Kellys Records in Central Market, Cardiff

[fishfinger]

Well they're an irrelevance to me!

Good answer!

Some of the young uns that i talk to are dj's some are not.Again some are buying older reggae originals and some are buying new release and popular stuff ie. dubstep, r&b ,dancehall. There is a lot of old reggae that is being repressed onto vinyl so you can get an old favourite from£3.50 and upwards.

£3.50 is pretty good, a lot better than some of the silly prices being asked.

 

[SarfLondoner]

Good answer!


£3.50 is pretty good, a lot better than some of the silly prices being asked.

This is what gets me, a record dealer would be looking for at least £40 for an original press which is likely to be 20 years old and of poor sound quality due to its usage/plays. Yet if that same record is out on a repress you may pay £9 or £10 tops. It can be a heart wrenching experience if you finally find a yearned after record only to find out it's " 45 quid bruv" (pulling on your heartstrings) or its inaudible.

 

[fishfinger]

This is what gets me, a record dealer would be looking for at least £40 for an original press which is likely to be 20 years old and of poor sound quality due to its usage/plays. Yet if that same record is out on a repress you may pay £9 or £10 tops. It can be a heart wrenching experience if you finally find a yearned after record only to find out it's " 45 quid bruv" (pulling on your heartstrings) or its inaudible.

That's pretty bad. To me, being able to listen to the music is what I want. Having an original that is unlistenable is just crazy.

 

[editor]

It's a dying format (albeit with minor surges) with an inferior sound quality.

It's categorically not an 'inferior sound quality' in many instances, and I'm not sure how you can declare something a "dying format," when it's currently enjoying sales at the highest level for more than a decade.

 

[rhod]

I was talking to a lad on a supermarket till last week. He must have been about 18 or 19.

He was very proud to tell me all about his complete collection of Black Sabbath albums on vinyl.

There is hope for the next generation!

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I respect your choice of buying vinyl but I don't understand your beliefs. There is nothing mysterious about digital recordings as opposed to analogue ones, and almost all records that you buy of contemporary music will have been recorded digitally before being mastered for vinyl.

I don't think that's the point, but if you really do want to go into detail then technically records and even tape can be far superior to MP3s and CDs. CDs run at 44.1k and MP3s are generally far far worse. Most recording studios run at much much higher rates that actually would make a difference when mastered.
Personally I don't care. This is not an argument that means a lot to me. I work in music and film and TV sound all almost 100% digitally these days and I believe it has caught up with analogue quite nicely. . . as I said though, on a technical basis, not so with CDs and MP3s.

A painting is a unique work of art. Very few of us can afford to buy paintings and so would need to go to a gallery, or look at photos of paintings in books, or on our computers etc in order to enjoy them. Records/CDs/MP3s etc are mass produced consumer items, and, in themselves only a vehicle to provide us with music.

Never heard of prints? I wasn't talking about a one off painting, I was talking about displaying or enjoying an image.
You obviously don't understand the appeal when you say "Records/CDs/MP3s etc are mass produced consumer items, and, in themselves only a vehicle to provide us with music." - which is fair enough because it just means buying records is not for you.
Vinyl records are certainly not all 'mass produced', many come in very short limited runs (my own band has a release that exists as only 30 copies). I even have some records that do come with one off sleeves.
This is perhaps beside the point. I enjoy records as a physical product that is a joy to own, I feel the same about my guitars, even when I am not playing them. Some people buy trainers and feel the same way about them.

Now to me, this was a liberating experience. Freeing the music from its physical format. I'm not going to extol the virtues of MP3 per se, as I have most of my music in FLAC format.

I understand that, and I am not saying that MP3s are a bad thing at all, what I am saying is that I completely lost the connection I had with the music that I had when I was buying vinyl.
MP3s are very useful.

I find it sad that you are placing such importance on the monetary value of the medium that your music comes in. Surely you as a musician can see that it is the music itself that is important, else why bother to play live?

I was not placing any importance on the monetary value of the records, I was lamenting not buying them when I could afford them. They are too expensive now.
Playing live is a completely different thing. In the same way that a record (for me) is about the whole package, playing live is a performance and not about recreating the record not for note (far from it).

