Flatty's turntable bake off...

then sue engineers who were to high on drugs that they lost most of the natural high fqz;s and messed most of famous albums specially that they had to use yamaha ns10's as near field mons.
nando.

 

Nando everyone in the industry was high in those days. The fun was the clash between those on uppers and those on downers, in the studio that created some pretty freakish results.

Listen the UK has always been high on something, 18th century Gin shops, late 19th century Laudanum, 10% opium, bought across the counter. And youth today are much worse than us lot - peace and love, man - we thought we were changing the world :MILD:

My dad smoked like a bonfire, drunk like a fish and lived to 96. Look at Keith Richards for heaven sake, how can the guy be still alive he is a walking pharmacy.

Anyway NS10s are a fairly modern (in my terms) aberration.

 

I've often fancied trying a set of Yamaha monitors...are you saying I would need to smoke to appreciate them? :MILD::SLEEP:

 

No you need to be deaf or dead to appreciate them.

Alan we are talking about the NS10 squawk boxes every studio had sitting on the desks, I think you are referng to NS1000s a totally different fettle of kish.

 

Ah - I hope never to qualify then.

On the face of it that is strange, if a lot of music was mixed & mastered on them, they might seem a natural choice for home hifi? Spoken as someone who has never heard them, you understand...

PS, you have a PM back 'home'.

 

that richard make me laugh so much, that i will not go deaf, ha,ha,
nando, p.s the weed in those days was natural.

 

Yes, it is the other kishes I had in mind really.

 

They weren't so much mastered on them as qualified on them. Before them some studios had car speakers, some had amstrad boxes. The point is that they snear at the punter and see him as an owner of a record player, or a midi or rack system, they used the NS10 to make sure it sounded OK on the 90% of crap it was going to be listened to on.

The true studio masters monitors were normally in the studio itself or in the corners of the control room and were bloody great JBL, Altec or Tannoys.

 

I think the Yams were to represent typical home hi-fi while little Auratones were used to represent typical home 'low-fi' and the car systems of the day.

The studio I worked at (weekends as a boy) had Auratones and Tannoys only.
IIRC the Tannoys were LRMs.

All driven by the...ahem...... Quad 405

That was an East London studio mostly doing Reggae, so if anyone wants to talk weed
Easy Street Studios off the Old Bethnal Green Rd, sadly now long bulldozed
Most famous reggae artist from ES was probably Carol Thompson. I made her tea, wound the tapes and tested her mic. Lucky me!

 

Mmmmm, testing her mic - now, now, naughty boy, I hope she! was appreciative.

I and I, Ras Tafari. :MILD:

 

Is this what you guys call "Thread Derailment ?"

 

And here is the lovely lady.

Easy Street also recorded Black Slate - you might remember 'Amigo'

Happy days

 

Shhhh.... this is positive derailment
It was all going tits-up earlier!

But both Carol Thompson & Black Slate are on vinyl so I could give you needledrops.... so sort of on topic

 

in island we did use jbl as well as altec langsin's, but tannoy's were the prereable ones, as we dealt with mainly reggae music, robert palmer had a pair of buckinhams, we also used 405's but mainly amcrom (crown) dc 300 a's
nando.

 

Does anyone know what was what yet?

 

what was what?

 

No I think we have to wait until Monday as the old poll was closed and replaced with version 2.

The file levels were different it seems.
I don't think a new poll was required for that, I just used that thing on the amp marked 'volume' to match playback levels

I thought the first poll was fine for the purpose of the test, even though one deck sounded obviously slow and unstable.
I think I read that this recording had some speed correction applied for the second test which is a real no-no IMO.
Correct speed and stability are fundamental - base camp for a TT and anything that cannot do that deserves to be slated and placed bottom surely?

Still good that we have the files and that people went to the effort of making the recordings. It is early days for this sort of thing and consistency should improve.

 

Could we be having some manipulation

 

No I don't think so - other than what was TT no 4 in the first poll being sped-up.
As I said, quite wrong IMO but nothing to get in a flap about. The first poll is fine and has all the information needed.

 

Definitely, ....... but whether there is intention to deceive is a different question.

I can see no good reason to digitally alter the apparent playback speed. Surely these recordings were meant to represent the comparative performances of the various record players.

What's the point, or the object, of digitally altering some of them to make them sound similar.

I think the whole thing has been discredited.

JC.