Pink Floyd DSOTM

[count.d]

Humorem,

In another thread you say that you know what the best pressing of DSOTM on vinyl is, but you won't say.

I maybe naive, but why don't you say?
If you already have the copy you have nothing to worry about as you already have it. Even if you tell people on this forum, you are in the business and have a far greater chance of coming across it to sell it to us.

Keeping information to yourself like this seems a little wasteful.

For what it's worth, I have Capitol SMAS-11163 and EMI Centenary 100 pressing. The Centenary pressing has the edge.

P.S. In your Ebay auctions you have Simply vinyl pressings of Dire Straits albums. In the description you say that the Simply Vinyl pressings are the best you've heard. I haven't heard the Dire Straits on SV, but I have 3 other LP's by SV and they sound dreadful. Dead & compressed.

Are the Dire Straits on SV that good?

[TimB]

My Fav DSOTM is the EMI Centenial 100, and I also agree about the Simply Vinyl, I have about 4 copies (Niel Young after the Gold Rush, Fleetwood Mac, etc), and have yet to hear one that rates a good. Most sound like 3rd or 4th generation tapes that may have also been digitalized. I have heard rummours that the ones to get in Simply Vinyl are ones from British Bands. The reason being that Simply Vinyl is a British project, and they stand a chance of getting better tape copies of the Brit Bands! Maybe true, maybe rummour, I dont know, but what I have heard has not been worth the money.

[Humorem]

I don't say because I charge twice as much for the good stampers as the average ones. If you want the best you have to pay for it, either by doing the work yourself (buy about 10; you will get a good one) or paying me for all the work I've done, which is considerable.

The EMI 100 is a dog by the way. It has the edge all right. I'd say it's very edgy! The good MOFI murders it.

Hey, that's free! You're welcome!:)

And you didn't buy those bad sounding SV titles from me. I don't sell the bad ones.

Whose advice were you following? Your own?

Both you guys have been buying SV records randomly it appears, and have been burned. What did you expect? It can't be done that way.

As Brad Pitt says in Fight Club, "How's that workin' out for ya?"

If you bought them from somebody who recommended them to you, I'd say get your money back.

If you want better records, you know where to find them.

BTW: After the Gold Rush use the identical dull metal work as the cheap German import, just pressed on heavy vinyl and put into SV's jacket. How do you like them apples? Call up everyone who sells that record and ask them what metal work that pressing uses. Nobody will know. They just want your money. They won't even know what you are talking about. You want to buy records from people like that? You bought them from somewhere.
Now you know not to do that anymore, right?

TP

[Dob]

Originally posted by Humorem
If you want the best you have to pay for it, either by doing the work yourself (buy about 10; you will get a good one) or paying me for all the work I've done, which is considerable.

TP

From reading your various posts I gather that your business philosophy is built around two principles:

1) You are extremely knowledgeable and honest, therefore confident in your recommendations
2) Customers should ask for, and get, their money back if sold a product that is does not live up to the seller's recommendation.

Am I to understand that if I buy a recording based on your recommendation, and if I don't like it, I can get my money back? Example - you prefer the Ted Jensen Cat Stevens Tea over the mofi. I have compared the two and I prefer the mofi. Would you refund my money if I had bought the remasters from you?

I am also unclear about systems being set up to sound good with particular albums. If that is the case, won't a given recording sound better on my system than yours, and vice versa? If that is true, of what value are your recommendations?

[Humorem]

Originally posted by Dob

Am I to understand that if I buy a recording based on your recommendation, and if I don't like it, I can get my money back? Example - you prefer the Ted Jensen Cat Stevens Tea over the mofi. I have compared the two and I prefer the mofi. Would you refund my money if I had bought the remasters from you?

I don't like either one! They're both bad. I would never recommend either to anybody.

And they're CDs. I don't sell CDs for all practical purposes, and I almost never recommend them.

Here's a little something I just wrote:

Here's an analogy I like. Just made it up. Goes like this.

Would you stop a stranger on the street to ask what he or she thought was a good movie, and then go see it? Of course not. What are this person's likes and dislikes; educational background; film history background; on and on and on.

