Pearl Jam - Live on Two Legs - 2LP Clear Vinyl

Options
1…2526283031…34

Comments

  • MedozK
    MedozK Tennessee Posts: 9,212
    edited June 2022
    Cropduster-80 said:
    MedozK said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    MedozK said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    pjpitt89 said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    It looks like MPP 3554 then the runout that’s on discogs 
    oh interesting. I cannot find the (U) to save my life however. It does have some hand scratched "#2" and other numbers as well
    You are right MRP and I can’t find a U either
    Yea, that is definitely Memphis Record Pressing. I guess since they pressed so many of these, they had to use multiple plants.
    I just assumed united.  Seemed obvious 
    lol...Did you peel that extra label off?
    Nope, I’m leaving it how it came 
    If you happen to come across another MRP pressing let me know. I would be afraid to buy one blindly, cause I would prolly get another United pressing.

    That is what I love about getting vinyl on Amazon is that the returns are so easy. Took me forever to find the Reissue of the Reissue MPO pressing of Vitalogy.

    Hopefully the Gold pressing is MRP and I won't have to search out a clear one.
    Post edited by MedozK on
  • AW124797
    AW124797 Posts: 762
    pjpitt89 said:
    Are we sure ALL clear US pressings are from United? I just got home from a trip and mine definitely does not have a (U), and part of the runout contains MRP which I believe is Memphis Record Pressing? I haven't listened yet, because I prefer to clean first and I'm out of distilled water. I did run them on my table and they're mostly flat, minimal warp.

    Paging @MedozK
    Great work here. I was wondering why my record sounds so good compared to most reviews. 
  • Cropduster-80
    Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    edited June 2022
    AW124797 said:
    pjpitt89 said:
    Are we sure ALL clear US pressings are from United? I just got home from a trip and mine definitely does not have a (U), and part of the runout contains MRP which I believe is Memphis Record Pressing? I haven't listened yet, because I prefer to clean first and I'm out of distilled water. I did run them on my table and they're mostly flat, minimal warp.

    Paging @MedozK
    Great work here. I was wondering why my record sounds so good compared to most reviews. 
    It still has less depth than the original.  I’m also convinced the levels are different too. a bit less drum and more guitar on the clear (MRP) in my case. Either that or it’s just less powerful drum sounds and by default that brings up the guitar 

    It’s slight, but it’s different. The thinness is the only thing that I don’t like.  I wouldn’t say it isn’t good though, it’s just very slightly different.  And being honest the original isn’t the best sounding record to begin with anyway. Good not great 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • MedozK
    MedozK Tennessee Posts: 9,212
    edited June 2022
    Cropduster-80 said:
    AW124797 said:
    pjpitt89 said:
    Are we sure ALL clear US pressings are from United? I just got home from a trip and mine definitely does not have a (U), and part of the runout contains MRP which I believe is Memphis Record Pressing? I haven't listened yet, because I prefer to clean first and I'm out of distilled water. I did run them on my table and they're mostly flat, minimal warp.

    Paging @MedozK
    Great work here. I was wondering why my record sounds so good compared to most reviews. 
    It still has less depth than the original.  I’m also convinced the levels are different too. a bit less drum and more guitar on the clear (MRP) in my case. Either that or it’s just less powerful drum sounds and by default that brings up the guitar 

    It’s slight, but it’s different. The thinness is the only thing that I don’t like.  
    Agree totally. I think that is what happens when they make the overall sound more clear. Takes the depth and bottom end away.
    Post edited by MedozK on
  • pjpitt89
    pjpitt89 Posts: 1,873
    I have only listened to Side A of my clear MRP. It does have more of a warp than at first look. Sound is nice, I still think my OG is preferred, but it's better than I expected. No distortion and minimal surface noise through one side.

    @MedozK I could probably pick you up a copy at the shop where I got mine, but obviously still can't guarantee it's MRP. I just imagine it has a fair shot since they were likely shipped together from the plant.
    9/1/00, 4/28/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/12/03, 10/1/04, 9/28/05, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 6/1/06, 6/27/08, 6/30/08, 8/7/08 (EV), 6/12/09 (EV), 10/27/09, 10/28/09,10/30/09, 10/31/09, 5/21/10, 6/15/11 (EV), 9/2/12, 7/19/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 10/27/13, 4/28/16, 4/29/16, 8/7/16, 11/4/16 (TOTD), 8/18/18, 8/20/18, 9/24/21 (EV&Earthlings), 9/26/21, 9/11/2022, 9/14/2022, 9/7/2024, 9/9/2024, 9/12/2024, 5/16/2025, 5/18/2025
  • GlowGirl
    GlowGirl New York, NY Posts: 12,062
    Cropduster-80 said:
    pjpitt89 said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    It looks like MPP 3554 then the runout that’s on discogs 
    oh interesting. I cannot find the (U) to save my life however. It does have some hand scratched "#2" and other numbers as well
    You are right MRP and I can’t find a U either

    This is what mine says as well - MRP3554. Mine sounds great and no warping, but I don't have the same audiophile ears that many of you have.
  • MedozK
    MedozK Tennessee Posts: 9,212
    edited June 2022
    pjpitt89 said:
    I have only listened to Side A of my clear MRP. It does have more of a warp than at first look. Sound is nice, I still think my OG is preferred, but it's better than I expected. No distortion and minimal surface noise through one side.

