|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
162.58.82.244
It always amuses me, first, when I tell people vinyl is my primary choice, and their subsequent confusion. Which of course, we all go through in here.But then when they ask "Where do you still find vinyl?", and I tell them of the used market. This seems inconceivable to them.
It must be lodged in most of a generation's heads, that vinyl was ALWAYS horrible. Has everyone been brainwashed by the time-life commercials or something? Why is noise the first thing that is always mentioned? They really can't seem to understand used can be MINT, or nearly. And they seem to have no recall of the, likely, great percentage of very clean records they once owned. It seems to be only those few noisy ones they remember.
The ratio from my high-school era records, now 30+ years old if bought new, is about 90% in great shape, 98% playable, 2% taking up space. Was it so much worse for all the digital converts?
I get very few opportunities to play a clean record for any of these forgetful people. I don't necessarily want to convert anyone, I just want some of them to REMEMBER what it was like, and what it was NOT like.
Follow Ups:
And most ppl. I knew from 30 years ago, they never took care of records properly.
...
lines with a "Re:" like you are responding to what someone else said when you are spewing it out in the first place? Oh yeah, and . . .
HenryA 12-gauge shotgun is the ultimate arbiter of disputes - G. Gordon Liddy
Very true, if you're Buying Blind, however with used records
once you become familiar with the local used record dealers you'll soon learn how expert / ethical they are at assessing their stock and fair they are with their grading/pricing.I've found 2 different dealers in my area, as well as 2 online sources who are impeccable in their grading and square on their pricing and with these dealers over a 3 yr period.
BTW I found the aforementioned superb online sources, right here in the Archive, which in just about every facet of this Hobby has proved to be of great value.
I've sourced approx. 1,500 used LP's from the aforementioned dealers and have yet to find one that wasn't at least as good as they'd graded it.
It's not all that difficult for any of us to learn how to evaluate
used records with a fair degree of proficiency if one does some simple research on what to look for here in the Asylum Archive, and with another year or less of experience so we can get damn good at spotting Groove damage, so by that point the risk is actually significantly less than buying new records which may have various warp or other issues.In addition to learning what you're looking at, cultivating some expertise in cleaning allows one to get incredible bargains as it's not all that difficult to look through or around the crud, spindle marks, etc. and other indicators often tell the story in themselves, certain types of scratches as well as scuffing are also irrelevant
for the most part.I wish I had a fraction of the $$ I've dropped for new Cd's and even SACD, often ones billed as big time digital re-masters only
to find them audibly comprised by the Copy protection or useless for my PC, perceptibly compressed to having the very life compressed out of them, or they were nice and clean and dynamic etc. but the re-mastering engineer obviously didn't understand and or couldn't relate to the artist.So personally I find used Vinyl is by far the safest by a wide margin, as long as I'm either doing the selecting or dealing with a
reliable/trusted source.OTOH, like just about anything else if you're buying from unknown online sources, particularly on Sleaze Bay and like judging the Vinyl don't bother educating yourself on the danger signs indicative of dirt bag or Moronic sellers or in buying locally and you happen to be lazy and or somewhat of a Cretin, then buying used will frequently finding ending up being a F#@Ked Chicken.
noting that you're still unregistered and from reading your post's and responses to others posts, you've demonstrated an obvious penchant for confrontation, to outright trolls, as well as being entirely disinterested in actually learning anything, so I wouldn't exactly be shocked to shit, if it turned out that you are intellectually, character and or emotionally challenged to the degree that perhaps you might consider avoiding buying used ?
you will be pitching it back all day long once you start.
BUT, you are right in that if you find a good dealer then you can always trust getting a fair shake. There is even a couple of ebayer who I am getting goods from.Cleaning is paramount. Most, I meant really almost every single record I clean with my urgent laboroous neck sweating method sound like they were handed down from the hand of god. [for an atheist this is truly miraculous.]
I am so cheap, though, that I passed on an original Mingus ~ Ah Um yesterday taht was going for $10 because I thoiught it was too high priced!!!! What is the matter with me?!? But I did find Tull's first record, the one where they all look old on the cover for $8, so all is well.
nt
.
