At Long Last A Bat 2

[Jayd]

Well I have now managed to find a copy of Bat 2 on vinyl (non picture disc), took me ages to find and win one on ebay, but I got it now, nice looking condition too for age

[evil nickname]

Hooray! Don't bother trying to play it though, as it sounds just as horrible as the picture disc. For a listenable Bat II on vinyl, you might want to seek out the Zimbabwean double LP.

[Jayd]

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Hooray! Don't bother trying to play it though, as it sounds just as horrible as the picture disc. For a listenable Bat II on vinyl, you might want to seek out the Zimbabwean double LP.

Where would I find a copy, hard enough finding this one, they rarely pop up nowadays.

Cheers

Jay

[For crying out loud]

they dont sound horrible!!! i have a british pressing of the non picture disk and it plays beautiful. i also have the picture disk both birthday gifts and in both in perfect condition from my wonderful (and persistant) boyfriend!

[evil nickname]

Originally Posted by Jayd

Where would I find a copy, hard enough finding this one, they rarely pop up nowadays.

I got my copy (his last) from a Dutch seller who specializes in records from Africa and Asia. Don't have much advice apart from keep looking. It's on Virgin, and it's catalog number is VIR 129 (the only thing Google finds atm is my website though).

Originally Posted by For crying out loud

they dont sound horrible!!! i have a british pressing of the non picture disk and it plays beautiful.

While it may play perfectly well, the sound quality is abysmal. You can't fit 35 to 40 minutes on one side of a LP and expect it to sound good.

[bobbin]

or just listen to the cd and keep the vinyl as a collectable

[For crying out loud]

While it may play perfectly well, the sound quality is abysmal. You can't fit 35 to 40 minutes on one side of a LP and expect it to sound good.[/QUOTE]

im sorry but i have to disagree, i think everyones just too used to listening to the digitally remastered crap thats available today. theres a rawness and inperfect to vinyls which makes them sound far more real. i think the fact YOU think its abysmal is your OPINION as is the fact i like the sound, but i dont think you tell others not to bother playing it cause of what you think. how about freedom of choice rather than dictatorship!

[samurai7]

im sorry but i have to disagree, i think everyones just too used to listening to the digitally remastered crap thats available today. theres a rawness and inperfect to vinyls which makes them sound far more real. i think the fact YOU think its abysmal is your OPINION as is the fact i like the sound, but i dont think you tell others not to bother playing it cause of what you think. how about freedom of choice rather than dictatorship!

Yes, but he does have a point. listen to it compared with any other vinyl record of your choice. Sacrifices have had to be made in fidelity to fit that amount of material on each side of the LP. The album should have been released as a double set, like Welcome to the Neighbourhood was, even though it's a shorter album.

[Pudding]

Originally Posted by For crying out loud

im sorry but i have to disagree

So we've noticed...LOL

Pud

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by samurai7

The album should have been released as a double set, like Welcome to the Neighbourhood was, even though it's a shorter album.

Exactly, I wonder why they didn't do it, especially since Bat II contains some very long songs. I noticed that they put more effort into the vinyl release of Welcome to the Neighborhood in general. Bat II came with an ordinary black inner sleeve, it didn't even include a lyrics sheet, as far as I remember. Compare that to the Neighborhood LP: Great design, even the inner sleeves look very nice and are of very good quality. I think it was a good idea to release it as a double album. There just two or three songs per side but I don't mind having to flip the records over.

[RadioMaster]

I have a strong feeling the vinyl releases of Bat2 have never been intended to get played. They're more of a collectible for the fans than a proper recording (the picture disk definitely is). People who wanted to listen to the music bought the CD or the MC.

[evil nickname]

Originally Posted by For crying out loud

im sorry but i have to disagree

Good for you.

Originally Posted by For crying out loud

i think everyones just too used to listening to the digitally remastered crap thats available today.

The first time I heard the Bat II LP was way back in 199something, before digital remastering went crap (Like with the 2006 Bat II reissue. I'll stick to one of my 1993 editions, thank you very much.) I thought it sounded like something unpleasant, and I still do.

Originally Posted by For crying out loud

theres a rawness and inperfect to vinyls which makes them sound far more real.

There's clicks and pops inherent to the medium, and there's distortion due to squashing too much music on one LP. Have you visited the link and listened to the sample?

Originally Posted by For crying out loud

i think the fact YOU think its abysmal is your OPINION as is the fact i like the sound, but i dont think you tell others not to bother playing it cause of what you think. how about freedom of choice rather than dictatorship!

