Check out my COOL NEW VINYL CD-Rs D00D - Page 2

mercurial · 06:43 PM

Im not even going to start trying to quote all the bloocks that's bieng posted here

This post was re the new cosmetics on these CD-R's

This is a subject that has always been of great personal interest - and I have studied the books long and hard on it ... attended lectures - sat 2+ hour exams on digital and analog media/sound/recording/mastering ... the fucking lot

48kHz is a sample rate - that doesnt mean jack shit at the end of the day because Nyquist filtering is not a problem on vynil - that's a digital limitation - besides you can't hear anything above 20kHz anyhow - therefore 44.1 is more than enough leeway for a brick wall filter to stop any aliasing

Vynil has a dynamic range of about +/- 65 dB - CD has +/- 95 dB
- you reference Dillinja records? Dance music needs generally works with about 6 dB of dynamic range so therefore range becomes virtually irrelevant in the d'n'b genre ... vynil doesn't need to have piss all dynamic range for the purpose it serves

On Vynil - Bass frequency must be rolled off after dropping below 150Hz - On CD you can go flat down to 20Hz

You have to start rolling off the bass because too much information leads to two problems -

1. The grooves get to big for the stylus to read
2. The stylus will physically pop out of the groove on the record

Better pressing methods allow greater amounts of Bass on modern vynil as opposed to older 60's and 70's products - but vynil still cannot handle the same amount of Bass as CD

fuck this post is getting long ... anyhow

There are two other things I think I should make mention of with regards to the Analog vs. Digital debate that has ensued

1. What you hear off a CD is analog - digital converted to analog. Most mastering is done at 24 bit quantisation and dithered down to 16 for CD production - believe me there is no zipper noise (or 'missing bits of info') problems at this rate - any lower than 16 bit and yes you've got a problem

2. All Vynil cutters are controlled by computers - so what's the difference? The audio is digital to begin with - it is then converted to a form which can be cut onto the vynil plate. So it starts as digital - ends up as analog ... please refer to the above point if you've missed the connection

Look don't get me wrong - I love the crackle of firewood on my Supremes record - and I like the big pictures and the Liner notes and all that other cool shit about records.

But let's not get into a pointless and ill informed debate ...I'm sorry but those of you plugging vynil as a better medium have missed out on some very basic and fundamental detail. If you would like to continue talking about this ... please e-mail me or start a thread.

mercurial · 12-05-2002, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by StillBecomingApart
Just make that test:

Put siamese dream on your CD, turn the volume up. Start Disarm. Listen to it.

Put siamese dream Vinyl 1 on your turntable and turn the volume up. Start Disarm. Listen to it.

Now tell me why disarm sounds so better on vinyl.

I had to quote this - worst argument ever

The answer is mastering ... end of story

nothing to do with vynil or CD

mercurial · 12-05-2002, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Delta

ok, normally i dont ever say anything about mispellings and typos (i know i make them all the time), but how in fuck could you study something as carefully as you say and not figure out how to spell the subject's name? and dont try to say it was an accident, you went 0 for 9 in that post

jesus fucking christ ... thats atrocious ... it truly is ... and Im not even dyslexic ...

PkPhuoko · 12-05-2002, 07:26 PM

dude you got a lot of misconceptions about the actual recording, mastering, and pressing process.

You've got to realize the industry standard no matter what genre is DAT. A digital representation of an analog source at its most accurate level. Lets say you make a song.... you now have it on DAT. It's now time for that track to be mastered. Now listen up. WHEN A TRACK IS SENT TO BE MASTERED IT IS MASTERED TOWARDS THE MEDIUM IT IS TO BE PRESENTED ON. Meaning if I'm putting the track on vinyl I'm going to master it slightly differently than if I'm going to put it on CD. Why? Vinyl can pick up both low and high frequencys better. So when mastering a track to be put on vinyl I master it with that in mind. When mastering it to be put on CD you master it to alter those lower and higher frequencies to its optimum quality so even though I can't pick up those low frequencies as well I can alter it to sound as if I can.

If you release a CD and then want to release it on vinyl it is re-mastered to fit as such.

To correct you on a few things..... "Grooves get to wide for a stylus to read" hardly.... the laquer used on most vinyl these days lasts in upwards of 10K plays which in your lifetime you'll likely never play. Plus like i said with concord needles the stylus doesnt actually ride the record but more so a small fraction of it.