This is why we have critics. We know where they stand. We follow the advice of the ones who have steered us right in the past, and ignore the ones who didn't. (I have to stand up here for Steve Roeper. Memento and Shallow Hal, you go girl!)

So my views are coming on a little strong because you haven't been reading me for years, over hundreds of pages, to know, for lack of a better term, where I'm coming from.

But you could, if you wanted to. You may find that there is a high correlation between what I say about a record and what you hear when you get it home. Or maybe not. Many don't I'm sure.

I used to get into it with lots of folks who thought DCC records were generally dull. Seems they liked MOFI a lot better. Okay, you buy MOFI. I sell em. Make a very high profit doing it too.

But I always told them this, which I'm sure they took to be the height of arrogance, and which is even bad for business, but I had to do it, it was my duty: someday you're going to get the tonality fixed in your stereo, and then you're going to have to replace your record collection, because all that 10k boost on those records, once you can play it right, and you learn to recognize it, will start to irritate you, like a faucet dripping in the middle of the night. That's all you will hear when you drop the needle: 10k. 10K!! 10K!!!!! Like the the fellow in the Telltale heart, it will drive you crazy.

But maybe you won't follow my advice. Maybe you think YOU are so smart. 10k boost? I like it. Makes my system sound "airy". Who's to say you're wrong and I'm right anyway? Or vice versa! The nerve. Humorem? I'll humor you all right!

Originally posted by Dob


I am also unclear about systems being set up to sound good with particular albums. If that is the case, won't a given recording sound better on my system than yours, and vice versa? If that is true, of what value are your recommendations?


Good question! Very important.

Yes it will. Like I say above, if you set up your system different from mine, like they say in the commercials, your results may vary.

So don't do it! Work hard, get it right, and then buy with confidence.

Steve masters his stuff accurately, according to what he believes to be accuracy. It's a judgement. If you find the bulk of his mastering to have any quality other than neutrality, there's not much he can do about it, now is there?

But it is most assuredly your problem, not his. He didn't get his reputation, and I didn't get mine, from palming off shoddy goods.

Play his stuff. His LPs. That's what I think sounds good. If you disagree, don't buy any recommended records from me! You won't like them.

Hope this helps.
TP

[Mick Jones]

Most sound like 3rd or 4th generation tapes that may have also been digitalized.

I thought that Simply Vinyl were quite upfront about the fact that they work from 'nth' generation digital copy tapes. I remember reading an interview with someone from the company who stated that they were not an 'audiophile' label, and didn't concern themselves with seeking out the master tapes. He said that they were just a vinyl reissue label. Ultimate sound quality was not on the agenda. This was probably in a UK hi-fi magazine.

[Steve Hoffman]

Yeah, nice press statement.:eek:

[Holy Zoo]

I read something similiar on AudioAsylum a while back, but I didn't think it was that extreme. Yes, they were up-front about not always being able to get the analog master and having to use a digital copy, but other times they were able to get the right tape.

Basically, they're policy was to not make the determination about whether to press an album off of whether they could get the master or not, although of course the prefer to the the master if possible.

[Patrick M]

Originally posted by Humorem
The EMI 100 is a dog by the way. It has the edge all right. I'd say it's very edgy! The good MOFI murders it.

Tom, is this the same version referenced in the following URL?

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/8529.html

[Humorem]

Yes, you have me there, a boner for which I have apologized to everyone who brought up the subject. (Actually, many are still happy with that one, but I know better now.)

The EMI Centennial version sounds better than the average MOFI, IMO, which is murky and smeared, with tubby bass, so I recommended it heartily in my catalog. But I discovered the hot stamper MOFI DSOTM a few years later, and that one blew my mind, and every other copy I had ever heard out of the water.

So I can't say the EMI is the best anymore. The hot MOFI shows you how amazing that album can be. I never knew it could sound like that. I gained a whole new respect for that recording.

As all science is provisional, we have to be prepared to accept new information and let the chips fall where they may. I'm ready at the drop of a hat to amend my views, if the facts warrant it. I tell people now what I know to be the best version, based on all the available evidence.

There may be an even better one out there, but to my knowledge there isn't, and I've heard about 20 different pressings, if not more.

