YO31 wrote:I'm not sure how prices translate betwee EU and US

www.xe.com

The disc doctor is a relatively cheap and safe method of cleaning records.

The bonus of his sytem is no need for a vacuum.

I use Scott plain toilet paper to great effect with the wash.

http://discdoc.com/

lemur68 wrote:

YO31 wrote:I'm not sure how prices translate betwee EU and US

www.xe.com

Not exchange rates. Prices. I guess this will depend partly on whether the kit is manufactured domestically or imported and what import taxes / dealer overheads apply. One of the few things the UK still makes is HiFi and prices here, while not cheap, are a lot more competitive than (for example) Australia where most kit is imported, despite the general cost of living being lower there. Some luxury goods are more of a luxury, relative to CoL, depending where you live.

Anyone have any home made methods for cleaning vinyl? (Something where I don't have to order stuff off the net)

Andyman-
Back to your real question since you clearly don't need to be convinced of the merits of purchasing records.

Most 80s major label vinyl, in my experience, sounds like shit. I know it sounds like shit either due to the pressing or the mastering because I have a decent playback system that other albums sound great on. Very brittle with compromised bass and lots of sibilance.

For late 60s and early 70s stuff, do some research on the web on stamper and matrix numbers for Columbia (CBS), Reprise, London, etc. If a band switched labels during their career, find out what label they were on when the album was originally released and look for that version.

Not all independent label vinyl is good. For example, I've had consistent poor results from Matador and Sub Pop over the years, whereas T&G has been great. There are exceptions to all of this, of course.

Look for wear marks around the center label hole where people have tried to put the record on the spindle-this is a little insight into how much the record has been played.

Remember that no matter how much diligence you practice, some records you buy will sound like shit.

sphincter wrote:
People dilute their listening experience with Ipods and that lark, it's all on random and never listen to an album twice in a row. When you're stuck on a coach for three weeks and you only have one CD or one tape on you you really delve deep into the album and understand it much more. A way better method for falling in love with music.

Agreed. I'm not a fan of Ipods. I don't want my whole music collection to be on some digital index card. Sometimes, when I was traveling around with a portable CD player and just one album, those albums I'd play over and over became some of my favorites of all time. SY's Sister comes to mind.

I have nothing against vynil, but I don't agree with vynil purists. (some) Vynil is expensive and a pain in the ass... you really need to maintain your equipment and your discs when using vynil. I still listen to and even purchase vynil ocassionally. I have nothing against the format. If you're listening to albums recorded in the analog format and want true reproduction, more power to you. if it was recorded in digital, why not have true reproduction there too? All in all, I find CDs are just more convienient and easier to use. And yes, If mp3s are ripped at a low kb per second rate, they will sound like total shit.

If someone can fill me in though, what is the "deal" with 180 gram? What effect does the weight have on sound quality and playability, if any?

WoundedFoot wrote:If someone can fill me in though, what is the "deal" with 180 gram? What effect does the weight have on sound quality and playability, if any?

the discs are thicker, which helps resist warping.

there are probably other aspects, such as vibration resistance, but the rigidity is the main thing.

by the way, from now on, I'm only going to post here. look at my avatar. I'm the devil!!!!

mwahhhahahahaha..

joelb wrote:Andyman-
Back to your real question since you clearly don't need to be convinced of the merits of purchasing records.

Most 80s major label vinyl, in my experience, sounds like shit. I know it sounds like shit either due to the pressing or the mastering because I have a decent playback system that other albums sound great on. Very brittle with compromised bass and lots of sibilance.

For late 60s and early 70s stuff, do some research on the web on stamper and matrix numbers for Columbia (CBS), Reprise, London, etc. If a band switched labels during their career, find out what label they were on when the album was originally released and look for that version.

Not all independent label vinyl is good. For example, I've had consistent poor results from Matador and Sub Pop over the years, whereas T&G has been great. There are exceptions to all of this, of course.

Look for wear marks around the center label hole where people have tried to put the record on the spindle-this is a little insight into how much the record has been played.

Remember that no matter how much diligence you practice, some records you buy will sound like shit.

Again, incredibly helpful - thanks. This topic is something of an issue as i'm buying the vinyl now and won't actually be using them for sometime. I grabbed some WB era Husker Du today - at the very least it's 180 Gram.

madlee wrote:Despite having a pretty good record collection, I recommend not buying LPs.

why?

unless you are a rich person with lots of free time on your hands, LPs are just not very user friendly.

1. equipment playback costs are high. to compete with digital, you will need a decent turntable, which will at least cost $300. next you need a decent cartridge. add $100 for that. you will also need a decent phono preamp, which to my ears, is just as important as the previous two. add $150 at least for that.

This entire post was excellent. But it's this first bulletpoint that I find particularly noteworthy.

There is an Army of young indie rockers out there that blindly echo the "Vinyl is superior to Digital" argument as some sort of religious dogma. Yet in my experience this assertion has absolutely no validity until you've built up a decent system, which takes time and loads of money.

As I've gotten older and made more money, I've come to appreciate vinyl more. At this point I primarily buy records. But when I was younger I never believed the Vinyl argument. Friends would show me their Fisher-price turntables and say, "Isn't that Hiss-Crackle-Pop so cool?"
No. Actually it isn't that cool. It actually sounds like butt.

sphincter wrote:People dilute their listening experience with Ipods and that lark, it's all on random and never listen to an album twice in a row. When you're stuck on a coach for three weeks and you only have one CD or one tape on you you really delve deep into the album and understand it much more. A way better method for falling in love with music.

There is no logic in blaming Ipods for "diluting the listening experience", rather the lack of discipline in the listener is at fault. Shuffle mode is not mandatory. You can listen to albums wholly on an mp3 player.

WoundedFoot wrote:Agreed. I'm not a fan of Ipods. I don't want my whole music collection to be on some digital index card. Sometimes, when I was traveling around with a portable CD player and just one album, those albums I'd play over and over became some of my favorites of all time. SY's Sister comes to mind.

You can accidently fallen in love with an album on any medium.