Hot Stampers (Better Records) - One more question...

Could it be that some are afraid that they would spend 500 bucks on an lp and then find out it really is the best sounding version of that album theyve ever heard? Would suck to pay the money to prove one thing only to find out another.

And if you did find out it was the best sounding version youve ever heard, would you keep it or return it regardless?

The questions may not be answerable until one dives in. Yet who is willing to lay $1500-2000 down on a couple or three Better Records lps to find out? Tom accepts returns, right?

Put your money where your mouths are. Drop some cold hard cash, make some sound clips and share them with us. If one is certain that Tom is full of it, then there is no risk, right?


*crickets*


Yeaaah, me neither.

 

Not joking at all. But I see your point that it is certainly not for everyone. In that case it makes sense to pay a premium for the "Hot Stamper".

For me the buying/selling is part of the fun of collecting.. I am just glad I no longer sell records to local stores for pennies on the dollar..

 

Have you actually read anything I’ve written in this thread?

Just because he or anyone wants to believe a dog is horse, it’s not. It’s a dog. And what Tom Port provides is a service no matter what he or anybody thinks. Now whether he or anyone thinks the service is worth the cost Port charges is an entirely different question. And certainly a valid one - to which the vast majority of people clearly answer “no”.

But what I was actually calling him stubborn about is his false assumption all records from the same cut sound the same (all other things equal). Anyone who has ever tested a few records can tell you there are differences.

 

I get your point. I’m personally not afraid of it. Having done similar tests myself on a smaller scale, I have no doubt there are small, but appreciable, differences. What I don’t know is if Port’s opinion and mine align, but they certainly could. But even if they did, I can’t think of a single album where the differences are going to be worth the premium to me.

I know I would end up returning the album regardless and I just don’t feel like putting him and me through the pointless exercise.

But that’s me. Other’s value judgements aren’t the same as mine.

 

Fair question.

 

he doesn’t say anything and I’d bet all the money I have that it’s the OJC....an original copy would be worth far, far, far more than that....you can’t find an original anywhere....all he would need to do is either show the spine or a pic of label which he won’t do....

 

Does he have a discogs or ebay store? Surely he must be selling the rejects somewhere. Then you can see what he sells to know what NOT to buy!

 

For the eleventy billionth time, there’s no need to. He’s not selling labels or matrices or covers. He’s selling sound. His customers aren’t collectors; they’re audiophiles and they believe in his ear. Re-sale value means nothing to them.

He’s not targeting folks like you. Nor me because I’d like to get his years of research for nothing.

 

Currently I don’t think so. Years ago I think he sold stuff on ebay, but IIRC it was all old DCC stock he had bought.

Many years ago - before ebay hid bidder names and before the good pressings/matrices were commonly known for many albums - I ran across his handle bidding for albums. He was not a last minute sniper type near as I could tell. I got a few of those LPs. All were good pressings IIRC. One I specifically recall was a WLP of Long Player.

LA is as good a spot as any for buying/selling used vinyl. I don’t know this for a fact but I would guess he knows the L.A. dealers/shops pretty well and just sells rejects (perhaps at a small loss) since most vinyl buyers are actually not particularly discerning and would be perfectly happy with a slightly less than hot copy of Goats Head Soup.

 

do you know how ridiculous that sounds.....the OJC of that record sounds great, I have that copy so I know this...I paid $22.00

it’s not the mono version because there would be a little square on the lower left corner.....an original copy is next to impossible to find....and for the last time I will say that a properly kept OJC of this record sounds the same as any other well kept copy....there is no such thing as one that sticks out unless it’s some kind of white label promo or test press....


F U G A S I

 

Sure. Very likely an OJC...didn’t it also have a Jazzland label?

It’s not at all implausible an OJC copy sounds great and/or better than an original pressing.

 

Congratulations. We all have great copies of records we’ve paid not much for. I have no doubt somebody out there bought a used OJC copy for a fraction of what you paid and thinks paying $22 for an OJC is laughable. It’s all relative.

And nothing you write precludes the notion his hot stamper copy could be even greater than your great copy...

 

I think the issue that I'm having with your argument is that you won't/can't acknowledge that releases collectively perceived as "bad" can sometimes sound better than original pressings or what everyone says is "the best"?

I've been collecting since early 1980's and I've heard it many, many times. And I do appreciate if you haven't discovered this dynamic for yourself, but when people like Steve Hoffman (and many, many others) acknowledge this fact it just feels like something else is at play here?

Thus the push back in this string.

Port has made a business on the idea that vinyl is chaotic and messy! I think that's pretty cool actually...

And BTW.. I do like your comments. Jazz collectors are almost always tenacious! Makes for fun exchanges..

 

And this article is well worth a read

Pet Sounds: AP vs Hot Stamper

Pet Sounds: Analogue Productions Takes on the Hot Stamper – The Broken Record

 

If anyone here has bought the recently sold $599.99 Who Live at Leeds or the $699.00 After the Gold Rush, all I can say is Wow, OMG, and please report back.

 

It's more of a rhetorical question, I'm not looking to buy.

 

That site seems to either very much support Hot Stamper or is from them.

 

As far as I can tell he's just a BR customer...The article is pretty measured

 

its not just in that one article.

 

Maybe I’m missing it, but I can’t even tell if he’s comparing the stereo mix on the AP to the stereo mix or the mono mix.

The former is simply comparing two relatively recent versions of relatively recent digital mix on vinyl.

The latter is pointless.

 

This comparison is nonsense. The only AAA Pet Sounds is the original Mono mix. Stereo versions were electronically enhanced from mono. AP used a later stereo mix which was almost certainly created using digital equipment (first mixed to stereo in the 90s for CD). Is he comparing AP to the mono or an electronically processed stereo? I'm no sure from this review frankly. Master tape sound is the mono mix as used for the DCC. Anyway it's not that great a sounding record in any version.

 

Not quite correct. There are more recent pressings of the digital true stereo mix other than the AP. Which is what I wrote in the post above yours...

 

I was under the impression that album was recorded in mono only....His version of specters “wall of sound”

didn’t they coble together a stereo mix from the mono tapes....? Which would need some digital help making

the only true AAA the mono mix....
This is what I thought was said...and I remember a lengthy conversation about that...

 

Virtually nothing was “recorded” in mono only after the late 50s.

It was multi-tracked, but only mixed to mono originally. His version of Spector, I suppose. I probably have some of the details a little wrong, but IIRC basically the stereo mix was done (digitally - so you are correct, only the mono can be all AAA) in the late 90s and, I think, has been redone at least once when some missing parts were found. Any stereo version before that was duophonic (or some sort of fake stereo from the mono mix).

I’ve never been a huge fan of the album, so unlike many, I have no particular emotional attachment to the mono mix - and I actually prefer the stereo mix. But I find the MFSL stereo SACD to be too soft for my liking; I actually prefer the Capital CD from ‘97 or whatever it was.

There’s even a 5.1 mix of Pet Sounds - presumably from the same multis, stems and bounces they used to construct the stereo mix.

I’ve never heard the stereo mix on vinyl.

 

That isn't the issue, it is whether that web site delivers good value for the money....
I haven't tried it so I don't know... Im skeptical, and not much for throwing money away