OMalley
" you will be pitching it back all day long once you start."I see it as I'm giving him a break by responding at all, based on his track record, as well as responding to his statement straight up, despite the fact that he's doubtless just being a Jerk off and
doesn't actually care to learn anything or engage in sincere exchange.Who knows at some point Guy may get himself assessed get medicated
end up getting laid, grow up enough to become embarrassed realize just how pathetic, infantile, tawdry and tedious the troll thing is, decide he needs a diversion, register and play things straight ?
BTW did you ever kick the Alslop Orbidrek to the curb ;-)
Regards Ferd
but I have mitigated the issue immensely. I sink wash my records and rinse with distilled water. My next wash with RRL is going against much more clean records and I use just the OrbiDrac pad thingy.[maybe I can form fit other pads to it?] I vacuum the brush after several records. I started doing that after one of your endless chiding posts. I vacuum the crevice tool paint prush strip and the pad and it comes clean like a baby's ass, well those things are never clean, but you know what I mean.What is funny is that if you do that, vacuum the thing, it will last almost forever. [what a scam those replacement pads are!] But I think I am going to get a micro-fiber brush to do the RRL wash as it will actually get into the grooves much deeper.
Carbon fiber brushes don't work for me. I bought the Audioquest at your suggestion but it clumps up and becomes unusable. I use it as a dry brush and it is a winner in that effect. I now use the Hunt brush as a final wipe after the entire vacuuming because the records become energized and I have to remove dust before putting them in their sleeve.
I think the Nitty Gritty brush is my next tryout.
Yeah, transferring grit from one record to the next is what you mentioned as the negative in my old method. Don;t belive I am doing that anymore by vacuuming the pad. The actaull vacuum I am using is a killer and I don;t think I could build taht into an RCM as it would suck the record to. But using it manually does a kick ass job, no doubt. The result is undeniable - the records are slick and quiet. I am getting better at it. You do need to develop a bit of english with the process but once you do you are all over it.
it is STILL A DRAG, though. a pain in the aching ass. but it is worth it, oh yes indeed.
So let's see, Nitty Gritty brush to try next and if that is a no go and clumps up then the Nitty Gritty pad. Maybe the stiff bristle brushes if the Nitty Gritty doesn't cut it.
I would buy that KAB cheapo RCM but why should I when I think my method is getting better and I suspect I am doing a better job than some of those machines. [oh, get ready for a flame]
I still owe you a big 'thanks' for kicking me in the ribs with "get a clue". That woke me up. Knuckleheads like me need a whetstone.
OMalley, you're one of the few that admits that those carbon fibre brushes are NOT the most effecctive brush for wet cleaning. They're the most adequate brush. But I learned a cure. Unfortunately it involves using more of that $80/gallon fluid.When I first start the cleaning ritual I use a clean toothbrush to help align the bristles. Then I make sure that the AQ brush is actually WET by starting with a small pool of fluid on the record and then sometimes dripping fluid right onto the bristles where they separate from each other. Once it's good and wet the bristles seem to hold together better. Sometimes I have to give the brush another drop or so to rewet the bristles. Holding the brush perpedicular to the grooves instead of angling the brush also seems to help.
Because I'm having to use more fluid initially to get the brush wet, I'm making sure to clean more records at each session so the per lp cost is still reasonable.
Sorry if this is just a bunch of blathering uselessness if you've already tried these things.
Tom: My wife works as a research tech at the local university, so I'm lucky in that she simply brings home a giant bottle of lab grade water for me every 3 or 4 months. I'm in full agreement with you that getting the carbon fibre brushes good and wet before you start cleaning is a great idea and that's exactly what I use the lab grade water for, as well as rinsing and cleaning the brushes with a couple of vacs over the KAB slot (which also tends to clean the velvet slot) when I'm finished the cleaning session. I simply pour about an about 1/4" into a small bowl and park it right next to the turntable I spin the records on to apply the fluid. When I'm done cleaning, I just dump it and do not feel any great remorse, as I know I would dumping RRL down the sink. Perhaps you could find a local supplier for lab grade or heavily distilled water for the soak and clean as I do. I'm sure it would be considerably less expensive than using the RRL in that function and I've experienced no deleterious effects in doing so.
