Quote
snoopy2

Quote
Rockman
....and release the single on 78 rpm ......

That'd really spin the crowd ........

My Moby Grape WOW album the last track on side A has to be played at 78.. No longer can play it cuz new turntable won’t, but it got me thinking: how difficult was it to press all those copies? Did they have to change something in the machinery after the first 4 songs and repress?

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
snoopy2

Quote
Rockman
....and release the single on 78 rpm ......

That'd really spin the crowd ........

My Moby Grape WOW album the last track on side A has to be played at 78.. No longer can play it cuz new turntable won’t, but it got me thinking: how difficult was it to press all those copies? Did they have to change something in the machinery after the first 4 songs and repress?

Not difficult at all because everything's already in the mastertape for the album. That means that the particular song is slowed down on the mastertape so when you play the song at 78 RPM, it can be heard at the right speed.

Quote
Spud

Quote
ProfessorWolf

no i agree with you modern vinyl release are basically cd's on vinyl

minus the brickwalling

that's why i pointed out that i enjoy collecting pre-digital mastering original vinyl releases instead of modern reissues except when it comes to things like tattoo you deluxe or goats head soup deluxe and likely the new stones album to get around the brickwalling (and because they look cool)

and my current setup uses a adc point 4 cartridge from 1964 (alternating with empire 880p 1961-62?, 888ve 1968? audio tecnica at-6 1963?) not a hi end cart but it makes tattoo you sound very nice to my ears compared to the cd thru headphones at high volume

but compared to the cd tons of detail are clearly missing (but who cares if it hurts to listen at length to the music at reasonable volume)

bur if i had something like this (with equal quality table, arm, receiver and speakers) i'd probably hear the missing detail plus some but likely not more then the cd since they are basically the same thing

but i wouldn't know maybe someone on here who has owned absurdly expensive hi end audio equipment can answer if it sounds better then cd (that is not modern vinyl but good condition vintage records) or if modern release that are digitally mastered sound as good or better

I think I might be able throw a little light on that for you Prof .

I do use high end vinyl playback equipment [not because I'm rich but because I used to work in the Hi Fi trade and because it means a lot to me ]

You can't really generalise about the quality of new vinyl releases but it's not fair to describe most as just a CD on vinyl".

Equally, it's not correct to say that vinyl releases aren't "brick walled" .

Many effectively are ... either because the digital master they're cut from is already compressed to hell or because the vinyl mastering engineer is just as misguided and aims only to cut the record as loud as he can to sound impressive on shoddy turntables !

But not all is doom and gloom [not the song] .

Modern flat Digital master recordings are very good and if mastered to vinyl with skill and care can make for good sounding LPs ...far better sounding than the equivalent CD .

The Abbey Road 1971 to 2016 boxed set is testament to that.

No, they're not as good as the original analogue pressings but they sound, far the most part, far better than most modern releases.

This because they're cut from the best available flat digital files, with minimal dynamic compression and by someone who knows what he's doing.

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Bashlets
Any sightings in LA yet?

I was thinking the same thing!

Quote
VoodooLounge13
So I guess my question is, do half-speed masters sound better than regular modern versions of the same record, ie are they closer to sounding like the originals?

Quote
Spud

Quote
VoodooLounge13
So I guess my question is, do half-speed masters sound better than regular modern versions of the same record, ie are they closer to sounding like the originals?

All other things being the same, and certainly from a digital source...they should.

But of much more importance is the quality of the source tapes/files, together with the skills and decision making of the mastering engineer.

Quote
Rockman
Any sightings in LA yet?


....undercover of the night

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rockman
Any sightings in LA yet?


....undercover of the night

It's probably been 'too tough'.

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Y’know I really just have 4 wishes for this album….

1. No auto tune

Quote
VoodooLounge13
There’s no auto-tune on B&L???

Quote
VoodooLounge13
I always thought that echoing effect on his vocals was auto-tune!!!! It’s part of what keeps me from enjoying the album.

Quote
Hairball
Hope Keith sings lead on a song (or two) on the new album.
One of the reasons the Blue and Lonesome covers album suffered was because there were no vocals from Keith - not even backup vocals.

Quote
Hairball
Hope Keith sings lead on a song (or two) on the new album.
One of the reasons the Blue and Lonesome covers album suffered was because there were no vocals from Keith - not even backup vocals.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball
Hope Keith sings lead on a song (or two) on the new album.
One of the reasons the Blue and Lonesome covers album suffered was because there were no vocals from Keith - not even backup vocals.

You can add Blues In The Morning and Still A Fool (with Hubert Sumlin) to the playlist. And there once was his rehearsal take of Little Red Rooster on YouTube and maybe still is.

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Hairball
Hope Keith sings lead on a song (or two) on the new album.
One of the reasons the Blue and Lonesome covers album suffered was because there were no vocals from Keith - not even backup vocals.

oh wow i didn't even consider the possibility of keith not getting his two songs

that would be a real bummer for me if the new album lacks at least two keith numbers

Quote
Hairball

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Hairball
Hope Keith sings lead on a song (or two) on the new album.
One of the reasons the Blue and Lonesome covers album suffered was because there were no vocals from Keith - not even backup vocals.

oh wow i didn't even consider the possibility of keith not getting his two songs

that would be a real bummer for me if the new album lacks at least two keith numbers

Yes it would be a bummer for most Stones fans.
Hoping for at least one...

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Hairball

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Hairball
Hope Keith sings lead on a song (or two) on the new album.
One of the reasons the Blue and Lonesome covers album suffered was because there were no vocals from Keith - not even backup vocals.

oh wow i didn't even consider the possibility of keith not getting his two songs

that would be a real bummer for me if the new album lacks at least two keith numbers

Yes it would be a bummer for most Stones fans.
Hoping for at least one...

and more than that it would mean one less new song from the album in the set since i assume keith would do at least one of the two each night in his set

Quote
Hairball

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Hairball

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Hairball
Hope Keith sings lead on a song (or two) on the new album.
One of the reasons the Blue and Lonesome covers album suffered was because there were no vocals from Keith - not even backup vocals.

oh wow i didn't even consider the possibility of keith not getting his two songs

that would be a real bummer for me if the new album lacks at least two keith numbers

Yes it would be a bummer for most Stones fans.
Hoping for at least one...

and more than that it would mean one less new song from the album in the set since i assume keith would do at least one of the two each night in his set

Keith's set is part of the overall set in general, and a new Stones song with Keith on lead vocals is still a Stones song, so not sure how it would be one less song from the album...