Again I am finding this rather sad. It seems that the ritual of playing a record, or reading the sleeve notes is more important to you that the music itself

I do not go through any 'rituals'. I flip through records sleeves instead of computers, I look at the sleeves, I see some of the recent records I have played beside the record player and I like that. I don't light a candle and say a prayer before each record and then sit there cross legged staring at the sleeve until the record is over.
. . . and no, it is not more important to me than the music. I mint LTD vintage record containing music I don't like is worthless to me, but a favorite album (musically) can be something I 'want' to treasure.

 

[fishfinger]

"dying format," when it's currently enjoying sales at the highest level for more than a decade.

0.7%

 

[fishfinger]

I don't think that's the point, but if you really do want to go into detail then technically records and even tape can be far superior to MP3s and CDs. CDs run at 44.1k and MP3s are generally far far worse. Most recording studios run at much much higher rates that actually would make a difference when mastered.
Personally I don't care. This is not an argument that means a lot to me. I work in music and film and TV sound all almost 100% digitally these days and I believe it has caught up with analogue quite nicely. . . as I said though, on a technical basis, not so with CDs and MP3s.

I know you work in music and TV. That does not make you any kind of authority. To my knowledge, no-one has been able to distinguish between 16 bit 44.1khz and higher bit depth/sample rates in a double-blind test. The reasons for using higher bit depths when recording/mixing/mastering are to avoid rounding errors in the digital signal. Tape may give you the sound that you want (i.e. tape saturation or other distortions that tape can give) but it is never better than a properly produced digital signal.

Never heard of prints? I wasn't talking about a one off painting, I was talking about displaying or enjoying an image.

Yes, and if you would read my previous reply, you will see I answered already acknowledged, and answered that.

You obviously don't understand the appeal when you say "Records/CDs/MP3s etc are mass produced consumer items, and, in themselves only a vehicle to provide us with music." - which is fair enough because it just means buying records is not for you.
Vinyl records are certainly not all 'mass produced', many come in very short limited runs (my own band has a release that exists as only 30 copies). I even have some records that do come with one off sleeves.

Just because you choose to produce short run pressings, does not mean they are not a "mass-produced" product. You are simply creating an artificial scarcity, which is just a form of marketing, whereas a painter, for example, produces genuinely unique works. If you are making unique sleeves for individual records, then I can understand the appeal (Even I have had some records with hand-made sleeves).

This is perhaps beside the point. I enjoy records as a physical product that is a joy to own, I feel the same about my guitars, even when I am not playing them. Some people buy trainers and feel the same way about them.

I'm certainly aware that people do this. However, (possibly due to my learning difficulties) I just don't understand how people gain enjoyment simply by owning something.

I understand that, and I am not saying that MP3s are a bad thing at all, what I am saying is that I completely lost the connection I had with the music that I had when I was buying vinyl.
MP3s are very useful.

Thanks for that, although I don't understand the "I completely lost the connection I had with the music" part.

I was not placing any importance on the monetary value of the records, I was lamenting not buying them when I could afford them.

You certainly did place importance on the monetary value "Most are now worth between 50p to a £1," (my italics) If you had bought them years ago, on vinyl, and enjoyed playing them on a regular basis, then they would probably be worn-out by now. So, at least you have been able to enjoy the music, without it deteriorating.

They are too expensive now.

Only because people are prepared to pay silly amounts of money.

Playing live is a completely different thing. In the same way that a record (for me) is about the whole package, playing live is a performance and not about recreating the record not for note (far from it).

Of course playing live is different. Otherwise, we'd just have bands miming to pre-recorded music.

I do not go through any 'rituals'. I flip through records sleeves instead of computers, I look at the sleeves, I see some of the recent records I have played beside the record player and I like that. I don't light a candle and say a prayer before each record and then sit there cross legged staring at the sleeve until the record is over.
. . . and no, it is not more important to me than the music. I mint LTD vintage record containing music I don't like is worthless to me, but a favorite album (musically) can be something I 'want' to treasure.

You seem to have a very limited idea of what ritual entails. Earlier, you were lamenting about losing connection with the music. It seems that the very act of playing vinyl gives you that connection.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I know you work in music and TV. That does not make you any kind of authority. To my knowledge, no-one has been able to distinguish between 16 bit 44.1khz and higher bit depth/sample rates in a double-blind test. The reasons for using higher bit depths when recording/mixing/mastering are to avoid rounding errors in the digital signal. Tape may give you the sound that you want (i.e. tape saturation or other distortions that tape can give) but it is never better than a properly produced digital signal.

