murphy now do a turntable with cd player.it also has a memory card slot and usb slot to convert the vinyl records to mp3. it is about 70 pounds. i have one of these and it is very good as you get the chance to play the vinyl records but also convert them to play on phones or 1pods
Such a cheap device is likely to damage your records. Steer clear is my advice.
Obviously you need a collaborator to do the changes, but other than that I don't see the need for anyone else to be present.
And what's the difference between a blind and a double blind test?
Blind testing is where the audience doesn't know what item is being tested at any specific time. But the person presenting the test does.
Double blind is where neither the audience or the presenter know what item is under test. Obviously in that instance a third person would be used to change the test set-up unseen by anyone else. Or some form of automated random switching used.
It comes I suspect from medical testing originally. When testing a new drug it is pretty much standard practice to test against a placebo to see if the drug has any real effect.
Double blind testing in this case means the doctors administering the test have no idea if what they are giving the patient is the real drug or the placebo. That way they cannot influence the patient's reaction in any way.
In the same way a double blind test of audio kit would mean that the person presenting the test could not, however subtly, give off any clues as to which bit of kit was on test. And thus influence the results in any way.
Blind testing is where the audience doesn't know what item is being tested at any specific time. But the person presenting the test does.
Double blind is where neither the audience or the presenter know what item is under test. Obviously in that instance a third person would be used to change the test set-up unseen by anyone else. Or some form of automated random switching used.
It comes I suspect from medical testing originally. When testing a new drug it is pretty much standard practice to test against a placebo to see if the drug has any real effect.
Double blind testing in this case means the doctors administering the test have no idea if what they are giving the patient is the real drug or the placebo. That way they cannot influence the patient's reaction in any way.
In the same way a double blind test of audio kit would mean that the person presenting the test could not, however subtly, give off any clues as to which bit of kit was on test. And thus influence the results in any way.
So a No Presenter test would be a -1 test? Surely just as valid as a double blind test. Person 2 changing the kit merely having to work within a specific time frame - or two or more rooms set up in advance.
I bought an album last year, a modern album and this was before i did the big upgrade i did in December so when i was listening to it i wasn't using the best equipment. It is only recently though i have noticed that there is a considerable amount of crackling at the start of the record and end of the record on each side. It even manages to creep into the beginning of some songs and even throughout it. This wasn't the case until recently and there was always a decent sound from it. It is an American pressing and i don't know the exact weight of it. It is extremely thin though with little weight to it. I always take care of my records so there is no damage to the record.
I've always said that i think UK pressings are much heavier in weight but have a lot of static on them and American pressings have very little weight to them but never have static or crackle or hiss. The album was pressed by Polydor in this country on heavyweight vinyl. There are no details on what the weight is but i am guessing it is not 180 grams since it would have been mentioned. A few Ebay sellers used to mention 180 grams but there is nothing anywhere else to say that they are. My question for people is this, do you think weight gives a better longer lasting sound? I bought a movie soundtrack recently pressed on 'heavyweight' vinyl but it was from 2002. Still factory sealed so it had never been played but even then it had some crackling here and there and i know it isn't static i am hearing.
Do you think it is worth it? I think when companies talk about heavyweight vinyl they should specify the weight. I have read some sites and apparantly some American companies can press at 120 grams and most UK companies press at 140. That would explain why i always think UK pressings are heavier so i am thinking 'heavyweight' will be 10-20 grams heavier than 'standard'. Since it is a UK pressing and apparantly most stuff here is 140 grams that would mean this album is at least 150 grams. Like most modern albums they only press them for a short time so i'm thinking of getting it while i can or am i better just accepting that one way or the other whether it's now or 5 years from now i will end up hearing some degree of crackling and just stick with the copy i have.
I still go through my vinyl often, usually making up compilations to listen to in the car; I still buy the odd LP from ebay as well--there are plenty of great secondhand turntables with nice magnetic cartridges on ebay as well.
Such a cheap device is likely to damage your records. Steer clear is my advice.
I agree; nasty crystal cartridge fitted in them--sounds poor. Any secondhand turntable with a half decent magnetic cartridge fitted will run rings round them.
Compact cassette wasn't that bad. Back in the day I'd record all my CD's to quality chrome or metal cassettes and there was zero difference (perhaps only a slight difference in s/n; not noticable at normal listening levels!).