"the stylus will actually pop out of the record" nope.... with tonearm breakthroughs by vestax, technics, and numark there is such thing as a skipless turntable. Infact there are vestax tables that can be held upside down and will not lift the tonearm.

"theres no missing zipper noises" you whistle in an AC sinewave... you master the shit out of it and get a digital representation and you dont have a sinewave... you have a staircase with missing info. not much but it doesnt take much to alter sound quality.

"all vinyl cutters are controlled by computers" not really.... once a master plate is made the only thing the computer controls is the assembly line.

"sample rate doesnt mean shit" come on now..... listen to a 44.1kbps mp3 and listen to a 328kbps one.

I think a lot of your misconceptions apply to dubplates which are acetate that is etched by a machine which is similar to vinyl but nowhere near the quality.

lets say this acetate=cd quality
vinyl > cd

mercurial · 08:26 PM

you've missed the fundamental points I've made -

These are facts of the vinyl medium - read any book (and I strongly suggest a book called Modern Recording Techniques - websites are notorious for being innacurate as there are often no editors) and you will be told the same thing

Decreased dynamic range - decreased frequency response

Yes the mastering is different for the medium - and it is for that same reason. You have to tailor bass frequencies so that the stylus doesn't jump out of the groove, you have to tailor dynamic range to what can be accomodated by the medium

I don't know where you got the idea that the medium picks up highs and lows better - that's bollocks and you'll have to quote your source to convince me

The lacquer is not the problem - it's the size of the stylus ... and width of the groove at pressing ... I've seen the amazing stuff that Numark and Vestax are doing - but unfourtunately the fact remains that even those tone arms cannot stop the stylus from pooping when there is too much information below 150Hz - it's a fact of life with vinyl.

Please also note that there are no records made specifically for decks with these fittings. The medium has to be compatible with a wide array of technology old and new - or else what is already a struggling industry will run itself almost completely out of business

And yes - the Master cutters are controlled by computer - therefore even audio that was mastered to analog tape (what a luxury that would be!) has to be converted to digital and this is what controls the cutting machine. The master plates are then used to create the stampres used to mass produce the vinyl - but the stamper is an almost exact replica of something that was cut by a machine that was based on digital audio. A short trip to any major vinyl factory will illustrate this fact clearly

DAT is not digital audio at it's most accurate level - even if it's cloned ... 96/128 is the highest we can go at this stage ... and digital audio at that resolution/quantisation tends to exist on hard drives only as the file size for a 3 minute song can be really bloody huge ... making it somewhat impractical for most storage media

You don't need to worry about zipper noise on a CD - 16-bit is a high enough quantisation rate that there is no zippering - and as I said most digital audio is mastered at 24-bit and then dithered to 16-bit

If you equate mp3 to CD quality audio one mroe time I swear Im giong to pull my hair out - the two are not in any way the same thing ... mp3 is a brutal compression format ... CD quality audio is linear.

I find it amusing that you accuse me of having misconceptions - when all your argumentation thus far is based on the most common misconceptions the general public has relating to the argument over which is the better medium

Ever read Sound on Sound - surely you have - surely then you should be aware that this is a long standing debate that has been going since before the invention of the first CD player - everything I've mentioned to you is fact-of-the-matter ... and you need to move beyond the idea of records bieng BETTER as such than CD ... this simply isn't true when looked at in terms of our two main objective measures of a storage/master medium -- Frequency Response & Dynamic Range

The medium that you prefer is another story entirely

Please read the posts before replying ... and really - Im happy to continue this via e-mail ... or another thread .. I think more than enough has been said already by both myself and you in order that the rest of the members can make an objective decision as to who is more convincing

sadly enough - poor spelling doesn't help my cause there

StillBecomingApart · 12-05-2002, 08:35 PM

I know the technical differences between CD and Vinyl...

BUT, listening to the same record on CD and on vinyl, i came out with the conclusion that vinyl is better than CD. I made this test with a lot of albums: Siamese Dream, Piscies Iscariot, Machina, Adore, Disintegration, The Dark Side of The Moon, Bloodflowers, The Wall... and many more.

I know...

mercurial · 12-05-2002, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by StillBecomingApart
I know the technical differences between CD and Vinyl...

