The way Ill compare them is by making needledrops and switching between sample without knowing which is which. Ill also post them on here and see what others think, that should remove enough bias. Did you ever compare the runouts between them very carefully? Im talking VERY carefully.
Funnily enough, I've never had a problem with warps from QRP. EXCEPT when I had that 2014 AYE. It was dished pretty badly
Why the need to introduce a step into the comparison? A digital one at that. Too random, just compare the records, as for the samples why do we need them? Is there a point to the run out question? To be clear, I sat with this LP and the 2010 6 or so years ago when I got the Newbury. It's still clear in my mind the point that got me off my backside when I played the Newbury for the first time, not in an A/B session. That listening session simply confirmed what I was hearing. Again, not a huge difference but a big enough one to be noticable.
Great, the 2010 is a cracking pressing. For me to be clear, I'm simply posting that there is a noticable difference between the two pressings. Not putting down either record, crappy sleeve or otherwise. Hope you sourced a replacement at the time.
Because you dont lose enough information for it to matter. You were the one who mentioned bias, just playing the records one after another is extreme bias if anything. Yes, if they are different cuts of the album of course they can sound a little different. The issue is that Marino wrote no signature so it wouldnt be noticeable through handwriting. The only way to find that out would be to compare the exact position of the Sterling stamp to the other runouts.
Well thats interesting: 2010 A: 88697623951-A 18763.1(3) [STERLING STAMPED] Newbury A: 88697623951-A [STERLING STAMPED] 18763.1(3) Is the sterling stamp on the left of the 18763.1(3) on the Newbury where as its on the right on the 2010?
I'm not convinced, a needledrop is NOT the LP and care should be taken when thinking otherwise. In this instance there is no reason to even concider needledrops unless consideration is simply a viewable one. I'm old fashioned, I listen to records. Sure, bias because I compare two records against each other! I'd suggest revising that claim. Going back to the difference between pressing plants, for good reason. The small matter of playing, it's about as critical as can be when comparing pressing from different plants. In the instance of QRP, I'd say Gary did a much better job than what came before. The differences between the pair of pressings in question are that the QRP has a finer detail and a bigger presentation when played. I'm looking forward to seeing how some needledrop is going to highlight that, sarcasm on my part, sorry. To put you out if your misery and straw clutching, THEY ARE FROM THE SAME CUT. They are different plates (as already highlighted) and this was part of the original questioning to Sony, who convinced me with their replies that they struggle to understand what is happening with their record pressing both in the US and globally.
Thanks, I really need time to add more stuff and tighten up some information. Also need to revise at least one section on the site.
Bottom line. If the sleeve or any accompanying booklet is a deal breaker here, the 2010 is the go to. If you have any interest at all in the differences between the pressing in question I'd suggest checking the records for yourself, both a 2014 and a 2010 can easily be had for little money. You shouldn't simply take my word for it and I'd recommend not even considering making a call either way based on some needledrops samples of needledrops at that. Happy listening.
If youre saying that a needledrop makes the differences inaudible then we can just end it there by saying the differences are so small they are not audible in the first place. If you play the records one after another you are relying on memory to recall what the other sounded like minutes earlier with a pause inbetween. You are also aware of which record you are putting on before listening. If that is not bias then I dont know what is. If they are the same cut why write the Sterling Stamp in different order on one of the runout matrixes? Ill wait until I see photos or examples in hand before concluding they are the same metalwork.
You can argue what you think are the merits of listening to a needledrop over listening to the records all you wish, it changes nothing in terms of what is clearly and obviously the way in which to place a measure between to records, ymfd. Let delusion reign. My audio memory can and does factor the point of being "short". Hence why I never hear a difference when I swap out a power cable for a conditional type. Yet I'm aware of the differences here and as ti what they are and why I'm hearing them. Why are the run out details presented differently? Probably because I wrote them years apart. Keep clutching .........
My final reply directly to you, of for no other reason other than whenever I post in reply to you the moderators tend to remove me from the thread. That and its tiresome. If you feel I have posted regard what can / cannot be heard on a needledrop here I will say this, incorrect. Anything and everything I posted here today I covered in both my reviews and any earlier posts on any public forum in which this topic arose. If you as with a number of others on this very forum feel that a needledrop is preferable to listening to the records that is fine, deluded but fine. Fill your boots so to speak. Pun intended.
I wouldn't see this as a debate between the merits of listening to a digital needledrop vs listening to AAA vinyl playback. It's about comparing volume equalised digital samples of different vinyl pressings to see if one can hear any clear differences between them. There are going to be minor subtleties that this method won't pick up, but as long as you are aware of that and just listen out for the significant differences, relative to each other, and using the same playback equipment, then it's a valid exercise IMO. MMM has used this method to demonstrate the better/worse vinyl pressings in his Sinatra album comparison project and it works.
Why the need for a digital step then? How about listening out for the significant differences from the LP? Just why I produce a need for a DAC? Plus, there are other factors at work here. A failure to recognise that from the off brings it's own inherent colouring of the conclusions. In this instance at least the only way to have a true comparison is to sit with the records. Yes I admit to struggling with the desire to put everything into a wave form for understanding. That is not me recognising the usefulness of this or the maths involved. Someone once said, "keep on playing the records", I'm all in on that.
Just to make a 'good enough' comparison Gordon, it's not pretending to be the be all and end all! I get what you're saying but going for the most perfect test result isn't always necessary.
I would argue that, if you have the pressings in front of you, needle drops are a ridiculous waste of time. I have a Van Gogh original in front of me and a very good facsimile produced several years later. However, instead of comparing them side by side, I'm going to photocopy them first, and compare the copies instead...?!
Are You Experienced Well, I listened to the chatter here and got the 2013 pressing of the UK mono and since it was a prince to good to pass up at Walmart the 2014 QRP pressing of the US stereo.
I get what you say Scott but please dont miss my main point, even if a certain self professed "pro" has muddied the waters. There is no reason what so ever for a comparison to be undertaken of these LPs. No what so ever. There is no reason what so ever for the introduction of yet another step. There is no reason to digitize this audio for a comparison. Or am I missing something here? What it comes down to, is there a difference between 2 LP pressings. Take a listen to the LPs. Simple process. Some may have a preference for one over another, fine. Others may not hear any difference, again fine. Go with what you feel is suitable to you but not on the basis of compared needledrops.
I just got the 2014 US stereo LP as a birthday present. It sounds better than the 1979 brown label Reprise record that I used to have, but the new record is a bit warped.
I don't think anyone ever addressed this post from 2017. I only bring it up as A) Others have suggested just getting the LP with Sterling stampers. And B) I believe in this thread! Allan's post refers to yet another US re-issue with Sterling stampers but it has RJ in the deadwax. So the 2010/2014 has: 88697623951-A STERLING 18763.1(3)... 88697623951-B STERLING 18763.2(3)... and the 2008 has: MCA2-11608-LP1A-1 RJ Sterling 17727.1 (3) MCA2-11608-LP1B-1 RJ Sterling 17727.2 (3) The 2008 was a 2LP -180g Back To Black set pressed at RTI and included both the UK & North American track lists. (there still might be other re-pressings of this) So all the Sterling cuts are not the same.
