Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[mppix]

You have made things very difficult by bringing steady state room curves into this, but I'll try to wade through it.

Misrepresentation by you, pure and simple.

1. I have stated many times that research shows the preferred summed bass response curve tends to vary in level between individual listeners, 'to taste'. (I have also repeatedly stated (from Toole) that listeners are much more uniform in their preference for extended bass and smooth bass response...the variation relates to preferred level.)
2. All the studies on room curves, including the one you mention above, are controlled listening tests. Not once, ever, have I said or implied that controlled listening tests are "all a result of cognitive bias". What were you thinking when you wrote the bolded part above? It's a ridiculous misrepresentation of my argument.
3. As you will see below, that graph is not interpreted by Toole the same way as you do.

Don't be condescending. You really should cut that sort of crap out.

The only person doing any misrepresenting here is you, but I assume it is accidental.

You do understand that Toole's explanation of Fig 12.7 was that listeners are using different listening levels in the experiments, so they are compensating for Fletcher-Munson equal-loudness contours? That's not what you seem to think 12.7 is saying...

I'm talking about colouration, and so was board. We both wrote the word, clear as day. See what Toole and Olive say about preferences for coloured vs uncoloured sound... it won't be any different to what I say. Uncoloured is preferred.

And the curves you are referencing are not the frequency response of the direct sound ie first-arrival sound. You mention this, yet ignore the ramifications:-

- Floyd Toole on ASR, link​

Axo, let's bring your excursion into room curves back to a discussion of cartridge response variations. Let's say you have a nice hifi system and you have got it to sound right to you with neutral sources, ie digital or a neutral cartridge. (The room curve is whatever it is.) Now throw in a highly-rated exotic cartridge that costs 10x either your neutral cartridge or your digital player's value, but just happens to have a clearly audibly non-neutral frequency response. What are the chances that you will prefer the exotic in a controlled listening test with a good range of program material? Very low obviously, because it is screwing up your good sound. But in sighted listening tests? Well, I assure you, that's completely different! And the difference is, dare I say it, driven by cognitive bias. Oops, I said it again.

This has been my whole point the whole time.

Any counter-argument along the lines of, "what about when the original system is deficient in FR in a way that the non-flat cartridge compensates?", is kind of trite. A cheap cart could be found that would do that too, but I bet the Koetsu or Kleos lover isn't hunting them down, and I bet in a sighted test they wouldn't say it sounds the same. Plus, there are plenty of exotic carts with an essentially flat FR...what then?

Guys, there is an elephant in the room, and when I say the elephant smell in the room is driven by the presence of an elephant, you are poo-pooing my argument and saying maybe someone is wearing elephant-smell deodorant!

This sort of discussion would benefit from basic acknowledgements when probabilistic and deterministic results are invoked. For probabilistic results, it is to be expected that a subset of samples ("listeners") will diverge from the rule. It is also quite scientific to intentionally violate existing theories to gain new insights. It does not matter if this is for personal study or to advance the field. People build all sorts of systems with the goal to maximize their own pleasure.

But even more basic, while I actually agree with a number of @Newman's statements, his approach that somehow people would need to justify their personal choices borders madness (scientifically speaking). For illustration: I could state the following hypothesis with the challenge to analyze and disprove it with the scientific method:
My vinyl source and speakers are the best audio system in the world.

Note that the hypothesis is scientific because it is falsifiable (my system may not the be best system...).
I did not include a personal preference statement (like "best to me") to avoid any obvious preemption with individual choice

 

[Newman]

This sort of discussion would benefit from basic acknowledgements when probabilistic and deterministic results are invoked. For probabilistic results, it is to be expected that a subset of samples ("listeners") will diverge from the rule. It is also quite scientific to intentionally violate existing theories to gain new insights. It does not matter if this is for personal study or to advance the field. People build all sorts of systems with the goal to maximize their own pleasure.
But even more basic, while I actually agree with a number of @Newman's statements, his approach that somehow people would need to justify their personal choices borders madness (scientifically speaking).

I like your post, but why do you think I think that? See below.