BUT, listening to the same record on CD and on vinyl, i came out with the conclusion that vinyl is better than CD. I made this test with a lot of albums: Siamese Dream, Piscies Iscariot, Machina, Adore, Disintegration, The Dark Side of The Moon, Bloodflowers, The Wall... and many more.

I know...

fairy nuff - preference is another thing entirely - and I like the amstering that was done for the vinyl versions of some of those albums too ... Adore especially was very nicely mastered

Howie Weinberg is still the man though

PkPhuoko · 12-05-2002, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mercurial
you've missed the fundamental points I've made -

These are facts of the vinyl medium - read any book (and I strongly suggest a book called Modern Recording Techniques - websites are notorious for being innacurate as there are often no editors) and you will be told the same thing

Decreased dynamic range - decreased frequency response

Yes the mastering is different for the medium - and it is for that same reason. You have to tailor bass frequencies so that the stylus doesn't jump out of the groove, you have to tailor dynamic range to what can be accomodated by the medium

I don't know where you got the idea that the medium picks up highs and lows better - that's bollocks and you'll have to quote your source to convince me

The lacquer is not the problem - it's the size of the stylus ... and width of the groove at pressing ... I've seen the amazing stuff that Numark and Vestax are doing - but unfourtunately the fact remains that even those tone arms cannot stop the stylus from pooping when there is too much information below 150Hz - it's a fact of life with vinyl.

Please also note that there are no records made specifically for decks with these fittings. The medium has to be compatible with a wide array of technology old and new - or else what is already a struggling industry will run itself almost completely out of business

And yes - the Master cutters are controlled by computer - therefore even audio that was mastered to analog tape (what a luxury that would be!) has to be converted to digital and this is what controls the cutting machine. The master plates are then used to create the stampres used to mass produce the vinyl - but the stamper is an almost exact replica of something that was cut by a machine that was based on digital audio. A short trip to any major vinyl factory will illustrate this fact clearly

DAT is not digital audio at it's most accurate level - even if it's cloned ... 96/128 is the highest we can go at this stage ... and digital audio at that resolution/quantisation tends to exist on hard drives only as the file size for a 3 minute song can be really bloody huge ... making it somewhat impractical for most storage media

You don't need to worry about zipper noise on a CD - 16-bit is a high enough quantisation rate that there is no zippering - and as I said most digital audio is mastered at 24-bit and then dithered to 16-bit

If you equate mp3 to CD quality audio one mroe time I swear Im giong to pull my hair out - the two are not in any way the same thing ... mp3 is a brutal compression format ... CD quality audio is linear.

I find it amusing that you accuse me of having misconceptions - when all your argumentation thus far is based on the most common misconceptions the general public has relating to the argument over which is the better medium

Ever read Sound on Sound - surely you have - surely then you should be aware that this is a long standing debate that has been going since before the invention of the first CD player - everything I've mentioned to you is fact-of-the-matter ... and you need to move beyond the idea of records bieng BETTER as such than CD ... this simply isn't true when looked at in terms of our two main objective measures of a storage/master medium -- Frequency Response & Dynamic Range

The medium that you prefer is another story entirely

Please read the posts before replying ... and really - Im happy to continue this via e-mail ... or another thread .. I think more than enough has been said already by both myself and you in order that the rest of the members can make an objective decision as to who is more convincing

sadly enough - poor spelling doesn't help my cause there

Wow... in that thread alone you've proved you know nothing about

A) DAT technology
B) Recording
C) Mastering
D) Record Pressing
and most of all
E) Audio in general

perhaps you should go to school on these things and then come chime in. Tell your professor CD is superior to Vinyl and see if you don't get punched in the face.

Vinyl frequency response is always going to be superior.... end of story..... digital is great..... all those 1's and 0's are great... only problem is audio isnt 1's and 0's

PkPhuoko · 12-05-2002, 08:47 PM

ps at the current point 1.441mb is the highest digital recording medium available.

perhaps the book you read was written a decade ago?

mercurial · 12-05-2002, 09:09 PM

ok now your just getting silly

I have been to school about this - I earned my diploma by studying this stuff - not with empty factless rhetoric

I had the same argument with my lecturers that you are having with me now ... I too thought vinyl was better - till I was soundly proven wrong

please further advise which DAW or A/D/A converters are using 1.441mb quantisation and your point will be taken gladly

look you still have to refute two basic facts

reduced dynamic range
reduced frequency response

go find me some specific numbers and I'll believe you - all else you've mentioned is rhetoric

please refute the above points with some form of fact as opposed to rhetoric ... you seem semi-intelligent ... now prove yourself

TheJoker · 12-05-2002, 09:58 PM

I really really enjoy this thread.

