HI- I'm not a hi- fi buff so I'm slightly out of my debt here.

Does anybody on this forum listen to the Rats material on vinyl rather than cd and notice it it sounds better or more "authentic. Again I'm no expert but listening to say In the Long Grass on CD it can seem overloaded with so much going on and slightly cold.

Most bands nowadays offer a vinyl version of the album and a lot of dance artists and those generally in the know say that vinyl is a more authentic medium with a better range and will sound less cold and clinical than cd.

I know its all down to proper vinyl pressings too. There are some interesting features on vinyl versus cd on Youtube.

Maybe it's a case of false memory but I remember liking In The Long Grass better on vinyl in the old days. I don't have a record player at the moment but everytime I see a vinyl album I suspect in may be a better listen than the cd or mp3 version. There seems to be more care put into its production and you can hug vinyl too!

noelindublin · Loudmouth

Rats better on vinyl or cd?

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

noelindublin wrote:
Does anybody on this forum listen to the Rats material on vinyl rather than cd and notice it it sounds better or more "authentic. Again I'm no expert but listening to say In the Long Grass on CD it can seem overloaded with so much going on and slightly cold.

über-nerd alert on this post......

I tend to listen to the vinyl version of The Boomtown Rats, A Tonic for the Troops and In The Long Grass as they all sound a lot better. With The Boomtown Rats, Joey is slower and the is no wobble on I can Make It If You Can. I have three vinyl copies of Tonic, the best is probably the Colombia version with Mary & Joey replacing Can't Stop & Normal People. And I agree with you on In The Long Grass (and the version of Dave on the LP is the single version on the CD)!

wrt TFAOS and Mondo, the pressings I have are both pretty poor, they are more like flexi discs. Fall Down is impossible to listen to thanks to the groove cramming and Surfacing can skate at points. Apparently the Colombia versions are better pressings (and in the case of Mondo, a different album), but I don't have them, although I have the Colombia CDs which I generally prefer to the remasters.

The Columbia versions are better as the runs were smaller, so the pressing is most likely off the original acetate. Also my first Tonic is from a more limited press than latter versions which probably sound as bad as Surfacing. However, the Japanese pressings are meant to be top-notch, but I don't have them.

V Deep I don't listen to much, so CD/MP3 is my preference as I can edit out the tracks I like less.

Also I much prefer the 7"/12" mixes of many of the songs and listen to them a lot on vinyl (Mondays is far better abridged without the reprise). Also very handy for the B-sides. The 12" Someone's Looking sounds a lot better than the LP.

I would like the US version of In The Long Grass, but never see it for sale. That along with Different Class and This Is Hardcore are what I scour charity shops for.

noelindublin · Loudmouth

Thanks for your interest. As I said already I'm no hi fi buff but there is just so much stuff out there about vinyl versus cd never mind mp3.

I'd imagine that top twenty albums were mass produced so the quality would not be too good. Aren't they supposed to weigh 180 grams if they're "proper " releases.

Sometimes even the headphones used to listen to music can affect the sound but I'm not on a holy grail search for the ultimate listening experience.

Anyway the indie kids have retained a liking for vinyl but a lot of the time its just about the convenience of listening- in Japan they have hi fi on their heads while they tidy the tides - can you imagine that!

BTR · Tonight

Hi-fi's, headphones, car stereos etc. have speakers that colour music by artificially boosting low and high frequencies - so regardless of vinyl or CD you are not really hearing the music as is was supposed to be heard.

The actual music is mixed and mastered on monitors (speakers) in a studio with a much flatter frequency response.

The recording industry standard used to be Yamaha NS10m monitors. However, Yamaha stopped making them years ago and they are now a collectors item.

You can get a copy called SN10 and they cost less than £100 a pair but you need an amp to power them. I would really like to know how good the copies are.

http://www.studiospares.com/studio-monitors/studiospares-sn10-nearfield-monitors-pair/invt/248000/

I write some music and want some good studio monitors so that I can get the levels etc. right for songs. I know a guy that has had some top 10 hits and does remixes. He recommended Mackie HR824 MKII monitors.

I went into a musical instrument shop to test some Mackie HR824 MKII studio monitors. They are powered so don't need a separate amp. By chance the shop had them connected up to an ipod that had Bommtown Rats songs on it.