However, 10 years later I was amazed to discover how much these recordings had degraded. These were perhaps not stored in ideal conditions but then not in a baking loft either!
I do still love vinyl though. Some bands just sound better that way. Yes yes yes ... distortion, harmonics ... I don't care, for 'real' music I find it the more pleasurable listening experience. For electronic music, I'll stick with CD as its clinical accurate nature suits the material.
Pye had almost thrown in the towel after the mid 70s, although they made LPs for the BBC. I read somewhere they tried to persuade RCA to take them over, but failed
The reason why you seem to think Pye had almost completely given up on vinyl after the mid-70s was probably because they had been swallowed up into the Philips Group in 1976.
Presumably, the badges on many of Pye's releases had changed to Philips, but Pye were still under contractual obligation to BBC Enterprises so still used the Pye name for BBC records releases?
Compact cassette wasn't that bad. Back in the day I'd record all my CD's to quality chrome or metal cassettes and there was zero difference (perhaps only a slight difference in s/n; not noticable at normal listening levels!).
Are you kidding?
The frequency response of compact cassette was abysmal, nowhere near enough high frequency response, even with metal tape, dolby etc.
I used to record to open reel tape at 7 1/2 IPS tape speed to get even close to decent HF response.
Like you I had a lot of recorded material on (open reel) tape that after a while degraded. The tape surface went "sticky" and as it passed through the machine it started squeaking with the squeak audible on the audio output.
Mum and dad have a good collection of vinyl and they said the quality was really good but I've never heard music on vinyl for myself so I wouldn't really know. I was born in 1990 but I always listened to music on cassette or CD and now on my ipod/laptop. They still have their vinyl records though.
Still have open reel tapes dating back to the 60s/70s and mounds of cassettes.Only ever had one sticky tape and that was a cassette.Both formats are far better sonically than those infernal IPODs and MP3 players and vinyl can still sound great as long as you look after it.
The frequency response of compact cassette was abysmal, nowhere near enough high frequency response, even with metal tape, dolby etc.
I used to record to open reel tape at 7 1/2 IPS tape speed to get even close to decent HF response.
Like you I had a lot of recorded material on (open reel) tape that after a while degraded. The tape surface went "sticky" and as it passed through the machine it started squeaking with the squeak audible on the audio output.
12" singles are probably the best example of 45rpm records.Think you'll find the frequency response is improved along with a wider dynamic range,slower speed usually results in a loss of quality on vinyl,this was very much the case when they used to press records that played at 16rpm!.Only problem is of course that vinyl has a somewhat limited playing time,you can get 60 minute L.Ps but that is usually achieved by sacrificing the dynamic range and a few such L.Ps sound as flat as a pancake and you had to crank the volume up a fair bit compared with standard pressings.
I do remember "PRT Records" in the 1980s although I don't think they issued much apart from old Pye material.
I think the catalogue then passed to Castle Communications and then Sanctuary Records, Sanctuary were bought out by Universal in 2007.
I'm sure Pye's last big hit was "Can you feel the Force" by the Real Thing in 1979.
This might also prove interesting reading.
"The company, like most of its domestic competitors, attempted to restore demand with price competition and, where viable production exceeded demand, sold excess stock at loss-making clearance prices. This tactic has no strategic value and by 1966 Pye was in such difficulties that they started to reduce their manufacturing capacity with closure of the EKCO factory in Southend-on-Sea.
Philips attempted to buy out the ailing Pye in 1966. The Trade Secretary Anthony Wedgwood Benn determined that a complete sale would create a de facto monopoly so he permitted the transfer of just a 60% shareholding with an undertaking that the Lowestoft factory would continue to manufacture televisions.
In the early 1970s Sony and Hitachi launched UK colour televisions that cost less than £200. Domestic manufacturers attempted to compete, but were handicapped by outdated manufacturing techniques and an inflexible workforce. Pye found themselves with high stocks and low cash flow at a time when industrial relations were poor, the economy was ailing and there was little scope for cost reduction. Foundering, the Pye group of companies was bought outright by Philips in 1976. The Lowestoft factory was subsequently sold to Sanyo and Philips moved the manufacture of Pye televisions to Singapore."
Although that mainly goes into detail for the electronics side of Pye, it does state that Philips bought the whole of the Pye Group in 1976, including their record label.
