SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Old Skool chat, tune discussions.
No tape packs or mix tape posts in the forum please!
Locked
User avatar
dj_gyr8
Old Skool Don Daddy
Old Skool Don Daddy
Posts: 3701
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:45 pm
Location: southcoast

SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by dj_gyr8 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 12:42 pm

Hi,

Just noticed on Discogs that someone is saying the repress is a whole 10 BPM faster...

WRONG BPM on SLRV 013?

User avatar
dj jedi
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 12:00 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by dj jedi » Mon Feb 28, 2011 12:46 pm

Why does it matter? Pitch it down on the deck!? I've never heard of someone complain that a tune is too fast, normally it's annoying if it's too slow!

User avatar
dj_gyr8
Old Skool Don Daddy
Old Skool Don Daddy
Posts: 3701
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:45 pm
Location: southcoast

Re: SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by dj_gyr8 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:05 pm

Hi,

Exactly my point, weird ain't it...

I once got a plate cut of SMD 1 & SMD 3 on each side, both pitched up by 6% so I could play them in 1996...

User avatar
stuartj
Old Skool Don Daddy
Old Skool Don Daddy
Posts: 3938
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 8:13 am
Location: Derby UK

Re: SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by stuartj » Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:02 pm

gyr8 - can you change your signature please.

Not safe for the work crew. And besides, why do the none work crew want to see Britneys flaps?

User avatar
electric tribe
He never locked his car door
He never locked his car door
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2001 12:00 am

Re: SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by electric tribe » Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:44 pm

stuartj wrote:gyr8 - can you change your signature please.

Not safe for the work crew. And besides, why do the none work crew want to see Britneys flaps?
was gonna say same.

User avatar
will2003
He never locked his car door
He never locked his car door
Posts: 5120
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:51 am

Re: SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by will2003 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:56 pm

Well, that was cut from the master as it was supplied to me, so...

It's funny how people only like pointing out what they see as problems and can never generally be bothered to point out good things. Whether the original cut from 1993 was 10pbm slower or not, there's no denying at all that the SLRV013 mastering / pressing sounds a whole lot nicer than the original '93 cut ever did.

It's like how quick loads of people were to bad mouth SLRV003 - Citrus - Fascination saying the bassline was distorted. Despite the fact that it's how the original tune was made, and exactly how it was supposed to sound :lol:

User avatar
strongforce
The Messiah of the 21st Century
The Messiah of the 21st Century
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 9:19 am
Location: Romford, Essex

Re: SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by strongforce » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:49 am

will2003 wrote:Well, that was cut from the master as it was supplied to me, so...

It's funny how people only like pointing out what they see as problems and can never generally be bothered to point out good things. Whether the original cut from 1993 was 10pbm slower or not, there's no denying at all that the SLRV013 mastering / pressing sounds a whole lot nicer than the original '93 cut ever did.

It's like how quick loads of people were to bad mouth SLRV003 - Citrus - Fascination saying the bassline was distorted. Despite the fact that it's how the original tune was made, and exactly how it was supposed to sound :lol:
I can understand your frustration Will but there will always be clueless dickheads in the world, so dont worry about it. We all know Sublogic is a quality label providing top quality tunes, properly mastered & on top quality vinyl.......keep up the good work :p

User avatar
will2003
He never locked his car door
He never locked his car door
Posts: 5120
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:51 am

Re: SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by will2003 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:39 pm

Cheers Strongforce :)

I'm just being a grouch but it does wind me up sometimes!

Oh and my post wasn't a pop at Gyr8, it was at the Discogs commenter, especially if they bought the release directly from me, just email me if you're not happy! :lol:

User avatar
dj_gyr8
Old Skool Don Daddy
Old Skool Don Daddy
Posts: 3701
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:45 pm
Location: southcoast

Re: SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by dj_gyr8 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:41 pm

will2003 wrote:Well, that was cut from the master as it was supplied to me, so...

It's funny how people only like pointing out what they see as problems and can never generally be bothered to point out good things. Whether the original cut from 1993 was 10pbm slower or not, there's no denying at all that the SLRV013 mastering / pressing sounds a whole lot nicer than the original '93 cut ever did.