DeviousJ · 12-05-2002, 10:08 PM

This is about the time when Clint deletes all his posts.

Incidentally the bitrate of an mp3 is not the sample rate - try loading one up into winamp and looking for something that ends in KHz

PkPhuoko · 12-05-2002, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mercurial

reduced frequency response

so you're saying cds have better frequency response than vinyl? answer flat out yes or no.

mercurial · 12-05-2002, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeviousJ
This is about the time when Clint deletes all his posts.

Incidentally the bitrate of an mp3 is not the sample rate - try loading one up into winamp and looking for something that ends in KHz

thank you kindly ... the bit rate is the quantisation rate

bonsor · 12-05-2002, 10:45 PM

I'm printing this thread.

mercurial · 12-05-2002, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PkPhuoko

so you're saying cds have better frequency response than vinyl? answer flat out yes or no.

well ask yourself PkPhuoko - vinyl has reduced frequency response in comparison to CD - this a well known and documented fact - some people have shown a slightly extended range above 20kHz - but you can't really hear any higher than 16kHz unless your ears are in perfect condition such as that of a newborn child

so when presented with this fact - bass response starts to reduce as the frequencies drop below 15Hz on vinyl ... and on CD you can go flat (that is to say without any attenuation) to 20Hz

ask yourself ... what am I saying?

bonsor · 12-05-2002, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mercurial

well ask yourself PkPhuoko - vinyl has reduced frequency response in comparison to CD - this a well known and documented fact - some people have shown a slightly extended range above 20kHz - but you can't really hear any higher than 16kHz unless your ears are in perfect condition such as that of a newborn child

so when presented with this fact - bass response starts to reduce as the frequencies drop below 15Hz on vinyl ... and on CD you can go flat (that is to say without any attenuation) to 20Hz

ask yourself ... what am I saying?

Am I missing something, or did you just disprove your own point?

Humans can hear below 20Hz anyway. What is the point of having brown noise come out your speakers, besides curing a bad case of constipation where even can after can of prunes won't even work?

mercurial · 11:14 PM

well - the accepted measurement of frequency response is 20Hz-20kHz - that's what you will find in spec sheet for say a pair of studio qulaity monitor speakers

you can't really hear below 20Hz as much as feel it --- and it's a great feeling ...

Though it can be argued that vinyl has slightly (and I do mean very slightly) increased response above 20kHz (I do believe this is still open to debate) the roll off below 150Hz is so severe that you still find you have much better frequency response on CD

so ... you lose more than you gain

I'm starting to feel somewhat like a broken record ... heh heh heh

Smiley33 · 12-05-2002, 11:37 PM

*walks in in the middle of technical discussion*

uh...hey guys! i made a cover for my record-shaped cd's!

*skips off*

bonsor · 12-05-2002, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Smiley33
*walks in in the middle of technical discussion*

uh...hey guys! i made a cover for my record-shaped cd's!

*skips off*

Have you tried playing them on a turntable yet?

Smiley33 · 12-05-2002, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ******
Have you tried playing them on a turntable yet?

no, i do'nt have one.

bonsor · 12-05-2002, 11:57 PM

I don't know what Clint's obsession with analog's superiority over digital when the vinyls he spins during his performances are more that likely digitally sourced.

mercurial · 12-06-2002, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ******
I don't know what Clint's obsession with analog's superiority over digital when the vinyls he spins during his performances are more that likely digitally sourced.

For Dj'in purposes I can understand quite clearly why vinyl is the preffered format. So much easier to manipulate, cue, scratch etc and them new CD-DJ things are prohibitively expensive ... established Dj's with large collections probably loathe the idea of a major expenditure

Your so right though - the big hypocrisy at the end of the day is the fact that the majority of dance music is created on a computer on programs like Logic, Cubase, Reason, and/or Pro Tools etc - so if the source is digital what's the point of getting all hungus about analog

I think the other problem that a lot of people have is this assumption that analog implies just vinyl. Magnetic tape (2 inch tape @ 30ips) is a true analog medium and it sounds fucking terrific - if I had millions of dollars I'd definately build myself a purely analog recording studio and mastering facility with a couple of real nice 2 inch Studor machines.

I just dont think it would be the same to see a DJ spinning reels of analog tape travelling at 30 inches per second though ...

bonsor · 12-06-2002, 12:20 AM

How does analog tape work?

mercurial · 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ******
How does analog tape work?

hehe ... we spent about 1 month solid on analog tape ... so I'll try and explain it

Essentially the surface of the tape is covered with un-polarised magnetic particles of a certain co-ercivity (the amount of magnetic force required to align them) and retentivity. The audio signal is convereted to a voltage which is fed into the record head. The record head creates a magnetic flux which aligns the particles on the tape.

When the tape is run past the repro head the alignment of the particles induces an elctro-magnetic voltage which is then converted into an audio signal.

It's totally linear ... huge dynamic range and fantastic frequency response - but say for a 24 track 2 inch Studor your expecting to fork out in excess of US$100,000 and then about $200 for a roll of nice 3M +9 tape that will allow you to record 15 minutes worth of audio for each track - expensive stuff ... but still the favoured way to record drums and guitars especially

thats a very very very simple explanation of how they work ... I'd be happy to mail you some stuff if you would like to get into the topic in a bit more depth

bonsor · 12-06-2002, 12:46 AM

I'd be more than happy to read it.

spiteface82@hotmail.com

12-05-2002, 06:22 PM	#31
mercurial $ W▲ G Posts: 6,576	Im not even going to start trying to quote all the bloocks that's bieng posted here This post was re the new cosmetics on these CD-R's This is a subject that has always been of great personal interest - and I have studied the books long and hard on it ... attended lectures - sat 2+ hour exams on digital and analog media/sound/recording/mastering ... the fucking lot 48kHz is a sample rate - that doesnt mean jack shit at the end of the day because Nyquist filtering is not a problem on vynil - that's a digital limitation - besides you can't hear anything above 20kHz anyhow - therefore 44.1 is more than enough leeway for a brick wall filter to stop any aliasing Vynil has a dynamic range of about +/- 65 dB - CD has +/- 95 dB - you reference Dillinja records? Dance music needs generally works with about 6 dB of dynamic range so therefore range becomes virtually irrelevant in the d'n'b genre ... vynil doesn't need to have piss all dynamic range for the purpose it serves On Vynil - Bass frequency must be rolled off after dropping below 150Hz - On CD you can go flat down to 20Hz You have to start rolling off the bass because too much information leads to two problems - 1. The grooves get to big for the stylus to read 2. The stylus will physically pop out of the groove on the record Better pressing methods allow greater amounts of Bass on modern vynil as opposed to older 60's and 70's products - but vynil still cannot handle the same amount of Bass as CD fuck this post is getting long ... anyhow There are two other things I think I should make mention of with regards to the Analog vs. Digital debate that has ensued 1. What you hear off a CD is analog - digital converted to analog. Most mastering is done at 24 bit quantisation and dithered down to 16 for CD production - believe me there is no zipper noise (or 'missing bits of info') problems at this rate - any lower than 16 bit and yes you've got a problem 2. All Vynil cutters are controlled by computers - so what's the difference? The audio is digital to begin with - it is then converted to a form which can be cut onto the vynil plate. So it starts as digital - ends up as analog ... please refer to the above point if you've missed the connection Look don't get me wrong - I love the crackle of firewood on my Supremes record - and I like the big pictures and the Liner notes and all that other cool shit about records. But let's not get into a pointless and ill informed debate ...I'm sorry but those of you plugging vynil as a better medium have missed out on some very basic and fundamental detail. If you would like to continue talking about this ... please e-mail me or start a thread. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "It was a thunderingly beautiful experience—voluptuous, sexual, dangerous, and expensive as hell." Last edited by mercurial : 12-05-2002 at 06:43 PM.