Blake, you bring up something I've considered; that is, using distilled water to initially soak the brush bristles. But I wonder if there is a fair amount of dilution of cleaning fluid when the brush is saturated with water. I've come to accept that I'm going to have to use the equivalent of a couple additional records worth of solution to pre-wet the brushes on the first lp. That's why I now make sure that I clean a minimum of 6 to 8 records at a time. That way I'm using typically less than 25% additional solution. The benefit of having a fully saturated brush to begin with is that I find I can use less solution for the records that follow. So I'm probably using quite a bit less than 25% additional solution.The reduction in OCD frustration from clumping bristles is worth it. Those bottles of RRL clean a shit load (that's a more precise term for a lot) of records for the money so I'm not too concerned about wasting solution.
Like you, I'm using distilled water (though not the premium stuff you have access to) to rinse the brushes after I'm done with cleaning records. Once they're dried I use a clean soft toothbrush to realign the bristles and brush out the loose crud that's still imbedded in the bristles. Works like a charm.
I usually try to clean at least 4 or 5 at a time, but occasionally I'll clean 1 or 2 depending on how badly I want to listen. If I'm doing 4 or more, I'll actually start with what I feel is the cleanest record first; that way when I soak the brushes initially, if I'm diluting, I'm diluting on a record that probably needs cleaning the least. I can always do an extra pass of the Deep Clean if I feel the need to. By the time I'm through the first record, the brushes are definitely saturated and I haven't wasted the RRL. I'm probably getting between 250 and 300 records out of each bottle of Deep and SVW using this method.
I just turn it around for the following soaking spin. Normally this would get the whole surface covered.
I also brush a few strokes back and forth (sort of like painting the record), which deform those clumps.
but it also sounds like more tediousness on top of a labor intensive process already. But I will try it if the stiffer bristle brushes dont work out for me. ~ All suggestions get filed.Also, don't you have a lot more liquid to vacuum up? You must have a pretty drippy record. I get a lot of the fluid off in my vacuuming. The record has to air dry for several minutes. I will have to try it and see.
I do 10 records at a time. it takes me up to two hours to complete the process because I give 'em time after the sink bath that I don;t have to wipe them dry on one side so I don't foul the pad I use on the manual RCM. I'm getting streamlined but oofah. I am too exact, that's the problem. I can clean the ehll out of a record. Now soldering a PCB, I am a piker in that regard.
and that's why they work so well. I use the KAB EV-1 with an Electrolux canister vacuum and give the record 5 full turns for the final vacuuming. Gets it nice and dry and I haven't had a static problem.
No static problem here either-I have my KAB/cleaning station set up in the basement where humidity is never less than 40-45%. And your Electrolux is a good machine. I use my KAB with a Filter Queen. Every once in a while I read a post here from someone with a KAB that is not happy with the results and I can't help but think they are using a piece of crap vac with it. Hook up a decent vac to the KAB and, as far as I'm concerned, you're beyond Nitty Gritty/VPI/Clearaudio type machines in performance, probably somewhere between them and Monks/Loricraft land. The EV1, although it is simple and perhaps even overpriced for what it is as a manufactured piece, is truly a bargain when compared with any of the commercial RCM's.
Tom
i need to break down and buy that one. or find a gd-damned DD table.
I could have put that $75 into a KAB EV-1 from the beginning. Expensive lesson learned. It's not that the Orbitrac doesn't work, it's that it's a ripoff for replacement parts and fluids. Allsop gets you hooked on the $40 starter set and then you end up getting reamed with their "refill" parts. I tried the DIY parts and fluids thing for about a week and then Henry and others kicked me in the head hard enough for me to snap out of the Orbitrac stupor and get myself a true RCM. It's not "cheap", but it's a good bargain in the long run.
those refills and pads. I think I will get the DD table, Henry is right about them being good for something! [grin], instead of the KAB because 1. I am a hardhead, 2. I think hand applying the vacuum works good for me.The pads that come with the Orbidrac and the little spray bottles are a keeper. Those are usefull. Even that little tiny brush which i use to clean my Hunt brush. The enclosure can hold the AQ or Deram brush etc, so all is not a loss.
Tom
it has audiophile cache.
I'd say that a higher proportion of CDs that I buy are unacceptable because of poor mastering (particularly levels raised into clipping and hard fatiguing treble), than vinyl because of surface noise.