Sure, it is my opinion. And if you're happy with how it sounds, good for you. I'll just say it again, the quality of that LP is horrible, and you really shouldn't bother playing it. That's advice. And you're perfectly free to ignore it.

So. With that taken care of, I'll be on a short holiday. Looking for some decent sounding vinyl.

[Pudding]

Originally Posted by RadioMaster

I have a strong feeling

Does it hurt?

[RadioMaster]

It hurts only when I feel
(whatever happened to that song?)

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by RadioMaster

I have a strong feeling the vinyl releases of Bat2 have never been intended to get played. They're more of a collectible for the fans than a proper recording (the picture disk definitely is).

Pretty expensive for just being a collectible. Mine still has the original price tag. You don't pay that much money for an ordinary record just to look at it.

Originally Posted by RadioMaster

People who wanted to listen to the music bought the CD or the MC.

That holds only for people who don't know how fantastic records can sound. I rather listen to my half-speed mastered Bat I vinyl record than to the CD. The sound of the CD is quite flat compared to that of the record. Especially the intro of the title track sounds amazing on the record, it even seems as if there are more guitars.

[Pudding]

Originally Posted by Sarge

That holds only for people who don't know how fantastic records can sound.

Perhaps people don't want to f*ck around with a record player and want the music to be playable no matter where they are. You ever tried playing a vinyl record in a car when it's moving?

Pud

[Sarge]

Well, it depends on the situation and on your preferences. Of course it might be a little difficult to "f*ck around" with a record player in a car but people have living rooms, too, haven't they? For daily use CDs are alright and quite convinient but if you really wanna know how great a record like Bat I (for example) can really sound like and how well it was produced you should listen to the vinyl, too. You hear things on the record that you don't hear on the CD. (No, I don't mean scratches and cracking. ) In addition, some older albums that were re-released on CD sound different to the original and in some cases that doesn't necessarily mean that they sound better. The ordinary music consumer might not care about that but I do.

[Pudding]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Well, it depends on the situation and on your preferences.

Well there you go Some people prefer CD's or mp3's over vinyl for many different reasons and are more than happy with that choice. More often than not it isn't the CD that sounds crap but the stereo in which that CD is played, don't ya think?

Pud

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by Pudding

Well there you go Some people prefer CD's or mp3's over vinyl for many different reasons and are more than happy with that choice.

I totally agree. I never claimed that listening to CDs or MP3s is bad. My comment was rather directed to RadioMaster's "people who wanted to listen to the music bought the CD or the MC" because there are different ways in which you can / might want to listen to music. And, as I already mentioned, the Bat II vinyl was not cheap when it came out, so people who bought it then probably did not purchase it because of the larger cover only.

evil nickname is right, the Virgin record does not sound very good. It's not that horrible, if you don't listen attentively it might not bother you that much but compared to other Meat Loaf vinyls the sound quality is rather poor. Which is a pity because songs like that could have sounded great on a high-quality vinyl record (especially a song like Out Of The Frying Pan).

Originally Posted by Pudding

More often than not it isn't the CD that sounds crap but the stereo in which that CD is played, don't ya think?

I own some CDs that sound bad on any equipment as well as a few records that sound horrible. But I have some records that even sound amazing when being played on a record player that is connected to a very old, crappy guitar amp. A good product is a good product, a bad product is a bad product, no matter on which format.

[RadioMaster]

maybe you buy a record for the good quality, but I dont think that's what the majority thinks. The Bat2 vinyl clearly wasnt produced for quality, otherwise it would have been a double album, but more as a collectable piece IMO. The price is not really a matter on this one, it could also indicate there's only been a few produced. IF the records were made for quality, I'd reather expect them to be reasonably priced so people who are not fans would actually bother to buy them.
And regarding quality: Bat1 was produced to be on vinyl, but was Bat2 as well? 1993 was already the CD era, so it's likely the album was produced to be on CD, so it's unlikely a vinyl recording of the CD production would sound better...

(actually I'm just being a wise ass here, as I've never listened to Bat2 on vinyl to build my own opinion )

[bobbin]

it might have been the cd era but it wasnt well into the cd era, i only had records and tapes back then, buying the cd version a few years later when i killed the tape from overplaying

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by RadioMaster

maybe you buy a record for the good quality, but I dont think that's what the majority thinks. The Bat2 vinyl clearly wasnt produced for quality, otherwise it would have been a double album, but more as a collectable piece IMO.

