Anyone ordering the SRV box set?

Nope. Will let a buddy of mine absorb that one and I'm sure I'll hear it plenty at his place. Not a big SRV fan myself though I do appreciate his talent.
 
Mike

I've got a couple of the Sundazed reissues and to my ears they aren't that great. I'm not sure the original production on those sets were that great to start with. If Bob or whoever at Sterling was able to remix them then that is good, but $45 an LP on 33rpm discs is a bit much for me.
 
It is definitely pricey...but I'm a big SRV fan. Think I'll pull the trigger. 33 1/3 vs 45 rpm...that is the question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm a big SRV fan (the greatest blues guitarist ever in my opinion), but I won't be ordering this box set. Nice package and everything, but it's reissued vinyl which is a dealbreaker to me and undoubtedly pressed from highly compressed digital source, so I already know I would not like the sound personally. Weight has nothing to do with sound quality in my view alone. (Although I do admit that I hate those super thin records one runs into from time to time). There are the SACDs, but I personally find his regular CDs to be fine. Plus, I can't justify 3 digit prices for vinyl, any vinyl or a CD for that matter. For that money they should have left out the 24 page book and made the box covered in leather or faux leather, that would have been even cooler. That said, if one has the means and wants one of these and isn't bothered by reissued vinyl, then go for it! It doesn't get any better than SRV.
 
My understanding is that these are pressed from the original tapes. No?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mike said:
It is definitely pricey...but I'm a big SRV fan. Think I'll pull the trigger. 33 1/3 vs 45 rpm...that is the question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's actually a tough one. Some say 45rpm sounds better than 33.3 rpm for some reason. To me, it's pretty much the same except comparing 45rpm singles to 33.3 LPs, I prefer the 33.3, but that's my ears and does not detract from or solve the question, because I have no real issue with either.
 
Mike said:
My understanding is that these are pressed from the original tapes. No?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not sure. If they were recorded analog in the first place then that makes for a better pressing by nature. However, there is the quality of the vinyl to consider. Most record plants these days (even the ones pumping out the high-end stuff) use cheap quality vinyl and that effects the sound a lot as well. You can have a great master, but pressed to poor quality vinyl it won't sound good at all.
 
They were analog in the first place, the only issue is the quality of the original analog mixing. I have owned all of these albums on CD for years and they sound great in the car played loud. When I bought the Sundazed reissues on vinyl they were not as pleasing. I am too a big SRV fan, but I don't think the quality of the original recordings is that great, because he was a relative "nobody" at the point many of these albums were first produced and didn't get the top level production people to start with.
 
Some test pressings of these albums were making the rounds with Chad at last year's AXPONA in Chicago, and I have to say that they sounded absolutely phenomenal! You can see details about the process used in their mastering along with some user comments on the Acoustic Sounds site at the first link provided in the original post of this thread.
 
Jack said:
They were analog in the first place, the only issue is the quality of the original analog mixing. I have owned all of these albums on CD for years and they sound great in the car played loud. When I bought the Sundazed reissues on vinyl they were not as pleasing. I am too a big SRV fan, but I don't think the quality of the original recordings is that great, because he was a relative "nobody" at the point many of these albums were first produced and didn't get the top level production people to start with.
Click to expand...

And that there is a shame. Sounds like a Neil Young situation. I understand that some of the repressings of Neil's stuff you can hear the damage to the master tapes.
 
MusicDirector said:
Not sure. If they were recorded analog in the first place then that makes for a better pressing by nature. However, there is the quality of the vinyl to consider. Most record plants these days (even the ones pumping out the high-end stuff) use cheap quality vinyl and that effects the sound a lot as well. You can have a great master, but pressed to poor quality vinyl it won't sound good at all.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read anything about QRP and Sterling Sound, etc.? Suggest you do before making any further comments about the reissue and pressing quality.
 
Mike said:
My understanding is that these are pressed from the original tapes. No?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

As far as I know. I have the 45 rpm test pressing and it's pretty good, though like most rock recordings, somewhat variable.
 
MusicDirector said:
That's actually a tough one. Some say 45rpm sounds better than 33.3 rpm for some reason. To me, it's pretty much the same except comparing 45rpm singles to 33.3 LPs, I prefer the 33.3, but that's my ears and does not detract from or solve the question, because I have no real issue with either.
Click to expand...

That's not even debateable. There's solid measurements to show why the 45 rpm 12 inch sounds better than the 33 rpm since the '60s.
 
Myles B. Astor said:
That's not even debateable. There's solid measurements to show why the 45 rpm 12 inch sounds better than the 33 rpm since the '60s.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see, so based on the 3 posts you just presented, you have the right to state your opinion based on the experience with your ears claiming it as official word, but I am not allowed to post what I clearly state as only my opinion? Do you know what ad-homonym is?
I was not arguing the point of 33.3 vs 45, I just stated that I find it a hard cipher and personally am fine with either one for the most part. I have some T-Bone Burnett LPs that are 45 RPM and some that are 33.3 RPM and I can't favor one over the other, both sound extremely good to me. Perhaps that may be something to do with the ability of the producer?
 
I love Stevie Ray Vaughan; I got all his CDs, and albums (LPs). :)

_____________

​


* The twelve 45rpm LPs should be awesome! ...From the analog master tapes, right on!
If you luv the guy, and the best sound, that should be a no-brainer. ...If you have the right ingredients (TT and all) of course.
 
NorthStar said:
I love Stevie Ray Vaughan; I got all his CDs, and albums (LPs). :)

_____________

​


* The twelve 45rpm LPs should be awesome! ...From the analog master tapes, right on!
If you luv the guy, and the best sound, that should be a no-brainer. ...If you have the right ingredients (TT and all) of course.
Click to expand...


Any video of SRV is cool. I have his concert at the El Macambo on DVD that is just as delightful to watch the 60th time as it is the first.
Hmm, I guess I don't like him as much as I thought because I just have all his CDs and DVDs, but refuse to get this box set of vinyl.
For some of us.....correction, make that only me, a $250+ box set of vinyl is NOT a no brainer as it can take months to come up with that scratch and it comes down to a choice between a roof over your head, food in the table and petrol in the car or a box set of new vinyl.

~Eric
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top