I work with sound as a sound engineer, I've got a degree in sound and music technology, I think that does actually make me a bit more of an authority than most.
Yes people have been able to distinguish between 16 bit 44.1k for a long time in double blind tests for a very long time. The CD was always considered quite flawed and even needs a cut off at -20 20, to clean it up. It doesn't sound like a big deal because we can't hear outside that range, however harmonic frequencies beyond that range do have an effect on other frequencies within it. Granted, this problems with the format are mostly due to errors, and as I recall was not satisfactory sorted for some people until it got up to 98k or something.
As I mentioned before, this is not something that actually bothers me, I am more than happy to use digital and think that it is madness that people still bother to use tape. just for tape saturation properties now that digital recording and manipulating has caught up.
Sorry though, but technically tape really can be better than digital as there are no steps. You can raise the sample rate, you can speed up and widen the tape. Digital will always be stepped though. Nobody will ever hear it.

Anyway, like I said twice already - I don't care if it is digital or not. I listen to MP3s all the time.

Yes, and if you would read my previous reply, you will see I answered already acknowledged, and answered that.

You said nothing of the sort
"A painting is a unique work of art. Very few of us can afford to buy paintings and so would need to go to a gallery, or look at photos of paintings in books, or on our computers etc in order to enjoy them. Records/CDs/MP3s etc are mass produced consumer items, and, in themselves only a vehicle to provide us with music."

Just because you choose to produce short run pressings, does not mean they are not a "mass-produced" product. You are simply creating an artificial scarcity, which is just a form of marketing, whereas a painter, for example, produces genuinely unique works. If you are making unique sleeves for individual records, then I can understand the appeal (Even I have had some records with hand-made sleeves).

Short run pressings are obviously not mass produced. They are like a LTD print or a run of hand made sleeves (which for some reason is ok for you). How are LTD sleeves not the same as LTD records? There are still only 30 sleeves for those 30 records (and all that hand numbered crap). Hardly a great marketing plan.
Personally I don't care for ltd runs. It was just an example.

I'm certainly aware that people do this. However, (possibly due to my learning difficulties) I just don't understand how people gain enjoyment simply by owning something.

I like having my books, guitars, records. I like wearing the clothes I like. I like the look of some things and like to own them. If that makes me a shallow person - hey ho.

Thanks for that, although I don't understand the "I completely lost the connection I had with the music" part.

Well it is quite clear that this is not a problem and that owning a physical copy of a record you love is not a priority for you so you don't need to understand. If you did, you might do it.

You certainly did place importance on the monetary value "Most are now worth between 50p to a £1," (my italics) If you had bought them years ago, on vinyl, and enjoyed playing them on a regular basis, then they would probably be worn-out by now. So, at least you have been able to enjoy the music, without it deteriorating.

No. I said that when I bought those records I was in a CD buying phase when buying new stuff. Now I want to buy the vinyl of the great CDs I bought at the time. The Vinyl is too expensive for me. If I had done it the other way around and bought the vinyl at the time but still wanted a CD I could easily afford 50p and still have both.
I don't care that some of my records are worth a lot because I won't sell them. I am only ever concerned about the prices when a record is too expensive for me to buy.
Also records don't 'wear out' in that way at all. I have a records that I have played over and over and over again since my teens. None of my records are scratched or have 'worn out'. I was actually afraid that some of my favorites would, and as a teen bought two copies of a few of them. I have never ever ever gotten onto the second copy of any record as of yet.

You seem to have a very limited idea of what ritual entails. Earlier, you were lamenting about losing connection with the music. It seems that the very act of playing vinyl gives you that connection.

If you are going to start suggesting that switching a PC on, booting up Itunes and hitting shuffle is a 'ritual' as well, then ok. I turn a record player on, then get a record out and put it on. Maybe look at it spinning a bit, check the sleeve. Do some housework.

The connection is to the product as a whole, picking up the record and seeing the sleeve. I'm not bloody caressing it.



You seem to be very upset that people might like records. I don't mind getting the bus, but some people like to drive their own car, a car they like the look of. I don't, but I can see why someone might.
Records are not for you, it's not something you care about. I mean jesus, you make it sound like someone who buys vinyl makes it his /her whole life. It's not 'freaky'. I just like records.