It's like how quick loads of people were to bad mouth SLRV003 - Citrus - Fascination saying the bassline was distorted. Despite the fact that it's how the original tune was made, and exactly how it was supposed to sound :lol:
I just spilt my coffee reading about ppl complaining due to bass distortion on SLRV003! I played it BITD specifically cos that awesome distortion. I find it so petty that ppl make these insignificant comments. I could understand if you pressed something 20-30 BPM too SLOW, but 10 BPM too fast is not noticable, if anything it is better!

I guess a lot of buyers don't have the originals to compare - I can easily hear the remastering of all the SLRV series.

Will, forget the few who complain, I for one REALLY respect what you've done & countless others on B2VOS do as well :-)

User avatar
will2003
He never locked his car door
He never locked his car door
Posts: 5120
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:51 am

Re: SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by will2003 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:27 pm

dj_gyr8 wrote:
I just spilt my coffee reading about ppl complaining due to bass distortion on SLRV003! I played it BITD specifically cos that awesome distortion. I find it so petty that ppl make these insignificant comments. I could understand if you pressed something 20-30 BPM too SLOW, but 10 BPM too fast is not noticable, if anything it is better!

I guess a lot of buyers don't have the originals to compare - I can easily hear the remastering of all the SLRV series.

Will, forget the few who complain, I for one REALLY respect what you've done & countless others on B2VOS do as well :-)
:)

Anyway, the Skanna track was cut as it was supplied to me - it might be 10BPM faster than the '93 pressing but without Skanna himself digging out the actual sampler / sequencer disks who's to say what BPM it was supposed to be cut at?

User avatar
dj_gyr8
Old Skool Don Daddy
Old Skool Don Daddy
Posts: 3701
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:45 pm
Location: southcoast

Re: SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by dj_gyr8 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:32 pm

Hi,

I remember BITD some of those 6 & 8 trackers had really fast tracks, simply cos the producers were paying for everything themselves, often their first (and only) release on vinyl, so tracks got sped up just to fit them on the vinyl...

Fizza
Oldskool Raver
Oldskool Raver
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 2:37 am

Re: SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by Fizza » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:56 am

I noticed when I got mine that it was faster than what I had heard on youtube, I thought it was done on purpose for those who wanted to fit it into faster sets, you have to pitch it down to around -7 to get it to play at the 'proper' speed. I thought it was strange but could see the reason, and never really thought any more of it - but it is funny to find out that it's the tempo cut straight from the DAT. Obviously I'm not the one who posted that comment on Discogs, but at the same time I don't think it's such a big deal to point out, I can see his point in that it was unexpected, and for many that might not be a good thing - especially if your turntable doesn't have a pitch control (though I'm not so sure how many are in that boat tbh), maybe a notes edit to the Discogs sub might be worth adding to clear up any misunderstandings? From what Will is suggesting, it seems that this press is the correct speed if so.

I can't see the comment preventing anyone from buying future releases although for some who want an exact press as reasonably possible, it might reassure them to know this is how the original was intended.

User avatar
mulder
Oldskool Raver
Oldskool Raver
Posts: 588
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 5:10 pm

Re: SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by mulder » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:45 pm

It's possible it's sped up as a result of the DAT being played back at the wrong speed, ie at 48000khz instead of 44100khz. I had a problem with a track that I had as 48000k and needed as 44100k to upload to Juno and running it through Logic in order to do that somehow slowed it down! Doesn't matter that it needs slowing down though, if you're used to playing hardcore then you're used to working the whole pitch control.

User avatar
pineappletribe
Old Skool Don Daddy
Old Skool Don Daddy
Posts: 4498
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:23 am
Location: West Sussex

Re: SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by pineappletribe » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:03 am

Will -> you're tunes are too noisy... CAN U TURN THEM DOWN NOW PLEASE :D ;) :lol:
images.jpeg
images.jpeg (6.29 KiB) Viewed 1786 times

User avatar
phil
Old Skool Don Daddy
Old Skool Don Daddy
Posts: 4471
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: South east

Re: SLRV013 - wrong BPM?

Post by phil » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:50 pm

pineappletribe wrote:Will -> you're tunes are too noisy... CAN U TURN THEM DOWN NOW PLEASE :D ;) :lol:
images.jpeg
that made me chuckle

Locked