12-05-2002, 08:20 PM	#35
mercurial $ W▲ G Posts: 6,576	poor spelling aside ... you've missed the fundamental points I've made - These are facts of the vinyl medium - read any book (and I strongly suggest a book called Modern Recording Techniques - websites are notorious for being innacurate as there are often no editors) and you will be told the same thing Decreased dynamic range - decreased frequency response Yes the mastering is different for the medium - and it is for that same reason. You have to tailor bass frequencies so that the stylus doesn't jump out of the groove, you have to tailor dynamic range to what can be accomodated by the medium I don't know where you got the idea that the medium picks up highs and lows better - that's bollocks and you'll have to quote your source to convince me The lacquer is not the problem - it's the size of the stylus ... and width of the groove at pressing ... I've seen the amazing stuff that Numark and Vestax are doing - but unfourtunately the fact remains that even those tone arms cannot stop the stylus from pooping when there is too much information below 150Hz - it's a fact of life with vinyl. Please also note that there are no records made specifically for decks with these fittings. The medium has to be compatible with a wide array of technology old and new - or else what is already a struggling industry will run itself almost completely out of business And yes - the Master cutters are controlled by computer - therefore even audio that was mastered to analog tape (what a luxury that would be!) has to be converted to digital and this is what controls the cutting machine. The master plates are then used to create the stampres used to mass produce the vinyl - but the stamper is an almost exact replica of something that was cut by a machine that was based on digital audio. A short trip to any major vinyl factory will illustrate this fact clearly DAT is not digital audio at it's most accurate level - even if it's cloned ... 96/128 is the highest we can go at this stage ... and digital audio at that resolution/quantisation tends to exist on hard drives only as the file size for a 3 minute song can be really bloody huge ... making it somewhat impractical for most storage media You don't need to worry about zipper noise on a CD - 16-bit is a high enough quantisation rate that there is no zippering - and as I said most digital audio is mastered at 24-bit and then dithered to 16-bit If you equate mp3 to CD quality audio one mroe time I swear Im giong to pull my hair out - the two are not in any way the same thing ... mp3 is a brutal compression format ... CD quality audio is linear. I find it amusing that you accuse me of having misconceptions - when all your argumentation thus far is based on the most common misconceptions the general public has relating to the argument over which is the better medium Ever read Sound on Sound - surely you have - surely then you should be aware that this is a long standing debate that has been going since before the invention of the first CD player - everything I've mentioned to you is fact-of-the-matter ... and you need to move beyond the idea of records bieng BETTER as such than CD ... this simply isn't true when looked at in terms of our two main objective measures of a storage/master medium -- Frequency Response & Dynamic Range The medium that you prefer is another story entirely Please read the posts before replying ... and really - Im happy to continue this via e-mail ... or another thread .. I think more than enough has been said already by both myself and you in order that the rest of the members can make an objective decision as to who is more convincing sadly enough - poor spelling doesn't help my cause there __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "It was a thunderingly beautiful experience—voluptuous, sexual, dangerous, and expensive as hell." Last edited by mercurial : 12-05-2002 at 08:26 PM.

12-05-2002, 09:09 PM	#40
mercurial $ W▲ G Posts: 6,576	ok now your just getting silly I have been to school about this - I earned my diploma by studying this stuff - not with empty factless rhetoric I had the same argument with my lecturers that you are having with me now ... I too thought vinyl was better - till I was soundly proven wrong please further advise which DAW or A/D/A converters are using 1.441mb quantisation and your point will be taken gladly look you still have to refute two basic facts reduced dynamic range reduced frequency response go find me some specific numbers and I'll believe you - all else you've mentioned is rhetoric please refute the above points with some form of fact as opposed to rhetoric ... you seem semi-intelligent ... now prove yourself __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "It was a thunderingly beautiful experience—voluptuous, sexual, dangerous, and expensive as hell."