 

[fishfinger]

I work with sound as a sound engineer, I've got a degree in sound and music technology, I think that does actually make me a bit more of an authority than most.
Yes people have been able to distinguish between 16 bit 44.1k for a long time in double blind tests for a very long time. The CD was always considered quite flawed and even needs a cut off at -20 20, to clean it up. It doesn't sound like a big deal because we can't hear outside that range, however harmonic frequencies beyond that range do have an effect on other frequencies within it. Granted, this problems with the format are mostly due to errors, and as I recall was not satisfactory sorted for some people until it got up to 98k or something.
As I mentioned before, this is not something that actually bothers me, I am more than happy to use digital and think that it is madness that people still bother to use tape. just for tape saturation properties now that digital recording and manipulating has caught up.
Sorry though, but technically tape really can be better than digital as there are no steps. You can raise the sample rate, you can speed up and widen the tape. Digital will always be stepped though. Nobody will ever hear it.

Anyway, like I said twice already - I don't care if it is digital or not. I listen to MP3s all the time.

Unfortunately you seem to believe in several audio myths. If you really want to improve your knowledge, you might try looking at somewhere like http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/ where a number of audio scientists, researchers, and engineers post. Your misconception about "steps" in digital audio is addressed quite well by video episode 2 from Xiph http://www.xiph.org/video/

You said nothing of the sort
"A painting is a unique work of art. Very few of us can afford to buy paintings and so would need to go to a gallery, or look at photos of paintings in books, or on our computers etc in order to enjoy them. Records/CDs/MP3s etc are mass produced consumer items, and, in themselves only a vehicle to provide us with music."

Which was in reply to your question:
"Why would anyone buy a painting when you can look at pictures on your computer?"

Short run pressings are obviously not mass produced.

They are like a LTD print or a run of hand made sleeves (which for some reason is ok for you). How are LTD sleeves not the same as LTD records? There are still only 30 sleeves for those 30 records (and all that hand numbered crap). Hardly a great marketing plan.
Personally I don't care for ltd runs. It was just an example.

YES THEY ARE IDENTICAL! Just because you artificially create a limited run does not make them unique works of art, they are still identical, whether you press 30, or 30,000 - admittedly, by producing individual hand-made sleeves you are creating unique items - the music will still be identical. It's an artificial scarcity, unlike a painting which is unique.

I like having my books, guitars, records. I like wearing the clothes I like. I like the look of some things and like to own them. If that makes me a shallow person - hey ho.

Well it is quite clear that this is not a problem and that owning a physical copy of a record you love is not a priority for you so you don't need to understand. If you did, you might do it.

No. I said that when I bought those records I was in a CD buying phase when buying new stuff. Now I want to buy the vinyl of the great CDs I bought at the time. The Vinyl is too expensive for me. If I had done it the other way around and bought the vinyl at the time but still wanted a CD I could easily afford 50p and still have both.
I don't care that some of my records are worth a lot because I won't sell them. I am only ever concerned about the prices when a record is too expensive for me to buy.
Also records don't 'wear out' in that way at all. I have a records that I have played over and over and over again since my teens. None of my records are scratched or have 'worn out'. I was actually afraid that some of my favorites would, and as a teen bought two copies of a few of them. I have never ever ever gotten onto the second copy of any record as of yet.



If you are going to start suggesting that switching a PC on, booting up Itunes and hitting shuffle is a 'ritual' as well, then ok. I turn a record player on, then get a record out and put it on. Maybe look at it spinning a bit, check the sleeve. Do some housework.

The connection is to the product as a whole, picking up the record and seeing the sleeve. I'm not bloody caressing it.



You seem to be very upset that people might like records. I don't mind getting the bus, but some people like to drive their own car, a car they like the look of. I don't, but I can see why someone might.
Records are not for you, it's not something you care about. I mean jesus, you make it sound like someone who buys vinyl makes it his /her whole life. It's not 'freaky'. I just like records.

I managed to have a sensible, and uncontentious discussion about this with SarfLondoner . However, it seems you are quite fond of misinterpreting, me, and putting words in my mouth .

I am in no way upset at anyone buying records. I am simply seeking clarification, as to why? I don't care whether people listen to music on vinyl, tape, CD, MP3 etc. I have already mentioned, that I understand that DJs, and those seeking music not available in other formats might want to buy vinyl. It is the apparent fetishisation of vinyl that I find odd. After all, music has existed for 1,000s of years and given pleasure to billions of people - long before any kind of recording methods were available. The vinyl record has been popular for a few decades but now only represents a tiny fraction of the music we hear.

