Snake oil update! 🐍

Did I read "cassette"? This underrated and today inexpensive beauty from 1981 joined the vintage room on Tuesday. A Saba CD262. Have to do some head adjustments and waving the (not snake) oil can.
Another missed opportunity for @BowsAndArrows ;-)

View attachment 6854
Two years ago I gave my neighbor the Kenwood KX-5030... He is happy that he can listen to his thousands of cassettes and I have a bit more space in the attic again 😉 But I already regret it...
 
It's nice when you achieve acceptable results. For my part, I just have different experiences. In this respect, my digitization is unaffected and corresponds exactly to the situation as if I had just put the LP on the turntable. With all its disadvantages due to the mechanics/technology etc. The only advantage now is that I have this data on the NAS and can access it quickly from anywhere without having to do the usual preparatory work for playing an LP 👍.

I also dived into the wave back then and even removed some clicks manually. It was all very time-consuming, which is why the automatic filrers were used. From today's perspective, I don't like the result (sterile, high frequencies cut off, live recordings sound clipped, muffled, etc.). The ratio of time spent to result makes me want to simply use the original today. Back then with cassette, I was already of the opinion that I could achieve the best results without Dolby B or C 😉
You should try Vinyl Studio on some of your digitized files. The results are not sterile etc. as you describe - at least not to me and others who listen to my rips. But, to each his own.
 
1000002427.jpg
Lads, I may have descended into actual madness - contemplating if I should treat every electrical contact in the house with this stuff... 😱

Somebody stop me before I end up just a mere statistic - death by actual snake oil! ☠️
 
Reduziert Wirbelströme an den Übergängen? Verbesserte Körperkommunikation?

Go ahead, I won't stop you wasting your money! Red wine and nano diamonds are of comparable efficiency, though.
 
Most original vinyls were remastered for CD, so it is hard to find an exact comparison. But, even if you do, the playback mechanisms create different sounds. Vinyl playback, like tubes, creates more even harmonics that many believe creates a sense of warmth, richness, and depth that CDs do not have. Obviously, the differences are subjective and are more obvious in higher quality systems. I ripped a lot of vinyl just for that reason, even though I had the album on CD.
One of the most interesting remastered re-issues of the last 10 years are the analog remasters of My Bloody Valentine’s “Isn’t Anything,” “Loveless,” and “mbv.” The originals were recorded “ADD”: analog studio sessions, digital mixing / edit, digital mastering. This was the source of all releases (CD, tape, and vinyl).

In order to do a true analog master, they went back to the analog tapes and did an entirely new analog mix / edit and master to analog tape. This was the source of the new vinyl pressing.

Of course, there’s a lossless digital version available.
 
One of the most interesting remastered re-issues of the last 10 years are the analog remasters of My Bloody Valentine’s “Isn’t Anything,” “Loveless,” and “mbv.” The originals were recorded “ADD”: analog studio sessions, digital mixing / edit, digital mastering. This was the source of all releases (CD, tape, and vinyl).

In order to do a true analog master, they went back to the analog tapes and did an entirely new analog mix / edit and master to analog tape. This was the source of the new vinyl pressing.

Of course, there’s a lossless digital version available.
never been a fan of the band tbh. but that would be a nice test to check out. i would like to compare the sound of the new analog remastered vinyl to the old version, and both of those to the digital versions. i would suspect that to my ears the lossless digital version of the new analog remaster would sound the best! probably the highest dynamic range etc.
wish i had a turntable to give it a go! but even just comparing the old digital version to the new one would be fun...
 
Reduziert Wirbelströme an den Übergängen? Verbesserte Körperkommunikation?

Go ahead, I won't stop you wasting your money! Red wine and nano diamonds are of comparable efficiency, though.
oops! already wasted my money on it. 🤦‍♂️ but the pack has been sitting there, unopened, as if it's mocking me for being a gullible snake oil buyer! :ROFLMAO:

oh well, maybe once i feel the need for "improving electrosmog" in my environment - then i'll crack it open! 🤠
 
never been a fan of the band tbh. but that would be a nice test to check out. i would like to compare the sound of the new analog remastered vinyl to the old version, and both of those to the digital versions. i would suspect that to my ears the lossless digital version of the new analog remaster would sound the best! probably the highest dynamic range etc.
wish i had a turntable to give it a go! but even just comparing the old digital version to the new one would be fun...
The issue I have with all versions of “Loveless” is how loud you have to turn it up before you can really start hearing everything. But that’s kind of the point, considering how loud My Bloody Valentine’s live shows are (they’re known to give out earplugs). Walls of feedback and intentional distortion masking the melodies and vocals.

It’s kind of ironic, considering that the original version of Loveless was digitally mixed and mastered, that my friend and I preferred the vinyl version and made CD rips of that to listen to. I think it had to do with how vinyl only supports so much dynamic range (70 some dB? I can’t remember), so compared to the CD it may have had more prominent bass and quieter passages wouldn’t have been as quiet as on CD. But it was an early 90s pressing, so suffered from being on inferior vinyl compared to what we get now.
 
Back
Top