But of course the vast majority of consumers are really not interested in quality of sound. Convenience is much much more important. Otherwise mp3s wouldn't be replacing CD. I work in open-plan environments in most of the projects I'm involved in, and where everyone else has their iPod and tiny in-ear buds I have a portable TT on my desk and a changing library of used vinyl bought at lunchtimes, with great big headphones.... and am duly regarded as completely mad.
Tom
wouldn't even be happening. I can't speak for anyone but myself but I'd say that many of us wouldn't have considered buying much used vinyl if the variety and selection were still what it was more than 20 years ago. We've had to adapt to a changing supply and demand and now accept purchasing used vinyl as "normal".The reaction you get is not surprising if you think that it's basically the same reaction we got 30 years ago.
I love used vinyl. Loveitloveitloveit. I find some old mint or vg++ used copies are much much cleaner than today's repressings. It seems I've come across plenty of new pressings that play like crap. Its really pretty much hit or miss. Even some of the fancy schmancy labels like Four Men with Beards have pressed crap. My Richard & Linda Thompson's "Shoot Out the Lights" fresh out of the shrinkwrap was just a wreck. totally unplayable, with divets and scrap marks all over both sides. Then again my Barsuk Records pressing of Rilo Kiley's "More Adventurous" is quite possibly the cleanest, quietist vinyl record I've ever heard. Besides, I kinda like ticks and scratches on some things. - especially on my mom's ancient Johnny Cash Sun Records 45's I made off with. The ticks and pop and scratchy distortion sorta adds to the fractured soul searching timbre of his voice. But, hey, that's just me.
if the market for vinyl had remained strong for all these years. What new materials might have been tried and perfected. Maybe even something that repelled dust! What new manufacturing processes might have made defects less likely and improved the recording dynamics.I, too, enjoy the satisfaction of finding a good used album, cleaning it up, and listening to it as if it were a brand new purchase on payday.
I don't know. There is a 'thriving' used CD market. Maybe if vinyl was still the mainstream media there might still be used vinyl being sold today ... out of print stuff still has a market.Especially now that we know that old records can play as new with a little wash and dry.
On thing, though, back then we bought 'old records' in 'junk shops' not 'vintage vinyl emporiums'.
statement, I never bought much used vinyl back in the heyday of album sales. New vinyl was very affordable and there was a great selection. Occassionally I'd pick up a used lp if it was something out of print that I really wanted but so much new music was being released that it was not a priority to try and "catch up" to the older releases. Very few friends and acquaintances bought used vinyl back then.Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the thrill of a good used lp find, but given the choice, I'd rather have the huge selection of new vinyl that was available decades back.
I would show up at the small shop I bought records at every Tues. and Fri., the days they recieved new stock. Bought maybe 10 used records in the late 60's through the 80's. I do wish I'd known then that first pressings were preferable to all the represses I bought.
Back in my younger years when I was using all my money to purchase albums I always purchased new, never used. Even when I moved out on my own and was eating peanut butter sandwiches 3 times a day to save money I still purchased my vinyl new. I purchase used today because that is the only way to find the music I like, if I have a choice between new and used I almost always go new unless I know the new reissue sucks sonically and the older used one is better.I do enjoy the hunt for used vinyl, but I used to enjoy the hunt for new vinyl back in my younger days, I remember looking for a copy of Roy Wood's Boulders before it was released in the US import copy of course, or the Hollies Live that Steve Simels (sp) reviewed in Stereo Review (which was released in Holland only at the time). I can remember my heart skipping a beat when I found them both at Moby Disc in LA.
You can enjoy the hunt for both used or new vinyl.
as most of you have, I've gotten quite a few new-old vinyl still sealed after 20 years and they are almost always clean copies, with little or no noise, as compared to today's vinyl, which is, as I stated before, pretty much hit or miss, even with their 200 grams of virgin vinyl. And I don't care what the critics might say about this, but the very first early pressings are so much better than the repressings today even with the original master tapes. Where has all the good vinyl gone? as the old song goes
One just has to look at what the average Joe used to spin vinyl at the heyday of the LP era to understand why people get so amazed at the fact of us still colecting vinyl records. Even a slightly "pimped out" Technics or Dual TT (as many seem to have here) goes leaps and bounds over any stock TT/cartridge combo of the day. And the rest of exotic TTs we take so much pride about are simply like comparing a Ferrari to a Ford Focus. Simply being put, many people never got themselves the chance to know the real sound quality (and great noise absence) an LP can provide through a decent system -. No wonder CDs were so highly praised back in the day.And here we're seeing it again with the media declaring CDs (and any other physical music support, for that matter) dead and praising Apple and their "revolutionary" online music store. Out with bulky backup copies, in with digital music "collections" that can be wiped out in a second, gone forever, by a hard drive gone awry. Seems to be fit, as much of today's "top hits" are of equally disposable nature.
