Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
i think the adore vinyl is still in print. i still see it available in many places, new, for about $20.
and it doesn’t sound terrible. what a silly thing to say.
bootlegs: no. never. not on cd, and not on vinyl.
cassettes: not really. i have some, but i’m not really looking for anything. this format is a bit crappy.
vhs: idem.minidisc: nope. i don’t have any, and i wouldn’t be able to play them.
dvds: i have the standard releases, and then some extra stuff, but i’m not sure if this could be considered \"collecting\".
vinyl: yes! everything.
cds: everything released under the name of sp.
compilation cds with sp tracks, and side projects: also interested, but less. compilation cds with exclusive tracks are a must, but i don’t want to start to collect every possible compilation cd with an sp track on it.
i really dislike those (simple) \"made in england\" and \"promo\" stickers. anyone with a sticker-machine could make those. and i just can’t believe they were added by the record company.
Benway.This is the one you got, right.
http://www.spfreaks.com/default.aspx?pa … S&item=168
Its pretty cool, i also own it, but the remixes sucks i think.
[/quote:jd050gte]
I was convinced this was a US promo.I see the one in the collection has a "Made in England" sticker, but should we really believe that silly sticker? Who puts those stickers on the cds anyway? Definitely not the record company.
😀 Cool, start the thread!
[/quote:h0lqubn6]
I’ll do it as soon as I have at least one picture.In the mean time, everyone can start thinking about where to make pictures and maybe already make some, so that the thread will get a good start once it’s been created.
i don’t know flat stanley.
wikipedia to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_StanleyBUMP!
buy the t-shirt, everyone! i have one and it is awesome.
suggestion: \"spfreaks.com conquers the world\" thread.
in this thread, we post pictures of ourselves (or others) wearing the spfreaks t-shirt in as many different towns and cities as possible.make one from your hometown, but also take your spfreaks.com t-shirt with you everytime you go away, and don’t forget to make the picture! if you can, make the picture in front of a landmark, so it’s easy for everyone to recognize where it’s taken. (for example, if you’re in paris, go stand in front of the eiffel tower or the notre dame, instead of making the picture in front of a closed down second hand toilet paper store.)
another nice one would be a picture in front of the venue everytime you go to a smashing pumpkins concert.
we could also try to get on a picture with someone famous, while wearing the spfreaks t-shirt.basically we’d be making a big \"spfreaks.com was there\" gallery. what do you think?
This seller is freaking me out with the shit they are selling.[/quote:33m91slc]
yeah, it’s insane.would it be someone we know?
Same thing happens with the cds: they all say \"(P) & (C) 1994 Virgin Records America Inc.\", which I believe is correct information. The (P) and (C) don’t necessarily match with the local release date.
Except for the Japanese releases, no cd mentions the actual release date or year.
So for these cds a seller would also be tricked into writing that they are 1994 releases.
Hmmm… I didn’t know (or already forgot) that the UK version of PI was released in ’96. But I assume spfc.org must have its reasons to list it like that.
Anyway, the seller listed it as a 1994 release, because that’s all he can see on the artwork: \"(P) & (C) 1994 Virgin Records\"
If you only have the record (and don’t check spfc.org), then it’s normal to conclude that it’s a 1994 release.what ’96 pressing are you talking about?
i thought there were only two ’94 versions of pisces iscariot: the yellow US vinyl and the black UK vinyl.
looks like mayonaise’s copy isn’t a premaster after all.
i now believe her cd contains the same audio as eazye’s cd, but the files she first sent me were encoded in WMA. apparently this changes the wave form a lot, and makes it look like there’s no clipping going on.
i have always been convinced that encoding audio to mp3 or wma didn’t change this, but i was wrong.gee, i don’t really know too much about this, to be honest.
here’s a wiki page about clipping: [url:sci45tp7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipping_(audio)[/url:sci45tp7]you can hear those highest peaks. but they get rid of them so they can increase the overall volume of the cd. chopped off peaks result in an unpleasant sound. and you lose some of the information.
they, in music in general, have been doing this systematically for a while now, and it gets worse. i think it’s about being the loudest. louder songs get more attention of the listener.
edit: wiki page about this issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_wari think it’s a real shame the pumpkins also do this. (this happens on every billy corgan release since machina. not sure about adore.)
they go through all the effort of recording all of zeitgeist in analog, but then they release it on cd, massacred like this. i wonder what the point of recording in analog is then.look, i made this:
<a href="http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=eydwoifzifg&thumb=5:2jzp2y7h]
[/url:2jzp2y7h”>i compared the first 90 seconds of the everlasting gaze. (click image to see bigger versions.)
it looks like they started with mayonaise’s copy, then cut off the highest peaks (eazye121’s copy), and then made everything louder (commercial release).
Here you go Coolio
[url:1feb4ee8]http://www.sendspace.com/file/zg6dxo[/url:1feb4ee8][/quote:1feb4ee8]
Thanks a lot. Like you already expected, this is not the same audio as on mayonaise’s cd. It’s not identical to the commercial release either, but it doesn’t look like what we’re looking for.
[/quote:2jermin5]