Mum and dad have a good collection of vinyl and they said the quality was really good but I've never heard music on vinyl for myself so I wouldn't really know. I was born in 1990 but I always listened to music on cassette or CD and now on my ipod/laptop.
I'd guess that you must be one of the very last people to remember growing up when cassettes were still- barely- in regular use then. (*) Even a couple of years younger and you'd probably have started listening to music during or after the Napster era instead...
The 90s were a bit weird as even though CDs were totally established and the primary way of buying music, there was no cheap way of copying them, so cassettes were still in wide use.
By the time writers started getting cheap, the MP3 revolution was arriving anyway- guess that's why home copying/pirating of CDs was never a big deal.
(*) In the first world anyway; I understand that cassettes were still a popular distribution medium in some third world countries five or six years back, though I'd be surprised if that was still the case.
I know many people still have collections of vinyl records and equipment to play them on.
Just how good was the sound quality? I have some LPs from the late 1970s and1980s which were spoiled by poor quality pressings. Remember "warping", "cereal sound" and "off centre" records. Not to mention "wafer thin" pressings.
The rot seemed to start after the 1973 oil crisis.
My experience was that the only british companies who could manufacture good quality LPs were Decca (before the Polygram take over) and "Phonodisc" who manufactured Philips, Polydor, Mercury, Vertigo and later Decca.
RCA seemed to be of pretty average quality wherever they were made, they didn't have many big name artists after Elvis Presley died, did they?
Pye had almost thrown in the towel after the mid 70s, although they made LPs for the BBC. I read somewhere they tried to persuade RCA to take them over, but failed.
EMI and CBS were variable, some british pressings were good but EMI Germany and CBS pressings from Holland were generally better. CBS didn't seem to improve after the Sony takeover, but it was probably a bit late for major investment in the factory.
WEA and independents such as Virgin & Island seemed to use the cheapest pressing plants they could find and it showed!. My solution (for Virgin or Island material) was to look for a copy manufactured by ARIOLA Germany. These were of better quality and often found in british shops.
WEA used a company called "Record Services Alsdorf" after about 1982 (did they own it?), these were a big improvement on the quality of their previous efforts.
What are your vinyl horror stories?
Its interesting how a few people have mentioned difference in vinyl quality dependant on record label. i had a slightly different experience of WEA releases.
I used to collect the 'Hits' series of compilation albums in the 80s (CBS/WEA and RCA's version of Now albums) and the quality of the vinyl was very much varied depending on which one pressed that particular edition. I found the WEA vinyl to be much more thinner bt better quality than the thicker CBS vinyl. They also seemed to have survived better too.
Tell you what were particularly nasty were those old silver label 7 inch singles, where the label was pressed into the vinyl with the black 'pressed' centre (not sure of the technical name but they were everywhere in the 80s) they tended to sound particularly flat - not sure what label pressed these
Another thing I found from collecting loads of dance 12s in the 1990s was that some of the indie labels, particularly the Ministry of Sound/Beggars (XL etc) group of labels were excellent in terms of quality and fidelity.
I can only assume that the pressing plants that survived must have invested heavily when vinyl started becoming more niche.
Its interesting how a few people have mentioned difference in vinyl quality dependant on record label. i had a slightly different experience of WEA releases.
I used to collect the 'Hits' series of compilation albums in the 80s (CBS/WEA and RCA's version of Now albums) and the quality of the vinyl was very much varied depending on which one pressed that particular edition. I found the WEA vinyl to be much more thinner bt better quality than the thicker CBS vinyl. They also seemed to have survived better too.
Tell you what were particularly nasty were those old silver label 7 inch singles, where the label was pressed into the vinyl with the black 'pressed' centre (not sure of the technical name but they were everywhere in the 80s) they tended to sound particularly flat - not sure what label pressed these
Another thing I found from collecting loads of dance 12s in the 1990s was that some of the indie labels, particularly the Ministry of Sound/Beggars (XL etc) group of labels were excellent in terms of quality and fidelity.
I can only assume that the pressing plants that survived must have invested heavily when vinyl started becoming more niche.
I read once that they were made by Phonodisc, the quality wasn't the best.
Tell you what were particularly nasty were those old silver label 7 inch singles, where the label was pressed into the vinyl with the black 'pressed' centre (not sure of the technical name but they were everywhere in the 80s) they tended to sound particularly flat - not sure what label pressed these
That's how all vinyl was pressed. - label - blob of (hot, malleable) vinyl - label - then pressed. I don't know of any other way the labels were attached.
Like tape the faster a disk spins the better the quality - information is spread over a greater area enabling a wider dynamic range.
I think CD's too often reveal things about pre-digital music that you dont want to know.
Classic Rock and Jazz on LP is a much more agreeable experience in general, the artists and producers back then that cared were recording with a view of gettting the best out of the medium of the LP, 8 Track or cassette.
That's how all vinyl was pressed. - label - blob of (hot, malleable) vinyl - label - then pressed. I don't know of any other way the labels were attached.
There were records in the 80s that didn't have a stuck on label as such. They were kind of sprayed a silvery grey with the text left black. Jam singles on Polydor were like that.
That's how all vinyl was pressed. - label - blob of (hot, malleable) vinyl - label - then pressed. I don't know of any other way the labels were attached.
Like tape the faster a disk spins the better the quality - information is spread over a greater area enabling a wider dynamic range.
The vinyl I mean didnt actually have a paper label. The label information was somehow stamped into the record and then silver or blue/green/bronze whatever paint was applied over the top - you'll know what I mean - they're pretty common but only as 7 inch singles. Think they were designed for jukeboxes. I've got loads of em
There were records in the 80s that didn't have a stuck on label as such. They were kind of sprayed a silvery grey with the text left black. Jam singles on Polydor were like that.
Comments
Obviously you need a collaborator to do the changes, but other than that I don't see the need for anyone else to be present.
And what's the difference between a blind and a double blind test?
Double blind is where neither the audience or the presenter know what item is under test. Obviously in that instance a third person would be used to change the test set-up unseen by anyone else. Or some form of automated random switching used.
It comes I suspect from medical testing originally. When testing a new drug it is pretty much standard practice to test against a placebo to see if the drug has any real effect.
Double blind testing in this case means the doctors administering the test have no idea if what they are giving the patient is the real drug or the placebo. That way they cannot influence the patient's reaction in any way.
In the same way a double blind test of audio kit would mean that the person presenting the test could not, however subtly, give off any clues as to which bit of kit was on test. And thus influence the results in any way.
I've always said that i think UK pressings are much heavier in weight but have a lot of static on them and American pressings have very little weight to them but never have static or crackle or hiss. The album was pressed by Polydor in this country on heavyweight vinyl. There are no details on what the weight is but i am guessing it is not 180 grams since it would have been mentioned. A few Ebay sellers used to mention 180 grams but there is nothing anywhere else to say that they are. My question for people is this, do you think weight gives a better longer lasting sound? I bought a movie soundtrack recently pressed on 'heavyweight' vinyl but it was from 2002. Still factory sealed so it had never been played but even then it had some crackling here and there and i know it isn't static i am hearing.
Do you think it is worth it? I think when companies talk about heavyweight vinyl they should specify the weight. I have read some sites and apparantly some American companies can press at 120 grams and most UK companies press at 140. That would explain why i always think UK pressings are heavier so i am thinking 'heavyweight' will be 10-20 grams heavier than 'standard'. Since it is a UK pressing and apparantly most stuff here is 140 grams that would mean this album is at least 150 grams. Like most modern albums they only press them for a short time so i'm thinking of getting it while i can or am i better just accepting that one way or the other whether it's now or 5 years from now i will end up hearing some degree of crackling and just stick with the copy i have.
I agree; nasty crystal cartridge fitted in them--sounds poor. Any secondhand turntable with a half decent magnetic cartridge fitted will run rings round them.
However, 10 years later I was amazed to discover how much these recordings had degraded. These were perhaps not stored in ideal conditions but then not in a baking loft either!
I do still love vinyl though. Some bands just sound better that way. Yes yes yes ... distortion, harmonics ... I don't care, for 'real' music I find it the more pleasurable listening experience. For electronic music, I'll stick with CD as its clinical accurate nature suits the material.
The reason why you seem to think Pye had almost completely given up on vinyl after the mid-70s was probably because they had been swallowed up into the Philips Group in 1976.
Presumably, the badges on many of Pye's releases had changed to Philips, but Pye were still under contractual obligation to BBC Enterprises so still used the Pye name for BBC records releases?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pye_Records
Don't think Pye and Philips had the same owners until 2007.
I do remember "PRT Records" in the 1980s although I don't think they issued much apart from old Pye material.