I'm not looking forward to make any new converts to this hobby. I just hope they understand.
_________________________________
Maybe they were the original owners of these turntables?
People always seem to buy into the marketing. My friends wondering why I seem to be going backwards in the technological sense ( tube amp & preamp , quad esl 57, linn LP-12, vinyl). I even own an RCA victrola for the 78s we own. I bought my wife a mint copy of Memphis Minnie's - Me and My Chauffer Blues and she was thrilled. I still have the very playable copy of Meet the Beatles that my mom bought me as a surprise back in 1964. 3000 LPs later, she has lived to regret that."The music is the magic in a young girls heart" Lovin' Spoonful
Michael,My first album was Beatles 65 which my parents purchased for me and started me down that slippery slope to vinyl nirvana, 12,000 albums later, no one (sometimes not even me) can understand why I have so many albums.
Also, don't forget that many people never bought into the "hold the record by the edge, dust before playing" thing. Lots of folk also quickly discarded the paper inner sleeve and would just chuck the wax in the jacket, or worse, leave them stacked up on top of each other on the console.
I've had more than one person rationalize their conversion to CD's that way. I've been told it's fine for me to continue to play records because mine are in good condition. As if the mishandling, tossing of the apparently superfluous inner sleeve, and needle skipping across the LP was somehow out of their control.
Funny thing about ticks and pops. I remember years ago going to a hi fi shop to audition speakers with my sister (she was in the market for some). I brought along a few records to use, and the salesman put one on a cheap record player (I use that term deliberately) which was hooked up to the system containing the speakers. The music came out sounding like I had given my records a dirt shower before putting them back in the jacket. I asked to have them played on a real turntable which he grudgingly did. A lot of the ticks and pops and noise vanished. When I got home afterwards I put the same record on my turntable and it sounded fine - quiet background with very few ticks or pops. Sometimes the equipment was so crappy it actually made records sound WORSE than they really were. And this was in a supposedly reputable shop that sold high end equipment! I wonder if that shop later used that same crap turntable to sell more CD players?
a point made many times here. A large part of the cost/benefit ratio to buying a high-end table/arm/cart is the much more quiet background that you will enjoy. Suddenly, all those college-era records that you assumed were shot to hell are not only listenable, but actually enjoyable.
Funny --- ish ---- that sometimes realworld parameters intervene in the pursuit of Analog Lp playback nirvana.I knew it, but didn't fully realize it until now, that there was a kind of "mixed messages" thing happening in my personal evolution.
About the time, oh, mid-college or thereabout, when one is say, 18 or 19, you may be just on the cusp of realizing what a fundamental thing music is, what an energizing or mind-bending influence, what a comfort when you're down, what a well of unending discovery it can be...
If you've had a long history already with playing your pop-tunes and hits in record form from early age, you begin to understand the mechanics of the process --- ie clean records + reasonable stylus = ever-improving appreciation, deeper understanding, and overall much more smooth of a ride.........
However, right at this critical moment in your developement, other critical parameters walk right in the door, unannounced, with a slightly different wiggle.
It's somewhere around this point that you also begin to put together the equation ::
Music-that-shakes-hips + some chemical conviviality = a new horizon of getting-laid-more-than-once-in-a-row .....I think for myself, and maybe some others here, that second equation produced a sea-change that didn't really do much for record life, didn't include stylus-fluid, and probably wouldn't allow us to come around to a sane way of caring for the musical... uhm,, momentum in our lives.. well into the era of Cd.
By then all the realizations were down the experiential drain anyway.
But I do think a lot of us would have been well-behaved converts to respectable Lp care and treatment ... were it not for those intervening socio-biological developments.