(I bought a collection that had an ORIGINAL British import in it recently. I've never even seen an early one. The stampers were A2/B3 as I recall. The earliest copy I ever played was A9/B9, which was good, nothing more. I expect this one to be amazing, and like a fine wine it sits on my shelf waiting to be uncorked and appreciated. I have just the record to shoot it out with too.)

I have had three cases where I had to apologize, if memory serves. Recently regarding the Japanese analog remastered Led Zeppelin albums, which I thought sounded good when they came out about eight years ago, but now I know, like most Japanese pressings, are way too bright. Physical Graffiti especially. Boy was I wrong on that one.

I actually had a big headline on a page in my catalog stating "Mea Culpa" about five years back, when I realized that Past Masters on import vinyl was way too bright as well. I told everybody I was sorry for recommending it. (I sold those all on Ebay and everybody gave me positive feedback so it just shows to go ya.)

So I certainly can't say I'm never wrong, because I say I was wrong about Physical in my current catalog, if anybody cares to read it. Apologized too. If you bought that record from me, I AM sorry. You may not know how bad it is, but I sure do. (Nobody ever complained by the way, which makes you wonder, don't it?)

This is what makes record collecting so much fun. The next hot pressing is right around the corner, sitting in a record bin for two bucks.

I had a copy of The Pretender years ago that was so superior to anything I had ever heard I could hardly believe it. Just magic. Bought it for $2, sold it for $100, which was cheap for what you got, if you like that album. The guy who bought it still demos his stereo with it. People who have visited him heard it there and told me, so I know he is more than pleased.

And one time I had an A1/B1 British Madman that smoked all comers. Amazing sound for that album.
Could have gotten $150 for a record like that, easy.

Then Hoffman came along and remastered it even better. New copies on quieter vinyl with better sound for $21.99, ouch. Oh well, I had paid maybe $10, so what?

Now the world could hear what I had the pleasure of hearing. And they didn't have to look for ten years to find such a special pressing, the way I had. (I still don't have a dead mint Tumbleweed with the good stampers. A2/B2 or A1/B1 are the only way to go. Been looking for 25 years. Ain't found one yet...)

So new records come along and overthrow the old. And records I thought sounded great don't age so well sometimes. As I have pointed out to many people on this forum, the old domestic and British and German import copies seem to keep getting better, sounding more natural than ever, and the so-called audiophile versions and Japanese pressings keep getting worse, their hi-fi-ish qualities becoming ever more obvious and irritating.

Why that is I don't know. It's a consistent trend that's been going on for over ten years in my experience, in my own collection and in the records I sell. Shows no sign of slowing down either, let alone reversing.

But when MOFI does a great record, like the special DSOTM, I'll be happy to tell the world. As much as I don't like MOFI, a good record is a good record, and that's all that really matters, right?

Regards as usual,
TP

[Humorem]

Originally posted by Mick Jones


I thought that Simply Vinyl were quite upfront about the fact that they work from 'nth' generation digital copy tapes. I remember reading an interview with someone from the company who stated that they were not an 'audiophile' label, and didn't concern themselves with seeking out the master tapes. He said that they were just a vinyl reissue label. Ultimate sound quality was not on the agenda. This was probably in a UK hi-fi magazine.

They use the best tape they can get, like everybody else. They don't always do a very good job, like everybody else, present company excluded of course. This is the way the record business works. Get used to it. DCC sets a high standard. Few can meet it. Very few. Fewer than you think.

I have a copy of Innervisions that is being sold by my competitors, a new Columbia pressing distributed by Scorpio Music. It's made from the CD. That's not speculation, that's not rumor, that's not opinion, that's a fact. At the end of side 1 it skips like a mistracking CD. But it's a record! They don't do that!

EMI did a couple of Centennial series. Says Direct Metal Mastered on the cover of most every one.

Only none of them are DMM. DMM is copper, and you have to scratch the stamper numbers with an awl into that copper plate. Every record in the series was made from an acetate, with "soft" numbers in the wax. Can't be DMM. Impossible.

You know why SV doesn't tell you what tape they use? They don't want you to hear what you read, which is what you might do, even if you know better. If it says analog, the power of suggestion kicks in and it's analog. And, since you can't believe what you read anyway (see above), what difference does it make?