 

[editor]

YES THEY ARE IDENTICAL! Just because you artificially create a limited run does not make them unique works of art, they are still identical, whether you press 30, or 30,000 - admittedly, by producing individual hand-made sleeves you are creating unique items - the music will still be identical. It's an artificial scarcity, unlike a painting which is unique.

That's a really daft argument, you know. The scarcity is not manufactured or artificially created to foster a false sense of uniqueness: it's a direct consequence of the band's status (i.e. a niche, indie DIY appeal).

It's like arguing that railway travel posters from the 30s (which now command large fees) aren't objects of worth in their own right because so few were printed. They could have printed millions, you might argue. But they didn't, hence their value as works of art.

 

[fishfinger]

That's a really daft argument, you know. The scarcity is not manufactured or artificially created to foster a false sense of uniqueness: it's a direct consequence of the band's status (i.e. a niche, indie DIY appeal).

I beg to differ but it seems we would only be arguing semantics.

 

[editor]

The limited run was NOT "artificially created" as you claim. It was a direct consequence of the art form.

 

[fishfinger]

The limited run was NOT "artificially created" as you claim. It was a direct consequence of the art form.

Like I said semantics. We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I really cannot be bothered to discuss this any further.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Unfortunately you seem to believe in several audio myths. If you really want to improve your knowledge, you might try looking at somewhere like http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/ where a number of audio scientists, researchers, and engineers post. Your misconception about "steps" in digital audio is addressed quite well by video episode 2 from Xiph http://www.xiph.org/video/

Oh dear, it seems that you don't quite understand. I assume you watched that video right? It does indeed explain everything very clearly and correctly and does not contradict anything that I have said.
Steps are not breaks in the signal they are snapshots of constant sound. As I said before you can't hear anything at higher sampling rates and the effects are quite inconsequential at lower sample rates like 44.1k and 48k. . . . but they are there, as the chap in that video explains (very nicely I might add).
He even goes onto explain the anti aliasing 20 20 bandlimiting for anti aliasing (used in CDs etc) I mentioned before.
I have said several times already that I can't see any problem with digital sound, and you can never ever hear the difference at the higher sample rates.

He even starts the video saying "24bit 194 music downloads don't make sense. The results are almost impassive".
I said that tests up to 98k have proved far far far more than enough. I never argued that digital was not good enough, but technically the analogue sound (let's say of something actually happening) is never going to be as good, whatever the sampling rate, even if it is almost impassive.

I really cannot be bothered to discuss this any further.

Thank god for that.

 

[chemn]

I don't understand why the anti-aliasing filter in digital systems has been mentioned as a limiting factor? I mean I do, but it's like talking about the upper bound of the dynamic range as a limiting factor when the total range is more important? And what's so bad about digitally sampling a signal if it's done at a suitably high bit depth and sampling rate such that, to all intents and purposes, it is indistinguishable from the original signal?

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I don't understand why the anti-aliasing filter in digital systems has been mentioned as a limiting factor? I mean I do, but it's like talking about the upper bound of the dynamic range as a limiting factor when the total range is more important?

It's not that important, but harmonics outside the spectrum of human hearing can affect those within. From a purely technical point of view it isn't an accurate reproduction.
Not something that bothers me in the slightest.

And what's so bad about digitally sampling a signal if it's done at a suitably high bit depth and sampling rate such that, to all intents and purposes, it is indistinguishable from the original signal?

Nothing. There is nothing wrong with it at all.

 

[Gavin Bl]

my GF's teenagers absolutely love her old vinyl stuff. It just has something about it....perhaps a link back to a perceived golden age. And frankly, she has a terrible record collection.

God, I love Central Market.

 

[editor]

God, I love Central Market.

Me too!

I've got a little photo feature coming up soon...

 

[editor]

Here's some photos from around the market:

http://www.urban75.org/blog/photos-...an-indoor-market-in-the-castle-quarter-wales/

 

[shygirl]

I bought my first Taj Mahal album there in about 1978. I do love it, but always found his prices a bit steep. I've been using Musicstack for years, as it offers far more competitive prices. Still, hope that Kelly's stays there forever! Haven't his sons taken over now, seem to remember his saying he was gonna retire?