For illustration: I could state the following hypothesis with the challenge to analyze and disprove it with the scientific method: My vinyl source and speakers are the best audio system in the world.
Note that the hypothesis is scientific because it is falsifiable (my system may not the be best system...).
I did not include a personal preference statement (like "best to me") to avoid any obvious preemption with individual choice

Agree, and let’s face it, most published or posted audio gear reviews are meant to be reviews of the gear and not the writer’s personal preference statements. After all, readers cannot buy the writer’s preferences, or even subtract them. The implied transactional agreement between the writer and the reader is that the sound waves thrown into the air are the main subject of discussion.

Hence, even when writers write the words “to me”, they are not wishing the reader to dismiss what they write as imagined. They still wish, they still believe, that the attributes of the sound waves themselves are under discussion.

Here on ASR we rightly (and differently from many other hifi discussion boards) give short shrift to flowery descriptions of sound quality differences between well-engineered cables. We try to do the same with amps and DACs that are well-engineered to be audibly transparent. But as soon as the measurements show a difference greater than human audibility thresholds, we seem to assume that from this point on, all sighted uncontrolled listening impressions of such gear are all about the sound waves themselves, and that the audibility of the difference will overwhelm all the perceptual mechanisms that led to the flowery descriptions and preferences between cables and electronics. Toole and others have shown that this is a mistake, and in fact, the perceptual mechanisms continue to dominate even when the differences are way, way above audibility thresholds, such as loudspeakers with completely different spinoramas both on and off axis. If it applies to such loudspeakers, then we shouldn’t even be debating whether or not it applies to cartridges. But when I point that out, I get taken to task.

In conclusion, I don’t think people need to justify their personal choices: I am simply trying to add a little understanding to them. Such understanding might benefit the one who made the choice, or the one who is reading the choice and might be influenced by it, since, after all, the reader tends to think the sound quality descriptions are about the sound waves, even when it is in fact unlikely.

 

[RayDunzl]

Digital can sound good.

So can LP.

Or either can sound bad.

That pretty much sums up my take on the previous 5,423 posts, and personal experience.

At least for the posts I read.

 

[dlaloum]

Definitely agree about level matching. As you say, the biggest issue with mismatched levels is that we don't always perceive the volume difference as a volume difference - we often perceive it as a sound-quality difference. In fact, I suspect small mismatches in level might be the most common problem with uncontrolled listening comparisons.

Exacerbated by frequency dependent level variations - so some frequencies are marginally boosted (less than 2db) and others depressed - and the profile differs with different cartridges ( or even different loading!) - altering the perception of the cartridges voicing...

If you adjust for both frequency and level variations - most halfway decent cartridges end up sounding very much alike.

 

[Axo1989]

So I've been trying to get you to be clear on this. Is it your position that, in sighted conditions (whatever audio comparisons we are talking about) cognitive bias WILL inevitably cause one to misperceive the sound?

If that is your position, then it is problematic in the ways we keep pointing out.

Or, do you mean that "In sighted conditions cognitive biases CAN cause you to mispercieve the sound, in which case if you want high confidence levels you can look to objective data for confirmation, and/or employ listening tests controlling for biases."

If you mean the latter, then we are in agreement. So ...which is it? And if it's the latter, then we have to allow for when it is reasonable to to accept (even if provisionally and with caveats) our sighted impressions as being "accurate enough."

Yes, the words are saying the first thing, but the logic supports the second.

Perhaps there's an opportunity here to clear up a miscommunication, or at least to more clearly define the disagreement you and @Newman (and some others) are having about this particular point.

As far as I can tell, Newman is saying that people's preferences tend to change depending on whether they're listening sighted or blind (which I think is something most of us would agree with as a real phenomenon even if we disagree about how often that happens, yes?). He's saying that preferences for gear that audibly colors the sound tend to disappear or reverse themselves when that gear becomes part of a blind comparison with more neutral/linear gear.

But he's not, as far as I can tell, claiming the converse: he's not claiming that we will always prefer less neutral gear when we do sighted comparisons. And therefore he is not claiming that sighted comparisons will always misidentify the most linear/neutral gear or will always misidentify sonic characteristics. In other words, he's not claiming sighted comparisons will always be wrong.

So is he saying we're unable to use sighted comparisons to detect a speaker that has significant bass rolloff or a major treble peak? No, I don't think he's saying that - because he's not saying we always prefer nonlinear gear in sighted listening. ...

Good effort. If @Newman adds "tends to" it changes the proposition. As I said above (not condescendingly) it may be a misunderstanding based on language/expression, rather than fundamentals.

But he's saying that in those cases when we do prefer less linear gear in sighted listening, the literature suggests that it's unlikely that preference would survive a blind comparison with more linear gear.

I'm just the messenger here and the above is written in the spirit of trying to parse the argument and identify where you might be talking past each other.

Except for this part, I think a lot of people enjoy the euphonics of non-linear reproduction gear (the preference for more bass by 'untrained' listeners in Olive's small trial way back is just one well-known example). The argument that tone/tilt controls are a better overall approach to achieving this than gear with baked-in colourations may be correct, but it is orthogonal to the issue of preference.

 

[Axo1989]

You do understand that Toole's explanation of Fig 12.7 was that listeners are using different listening levels in the experiments, so they are compensating for Fletcher-Munson equal-loudness contours? That's not what you seem to think 12.7 is saying...

When Toole concludes that section and comments on Fletcher-Munson, he's is answering his own question "Why are listeners, even trained listeners as in Figure 12.7, so attracted to boosted bass?" He isn't dismissing the different preference of eg trained vs untrained listeners there. I used that example because it's well known here, elsewhere he cites other studies indicating different preferences: women > 55, young people, and so on.

I'm talking about colouration, and so was board. We both wrote the word, clear as day. See what Toole and Olive say about preferences for coloured vs uncoloured sound... it won't be any different to what I say. Uncoloured is preferred.

Colouration is any tonal deviation from neutral (or an ideal curve). Colourations come in many shapes and sizes. Toole barely discusses vinyl (or tonearm cartridges) in his book (there are three references, substantively about distortion and masking not tonality per se) so we don't assume his conclusions are limited to the comparison you and @board are making viz. Koetsu. If you are using an idiosyncratic, limited meaning for that word go for it, but expect misunderstandings.

And the curves you are referencing are not the frequency response of the direct sound ie first-arrival sound.

Which doesn't obviate the fact of different preferences. You can use gear to modify sonics, or room setup, or DSP, or any combination ....

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks.

Perhaps there's an opportunity here to clear up a miscommunication, or at least to more clearly define the disagreement you and @Newman (and some others) are having about this particular point.

As far as I can tell, Newman is saying that people's preferences tend to change depending on whether they're listening sighted or blind (which I think is something most of us would agree with as a real phenomenon even if we disagree about how often that happens, yes?).

Agreed.

He's saying that preferences for gear that audibly colors the sound tend to disappear or reverse themselves when that gear becomes part of a blind comparison with more neutral/linear gear.

Yup. Most of that data coming from speaker tests as I recall.

But he's not, as far as I can tell, claiming the converse: he's not claiming that we will always prefer less neutral gear when we do sighted comparisons.

Cool, though I did not take Newman to be making that claim.

In fact I think that would go against what he commonly seems to claim: that in sighted conditions
we usually aren't perceiving "just the sound waves as they are," but rather our perception of the sound is distorted by bias. (Which of course, really happens). The above presumes we would be accurately hearing the sound waves in sighted conditions. (Accurately hearing the less neutral character, whether we prefer it or not.

And that's one of the things I've been trying to get at: how much can we rely on sighted perception in terms of hearing the character of the sound...whether we happen to prefer it or not.

And therefore he is not claiming that sighted comparisons will always misidentify the most linear/neutral gear or will always misidentify sonic characteristics. In other words, he's not claiming sighted comparisons will always be wrong.

If that's his view, that's exactly what I've wanted to see him clearly state...and I've put the question directly to him several times, which he doesn't seem to want to do. He keeps muddying things, IMO.

So is he saying we're unable to use sighted comparisons to detect a speaker that has significant bass rolloff or a major treble peak? No, I don't think he's saying that - because he's not saying we always prefer nonlinear gear in sighted listening. But he's saying that in those cases when we do prefer less linear gear in sighted listening, the literature suggests that it's unlikely that preference would survive a blind comparison with more linear gear.

I'm just the messenger here and the above is written in the spirit of trying to parse the argument and identify where you might be talking past each other.

Again, I appreciate it. I'd like to agree with your interpretation, except Newman has made so much noise about our not actually evaluating the "sound waves" in sighted listening, which would denote that our perception of the actual sound itself is in error, in sighted listening. And he's fought me tooth and nail, or ignored relevant examples, whenever I've brought up scenarios in which it seems likely or reasonable to presume one is "hearing the actual sound waves" in sighted listening.

I mean, his most recent post seems to utterly ignore the concessions made by virtually everyone about the power of sighted bias, and he just keeps re-stating the same thing without ever answering the questions I pose, which would untangle his claims. But...since apparently he has adopted some sort of stance against answering my questions or posts, I suppose I'll never get it out of him.

That is, whether he agrees that a claim like: In sighted conditions (whatever audio comparisons we are talking about) cognitive bias WILL inevitably cause one to misperceive the sound?

...is overstating the case for sighted bias.

And whether he agrees a more accurate, justifiable take would be:

"In sighted conditions cognitive biases CAN cause you to mispercieve the sound, in which case if you want high confidence levels you can look to objective data for confirmation, and/or employ listening tests controlling for biases."

That latter interpetation clearly leaves room both for the concerns that would lead anyone to adopt controlled testing, while not overstating the case and allowing for pragmatic inferences in sighted listening.

Now, Newman has indicated before that "well of course we aren't all able to blind test everything, and we may hear and choose speakers in stores, and I'm not against that.
Anyone can revel in their every day sighted bias if they want to."

BUT...and here's the crucial difference...he will typically add: As long as we recognize that we aren't actually analyzing the sound waves themselves in such conditions.

And that is what I see as the dogmatic implications, with which I disagree. It doesn't leave room for our being able to evaluate the actual sound in sighted conditions. Cautions and caveats about sighted bias are all well and good and necessary. But assuming sighted listening to be wholly unreliable is a bridge too far, IMO.

If Newman thinks we can have justification, sometimes, to conclude we are evaluating the actual sound waves in sighted conditions, I'm all ears. And I'd wonder about what examples he'd allow. The reason I think he is allergic to answering this directly, is it might seem to open a pandora's box.

The difference is I've provided numerous examples of where it seems pragmatically justified to conclude "we are hearing the actual sound" in sighted conditions....and they are justified because this is not in the context of "ignoring sighted bias" but rather it's in the context of knowing "it could be sighted bias." Just as, because we are not omniscient, all our empirical inferences are made lacking Absolute Certainty, and hence we scale our beliefs along confidence levels, which admit of errors.

 

[MattHooper]

Colouration is any tonal deviation from neutral (or an ideal curve). Colourations come in many shapes and sizes. Toole barely discusses vinyl (or tonearm cartridges) in his book (there are three references, substantively about distortion and masking not tonality per se) so we don't assume his conclusions are limited to the comparison you and @board are making viz. Koetsu. If you are using an idiosyncratic, limited meaning for that word go for it, but expect misunderstandings.

Yep. Was going to point that out...but I figured you would.

 

[Axo1989]

Yep. Was going to point that out...but I figured you would.

Haha, if the argument was presented as "some/many people who reckon they prefer the (eg) Koetsu's coloration in sighted listening are doing so because of brand cachet (etc) and wouldn't in fact prefer it listening blind" or similar, then there would be no disagreement from me. I keep seeing a sweeping/dogmatic statement, then a fallback to a more limited claim when questioned.

Edit: I also think it's quite possible that part of the issue is contrast between categorical listening—so "[brand] = good sound"—versus non-categorical—so actually listening. The latter is possible, still subject to degrees of bias but not overwhelmed by bias in all cases (as the argument appears to be presented). And of course, the closer we get to limits of audibility, the less certainty we have. But categorical listening over-rides sonics effectively even for some easily audible differences. And I think the assumption of categorical listening (especially attributed to others) is a default for categorical thinkers (a conceptual limitation or projection).

 

[Newman]

You guys can go on and on misrepresenting me as much as you like.

Matt’s got skin in the sighted listening game, so we all know what that means in terms of the likelihood that his arguments are unbiased. He has been the #1 cheerleader for every post questioning the need for controlled listening tests, in multiple threads, for multiple years. That won’t change.

Axo seems to think that I am saying the right things but saying them too strongly, and he seems so determined to argue how strongly is the right strongly, that he risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of obsessing over whether it should be “this is all driven by cognitive bias” or “all this is driven by cognitive bias”, or what is the “this” in those statements, we need to stay on message for the big message.

Basically, the science is clear that sighted listening is an unreliable way to determine the audible qualities of the sound waves, to such a degree that they cannot be trusted. So when a post was made about how exotic cartridge aficionados are choosing their cartridges based on their sonic attributes as determined by sighted listening, I wanted to pull that back into line with the science. Job done.

 

[Axo1989]

Axo seems to think that I am saying the right things but saying them too strongly, and he seems so determined to argue how strongly is the right strongly, that he risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of obsessing over whether it should be “this is all driven by cognitive bias” or “all this is driven by cognitive bias”, or what is the “this” in those statements, we need to stay on message for the big message.

Try "this is all cognitive bias" versus "this is subject to cognitive bias" if you don't want to misrepresent the positions I'm asking you to clarify.

I mean I'm happy to ignore some of your words if you don't actually use them to convey precise meaning, but instead use them rhetorically. Lots of people do that. When you say "all" you mean "some". Or some such. I don't even need to bother to read your stuff too closely if the meaning is way out of focus, but it's hard to tell. It isn't just semantics: you are either saying something that's wildly exaggerated and untrue, or something that's sensible.

 

[MattHooper]

You guys can go on and on misrepresenting me as much as you like.

Or...you could answer the very clear questions put to you numerous times. Nobody is trying to pigeonhole you; you are doing that yourself. We are trying to get you to
clarify, and you don't seem to understand why. It really shouldn't be that difficult to answer the bolded questions I've put to you in the previous posts, which have to do with precisely how to interpret the relevance of sighted bias.

Matt’s got skin in the sighted listening game, so we all know what that means in terms of the likelihood that his arguments are unbiased.

What skin is that, precisely, that would invalidate my arguments?

Arguments rise or fall on their merits, not on your suspicions.

He has been the #1 cheerleader for every post questioning the need for controlled listening tests, in multiple threads, for multiple years. That won’t change.

Which as usual implies something quite misleading about my position: that I don't recognize the important roll of controlled listening tests in weeding out bias effects. Which I have acknowledged a gazillion times. You claim to be concerned with truth...right up to the point where you aren't concerned with the truth of what someone like me actually believes or argues. Why is that?

Basically, the science is clear that sighted listening is an unreliable way to determine the audible qualities of the sound waves, to such a degree that they cannot be trusted.

Aaaaand we are back to the implied dogmatism and (un-scientific!) lack of nuance. Well...we tried...(again...)

Look...Newman...you keep saying you are trying to bring in the scientific perspective. That's great. I've advocated it's usefulness until I'm blue in the face in subjectivist forums, and also on this forum.

It's only when the skepticism over sighted listening is pushed to an untenable degree that I attempt to pull out to the bigger picture and say "hold on...have you actually thought through the consequences?"

Think about it: All, or most, of the conversation on this forum, the concern about how audio equipment performs, the relevance of the science, the measurements...results of blind listening....it is almost all ultimately supposed to be relevant to SIGHTED listening. That's how the equipment is going to be used. So when people are fussing about what SINAD is audible, about minor or major frequency deviations in speakers, about seeking ACCURATE EQUIPMENT, etc, the only reason anyone cares is in the context it would be of significance for the actual use case: sighted listening! If sighted listening was so unreliable that you would not be able to perceive the advantages of a well designed speaker or it's accuracy...what is the point in caring about higher accuracy or any other audible characteristics?

Why would you care about speaker accuracy or a Harman curve, or recommend anyone else care, if in sighted listening the sound is so "dominated by visual bias, our perception so untrustworthy" that you could never expect anyone to correctly perceive the sonic characteristics?

That's why it is important to be nuanced about what we mean by "cannot be trusted." One version can be reasonable, the other...which you continually imply...is not.

Which means for this forum to even be coherent, one can not rule sighted listening as "completely" unreliable, and therefore we have to be able to talk about gray areas in which it makes sense to say "ok, it's justified to accept certain impressions under sighted conditions, under lower confidence levels."

I've pointed that out so many times, and you've avoided it, so I don't expect you to finally address it now.

 

[Andysu]

wow jaws , i may get this if cheap , jaws guess can be expensive

 

[MattHooper]

wow jaws , i may get this if cheap , jaws guess can be expensive

Hey, another soundtrack fan. That's one of my favourite records in my collection! That re-release is such a beautiful package, and sounds fantastic.

 

[JP]

Perhaps there's an opportunity here to clear up a miscommunication, or at least to more clearly define the disagreement you and @Newman (and some others) are having about this particular point.

As far as I can tell, Newman is saying that people's preferences tend to change depending on whether they're listening sighted or blind (which I think is something most of us would agree with as a real phenomenon even if we disagree about how often that happens, yes?). He's saying that preferences for gear that audibly colors the sound tend to disappear or reverse themselves when that gear becomes part of a blind comparison with more neutral/linear gear.

But he's not, as far as I can tell, claiming the converse: he's not claiming that we will always prefer less neutral gear when we do sighted comparisons. And therefore he is not claiming that sighted comparisons will always misidentify the most linear/neutral gear or will always misidentify sonic characteristics. In other words, he's not claiming sighted comparisons will always be wrong.

So is he saying we're unable to use sighted comparisons to detect a speaker that has significant bass rolloff or a major treble peak? No, I don't think he's saying that - because he's not saying we always prefer nonlinear gear in sighted listening. But he's saying that in those cases when we do prefer less linear gear in sighted listening, the literature suggests that it's unlikely that preference would survive a blind comparison with more linear gear.

I'm just the messenger here and the above is written in the spirit of trying to parse the argument and identify where you might be talking past each other.

The research is for speakers. What's the research on tone controls, as that's more analogous to the resultant affect of the cartridge responses mentioned?

And while I appreciate your effort, I feel if it were as simple as him not saying sighted comparisons are always wrong, he would've agreed that point on one of the dozen times someone raised it.

 

[Andysu]

with some vinyl direct transfers recordings and uploads on youtube quality is 100% i may as , maybe save £ buying jaws on vinyl it depends on jaws £ , jaws seems £ responsible not overpriced on ebay
not sure if i have jaws on cd ? which would be same when thinking about jaws recording onto magnetic tape , jaws is essentially a magnetic recording
other jaws transfers will have other mixers there opinions on jaws will vary , so may as well get early jaws vinyl , but its the amount of surface scratches or maybe none hardly at all ? jaws maybe movie hit , 1975 or maybe e.t. 1982 is even more of a hit ,
listen to jaws i hear tones in the score that will later sound into e.t.
i have e.t. original year release on vinyl and on cd , not sure if i have jaws on cd ? i have see if i have jaws on cd so many

this is how jaws should look original , other jaws vinyl have different labels are later vinyl versions

the jaws on laserdisc and jaws on THX laserdisc in my THX cinema really had huge JBL Jaws Bites Low in THX for mono original mix felt bigger than the death star

i have to see what mood i'm in , its winter now and temperatures and humidity is changing , rather hibernate in bed with cats than switching on the THX cinema may stay in bed till spring , " now if you fellows are concerned about the beaches, you do whatever you have to to make them safe. but those beaches will be open for this weekend "

there is a track not on jaws vinyl final showdown with jaws and chief , ( poor creature ) maybe its on lala soundtrack ? shark cage , indianapolis not heard in the mondo vinyl

hooper, hurry it up now. tie it on. hurry up, he's coming straight for us. don't screw it up now!

oh , maybe why didn't find , title hand to hand combat with the jaws shark aka bruce

 

[MattHooper]

with some vinyl direct transfers recordings and uploads on youtube quality is 100% i may as , maybe save £ buying jaws on vinyl it depends on jaws £ , jaws seems £ responsible not overpriced on ebay
not sure if i have jaws on cd ? which would be same when thinking about jaws recording onto magnetic tape , jaws is essentially a magnetic recording
other jaws transfers will have other mixers there opinions on jaws will vary , so may as well get early jaws vinyl , but its the amount of surface scratches or maybe none hardly at all ? jaws maybe movie hit , 1975 or maybe e.t. 1982 is even more of a hit ,
listen to jaws i hear tones in the score that will later sound into e.t.
i have e.t. original year release on vinyl and on cd , not sure if i have jaws on cd ? i have see if i have jaws on cd so many

this is how jaws should look original , other jaws vinyl have different labels are later vinyl versions

View attachment 319402

the jaws on laserdisc and jaws on THX laserdisc in my THX cinema really had huge JBL Jaws Bites Low in THX for mono original mix felt bigger than the death star

i have to see what mood i'm in , its winter now and temperatures and humidity is changing , rather hibernate in bed with cats than switching on the THX cinema may stay in bed till spring , " now if you fellows are concerned about the beaches, you do whatever you have to to make them safe. but those beaches will be open for this weekend "

Jaws was my favourite movie as a kid, saw it about 25 times in the theatre, and it got me in to soundtracks. I still have my original Jaws record, a newer release of the same old Jaws record. But my favourite LP version is the newer one shown in your video:

John Williams - Jaws (Music From The Motion Picture)

View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 2017 Vinyl release of "Jaws (Music From The Motion Picture)" on Discogs.

www.discogs.com

Also my go-to CD version has been the Intrada double CD release from 2015. Updated sound quality/mix and tons more music from the film:

JAWS (2CD)

store.intrada.com

 

[Andysu]

Jaws was my favourite movie as a kid, saw it about 25 times in the theatre, and it got me in to soundtracks. I still have my original Jaws record, a newer release of the same old Jaws record. But my favourite LP version is the newer one shown in your video:

John Williams - Jaws (Music From The Motion Picture)

View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 2017 Vinyl release of "Jaws (Music From The Motion Picture)" on Discogs.

www.discogs.com

Also my go-to CD version has been the Intrada double CD release from 2015. Updated sound quality/mix and tons more music from the film:

JAWS (2CD)

store.intrada.com

oh , yeah extended jaws all the tracks that appeared in or not appeared in the movie
not certain i have cd ?
what they are crazy , £600 for jaws cd 2 disc , ebay has some greedy prices

just looked no Jaws cd , i could have got that other Jaws THX laserdisc with cd , at least that was cheap , i got box set that wait a second ? ?

checked if i had cd disc with Jaws THX laserdisc box set , not this pressing there two THX box sets one with novel and cd single same to lp vinyl
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbi...bdOU0Qn3Rnb8nX-j9rU9ePNGNVr72YoRQ&__tn__=EH-R

 

[Andysu]

ordered one jaws cd later single disc has few wow tracks on it , the two disc usually £30 , but due to greedy ebay people think they have right ask £600 is sheer greedy , i wait till the pressing is reissued or redone sold again at normal prices , otherwise i single cd may not be the whole damn thing

 

[MattHooper]

Upwards and Onwards...still renaissancing...

Vinyl sales up nearly 15 per cent in 2023​

Vinyl sales up nearly 15 per cent in 2023

Artists including Taylor Swift, Lana Del Rey and Blur have aided the sales

www.nme.com