For those of you who have well-cared for records from teenage days, well, something's wrong with that picture.
Or you're a classical fan.
Or something.J.D.
Some of us found music and HiFi at an early age. Most of my albums bought between 16 and 20 are very much playable. Quite a few of them were purchased to be played on the Maggies (MG 1's) I bought brand new when I was 18!Much as I like my system, it's all about the music.
Of modern consumers.
Your thirty-year-old records are 90% in Great Shape ?Most modern consumers can't even manage to, or pay attention long enough, to take care of DVDs or CDs that they bought in 2005.
It has become an ingrained understanding that "Maintenenance" and "Care" are Nineteenth-Century sort of standards that modern striving and progress seeks to eliminate from current 'quality of life' concerns.
Most people spend lots of cash on things like cellphones and laptops that they don't expect to last more than 2/3 years at this point. Cars are designed so that even trained mechanics are mystified by the microchip-controls, and the quarterpanels and bumpers of the past--- which could survive a low-speed collision and be pounded out ---- are now replaced by "exploding" styrofoam and poly panels that are meant to be removed and thrown into landfill.
As loyal first-world patrons of the Multinational Corporations, we here are pridefully entitled to redesign the world in our own f**Ked up fashion and then quickly throw it into the dumpster. Simply as a matter of market-driven progress. Oh, and if this f**ks up the rest of the world in the process, well, let them worry about it. It's our entitlement.
One opinion.
J.D.
..and they'll f- it up."
But "modern consumers" can't, by definition, be people who owned or recall vinyl records, since those people had to be adults or at least adolescents no later than about 1986 . . . or 20 years ago. So, we're talkin' here about people aged mid-30s and up.I dunno, maybe some of them bought into the throwaway ethos that you mention, too.
Personally, I think the recollected "bad" sound of vinyl was in part driven by cheap-ass playback equipment (from one end to the other) that contained nasty mid-to-HF peaks that emphasised any kind of click on the record and, of course, poor record care and, to a lesser degree, an inferior or worn out or misadjusted stylus.
That said, J.D.'s "90% good" figure is consistent with mine when it comes to used classical records that I have bought at estate sales and the like. The figure goes down sharply when it comes to rock and roll records . . . if you can find them at all.
My personal collection is closer to 100% good as new because I didn't start buying records until I was in college and my very first turntable was a new (and now venerable) AR XA with a Stanton 500E cart. I also religiously used the Watts "Dust Bug" whenever I played my records, didn't leave them lying around, stored them correctly and didn't do anything stupid like clean them with "record cloths." In retrospect, I'm amazed that I was so compulsive at the age of 19. It certainly didn't carry over into other phases of my life at the time!
if the percentage really is that high, it's partly due to some of the culls through the years.
But for the most part, my vinyl is in great shape, the jackets have fared a little worse. I didn't use plastic outer sleeves until after high school.
The percentage of good clean used is certainly VERY high, otherwise why bother? I buy them to listen to, so a beater first press Kind of Blue would not appeal to me.
Well, maybe a little.
is what keeps records available to me.I woant yew to put yur hayands oan the radio and pray with me naow.
All are welcome on the payath. But it is a narrow payath. Not oall may fit.
....maintenance-free.
Disposability and wretched excess, our birthright. Why have one pair of worsted wool trousers, when you can have six pairs of polyester/rayon blend. Why have one or two pair of well made leather shoes, when you can have fourteen pairs of EVA soled nylon throwaways? If you wore the same three shirts to work every day, people would think you crazy, right? We've got to buy all this cheap stuff so there's money left over to spend on ab-rollers and salad shooters.
I don't think you can responsibly list Ab-Rollers and Salad-Shooters without mentioning Tuna-Turners.Just a small point.
Gee, I just love Tuna Turner : )
Don't forget that the vast majority of people used cheap all-in-one music centres with ceramic turnover cartridges and have probably no idea what even an inexpensive hi-fi seperate turntable sounds like. To these consumers CD was a vast improvement even at the low end of the spectrum. All the vinyl benefits are lost on poor equipment whereas CDs benefits are self evident.Kind Regards,
The younger generation is already doing a similar thing with CDs. I know more than a few that have gone completely digital and consider CDs a relic of the past...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: