SP FREAKS & scanning credits

[T&T]

seen on archive.org machina II virgin upload review

Reviewer: www.SPfreaks.com - November 18, 2012
Subject: Credits to who delivered the scans
It would have been nice if SPfreaks.com got the credits for the pics with this awesome upload on Archive.org.

really?
you guys want scanning credits?
should the guy who designed the virgin logo that you scanned get credit too?
how about the guy who did the layout for the in house CD
or the printing house that manufactured the CDR it was burnt onto
lets give credit to the guy who designed the MP3 format

How about we just leave the credit to the fucking band who recorded the music and gave it away for free.

[redbull]

who runs that place anyways?

[slunken]

what's the big idea

[Raskolnikov]

Not sure I've heard these versions before...

I love how it's been 12 years or whatever since Machina 2 was released and I still am confused as to which source/rip is the best sounding one out there.

[Cool As Ice Cream]

there are rips directly from the originals on what. also for the q101 source.

virgin promo source on archive.org: "CDR-1 > PCM/WAV > SHN > FLAC"
does cdr-1 mean original, or copy of original?

q101 source on archive.org: "Q101 Vinyl->CDR->EAC->Wav->flac"
even though q101 didn't release cd-rs... hmm...

[T&T]

in that what comments they answered this question:

in terms of the notation used by Pumpkins traders, it would be the first copy. CDR-0 would be the master

do you really think the 100% log rips are worth downloading over the archive ones?
from CDR-0>CDR-1 there's no log, so who knows if we're bit perfect anyways...

I'm surprised after all these years there hasn't been another attempt at a new vinyl rip.
at least in the next year we'll get the re-issue and I guess these MII versions will become redundant.

[bs1933]

I thought it was supposed to be getting Remixed... along with Machina itself. So that they sounded more like one cohesive album. Not sure where I thought I heard that. But if that were true, there still wouldn't be good sounding versions of these exact mixes/recordings. :-/

[T&T]

yeah, that's the word. you're right.
then again to want 'good sounding versions of these mixes" is a self defeating request... maybe this is as good as they sound. didn't james say that GO was used in it's uncompleted form. I assume a bunch of others got the same rushed to finish deal. ok, good enough, press it to vinyl they'll never know.

& we keep saying vinyl, like it was a typical 180g pressing...
at a pressing quantity of 25, was each record hand cut? I doubt they made metal masters. which means each copy would sound a little different.
and onto what material? I remember reading it wasn't to pressed vinyl, but more of a lathe type product that wears away with each playing.

[whywontyoulistn]

Originally Posted by T&T

I'm surprised after all these years there hasn't been another attempt at a new vinyl rip.
at least in the next year we'll get the re-issue and I guess these MII versions will become redundant.

Of course, if the new mixes are shite, then it's all the more likely that someone will attempt a new rip...

[Pizza Club]

Originally Posted by Cool As Ice Cream

even though q101 didn't release cd-rs... hmm...

They made about 100 or so to give away

[T&T]

Originally Posted by Cool As Ice Cream

there are rips directly from the originals on what. also for the q101 source.

virgin promo source on archive.org: "CDR-1 > PCM/WAV > SHN > FLAC"
does cdr-1 mean original, or copy of original?

q101 source on archive.org: "Q101 Vinyl->CDR->EAC->Wav->flac"
even though q101 didn't release cd-rs... hmm...

I compared the what versions with the archive verions
and I wouldn't be surprised if these CDR-1 were just riped from burt CDR files sourced from archive.org

[redbull]

yeah

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by T&T

at least in the next year we'll get the re-issue and I guess these MII versions will become redundant.

do you really believe we'll see a machina reissue in 2013?
what were the different plans so far? weren't we supposed to have gotten to adore, or at least tafh by the end of 2012?

and i'm not sure the reissue will make the original version redundant.

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by Pizza Club

They made about 100 or so to give away

they made at least 2,000, but not on cd-r. they were proper cds.

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by T&T

I compared the what versions with the archive verions
and I wouldn't be surprised if these CDR-1 were just riped from burt CDR files sourced from archive.org

huh? what exactly are you saying here? that the cdr-1 source on archive.org was a rip from a cd-r, sourced from that same cdr-1 source on archive.org? how does that work? and how did you come to that conclusion after comparing it to the version on what?

[T&T]

phase flip and sum

[Cool As Ice Cream]

that doesn't mean anything to me.

but how can the archive source be sourced from the archive source?
don't get it.

[T&T]

i mistook the what version that was CDR-1, oops
there doesn't actually seem to be any linage for the what uploads....

and what makes you think they're direct rips from the disk? and not just a rip of a cd burn from archive.org files?

edit:
I think the Constantinople Records labeling "CR-01" might have caused some confusion as it reads easily CDR-1
i dunno. i know I read it wrong.
the what flac torrents don't have any artwork, but i'm trying to download the .jpg artwork included in the V0 mp3 torrents, maybe they're proof of original disks, original scans...? no seeders atm.

[Cool As Ice Cream]

i know the person who ripped the (most recent) what flacs, and they're ripped from the original cds (q101 set, and the US virgin promo set).
the lineage on what is implied by the "cd" source and the 100% log file. if those rips weren't from the original cds, then that would be a lie, and those torrents should be removed.

(the v0s and other mp3s on what were uploaded earlier, and most likely sourced from the same files as on archive.org.)

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by T&T

do you really think the 100% log rips are worth downloading over the archive ones?

dunno.

you said you compared the what versions with the archive versions. did you compare sample per sample (e.g. "compare wav" in EAC)? or did you do a similar thing with the "phase flip and sum"?
if the only differences are at the start or end of the track (extra samples or missing samples), then it's just ripped with a different offset, but the audio is still identical, so i guess not.
if more samples in the middle of the tracks are different, then i guess maybe, depending on how important you find it to have an exact copy. (you most likely won't be able to hear any differences.)

[T&T]

the scans included in the what.cd virgin rip are the same scans as on archive.org. the scans also found on SPfreaks.

the scans included in the what.cd 101 rip are of disk 473
I think i've seen those around before. but it might be an original rip.

[RenewRevive]

damn, it would be disheartening if Machina never gets reissued in a majorly different form. this is the only one i'm really looking forward to. so much potential for a fuckup with it though, with this reintegration of the albums that billy is intending.

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by T&T

the scans included in the what.cd virgin rip are the same scans as on archive.org. the scans also found on SPfreaks.

the scans included in the what.cd 101 rip are of disk 473
I think i've seen those around before. but it might be an original rip.

Originally Posted by Cool As Ice Cream

(the v0s and other mp3s on what were uploaded earlier, and most likely sourced from the same files as on archive.org.)

the scans that are part of the mp3 torrents on what.cd are irrelevant. they don't say anything about the source of the flac torrents.
i even doubt they say anything about the source of the mp3 torrents. i bet those scans were found online, and added as artwork for the set of mp3s, and not to show where the mp3s came from.