Original UK Mono Pepper vs. 2014 mono Pepper

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Barnyard Symphony, Apr 29, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Alex Zabotkin

    Alex Zabotkin Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pepperland
    Yes. The Original. Was. Not. Cut. Flat. :D
    But. It. Was. Essentially. Flat. OK?

     
  2. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    Backtracking slightly...but fine. It depends on what the definition and meaning of "minor EQ adjustments" ACTUALLY means.
     
  3. Alex Zabotkin

    Alex Zabotkin Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pepperland
    "Don't you dare say that it's BS! Don't you dare say anything against it!" :winkgrin: :biglaugh:
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018
  4. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    If only I knew what you were talking about. And maybe Mr. Magee didn't know...about the minor EQ adjustments...on the original. Otherwise, why not add THAT part of the story along with the wall story? But I guess we just need to give him the benefit of the doubt...
     
  5. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    I haven't read this thread. What are you guys talking about exactly? Is this thread all about mastering differences between then and now??
     
    DRM likes this.
  6. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    Mr. Hoffman, any insight regarding this exact question, given your extensive experience, would be highly appreciated. Your framing the issue via your question already has said a lot...but any further "Big Picture" analysis would be of great value.
     
  7. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Haven’t paid enough attention to the modern vinyl to form an opinion, sorry.
     
    Uglyversal and DRM like this.
  8. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    Thank you.
     
  9. Uglyversal

    Uglyversal Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sydney
    Might not be in 2019 but it is likely to happen, there is more juice to be squeezed. Most certainly we should at least get new remixes of the whole lot as the original mixes are so terrible and we still haven't had a go at half speed masters on 45RPM:biglaugh:They will certainly suck me in with the last ones, you can only live in hope.
     
  10. stereoptic

    stereoptic Anaglyphic GORT Staff

    Location:
    NY
    Way, way back in April, 7 pages ago, the OP asked a direct question.
    Thanks to several of you for responding with your thoughts.:love:

    As for the rest of you..... :tsk: you are not going to find the answer in any liner notes or interviews. If you have listened to both issues then please discuss your analysis here with others, otherwise please stay out of the thread.
    thanks!
     
    DRM, hodgo, marka and 1 other person like this.
  11. drbryant

    drbryant Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I tried comparing a couple of tracks on the new mono vs. a first press UK. I have a VG+ UK -1 mono that I managed to pick up cheaply because the original owner wrote his name on the labels (thank you Alan Broadbear, if you're out there). I thought that I detected slightly bigger bass on the 2014, and clearer highs on the original UK. I do not, however, hear significant differences.

    In fact, I wonder if the differences I am hearing might be attributable to the physical pressing differences between the two. The 2014 is a thicker record, and I don't adjust tracking angle, so that could affect the sound with a discriminating MC cartridge, I suppose. Also, the grooves are wider on the original UK (obvious from the larger deadwax area on the 2014 version). That could have an impact on the sound as well. I don't know - I give up.
     
  12. Uglyversal

    Uglyversal Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sydney

    My take on the wider dead wax area is no that the grooves are necessarily wider. Unless you are referring to wider as the ability of having more bass due to the extra space allowing for the groove to move further to the extremes in the original.
    While in the 2014 having a larger deadwax it means you have to compress the groove more close to the next one to fit. My understanding is the closer it is, it gets to the point were you have to tone down the bass or compress which is why so many of the 20 tracks compilations sound so bad so you can only squeeze them so much.

    I think there is more than just a bit of difference in the sound and by any means I choose the UK but I see the 2014 has some very good points at the right price which is what it cost when first released, my beef with it is that current price seems crazy, actually more than many decent originals.

    Those good points I mentioned are a good imitation of the original early sleeve and inserts, similar Y/B Parlophone label. Reasonably good sound for most people, specially if that is the only copy they will ever have. For last when buying new, it is new, shiny, quiet and without problems. That you can get on the originals when you pay a lot for them although the 2014 is worth quite a lot now. With used originals you do run the risk of buying from a bad seller that overrates the condition and you might end up with a bad copy. To me is completely worth the risk but it may not be to others, I bought a few duds but most of them are in reasonable and with some exceptions generally they weren't excessively expensive.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018
  13. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    A larger deadwax area can be due to a number of things: cut at a lower level, more tightly packed grooves due to better automatic pitch control, a reduction in bass, etc. Are original cuts fixed or variable pitch? If fixed, a modern variable pitch cutting would almost certainly have a larger deadwax area, all else being equal.
     
    stereoptic and Alex Zabotkin like this.
  14. Uglyversal

    Uglyversal Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sydney
    You are correct, don't quote me on this but I would have thought fix pitch lathes would have gone out of fashion way before Sgt Peppers. I've tried to search for it but did not find the information. Even if it was variable, a modern computer controlled lathe is likely to be more efficient allocating space.
     
  15. drbryant

    drbryant Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    So size of the portion of LP surface devoted to the playing area doesn’t necessarily have an impact on the sound? I’ve never understood this, but have been disappointed to open recent purchases and see a massive deadwax area.

    One I can remember was a recent reissue is All Things Must Pass. The worst was Analogue Productions’ recent 45 rpm reissue of Linda Ronstadt’s Simple Dreams. Despite being two 45 rpm discs there was literally 4-5 cm of deadwax on each side, with the width of the 2-3 tracks on each side looking more like what you would see on a standard 33 rpm record. I kind of put it aside as being not worth my time. Maybe I should give it another listen.
     
  16. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    It *does* impact sound, but not how you apparently think it does. Don't forget that inner groove distortion exists, because as the radius decreases, so does the linear speed of the stylus. The slower the linear speed, the harder it is to reproduce high frequencies, and the more distortion you get. Which is why the outer grooves of a record sound better than the inner grooves.

    The minimum LP recording diameter is 4.75", and if you add 2" of dead wax (bringing the diameter of the innermost groove to 8.75"), the linear velocity almost doubles. That is not insignificant.

    All else being equal, the more dead wax, the better. Of course, all else is not always equal, but one certainly shouldn't discount a pressing simply because it has more dead wax than another pressing.
     
    Gems-A-Bems and Onder like this.
  17. drbryant

    drbryant Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oh yeah - linear speed. No wonder I bombed physics in high school.
     
    StateOfTheArt likes this.
  18. drbryant

    drbryant Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    So one possible reason that some of the tracks on the 2014 may sound better than an original Parlophone is that there is more dead wax (albeit only about 5-6 mm worth) so the same music is tracking at a higher velocity.

    That makes sense to me. I always assumed the opposite because some of the best sounding records I own (some earth-shaking 12” disco singles and the CCR and Led Zeppelin 45 rpm boxes come to mind) use most of the record surface at 45 rpm. I suspect that there are other reasons why that is the case.
     
  19. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    It's possible that comes into play, but there are a number of differences in how the records were produced, so it's nearly impossible to say how much that particular factor played.
     
    DRM and Onder like this.
  20. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    Maybe you're just more inclined toward Quantum physics rather than Deterministic physics.
     
  21. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    Here are the two posts on this thread from the opening poster.
     
  22. Uglyversal

    Uglyversal Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sydney
    That's a good reminder that he made a decision although he never compared an original vs the 2014 which is what he asked in the first place.
     
    DRM likes this.
  23. Uglyversal

    Uglyversal Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sydney
    Lukpac made some good points there, I would like to add something though. The whole thing is a compromise were you need to strike the right balance to get a decent product that one way or another is likely to be a compromise reached by whoever is cutting the record.

    Given an average length LP, or slightly longer to make a better case, by the end of it, the music will be getting closer to the label. The closer it is the more distortions you will get because of the angular distortions caused by most short tt arms plus the distortions and limitations created by squeezing a lot more music in a much shorter distance near the center of the record. That is something you would like to reduce by having as much wider dead wax area as possible.

    If you have a long LP the way to increase the dead wax area is to get the grooves closer to each other but it gets to a point no more can be done without overlapping them.
    There is when you can start using trickery that comes at the price of affecting the sound negatively in other ways. What you generally find they do is: the bass gets reduced which means the groove doesn't move so much side ways thus giving you more space to get the groove closer without overlapping it. The other or could be a combination of both is to compress the sound, limiting the peaks will cause the peaks will cause the same effect.

    You can easily test this by grabbing a compilation with lots of tracks at the extreme 10 or so tracks per side. Lack of bass and dynamic range will be immediately audible. An opposite example is MSFL know what they do, most of the time anyway when they recently releases Billy Joel Greatest Hits they did it on three LP instead of just two which was the standard, that to me was because they did not want to sacrifice dynamic range due to the lack of room.
     
    DRM likes this.
  24. Barnyard Symphony

    Barnyard Symphony Sunny Days Thread Starter

    I didn't make a decision. I'm asking a question.
     
  25. Uglyversal

    Uglyversal Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sydney
    "I worked my rear end off to score that Beatles mono vinyl box. After more than one month, I finally found musicvaultz who shipped it to me. I bought the 50th vinyl from them as a follow up. "

    I thought because you've said that, the decision was made in favour of the 2014 and have moved on. So, are you still considering getting a UK original then?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine