|
What's it take to get a vinyl release these days (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| CLICK_RAREVINYL |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjStephenWiley
And you explain nothing. We're talking about vinyl and digital. You can't sit here and use the perfect scenario for a vinyl master and the worst for a digital master. You forgot to add you're playing the vinyl from Ortofan's and comparing it with 96kbs mp3's.
Sorry Mr. Vinyl hustler, but digital audio is better when things are equal, period.
ps. Get your rebuttal in quickly because I'm not sure how much longer you'll be around here. |
Oh no! Big boss net label owner is gonna start pulling the strings...
And no FYI. That is not the best case scenario. That just what happens often.
The best case scenario would be for a label to master a track at their labels mastering studio with an engineer that knows their music and then send that CD24 straight off the masterlink to another pressing plant to press the vinyl.
This is a more costly option than just using the mastering services that come with the 500 pressing deal.
Here is an example... Do you know any of these records?
http://www.exchangemastering.co.uk/albums7.html
But yes I will agree with you if mastered properly a CD release can sound good too. But often that is not the case. Nobody has $100.000 worth of mastering equipment sitting around in their house. But at least with vinyl there is a mastering standard. And this is why it is generally accepted that electronic music pressed on vinyl sounds better. |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by CLICK_RAREVINYL
And this is why it is generally accepted that electronic music pressed on vinyl sounds better. |
I would reword that to 'And this is why it is accepted that generally, electronic music pressed on vinyl sounds better.'
Your wording seemed to imply that it is generally accepted that all vinyl music sounds better than the CD equivalent, which isn't the case.
It makes sense that, looking at the average vinyl song compared to the average CD/mp3 song, that the vinyl song is better, since it's much more expensive to produce a run of vinyl. It's much less likely that a really bad song will be pressed to vinyl. But the same song will sound as good on CD.
It's the same way that hardware/software arguments sometimes get distorted - in general, people who are just starting out don't go out and buy a heap of hardware synths. People who have a lot of hardware generally will have been producing a lot longer, and their songs will sound better because of their mixing experience and knowledge of their tools. Yes, there are other factors, but this does sometimes muddy the waters. |
|
|
| StephenWiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by CLICK_RAREVINYL
Oh no! Big boss net label owner is gonna start pulling the strings...
And no FYI. That is not the best case scenario. That just what happens often.
The best case scenario would be for a label to master a track at their labels mastering studio with an engineer that knows their music and then send that CD24 straight off the masterlink to another pressing plant to press the vinyl.
This is a more costly option than just using the mastering services that come with the 500 pressing deal.
Here is an example... Do you know any of these records?
http://www.exchangemastering.co.uk/albums7.html
But yes I will agree with you if mastered properly a CD release can sound good too. But often that is not the case. Nobody has $100.000 worth of mastering equipment sitting around in their house. But at least with vinyl there is a mastering standard. And this is why it is generally accepted that electronic music pressed on vinyl sounds better. |
:haha:
So says the guy with RAREVINYL in his name who runs a vinyl store on ebay .
Please don't make me post all of my vinyl rips from lost language along with the digital releases of the tracks. Boy would you look dumb. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjStephenWiley
not going to argue about opinions but i don't understand how something can sound better than its original source. |
But the "original source" in the digital domain is a WAV or AIFF file, not an MP3, unless the producer is just making a track by combining MP3s. MP3 comes from compressing the original WAV or AIFF, removing frequencies... |
|
|
| DjStephenWiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
But the "original source" in the digital domain is a WAV or AIFF file, not an MP3, unless the producer is just making a track by combining MP3s. MP3 comes from compressing the original WAV or AIFF, removing frequencies... |
What is your point? Is digital audio confined only to mp3? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjStephenWiley
What is your point? Is digital audio confined only to mp3? |
You said that MP3 sounded better than vinyl. I was just pointing out that MP3 is not "original source," it's a truncated version of the original. |
|
|
| DjStephenWiley |
| No need to split hairs. If you'd like me to clarify, 320kbps MP3 sounds better and 192kbps arguably sounds better. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
Sorry, not to be pedantic or confrontational, but Vinyl DOES sound better than Digital - No question, there really is no subjectvity about this debate. One is a fairly rudementary digital format and the other is high fidelity analogue.
If all things are equal, even if the the music is created purely in a digital environment, the vinyl will sound better than the CD equivalent.
Yes, other factors come in to play such as the quality of the pressing/master and the RIAA preampand needle used for reproduction later, but that does not effect the true quality of the production itself.
Yes, when you just give a digital master to vinyl pressing house and ask them to dupe it, there's no benefit, but you'd have to be a muppet to do that, as you'd want the track mastered properly with a view that it's going to vinyl.
I can't be bothered to post the reasons why, but you guys all know this stuff - I don;t get why are you trying to redebate it with different results?
Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick? :conf: |
|
|
| sixofour.604 |
| I didn't think vinyl presses still existed. Welcome to 1989 I guess. |
|
|
| CLICK_RAREVINYL |
| quote: | Originally posted by StephenWiley
:haha:
So says the guy with RAREVINYL in his name who runs a vinyl store on ebay .
Please don't make me post all of my vinyl rips from lost language along with the digital releases of the tracks. Boy would you look dumb. |
You are missing the forest for the trees. Once a record is mastered and pressed on vinyl the musis sounds like it is supposed to sound on vinyl. Once you re-record to digital the sound changes.
If any of you got turntables and an analog mixer around do this test:
Play a record from the turntable and listen to the sound through the speakers.
Now record the 12'' into the computer and play the recording from the computer. No matter how good your converters are it is never going to sound the same. Once a record is digitized something goes away that never comes back. That is a fact.
Also what derail said is true. The bar for releasing vinyl is set way higher than the bar for releasing digital and suffice to say most of the tracks being released these days wouldn't make the leap.
My point is this. 95% of the time the music is mastered properly when released to vinyl and that is why alot of people say that vinyl sounds better.
The Cd version of the track mastered at the same studios would sound good as well. No doubt about that. It is just that often net label owners don't bother sending the tracks to get mastered professionally before they release them which is why the sound quality suffers.
I remember beatport got so many complaints about the sound quality so they had to address this in their frequently asked questions and explain to people how it is 100% certain that a Britney Spears song will get mastered professionally but with underground dance music that is not always the case. They probably got tired of all the people sending them emails saying ''give me my money back this sounds like .''
With that said all things at the mastering stage equal the music will sound good on both vinyl and CD.
The rest is a matter of preference. |
|
|
| DjStephenWiley |
How in the world can you say something created digitally sounds better on vinyl? I see you using "CD" in your post very sneakily. Do not confuse or try to confuse others on a CD vs. digital audio. A CD is just a piece of plastic capable of playing back digital audio at a specific quality and doesn't come close to representing the superiority of digital audio.
How in the world could you make the claim that vinyl is better? I realize this is opinionated, but I just can't fathom how you can claim something sounds better than its original and most pure form. In any event, digital audio is better because it is THE SOURCE. How can something sound better or claim to be better than the pure, original, source itself?!?!?!? PLEASE explain this to me. |
|
|
| CLICK_RAREVINYL |
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
I didn't think vinyl presses still existed. Welcome to 1989 I guess. |
:rolleyes:
Unless you were living under a rock vinyl was the main dance music format until about... 2004!
And there are still Djs supporting the format.
So stop it with the 1989 nonsense... |
|
|
|
|