And why was Neighborhood released as a double album? How does that fit into your argumentation?

Originally Posted by RadioMaster

The price is not really a matter on this one, it could also indicate there's only been a few produced. IF the records were made for quality, I'd reather expect them to be reasonably priced so people who are not fans would actually bother to buy them.

So you think it's okay to pay more for less? Do you think the ordinary customer knew that it was an alleged "collector's item" only? I rather believe the release was a concession to the few people who didn't own a CD player yet back in the early 1990s. (I bought my first CD player in 1991, for example, and continued buying records anyway.) I'm sure people did not consider it as much as a collector's item then as members of this forum do nowadays.

Originally Posted by RadioMaster

And regarding quality: Bat1 was produced to be on vinyl, but was Bat2 as well? 1993 was already the CD (MP3) era, so it's likely the album was produced to be on CD, so it's unlikely a vinyl recording of the CD production would sound better...

The point is that a vinyl record has a different sound spectrum than a CD. Numerous new albums are released on vinyl again, too, although this is the "CD era" and people buy the records for playing them and listening to them, not as collector's items. I'm sure an excellent production like Bat II would sound pretty interesting on a good record.

[RadioMaster]

Originally Posted by Sarge

And why was Neighborhood released as a double album? How does that fit into your argumentation?

I was talking in about Bat2 specifically, not about records in general.

So you think it's okay to pay more for less? Do you think the ordinary customer knew that it was an alleged "collector's item" only? I rather believe the release was a concession to the few people who didn't own a CD player yet back in the early 1990s. (I bought my first CD player in 1991, for example, and continued buying records anyway.) I'm sure people did not consider it as much as a collector's item then as members of this forum do nowadays.

Maybe it wasnt a release aimed at the ordinary customer? Look at the 3 format singles for bat3 for example. I doubt that a regular music buyer would go for the dvd with the video or the picture disc, they'd simply buy the regular single. The other two formats were relased to satisfy and scam ( lol) the fans, and I think it might have been the same with the Bat2 vinyl. It's most likely the case with the pic disc anyway IMO.

The point is that a vinyl record has a different sound spectrum than a CD. Numerous new albums are released on vinyl again, too, although this is the "CD era" and people buy the records for playing them and listening to them, not as collector's items. I'm sure an excellent production like Bat II would sound pretty interesting on a good record.

I didnt doubt that. My point was, that the two virgin bat2 vinyl releases have a poor quality, and that this is most likely due them not actually being supposed to be played. (thats my opinion anyway)

[Pudding]

At the end of the day a vinyl is only going to sound good on a decent record player, and not many people will have a decent one of those these days, as they cost an arm and a leg.

Pud

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by RadioMaster

I was talking in about Bat2 specifically, not about records in general.

So Bat II was meant to be a collector's item for fans and therefore didn't require good sound quality. Why was Neighborhood, released two years later, when even less records were manufactured / sold not an equally sloppy release?

Originally Posted by RadioMaster

Maybe it wasnt a release aimed at the ordinary customer?

I don't think so. It was 1993, not 2009. Today we might regard an ordinary new vinyl LP as a collector's item but I don't recall this being the case in 1993. There's nothing special about the Bat II vinyl except the fact that it's hard to find these days. I'd rather call the Neighborhood LP a collector's item, since it's not only rare but Virgin also paid more attention to the overall quality of the product.

Originally Posted by RadioMaster

My point was, that the two virgin bat2 vinyl releases have a poor quality, and that this is most likely due them not actually being supposed to be played.

So they released an ordinary LP and a picture disc and none of them was supposed to be played? Nah, I think they could have spared the release of the conventional record in this case. Your assumption appears a little like a justification for having released an imperfect product.

In 1993, there were still record shelves in the stores, so you shouldn't automatically expect that a record you bought there was a "collector's item" that wasn't supposed to be played. I have other vinyls that were released that year and they sound fine (and contain liner notes, Bat II doesn't).

Originally Posted by Pudding

At the end of the day a vinyl is only going to sound good on a decent record player, and not many people will have a decent one of those these days, as they cost an arm and a leg.

I bought an excellent record player from a student for about 15 Euros. I also have an old one from the 1960s I wheedled out of my grandma. It's still working perfectly and provides a great sound. It's not necessary to spend a pretty penny on a fancy new turntable.