thing about this, if I had bought only the colored pressing first, I would have never have known how good this sounds. I know some people may post "my colored pressing sounds great" "I can't tell the difference." Please do. A month ago I sold my colored variants. There were 2 records that I had 5 copies of and I listened to both extensively to try to determine which pressing to keep. They were Invasion USA by Riverdales and the Methadones s/t. My favorite Invasion USA color was blue and favorite Methadones color was green so I wanted to keep these. But upon listening tests, the green methadones lacked a punch whereas the green USA sounded dull. The green USA sounded great, but not as good as a clear. Anyway, it doesn't matter which color the record is. I highly suspect that the sound is related to the order of churning out of the press. Going through my collection, I notice that older pressings just sound richer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finchbadass Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 you really have a knack for making stupid threads. some of the dumbest ever made here in fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonbeams Posted September 23, 2011 Author Share Posted September 23, 2011 I make threads about things I want to discuss. I don't post in ones I'm not interested in. Nips, I'm not talking to you anymore. It's over. Post what you wish. I'll never react to you again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriss Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 I don't think discussing sound quality on records to be a dumb thread, but I think correlating it with stampers ties in really closely with a thread that's already been going for awhile on the same subject (and the myth of it supposedly). That said, while I personally believe the sound discerned from one copy of a record pressed a few hundred copies later than another copy of that second record won't yield any sonic difference to the naked ear (perhaps if you had some crazy high end equipment to test it on), I'd generally say that the sound of some records (not many now that come from digital masters) are warmer than when hearing those same recordings in other mediums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finchbadass Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 I make threads about things I want to discuss. I don't post in ones I'm not interested in. maybe you should try having a mature discussion with a wall. that way there's a better chance your topics will be taken to heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonbeams Posted September 23, 2011 Author Share Posted September 23, 2011 I don't think discussing sound quality on records to be a dumb thread, but I think correlating it with stampers ties in really closely with a thread that's already been going for awhile on the same subject (and the myth of it supposedly).That said, while I personally believe the sound discerned from one copy of a record pressed a few hundred copies later than another copy of that second record won't yield any sonic difference to the naked ear (perhaps if you had some crazy high end equipment to test it on), I'd generally say that the sound of some records (not many now that come from digital masters) are warmer than when hearing those same recordings in other mediums. There was a stark difference in the Frisbees. I really like the brown and wanted to keep it, but I couldn't betray the "audiophile" inside. Imagine a ph like scale from -10 to +10. I would put the first pressing at zero for a full, balanced sound. The second is at +3.5. It lacked the depth. It's very difficult for me to describe an audio experience in words. What I'm trying to say, is that I could own 100 records like this and wouldn't even know what I'm missing. That makes me kind of bummed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexH. Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 LOLOLOL @ this thread and all moonbeams threads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchrudder Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Since when does sound quality matter on a punk album? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almightyseancore Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 That said, while I personally believe the sound discerned from one copy of a record pressed a few hundred copies later than another copy of that second record won't yield any sonic difference to the naked ear. The only way to test this theory would be to use a large numbered series (like Mellon collie and the infinite sadness, for example) but that only brings up the question, are the records actually stuffed in the order they were pressed, or is the plant simply numbering the sleeves? Hmmm.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Hundred Fifty-Two Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=hot+stamper&_sac=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m1538#seeAllAnchorLink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyh85 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=hot+stamper&_sac=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m1538#seeAllAnchorLink Expect fantastic "audiophile" results after hammering your records with those bad boys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadreckoning Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 i though a mature discussion was phone sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burntwolf Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Have you ever looked at Steve Hoffmann's forum? You might get less douchey and more 'audiophile-informed' responses there. Or not. I dunno. Be curious to hear what they have to say. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/ I don't have too many variants anymore, but the Tarantula pic disc sounds markedly better than the color one I have, as has been discussed. But that is diff. pressing. I don't think any of the Goddamnit Redux colors I have/had sounded especially good. I do have like 6 fucking copies of First World Manifesto for some stupid reason. Maybe I'll spin those back to back sometime. I'll have to see what else I have. I have 2 copies of Circa Now on color. I remember one I had on yellow marble originally that sounded killer, and I'm not quite sure the ones I got later on sound quite as good. For whatever that's worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somethingvinyl Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 This could be an interesting discussion but there is no real, practical way to test the theories of sonic quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakland Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 In the early '90s, someone did a test of sound quality as perceived by the human ear. The subjects given the choice between pristine vinyl, cassette tape or CDs. They listened to the same songs on all three formats and overwhelmingly chose the cassette tape as the better-sounding format. Go figure. Thurston Moore has said a few times that he believes a normal-bias cassette recording is the best when played on quality equipment. Who knows. I have a cassette player in my car with a Bose sound system and it sounds incredible (and doesn't skip like my fucking CD player). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonbeams Posted September 24, 2011 Author Share Posted September 24, 2011 Have you ever looked at Steve Hoffmann's forum? You might get less douchey and more 'audiophile-informed' responses there. Or not. I dunno. Be curious to hear what they have to say.http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/ I don't have too many variants anymore, but the Tarantula pic disc sounds markedly better than the color one I have, as has been discussed. But that is diff. pressing. The Tarantula pic disc was cut and pressed at Pirates. The Recess one was cut by Lucky. If you look at the Lucky version, the grooves are squeezed tight together with lots of dead space towards the center. I think he does this to remove distortion. However, I think (and could be wrong) that squeezing the grooves together reduces the low end of the sound. That's why the Pirates version has a fuller sound, despite it being a pic disc. If you play all of the FWM discs, you'll notice the pic disc sounds the worst and the black sounds the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonbeams Posted September 24, 2011 Author Share Posted September 24, 2011 This could be an interesting discussion but there is no real, practical way to test the theories of sonic quality. If you have multiple copies/pressings of the same album you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdb Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 In the early '90s, someone did a test of sound quality as perceived by the human ear. The subjects given the choice between pristine vinyl, cassette tape or CDs. They listened to the same songs on all three formats and overwhelmingly chose the cassette tape as the better-sounding format. Go figure. I remember reading an article where this study was mentioned. If I remember correctly, it was also pointed out that the problem with cassette sound quality is that it degrades at a significantly faster rate per play than vinyl. So, first listen, cassette's best. After a bunch of plays, vinyl wins. And then the "progressives" favored CDs because the 1,000th listen would sound the same as the first, whereas the vinyl and cassette would hardly be listenable at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konk Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 So you're saying that if I own two colors and don't know which is first and which is second press, I should be able to tell by playing them? If the matrices match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonbeams Posted September 24, 2011 Author Share Posted September 24, 2011 So you're saying that if I own two colors and don't know which is first and which is second press, I should be able to tell by playing them? If the matrices match. It's not absolute. But if it were a record with a considerably large print run and then half a decade between pressings, you might tell a difference. As mentioned earlier, I just got the NOFX Frisbee on color. I was going to give away my black, but did a sound test first and the black sounds fuller. The color has pops, surface noise (yes, I cleaned it) and a shallow sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3amsleep Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Dood, clean your records before playing them. 90% of the differences you hear are just mold/wax/release agent/dust/dirt/etc... I Highly recommend the DiscDoctor system... also stop talking about stampers, we all know a worn stamper is not going to sound as good as a clean fresh one, but the difference is unnoticeable because no vinyl presser will overuse a stamper, it's cheaper to make copies of the mother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipfunkrock34 Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakland Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 In the early '90s, someone did a test of sound quality as perceived by the human ear. The subjects given the choice between pristine vinyl, cassette tape or CDs. They listened to the same songs on all three formats and overwhelmingly chose the cassette tape as the better-sounding format. Go figure. I remember reading an article where this study was mentioned. If I remember correctly, it was also pointed out that the problem with cassette sound quality is that it degrades at a significantly faster rate per play than vinyl. So, first listen, cassette's best. After a bunch of plays, vinyl wins. And then the "progressives" favored CDs because the 1,000th listen would sound the same as the first, whereas the vinyl and cassette would hardly be listenable at that point. Yes, I think that's correct. Also, they theorized that a big part of why people chose the cassette was its mediocrity. LPs tend to have exceptional lows and OK mids but poor highs. CDs have great highs and OK mids and poor lows. Cassettes on the other hand have excellent mids and rather bland highs and lows. Basically, most people enjoy a bland, minimally dynamic sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakland Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 And my preference for black vinyl has a lot to do with principle. I think it sounds better, yes. But I also dislike the culture of colored vinyl collecting. I think it detracts from the actual listening of the music and has been almost completely responsible for the 200-300 percent increase in the cost of records over the past 10 years. A decade ago a record generally cost $7.50 -- $10. Even if you take inflation and cost of living increases into account, that's a ridiculous increase. OK, whining completed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryq Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 A decade ago a record generally cost $7.50 -- $10. Even if you take inflation and cost of living increases into account, that's a ridiculous increase. off-topic, but that's probably partially related to increased oil costs, right? gas has gone up about 300% in the same time period, too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.