NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so here's how it goes.

A lot of you know that I bought a NM Hemispheres LP, to replace the one I damaged a few months ago. Well, I finally got the replacement LP, and whaddya know: It was scuffed, scratched, and chipped to hell, with what looked to be pen marks (!!!) on the surface. Along with that, the record had never been cleaned, and the sleeve was in average condition (the seller said BOTH were in Near Mint condition).

The piece of shit (and it is a piece of shit... Not one spot on the record plays without surface noise, and it crackles and pops constantly) cost me $13 total, when it should've cost $5 at the very most (and if it did, I sure as fuck wouldn't have bought it). I gave the seller very negative feedback, to which she replied "please be more civil" (in so many words). I sent a reply, detailing exactly why I gave the negative feedback rather than sending a personal message in the first place.

So, she sent me an e-mail, telling me that I'm the one who's not using proper transaction methods, also saying that she saw no surface marks or scratches. So, my dad (there's a use for him afterall!) sent her an e-mail to confirm that I was indeed correct about the record's condition.

I'm currently awaiting another e-mail. She will most likely continue to insist that I'm the one who's at fault. The dispute will probably be settled by an ultimatum: Either she refunds the total cost ($15.80: $13 for the record plus $2.80 for the cost of shipping and my money order) to my PayPal account, or I report her to eBay for seller fraud.

See, I get really pissed off when a seller says a record (with sleeve) is in NEAR MINT condition with no surface marks or scratches. I get even more steamed when the seller insists that I'm the one who's being the jackass.

I wish you luck. :)
but why don't you just buy a CD or download an MP3?:p

sounds like life, really. some people just.... suck.
the difficulty is accepting that, living with it, working around it, and learning how to deal with them. thankfully you have an easy way of resolving things and setting said shitty-person to rights: ebay police. you can take pics, do sample recordings, whatever, to prove that the seller mis-sold the product and it was not of marketed quality.

sadly the rest of life often isn't so simple, eh?



edit:

but why don't you just buy a CD or download an MP3?:p
you just don't know the Pot-man :p

Okay, so here's how it goes.

A lot of you know that I bought a NM Hemispheres LP, to replace the one I damaged a few months ago. Well, I finally got the replacement LP, and whaddya know: It was scuffed, scratched, and chipped to hell, with what looked to be pen marks (!!!) on the surface. Along with that, the record had never been cleaned, and the sleeve was in average condition (the seller said BOTH were in Near Mint condition).



Probably an honest mistake. :p
"Been left out in the garden, near the mint" ... check.

For the benefit of anyone like me who missed your previous story, this was Ebay?

Okay people, no more asking about why I "didn't just download an MP3 album or buy a CD version".

Vinyl Records smoke digital formats in the sound department (so long as they're not in super-shitty condition!!!). That's why I buy them.

Okay people, no more asking about why I "didn't just download an MP3 album or buy a CD version".

Vinyl Records smoke digital formats in the sound department (so long as they're not in super-shitty condition!!!). That's why I buy them.
HEAR HEAR!!!!!
I love vinyl! It sucks that my stereo reciever is broken to hell and back, and I can't get a decent replacement... I can't even use my beautiful Kenwood speakers...

But Black Sabbath and Yes sound so much better on vinyl...

Vinyl Records smoke digital formats in the sound department (so long as they're not in super-shitty condition!!!). That's why I buy them.Formats of CD-like quality or lower. Double the sample rate and bit depth, and the audio quality in itself will be superior. (CD audio is however typically mastered in quite a nasty way, in order to get it as loud as possible. first, everything is recorded using extremely expensive equipment. then, it is squashed to death afterwards) But then, maybe what you're really after is that "analog sound" caused by certain imperfections currently impossible to emulate perfectly (people try desperately, though, and sometimes come pretty close in one aspect or another) for digital audio? It can make a lot of difference, and I'll agree that, currently, if you have good audio equipment, LPs generally sound better.

... thought this was a thread about the latest Rush Limbaugh LP ...



When I visited rushlimbaugh.com to check spelling (with Firefox, which has 'scripts' disabled) the webpage was totally blank and totally white. I found it somehow amusing that without a script, he had absolutely nothing to say. The white of course didn't surprise me.