MF got on Phonogram and railed against them for not telling him, Mr. Big Shot reviewer. He said record X sounded good, must be analog, record y sounded bad, must be digital, so fess up.

I say: knowing what tape was used doesn't change anything about the sound of the record you own, now does it? How would that work? A bad record is a bad record, no matter what tape was used.

Does analog mean it sounds good? It does? You ever hear the Byrds reissues on Sundazed? All analog. All crap. Now THEY sound like CDs, but all the analog addicts has to has em cuz they's analog.

Oh, but it can be a guide, you say.

Can it? What tapes were used to make your favorite records? How do you know that? They let you watch?

I have some records that I could have sworn were analog, they sounded so good. Later it turned out they weren't. Did that change what I heard? How could it? Was I wrong? No! They do sound good.

I'll give you a strange example. I used to go see the Groundlings comedy troop a lot. They have a live drummer for the before show and between sketches entertainment.

I remember listening to this guy wail away, he was great, but I remember thinking how grainy and digital sounding his drums sounded. Transistory, flat. Must have been the room, or the brand of drums, or something, because they weren't miked or amplified in any way. They just sounded digital. I noticed it every time I went. I would always think: boy, if my stereo sounded like that, I'd try to fix it! Bad drums! Not analog.

So things aren't always what they seem. (Gasp!)
Good tapes make bad records. Not-the-best tapes make good records.

Because you don't need to know anything about the tapes to know what the record sounds like, right? You don't play the tapes, you play the record. A lot happens between the tape playback and the record pressing stages. It's important too. Steve would say very important.

And thank god you don't NEED to know what you CAN'T know, which is what tape was used. Because, like EMI, maybe they made a mistake. They printed up all those stickers for the covers and then they changed their minds about that DMM stuff. Screw it, who's gonna know?

Well, I knew, and I told everybody, but it was no big deal, because it didn't change the sound of one record in that series. Not one. I played them all, and reported my findings. I didn't need to read the cover to make a judgement. I didn't need to get on the internet. And neither do you.

One more thing. A sore subject. Yes they make some godawful records. You don't have any bad Columbias? RCAs? Londons?

You do? Whew, that's a relief. I thought it was just me. I got a lot of stinkers on those labels.

So did you stop buying those labels when you found out they made bad records?

You didn't? Oh, I see. They make some good ones too? Why of course they do.

And that's good. So does Simply Vinyl. Not a lot, but some, and we need all the good records we can get.

And that's enough for one day, sheesh!

Warm regards,
TP

[Andy]

I remember when I used to listen to DSOTM for the enjoyment of it. Now I have all of this other stuff to worry about. :(

[Dave]

Humorem,

You are definately the man to ask this of.

As far as MFSL cds of DSOTM go have you heard the difference between the UD1 and UD2 versions and if so what's your opinion of what happened, how could they be so different?

[Todd Fredericks]

I thought MFSL lost the CD masters when they moved their CD pressing operations out of Japan...

Todd

[Humorem]

Originally posted by Dave

As far as MFSL cds of DSOTM go have you heard the difference between the UD1 and UD2 versions and if so what's your opinion of what happened, how could they be so different?

Never did that shootout. I'm sure I played both at one time or another. Never liked either one.

Different mastering equipment, different sound. It ain't no mystery.

Warmly,
TP

[Andrew]

Humorem, your avatar RULES!:D

[count.d]

The disadvantage of living in England is I have to wait until late afternoon to have a debate with Humerom. Come on Tom, get up earlier.

Right,

DSOTM - MFSL lp
Mine arrived today.
It is without any doubt the best sounding MFSL lp I've ever heard. Detailed, spacious, open, quiet and not one bit compressed. Pretty superb.

I see what you mean about the EMI 100 issue. Although the EMI is very good, it's seems to shrill a bit. Little bit harsh. It's still very detailed and open. I wouldn't sell it, keep it as spare.

The stamper number on the MFSL is A2-1/B2-1 what does that actually mean Tom? Don't tell me this is garbage.:)

Just tested Outlandos D' Armour on Vivante.

