Vinyl vs. CDs

Filed under “Music” and “Science & Technology
by Adam at 2:50 PM

Permalink :: 2 Comments

A mere young-un of 27, I was introduced to vinyl last year when I volunteered to sell off the record collection of my mother’s husband on eBay for a split of the profits. It’s vast, with material going back as far as a 78 rpm shellac copy of “Rhapsody in Blue,” and as recent as promotional 12″ maxi-singles for Tool and Nirvana.

Getting a chance to hear music I was already familiar with — or even already owned on CD — gave me a new appreciation for the format. High frequencies and tonal shifts do sound somehow more acoustically natural on vinyl, and a well-preserved and clean record exhibits little of the pop and hiss most people associate with the medium.

By comparison CDs sound almost antiseptically, clinically, unnaturally “pure.” I have noticed that some more recent discs, particularly from certain artists, do a better job of mimicking the warmth and naturalness of vinyl, however. Pearl Jam is particularly good at this, though I hear that Riot Act is less so.

I’ll probably never be a real vinyl aficionado — it’s an expensive hobby, and I already have two of those in gaming and photography. Dabbling, though, has been an interesting trip into an unknown subculture, complete with its own ethics, language, etc.

I haven’t auctioned any records since some of the 90s promotional discs several months ago, partially due to a lack of free time and partially because of the wear on Bill’s old turntable from all the play testing I did. I think it needs a new needle, but I’m clueless where to find such a thing. Any advice?

Note: This post was adapted from a post I made on the TextDrive forums. Still hoping for an answer about that record needle. :-)

The Personality Test that Pulls No Punches

Filed under “Web Links” and “Miscellanea
by Adam at 2:35 PM

Permalink :: 3 Comments

20 Questions to a Better Personality” is a personality test that tells it like it is and gets it about half right, at least in my case. My initial result was SRCL — Sober Rational Constructive Leader:

Wackiness: 38/100
Rationality: 64/100
Constructiveness: 92/100
Leadership: 56/100

You are a SRCL — Sober Rational Constructive Leader. This makes you a Ayn Rand ideal.

Taggart? Roark? Galt? You are all of these. You were born to lead. You may not be particularly exciting, but you have a strange charisma–born of intellect and personal drive–that people begin to notice when they have been around you a while. You don’t like to compromise, but you recognize when you have to.

You care absolutely nothing what other people think, and this somehow attracts people to you. Treat them well, use them wisely, and ascend to your rightful rank.

Of the 65678 people who have taken this quiz since tracking began (8/17/2004), 5.5% are this type.

I’ve read a little Ayn Rand, and find her a little scary in a mildly fascist kind of way. I’m typically either more of a loner or more of a consensus-builder than this type would indicate. I’m on the cusp with another type, though — the SRCF:

You are a SRCF — Sober Rational Constructive Follower. This makes you a White House staffer.

You are a tremendous asset to any employer, cool under pressure, productive, and a great communicator. You feel the need to right wrongs, take up slack, mediate disputes and keep the peace. This comes from a secret fear that business can’t go on without you–or worse, that it can.

If you have a weakness, it is your inability to say “no.” While your peers respect you, they find it difficult to resist taking advantage of your positive attitude and eagerness to take on work. You depend on a good manager to keep you from sinking under the weight and burning out.

Of the 65678 people who have taken this quiz since tracking began (8/17/2004), 7.8% are this type.

That sounds more like the person my co-workers and friends might recognize, though I feel I have more potential than that. I suppose you could say that I currently match the second description, but aspire to a more friendly and egalitarian version of the first.

(Props: jluster.org)