I had a listen to some Rats songs and the difference really blew me away. Even though I had heard the songs so many times before and was only listening to mp3s via an ipod, I could clearly hear things in the Rats music that I had never heard before. The detail and clarity was astonishing. I would really love a pair of those monitors but they are about £900 per pair. If I had them then I think that I could get a lot closer to reproducing the Boomtown Rats sound.

noelindublin · Loudmouth

BTR wrote:

Hi-fi's, headphones, car stereos etc. have speakers that colour music by artificially boosting low and high frequencies - so regardless of vinyl or CD you are not really hearing the music as is was supposed to be heard.

The actual music is mixed and mastered on monitors (speakers) in a studio with a much flatter frequency response.

The recording industry standard used to be Yamaha NS10m monitors. However, Yamaha stopped making them years ago and they are now a collectors item.

You can get a copy called SN10 and they cost less than £100 a pair but you need an amp to power them. I would really like to know how good the copies are.

http://www.studiospares.com/studio-monitors/studiospares-sn10-nearfield-monitors-pair/invt/248000/

I write some music and want some good studio monitors so that I can get the levels etc. right for songs. I know a guy that has had some top 10 hits and does remixes. He recommended Mackie HR824 MKII monitors.

I went into a musical instrument shop to test some Mackie HR824 MKII studio monitors. They are powered so don't need a separate amp. By chance the shop had them connected up to an ipod that had Bommtown Rats songs on it.

I had a listen to some Rats songs and the difference really blew me away. , I could clearly hear Even though I had heard the songs so many times before and was only listening to mp3s via an ipod things in the Rats music that I had never heard before. The detail and clarity was astonishing. I would really love a pair of those monitors but they are about £900 per pair. If I had them then I think that I could get a lot closer to reproducing the Boomtown Rats sound.

I suppose all media will, as you say,offer a version of the original and people really into hi fidelity are on a constant search for perfection- otherwise What Hi Fi or whatever the title is would be out of business like those muscle mags offering the perfect six pack stomach every month.

There are loads of "substances" which might make one hear the Rats music in a new light from magic mushrooms to coca powder to ecstasy but that straying away from the point about Yamaha monitors!

Anyway its interesting about hi fi when so many just like their simple ipods.

BTR · Tonight

If people want to hear music as it was intended then top hi-fi gear is a bit of a waste of money.

The Yamaha NS10m monitors were used because if a mix sounded good on them then it would sound good on anything. Pair of SN10 monitors for less than £100 and an Alesis RA 150 amplifier for £150. Or you can get Yamaha HS80m monitors for about £350 per pair and they don't need a separate amp.

The Mackie HR824's are THX certified so perfect for watching movies at home to hear audio just as it was intended to be heard. I was quite shocked at how good they were when listening to the Rats music and I have been back to the shop a few times. Anyone fancy buying me a pair?

noelindublin · Loudmouth

BTR wrote:

If people want to hear music as it was intended then top hi-fi gear is a bit of a waste of money.

The Yamaha NS10m monitors were used because if a mix sounded good on them then it would sound good on anything. Pair of SN10 monitors for less than £100 and an Alesis RA 150 amplifier for £150. Or you can get Yamaha HS80m monitors for about £350 per pair and they don't need a separate amp.

The Mackie HR824's are THX certified so perfect for watching movies at home to hear audio just as it was intended to be heard. I was quite shocked at how good they were when listening to the Rats music and I have been back to the shop a few times. Anyone fancy buying me a pair?

Geldof always said the songs were made to sound good on the radio- happy-day memories of hearing the Rats on transistor radios back in the day, so that's a long way from Yamaha NS 10 monitors.

I'm not sure what you mean by "If people want to hear music as it was intended"
the punk law was Loud and Fast Rules.

BTR · Tonight

All records by all bands were mixed to sound good for the radio because that was how most people would hear the recorded songs for the first time. The Rats records from Surfacing onwards probably all used NS10m's in the studio to check the final mix.

A lot of people would say that NS10's were rubbish because they don't make music sound nice - but that is precisely why they were used. They were used so that the studio had a good idea of what the music would sound like on basic transistor radios etc. The monitors lacked a bit of bass - much like a song broadcast on MW to a transistor radio. A band would want to make sure that people could hear a good audio mix of their song on the radio regardless of the standard of equipment people were listening with.