Hmmm,

First track: Roxanne; very good,spacious, detailed, nice bloom around drum.Excellent.
Next track: Can't stand losing you; absolutely garbage. Muddled, all voice and instruments muffled.Sounds like I've put some muslin over my speakers. How can this be? Is it because it's on another side?
I'm comparing to a Police compilation "The singles" This has a stamper of A1/B1. The Vivante Roxanne was better than this pressing, the Losing You was considerably worse.

Led Zep I & II on Classic Records. Both superb. Both good sound stage and detailed.

On a previous message you said you'd bet that the Zep II would sound better on my system. It doesn't. The Zep I sounds better. Plant's voice sounds smoother on Zep I. In fact the whole album sounds more "analogue". The Zep II still sounds fantastic, but maybe a little harsh.

[R. Cat Conrad]

This is a follow-up to the Pink Floyd DSotM question I posed in a MoFi thread which has since disappeared to page 2; it's understandable if you and everyone else missed it because there are 100 posts on 6 pages.

Aside from my little jest about your AA comment [yeah, it was a lame joke, but "I don't know, I was really drunk at the time" ;) ...], I was wondering if you or some other brave soul might be able to clarify a curiosity I have about this title. You see, I own the Japanese UD I pressing and have noticed a deep VERY annoying rumble in the 15-25hz range (my best guess, since it's most evident over my 18" Velodyne sub) about 1.5 minutes into "Money" that persists for around 40+ seconds. This is the only place on the disc that I've noticed any such anomaly.

My question to you and others here is: do you think that this artifact is a defect in MoFi's mastering or is it more likely a problem with the specific source tapes acquired for the remastering?

Also, I'm wondering if anyone has heard this low frequency rumble besides myself?

(Yes, it's lunch time; no, it isn't my stomach growling! :p )

Robert Cat Conrad

[Sam]

Humorem. Getting right to the point, could you please tell the members how one can tell if they have the "hot" mfsl pressing of DSOTM. I don't think that by sharing this you would hurt your business at all. In fact, if members don't have the best version after checking theirs, they may call you to buy the correct version. So, what do I look for on my mofi?

[lukpac]

Originally posted by Humorem
I don't say because I charge twice as much for the good stampers as the average ones. If you want the best you have to pay for it, either by doing the work yourself (buy about 10; you will get a good one) or paying me for all the work I've done, which is considerable.


Tom, you've spent a lot of time and money on getting a lot of pressings.Well, that's good. However, why does that mean that everyone else should have to go through the same trouble? What's the purpose of this forum, anyway?


There's a Who fan who's got *thousands* of Who and Who related albums/singles/CDs/etc. While it's often hard to get a CD-R of something out of him, the first thing he'll do is tell you what he thinks sounds the best. Now, mind you, I may not always agree with that position, but it's nice to at least hear what he thinks.

[Edited out personal attack - HZ]

[Dave]

Sam,

I believe that Humorem already answered that one, if I remember correctly. He said to always get A1/B1 or A2/B2. If I'm wrong, no doubt I'll be corrected.

[Dave]

Robert Cat Conrad,

I just gave my PF: DSOTM UD1 a spin and I don't hear the low rumble that you speak of at all. I am familiar with what you speak of as that rolling bass problem is very evident on Heart: S/T MFSL and Robbie Robertson: S/T MFSL, and even cranked up it is not present on my version. Maybe just a bad pressing? maybe roll-off?

[Humorem]

No time to type but NO NO NO! A thousand times no.

Warmly,
TP

[McIntosh]

Originally posted by Humorem


So I can't say the EMI is the best anymore. The hot MOFI shows you how amazing that album can be. I never knew it could sound like that.
TP

What is the "hot" MOFI ? Just newbie trying to understand.

[Todd Fredericks]

You would think with all of Tom's secrecy that he discovered the formula for forever youth. He has a right to reveal whart he wants to. I think he said a key element of his success as a dealer is that his clients know he has very good knowledge that he took 25 years to discover. It's kind of like if we kept pesting Steve to reveal his mastering secrets (which we sometimes do but we respect his secrecy). Tom's trying to make an honest living...

Todd