The Velvet Forum

iareadatsun,

OK, this rip went much better. It's still not up to my standards, but it's much, much better than the previous rip. I've removed the old link, but I've also added "RevB" for 'revision B' to the file name of this one, just in case anyone downloaded the old one and they need a way to tell them apart.

Here's the new link:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/630 ... d_RevB.zip

Download, listen, enjoy! Apple Lossless AAC (.m4a) files, as with before.

leamanc wrote:iareadatsun,

OK, this rip went much better. It's still not up to my standards, but it's much, much better than the previous rip. I've removed the old link, but I've also added "RevB" for 'revision B' to the file name of this one, just in case anyone downloaded the old one and they need a way to tell them apart.

Here's the new link:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/630 ... d_RevB.zip

Download, listen, enjoy! Apple Lossless AAC (.m4a) files, as with before.

Great. Thank-you!

[I heard the last one. It sounded a bit like some good music trying escape the gravitational pull of a collapsing brown star. ].

Looking forward to this one later.

leamanc, I'm listening to this now, and it sounds great. Thanks a lot for the effort

iaredatsun, that was a very apt description of the first rip. It just sounded horrible.

DavidH, thanks! Glad you are enjoying it.

I've still got some adjusting to do with my new equipment, to get a vinyl rip as good as my mono 3rd, but this was pretty good practice.

leamanc wrote:iaredatsun, that was a very apt description of the first rip. It just sounded horrible.

DavidH, thanks! Glad you are enjoying it.

I've still got some adjusting to do with my new equipment, to get a vinyl rip as good as my mono 3rd, but this was pretty good practice.

The second one's much better! Many thanks. I think I can now hear what you were describing about the LP mastering on '4th'. Quite a different presentation. I can also hear details in songs that weren't there before. From the current rip you've done, I'd say a definite improvement.

Yes, the original 3rd rip you did still has an edge but I look forward to hearing more when you have fine tuned things to your taste.

I think this is the highest I have ever seen for a Mono WL/WH Yellow Label ... $1,525

http://www.ebay.com/itm/111069829956?ss ... 1423.l2649

alfredovu wrote:I think this is the highest I have ever seen for a Mono WL/WH Yellow Label ... $1,525

http://www.ebay.com/itm/111069829956?ss ... 1423.l2649

Alfredo, that does seem a bit high.

From looking at the pictures, it's obviously not as "mint" as the seller is claiming. Have a look at the back cover pic; the spine has been flattened out to the point where it has become a part of the back cover. The vinyl may be in better shape, but clearly this copy is nowhere near mint.

I forget who said it here, but mint really doesn't even exist for vinyl. NM is about the best you can hope for, especially on records 40-50 years old. Even if they're still sealed, years of storage have more than likely worn some of the inner sleeve into the grooves of the record, amongst other potential problems.

I have a promo copy of the 3rd album, which is in at least as good shape as this WL/WH promo, if not better. The 3rd album seemed to suffer from really poor distribution, and therefore should be more rare...think it's worth $1,500? I doubt it.

I also have a promo of Live at Max's Kansas City that I would truly call NM. Would that be worth at least $1,000? I think not again.

This seller got really lucky. "Mono torso" copies of the 1st album are probably the rarest of the rare (other than, say, an "All Tomorrow's Parties" 45 with picture sleeve), and they rarely command that kind of money.

leamanc wrote:

alfredovu wrote:I think this is the highest I have ever seen for a Mono WL/WH Yellow Label ... $1,525

http://www.ebay.com/itm/111069829956?ss ... 1423.l2649

Alfredo, that does seem a bit high.

From looking at the pictures, it's obviously not as "mint" as the seller is claiming. Have a look at the back cover pic; the spine has been flattened out to the point where it has become a part of the back cover. The vinyl may be in better shape, but clearly this copy is nowhere near mint.

I dunno - I've looked at it and I think that spine thing is just the way the paper has been printed and pasted/ folded onto the cardboard US style. I've seen that type of thing before on US sleeves.... ie - a slight misalignment.
The guy has over 12,000 feedback / 100%. I think he knows what he's doing.

I agree that mint vinyl doesn't really exist though. 'Mint' means perfect in every respect - and with vinyl that is virtually impossible.

bradski wrote:I dunno - I've looked at it and I think that spine thing is just the way the paper has been printed and pasted/ folded onto the cardboard US style. I've seen that type of thing before on US sleeves.... ie - a slight misalignment.
The guy has over 12,000 feedback / 100%. I think he knows what he's doing.

I agree that mint vinyl doesn't really exist though. 'Mint' means perfect in every respect - and with vinyl that is virtually impossible.

It is a little hard to argue with 100% positive feedback on 12,000 transactions. But just look at those pics again -- there's pretty noticeable ringwear on the front. Sure, it's a nice copy, but I think it devalues the word 'mint' when this guy describes it as 'mint minus' or whatever term he used. That looks like "VG" or "VG+" at best, to me. Maybe the vinyl is more 'minty', but we only get a picture of the record in the sleeve.

All this actually makes me feel better. When it comes time to sell off my vinyl, it should net a small fortune. Hopefully, it's my daughter selling it all off after I'm six feet under...and hopefully I never have need to sell it off while I'm still alive and kicking.

leamanc wrote:

bradski wrote:I dunno - I've looked at it and I think that spine thing is just the way the paper has been printed and pasted/ folded onto the cardboard US style. I've seen that type of thing before on US sleeves.... ie - a slight misalignment.
The guy has over 12,000 feedback / 100%. I think he knows what he's doing.

I agree that mint vinyl doesn't really exist though. 'Mint' means perfect in every respect - and with vinyl that is virtually impossible.

It is a little hard to argue with 100% positive feedback on 12,000 transactions. But just look at those pics again -- there's pretty noticeable ringwear on the front. Sure, it's a nice copy, but I think it devalues the word 'mint' when this guy describes it as 'mint minus' or whatever term he used. That looks like "VG" or "VG+" at best, to me. Maybe the vinyl is more 'minty', but we only get a picture of the record in the sleeve.

All this actually makes me feel better. When it comes time to sell off my vinyl, it should net a small fortune. Hopefully, it's my daughter selling it all off after I'm six feet under...and hopefully I never have need to sell it off while I'm still alive and kicking.

Sometimes those 100% feedbacks are deceptive on eBay. In this guy's case his 100% seems fair BUT he has negatives and neutrals and complaints. Anyone who wants to double check seller (or buyer) feedback go to http://toolhaus.org then put the sellers name and click "Received by" you get a much more accurate review.