    @MedozK I could probably pick you up a copy at the shop where I got mine, but obviously still can't guarantee it's MRP. I just imagine it has a fair shot since they were likely shipped together from the plant.
    Thanks for the offer, but I would be afraid for you buying it blindly. I will probably have a better chance buying used for it.

    Hopefully the Gold is MRP.

    You are probably right though about the MRPs being at your store, prolly from the same distributor who probably received them from the plants.
    Post edited by MedozK on
  • Cropduster-80
    Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    GlowGirl said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    pjpitt89 said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    It looks like MPP 3554 then the runout that’s on discogs 
    oh interesting. I cannot find the (U) to save my life however. It does have some hand scratched "#2" and other numbers as well
    You are right MRP and I can’t find a U either

    This is what mine says as well - MRP3554. Mine sounds great and no warping, but I don't have the same audiophile ears that many of you have.
    If you aren’t listening back to back you probably wouldn’t notice anyway 

    if you thought the original was solid, this one is too 
  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    I would suggest the Memphis pressing receive its own listing in discogs… but the rules around this are as clear as mud. A separate listing may end up merged anyway.  I would argue that records being pressed at different plants is enough to “distinguish the different versions”.
    I can’t enter a separate submission because I do not have physical possession of the record (another one of the rules). 

    Excerpt from their submission guidelines for your reference. 

    Unique Releases

    1.4.1. Discogs allows the entering of all versions of a release, such as white labels, reissues, different artwork, format variations, colored vinyl, different manufacturers, etc. In order for these to be accepted, you must provide enough information to distinguish the different versions of a release. It may be important to provide as much information as possible for major label releases, such as barcodes, matrix numbers, publishing/copyright dates, and any other identifiable marks. Note that different matrix numbers or barcodes may not necessarily mean that a separate release should be entered, please ask in the forum if in doubt.

  • MedozK
    MedozK Tennessee Posts: 9,212
    1ThoughtKnown said:
    I would suggest the Memphis pressing receive its own listing in discogs… but the rules around this are as clear as mud. A separate listing may end up merged anyway.  I would argue that records being pressed at different plants is enough to “distinguish the different versions”.
    I can’t enter a separate submission because I do not have physical possession of the record (another one of the rules). 

    Excerpt from their submission guidelines for your reference. 

    Unique Releases

    1.4.1. Discogs allows the entering of all versions of a release, such as white labels, reissues, different artwork, format variations, colored vinyl, different manufacturers, etc. In order for these to be accepted, you must provide enough information to distinguish the different versions of a release. It may be important to provide as much information as possible for major label releases, such as barcodes, matrix numbers, publishing/copyright dates, and any other identifiable marks. Note that different matrix numbers or barcodes may not necessarily mean that a separate release should be entered, please ask in the forum if in doubt.

    Definite unique release. If I owned it I would have already added it.
  • Cropduster-80
    Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    edited June 2022
    1ThoughtKnown said:
    I would suggest the Memphis pressing receive its own listing in discogs… but the rules around this are as clear as mud. A separate listing may end up merged anyway.  I would argue that records being pressed at different plants is enough to “distinguish the different versions”.
    I can’t enter a separate submission because I do not have physical possession of the record (another one of the rules). 

    Excerpt from their submission guidelines for your reference. 

    Unique Releases

    1.4.1. Discogs allows the entering of all versions of a release, such as white labels, reissues, different artwork, format variations, colored vinyl, different manufacturers, etc. In order for these to be accepted, you must provide enough information to distinguish the different versions of a release. It may be important to provide as much information as possible for major label releases, such as barcodes, matrix numbers, publishing/copyright dates, and any other identifiable marks. Note that different matrix numbers or barcodes may not necessarily mean that a separate release should be entered, please ask in the forum if in doubt.

    I know for sure in rainbows 45 rpm has two listings plus the misprint and it’s avoided a merge 

    the only difference I’m aware of is the where it was pressed 

    I’ve seen others get merged for the same reason though 

    on a side note, what’s up with all the comments that a made in Germany, Canada etc. isn’t a US release? That’s been going on a lot lately.  Where it’s made isn’t related to if it’s a US release I wouldn’t think 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • MedozK
    MedozK Tennessee Posts: 9,212
    Different pressing plants are without a doubt different subs on Discogs.
  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    MedozK said:
    Different pressing plants are without a doubt different subs on Discogs.
    MedozK said:
    1ThoughtKnown said:
    I would suggest the Memphis pressing receive its own listing in discogs… but the rules around this are as clear as mud. A separate listing may end up merged anyway.  I would argue that records being pressed at different plants is enough to “distinguish the different versions”.
    I can’t enter a separate submission because I do not have physical possession of the record (another one of the rules). 

    Excerpt from their submission guidelines for your reference. 

    Unique Releases

    1.4.1. Discogs allows the entering of all versions of a release, such as white labels, reissues, different artwork, format variations, colored vinyl, different manufacturers, etc. In order for these to be accepted, you must provide enough information to distinguish the different versions of a release. It may be important to provide as much information as possible for major label releases, such as barcodes, matrix numbers, publishing/copyright dates, and any other identifiable marks. Note that different matrix numbers or barcodes may not necessarily mean that a separate release should be entered, please ask in the forum if in doubt.

    Definite unique release. If I owned it I would have already added it.
    Glad we agree 🤙👍
  • Patrick_Sea3
    Patrick_Sea3 West Seattle Posts: 934
    I got a gold copy from Easy Street on Saturday from what I can make out on the gold copy is: 21-0682NL_19439952191 A
  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    Patrick_Sea3 said:
    I got a gold copy from Easy Street on Saturday from what I can make out on the gold copy is: 21-0682NL_19439952191 A
    Whoever entered that listing in discogs didn’t enter the runout info or add any pictures. Just a terrible job. Why do something so half-assed? 
  • Cropduster-80
    Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    edited June 2022
    1ThoughtKnown said:
    Patrick_Sea3 said:
    I got a gold copy from Easy Street on Saturday from what I can make out on the gold copy is: 21-0682NL_19439952191 A
    Whoever entered that listing in discogs didn’t enter the runout info or add any pictures. Just a terrible job. Why do something so half-assed? 
    And this is why I’m not creating a listing 😂

    too much pressure 

    then you get 30 inbox notifications for all the revisions that follow 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • AW124797
    AW124797 Posts: 762
    Cropduster-80 said:
    AW124797 said:
    pjpitt89 said:
    Are we sure ALL clear US pressings are from United? I just got home from a trip and mine definitely does not have a (U), and part of the runout contains MRP which I believe is Memphis Record Pressing? I haven't listened yet, because I prefer to clean first and I'm out of distilled water. I did run them on my table and they're mostly flat, minimal warp.

    Paging @MedozK
    Great work here. I was wondering why my record sounds so good compared to most reviews. 
    It still has less depth than the original.  I’m also convinced the levels are different too. a bit less drum and more guitar on the clear (MRP) in my case. Either that or it’s just less powerful drum sounds and by default that brings up the guitar 

    It’s slight, but it’s different. The thinness is the only thing that I don’t like.  I wouldn’t say it isn’t good though, it’s just very slightly different.  And being honest the original isn’t the best sounding record to begin with anyway. Good not great 
    I thought Jeff and Matt were mixed well here. This makes me want to crack open my original. 
  • bazfromoz
    bazfromoz Posts: 256
    demetrios said:
    bazfromoz said:
    So anyone know where the Australian copies were pressed? 

    Got a photo of the back credits?



  • 2-feign-reluctance
    2-feign-reluctance TigerTown, USA Posts: 23,459
    MRP pressing check in. Flat, quiet, and a bit brighter than my OG pressing, but sounds outstanding!! 
    www.cluthelee.com
  • Cropduster-80
    Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    AW124797 said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    AW124797 said:
    pjpitt89 said:
    Are we sure ALL clear US pressings are from United? I just got home from a trip and mine definitely does not have a (U), and part of the runout contains MRP which I believe is Memphis Record Pressing? I haven't listened yet, because I prefer to clean first and I'm out of distilled water. I did run them on my table and they're mostly flat, minimal warp.

    Paging @MedozK
    Great work here. I was wondering why my record sounds so good compared to most reviews. 
    It still has less depth than the original.  I’m also convinced the levels are different too. a bit less drum and more guitar on the clear (MRP) in my case. Either that or it’s just less powerful drum sounds and by default that brings up the guitar 

    It’s slight, but it’s different. The thinness is the only thing that I don’t like.  I wouldn’t say it isn’t good though, it’s just very slightly different.  And being honest the original isn’t the best sounding record to begin with anyway. Good not great 
    I thought Jeff and Matt were mixed well here. This makes me want to crack open my original. 
    Yeah. That part I like. There is also better separation on the clear. 

    I would suspect regardless if it’s the reissue or the original that compilation albums are difficult since it’s multiple recordings from multiple locations and making them all go together. 

    From what I remember (it’s been a while since I’ve listened) I like vault 3 and 6 a bit more and a good chunk of Lo2L is from those two. That’s not to say I don’t like Lo2L because I do. Both versions 

Categories