There was no point releasing a record if it only sounded good to the people with the very best hi-fi equipment. Therefore the studio made sure that it sounded as good as possible on poor equipment.

It was really hard work for a producer to make a song sound good on the NS10's - so they knew that if the song sounded good on them then it would be good on anything.

For a while, dance hits with a deep bass sound had one audio mix given to radio stations and a different mix for night clubs - because you would only be able to hear the deep bass in a night club.

-- Edited by BTR on Tuesday 28th of September 2010 04:45:34 PM

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

noelindublin wrote:

BTR wrote:
If people want to hear music as it was intended then top hi-fi gear is a bit of a waste of money.

The Yamaha NS10m monitors were used because if a mix sounded good on them then it would sound good on anything. Pair of SN10 monitors for less than £100 and an Alesis RA 150 amplifier for £150. Or you can get Yamaha HS80m monitors for about £350 per pair and they don't need a separate amp.

The Mackie HR824's are THX certified so perfect for watching movies at home to hear audio just as it was intended to be heard. I was quite shocked at how good they were when listening to the Rats music and I have been back to the shop a few times. Anyone fancy buying me a pair?
Geldof always said the songs were made to sound good on the radio- happy-day memories of hearing the Rats on transistor radios back in the day, so that's a long way from Yamaha NS 10 monitors.

I'm not sure what you mean by "If people want to hear music as it was intended"
the punk law was Loud and Fast Rules.

The Rats were mixed with a little too much treble (Visconti and Crowe have both mentioned this), and the bright sound was down to Geldof wanting it to sound good on a bog standard radio. I have a number of records that sound great on my hi-fi, yet on the radio make no impact at all.

As for the monitors, I would be surprised if they made vinyl sound much better, they would probably just expose it even more. Vinyl is essentially a flawed reproduction with poor stereo separation, a limited range of frequencies, noise and it is susceptible to warping, scratches, dust and all sorts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record#Vinyl_quality But it sounds warmer and can be less harsh than CDs. I have a good Sony bitstream CD player which is less harsh, but these days I end up listening mostly to the music on my phone.

The other great thing about vinyl is when you get old and your eyes get bad you can still see whose record you're playing!

Nowadays I buy vinyl and listen to everything else on Spotify.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

noelindublin wrote:
I'd imagine that top twenty albums were mass produced so the quality would not be too good. Aren't they supposed to weigh 180 grams if they're "proper " releases.

I don't know exactly what 180g vinyl is! I have two thoughts

i) It is denser, or
ii) It is thicker

The overall effect should be that it is closer to what is truly intended. Most LPs these days are 180g. http://tenwatts.blogspot.com/2009/01/180-grams.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Surfacing & Mondo were probably 120g low grade recycled vinyl made with 5th generation stampers by the time yours was pressed and hence didn't sound too good. A Tonic for the Troops was probably a little better as it sold over a longer period so the pressing runs weren't as large. For In The Long Grass they probably pressed them all with the same stamper, so it sounds good!

BTR · Tonight

Hey you won't believe this...! My guess was good. I have just found out on the internet that the person who started the craze for studios using Yamaha NS10m monitors was Bob Clearmountain. Bob Clearmountain mixed the Boomtown Rats Long Grass album. He also uses Mackie HR824 MKII monitors.

noelindublin · Loudmouth

I'm happy enough listening to music on cd with a pretty good sony cd player bitstream and all.

All this talk of monitors and vinyl is pretty interesting though.

I had a taped interview with Geldof,done by BP Fallon on Irish radio where he says that Bob Clearmountain was a Rats fan and came up to Geldof after one of the Rats shows. Geldof had no idea who Clearmountain was and only later realised that Clearmountain's name was popping up all over the place as a music mixer on loads of records.

Geldof said that BC made a "Silk purse out of a cows ear", referring to the great
production/ mixing of In the Long Grass, which is a lovely testament.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Having since got the US Long Grass, it is a good pressing.

manatthetop · In the Long Grass

Regarding this issue. I think it's all down to whatever sound system you have. I have 3 different one's and the Lps/cds sound different on each one. On one of the sound system's I have it plays the records really well you hear everything, Just seem to come at you tenfold. but I have to say the reissued cds of 2005 Are in my opinion messed about with just that little bit too much. As has been pointed out B4 by other's and myself the US cds that came out in 87 are a much better sound. I myself would normally play them cds over the reissued one's.