I think the catalogue then passed to Castle Communications and then Sanctuary Records, Sanctuary were bought out by Universal in 2007.
I'm sure Pye's last big hit was "Can you feel the Force" by the Real Thing in 1979.
Are you kidding?
The frequency response of compact cassette was abysmal, nowhere near enough high frequency response, even with metal tape, dolby etc.
I used to record to open reel tape at 7 1/2 IPS tape speed to get even close to decent HF response.
Like you I had a lot of recorded material on (open reel) tape that after a while degraded. The tape surface went "sticky" and as it passed through the machine it started squeaking with the squeak audible on the audio output.
with tape, the faster the speed the better. Does this apply to vinyl.
ie ought a 45 sound better than a 33, just because the groove is longer?
This might also prove interesting reading.
"The company, like most of its domestic competitors, attempted to restore demand with price competition and, where viable production exceeded demand, sold excess stock at loss-making clearance prices. This tactic has no strategic value and by 1966 Pye was in such difficulties that they started to reduce their manufacturing capacity with closure of the EKCO factory in Southend-on-Sea.
Philips attempted to buy out the ailing Pye in 1966. The Trade Secretary Anthony Wedgwood Benn determined that a complete sale would create a de facto monopoly so he permitted the transfer of just a 60% shareholding with an undertaking that the Lowestoft factory would continue to manufacture televisions.
In the early 1970s Sony and Hitachi launched UK colour televisions that cost less than £200. Domestic manufacturers attempted to compete, but were handicapped by outdated manufacturing techniques and an inflexible workforce. Pye found themselves with high stocks and low cash flow at a time when industrial relations were poor, the economy was ailing and there was little scope for cost reduction. Foundering, the Pye group of companies was bought outright by Philips in 1976. The Lowestoft factory was subsequently sold to Sanyo and Philips moved the manufacture of Pye televisions to Singapore."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pye_Ltd.#Company_trouble_and_sell-off
Although that mainly goes into detail for the electronics side of Pye, it does state that Philips bought the whole of the Pye Group in 1976, including their record label.
I'd guess that you must be one of the very last people to remember growing up when cassettes were still- barely- in regular use then. (*) Even a couple of years younger and you'd probably have started listening to music during or after the Napster era instead...
The 90s were a bit weird as even though CDs were totally established and the primary way of buying music, there was no cheap way of copying them, so cassettes were still in wide use.
By the time writers started getting cheap, the MP3 revolution was arriving anyway- guess that's why home copying/pirating of CDs was never a big deal.
(*) In the first world anyway; I understand that cassettes were still a popular distribution medium in some third world countries five or six years back, though I'd be surprised if that was still the case.
Its interesting how a few people have mentioned difference in vinyl quality dependant on record label. i had a slightly different experience of WEA releases.
I used to collect the 'Hits' series of compilation albums in the 80s (CBS/WEA and RCA's version of Now albums) and the quality of the vinyl was very much varied depending on which one pressed that particular edition. I found the WEA vinyl to be much more thinner bt better quality than the thicker CBS vinyl. They also seemed to have survived better too.
Tell you what were particularly nasty were those old silver label 7 inch singles, where the label was pressed into the vinyl with the black 'pressed' centre (not sure of the technical name but they were everywhere in the 80s) they tended to sound particularly flat - not sure what label pressed these
Another thing I found from collecting loads of dance 12s in the 1990s was that some of the indie labels, particularly the Ministry of Sound/Beggars (XL etc) group of labels were excellent in terms of quality and fidelity.
I can only assume that the pressing plants that survived must have invested heavily when vinyl started becoming more niche.
I read once that they were made by Phonodisc, the quality wasn't the best.
Like tape the faster a disk spins the better the quality - information is spread over a greater area enabling a wider dynamic range.
Classic Rock and Jazz on LP is a much more agreeable experience in general, the artists and producers back then that cared were recording with a view of gettting the best out of the medium of the LP, 8 Track or cassette.
There were records in the 80s that didn't have a stuck on label as such. They were kind of sprayed a silvery grey with the text left black. Jam singles on Polydor were like that.
Jam silver label
The vinyl I mean didnt actually have a paper label. The label information was somehow stamped into the record and then silver or blue/green/bronze whatever paint was applied over the top - you'll know what I mean - they're pretty common but only as 7 inch singles. Think they were designed for jukeboxes. I've got loads of em
Thats the one! Very 'flat' sounding.....