Formats of CD-like quality or lower. Double the sample rate and bit depth, and the audio quality in itself will be superior. (CD audio is however typically mastered in quite a nasty way, in order to get it as loud as possible. first, everything is recorded using extremely expensive equipment. then, it is squashed to death afterwards) But then, maybe what you're really after is that "analog sound" caused by certain imperfections currently impossible to emulate perfectly (people try desperately, though, and sometimes come pretty close in one aspect or another) for digital audio? It can make a lot of difference, and I'll agree that, currently, if you have good audio equipment, LPs generally sound better.

Even at double the sample rate and bit depth, digital audio still doesn't have the limitless range of a vinyl LP. I'm not after that "analogue sound" in that sense. I'm just after quality reference material that will actually improve in audio quality when I get better equipment, rather than notice the limited range of digital audio on high-end speakers (it's definitely there... especially on guitar-heavy music). And the DVD remaster of Queen's "A Night At The Opera" still isn't as good as the original LP, and they did a damn good job of remastering it from the master tapes, too.

Even recording my voice on my Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS (which I no longer have) at 192khz, 32-bit Stereo, it still didn't sound as good as recording it to a cassette (cassette!) recorder with a good microphone. Using decent cassette tapes, mind.

... thought this was a thread about the latest Rush Limbaugh LP ...



When I visited rushlimbaugh.com to check spelling (with Firefox, which has 'scripts' disabled) the webpage was totally blank and totally white. I found it somehow amusing that without a script, he had absolutely nothing to say. The white of course didn't surprise me.

Now that is good stuff. :D

Even at double the sample rate and bit depth, digital audio still doesn't have the limitless range of a vinyl LP. I'm not after that "analogue sound" in that sense. I'm just after quality reference material that will actually improve in audio quality when I get better equipment, rather than notice the limited range of digital audio on high-end speakers (it's definitely there... especially on guitar-heavy music). And the DVD remaster of Queen's "A Night At The Opera" still isn't as good as the original LP, and they did a damn good job of remastering it from the master tapes, too.

Even recording my voice on my Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS (which I no longer have) at 192khz, 32-bit Stereo, it still didn't sound as good as recording it to a cassette (cassette!) recorder with a good microphone. Using decent cassette tapes, mind.At 96KHz, all frequencies up to 48KHz recorded can, in theory, be reproduced *perfectly*. The quantization noise resulting from the finite bit depth means that there will always be a certain amount of background noise however, but with a 24-bit signal, this (additional) noise is so low that any analog components processing the signal afterwards are pretty much guaranteed to add some that is much more significant.

As long as things are done well in high enough quality, as far as a digital signal in itself is concerned, there are no limits whatsoever even near perceptible by human hearing to notice. (as a matter of fact, a sampling rate of 48KHz would be enough to store a signal within the limited range of human hearing that in theory can be reproduced perfectly. if a signal is to be processed, it however helps to store it in higher sampling rates, as you then won't have to go through the hassle of oversampling when doing certain things in order to avoid aliasing)

The problem lies in the conversion from analog to digital, the handling of the digital signal, and the conversion back to an analog one. Mainly the conversion; it cannot be made perfect, and typically is not even anywhere near that. The filtering applied before and after is guaranteed to degrade the signal, and cannot remove all artifacts completely. (though it can come close enough that it doesn't matter, with gear of high enough quality) Sample rates excessive for playback (though not neccessarily for internal handling) can be used to limit the extent of the limited quality of the conversion, but won't eliminate them.

And as far as Soundblaster cards go, while very good for gaming, they are not for music. Significantly better cards (for music, that is) are avaliable at similar prices.

I think you are greatly underestimating the importance of high-quality gear when it comes to reproducing digital signals. No matter how good your speakers and amplifiers are, it won't sound good unless the DAC is. Just like it wouldn't sound good were you to use a crappy vinyl player; the importance is just as big. However, while digital audio *can* be reproduced in quality atleast as good as that of a fine LP, the equipment would cost more than a little bit.

And as far as analog atifacts go, they are what make tube amplifiers so good. Distortion can be nice. Very nice, in fact, if of the right kind. In addition to being easier to reproduce decently, analog recordings to both tapes and LPs sound better than they otherwise would because of distortion.

At 96KHz, all frequencies up to 48KHz recorded can, in theory, be reproduced *perfectly*. The quantization noise resulting from the finite bit depth means that there will always be a certain amount of background noise however, but with a 24-bit signal, this (additional) noise is so low that any analog components processing the signal afterwards are pretty much guaranteed to add some that is much more significant.

As long as things are done well in high enough quality, as far as a digital signal in itself is concerned, there are no limits whatsoever even near perceptible by human hearing to notice. (as a matter of fact, a sampling rate of 48KHz would be enough to store a signal within the limited range of human hearing that in theory can be reproduced perfectly. if a signal is to be processed, it however helps to store it in higher sampling rates, as you then won't have to go through the hassle of oversampling when doing certain things in order to avoid aliasing)

The problem lies in the conversion from analog to digital, the handling of the digital signal, and the conversion back to an analog one. Mainly the conversion; it cannot be made perfect, and typically is not even anywhere near that. The filtering applied before and after is guaranteed to degrade the signal, and cannot remove all artifacts completely. (though it can come close enough that it doesn't matter, with gear of high enough quality) Sample rates excessive for playback (though not neccessarily for internal handling) can be used to limit the extent of the limited quality of the conversion, but won't eliminate them.

And as far as Soundblaster cards go, while very good for gaming, they are not for music. Significantly better cards (for music, that is) are avaliable at similar prices.

I think you are greatly underestimating the importance of high-quality gear when it comes to reproducing digital signals. No matter how good your speakers and amplifiers are, it won't sound good unless the DAC is. Just like it wouldn't sound good were you to use a crappy vinyl player; the importance is just as big. However, while digital audio *can* be reproduced in quality atleast as good as that of a fine LP, the equipment would cost more than a little bit.

And as far as analog atifacts go, they are what make tube amplifiers so good. Distortion can be nice. Very nice, in fact, if of the right kind. In addition to being easier to reproduce decently, analog recordings to both tapes and LPs sound better than they otherwise would because of distortion.


That's exactly what I'm saying. Analogue picks up every bit of sound... Digital doesn't. A good tube amp will pick up a Fender Stratocaster's fuzz and distortion perfectly (complete with an MXR Distortion+ pedal). Connect it to a high-end digital mixer with an equally expensive transistor amp, and you won't get sound that's even close to that of a tube amp.

Yes, I understand that digital is virtually noiseless. That's one of its problems. There's extra sound contained in that noise, and on a lot of records, it's noticeable (Bob Mould's super-distorted Rocket Roll is one of the best examples).

I'm going to be saving my money (about $900) for a vacuum tube phonostage, a 24k gold stylus, and a professional soundcard to rip my records. About $1,000 of analogue equipment provides the best reproduction money can buy (of course, I'm not factoring new speakers, which are too expensive at the moment). Digital's not even close, especially as far as vacuum tubes are concerned.

I'm going by my own ears and white paper specs. Digital equipment doesn't come anywhere close to the reference quality of a vacuum tube phonostage.

Okay, so here's how it goes.

A lot of you know that I bought a NM Hemispheres LP, to replace the one I damaged a few months ago. Well, I finally got the replacement LP, and whaddya know: It was scuffed, scratched, and chipped to hell, with what looked to be pen marks (!!!) on the surface. Along with that, the record had never been cleaned, and the sleeve was in average condition (the seller said BOTH were in Near Mint condition).

The piece of shit (and it is a piece of shit... Not one spot on the record plays without surface noise, and it crackles and pops constantly) cost me $13 total, when it should've cost $5 at the very most (and if it did, I sure as fuck wouldn't have bought it). I gave the seller very negative feedback, to which she replied "please be more civil" (in so many words). I sent a reply, detailing exactly why I gave the negative feedback rather than sending a personal message in the first place.

So, she sent me an e-mail, telling me that I'm the one who's not using proper transaction methods, also saying that she saw no surface marks or scratches. So, my dad (there's a use for him afterall!) sent her an e-mail to confirm that I was indeed correct about the record's condition.

I'm currently awaiting another e-mail. She will most likely continue to insist that I'm the one who's at fault. The dispute will probably be settled by an ultimatum: Either she refunds the total cost ($15.80: $13 for the record plus $2.80 for the cost of shipping and my money order) to my PayPal account, or I report her to eBay for seller fraud.

See, I get really pissed off when a seller says a record (with sleeve) is in NEAR MINT condition with no surface marks or scratches. I get even more steamed when the seller insists that I'm the one who's being the jackass.
We've got laws against that shit here.

but also...
I say Bravo.
A lot of you know that I bought a NM Hemispheres LP, to replace the one I damaged a few months ago. Well, I finally got the replacement LP, and whaddya know: It was scuffed, scratched, and chipped to hell, with what looked to be pen marks (!!!) on the surface. Along with that, the record had never been cleaned, and the sleeve was in average condition (the seller said BOTH were in Near Mint condition).
And...
"I was not aware of that!"-Wayne Cambell.