12-05-2002, 11:00 PM	#48
mercurial $ W▲ G Posts: 6,576	well - the accepted measurement of frequency response is 20Hz-20kHz - that's what you will find in spec sheet for say a pair of studio qulaity monitor speakers you can't really hear below 20Hz as much as feel it --- and it's a great feeling ... Though it can be argued that vinyl has slightly (and I do mean very slightly) increased response above 20kHz (I do believe this is still open to debate) the roll off below 150Hz is so severe that you still find you have much better frequency response on CD so ... you lose more than you gain I'm starting to feel somewhat like a broken record ... heh heh heh __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "It was a thunderingly beautiful experience—voluptuous, sexual, dangerous, and expensive as hell." Last edited by mercurial : 12-05-2002 at 11:14 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-05-2002, 07:26 PM	#34
PkPhuoko Minion of Satan Posts: 6,309	dude you got a lot of misconceptions about the actual recording, mastering, and pressing process. You've got to realize the industry standard no matter what genre is DAT. A digital representation of an analog source at its most accurate level. Lets say you make a song.... you now have it on DAT. It's now time for that track to be mastered. Now listen up. WHEN A TRACK IS SENT TO BE MASTERED IT IS MASTERED TOWARDS THE MEDIUM IT IS TO BE PRESENTED ON. Meaning if I'm putting the track on vinyl I'm going to master it slightly differently than if I'm going to put it on CD. Why? Vinyl can pick up both low and high frequencys better. So when mastering a track to be put on vinyl I master it with that in mind. When mastering it to be put on CD you master it to alter those lower and higher frequencies to its optimum quality so even though I can't pick up those low frequencies as well I can alter it to sound as if I can. If you release a CD and then want to release it on vinyl it is re-mastered to fit as such. To correct you on a few things..... "Grooves get to wide for a stylus to read" hardly.... the laquer used on most vinyl these days lasts in upwards of 10K plays which in your lifetime you'll likely never play. Plus like i said with concord needles the stylus doesnt actually ride the record but more so a small fraction of it. "the stylus will actually pop out of the record" nope.... with tonearm breakthroughs by vestax, technics, and numark there is such thing as a skipless turntable. Infact there are vestax tables that can be held upside down and will not lift the tonearm. "theres no missing zipper noises" you whistle in an AC sinewave... you master the shit out of it and get a digital representation and you dont have a sinewave... you have a staircase with missing info. not much but it doesnt take much to alter sound quality. "all vinyl cutters are controlled by computers" not really.... once a master plate is made the only thing the computer controls is the assembly line. "sample rate doesnt mean shit" come on now..... listen to a 44.1kbps mp3 and listen to a 328kbps one. I think a lot of your misconceptions apply to dubplates which are acetate that is etched by a machine which is similar to vinyl but nowhere near the quality. lets say this acetate=cd quality vinyl > cd

12-05-2002, 08:35 PM	#36
StillBecomingApart I'M FROM ITALY Location: Back the tape up. I need it again! Let it roll! Just as high as the fucker can go! And when it comes to that fantastic note where the rabbit bites its own head off, I want you to THROW THAT FUCKING RADIO INTO THE TUB WITH ME! Posts: 4,355	I know the technical differences between CD and Vinyl... BUT, listening to the same record on CD and on vinyl, i came out with the conclusion that vinyl is better than CD. I made this test with a lot of albums: Siamese Dream, Piscies Iscariot, Machina, Adore, Disintegration, The Dark Side of The Moon, Bloodflowers, The Wall... and many more. I know...

12-05-2002, 08:47 PM	#39
PkPhuoko Minion of Satan Posts: 6,309	ps at the current point 1.441mb is the highest digital recording medium available. perhaps the book you read was written a decade ago?

12-05-2002, 09:58 PM	#41
TheJoker Apocalyptic Poster Location: Seattle Posts: 3,292	I really really enjoy this thread.

12-05-2002, 10:08 PM	#42
DeviousJ CORNFROST Location: GUREITO DESU YO Posts: 24,891	This is about the time when Clint deletes all his posts. Incidentally the bitrate of an mp3 is not the sample rate - try loading one up into winamp and looking for something that ends in KHz

12-05-2002, 10:45 PM	#45
bonsor Minion of Satan Location: midwest Posts: 8,771	I'm printing this thread.

12-05-2002, 11:37 PM	#49
Smiley33 Minion of Satan Posts: 6,542	walks in in the middle of technical discussion uh...hey guys! i made a cover for my record-shaped cd's! skips off

12-05-2002, 11:57 PM	#52
bonsor Minion of Satan Location: midwest Posts: 8,771	I don't know what Clint's obsession with analog's superiority over digital when the vinyls he spins during his performances are more that likely digitally sourced.

12-06-2002, 12:20 AM	#54
bonsor Minion of Satan Location: midwest Posts: 8,771	How does analog tape work?

12-06-2002, 12:46 AM	#56
bonsor Minion of Satan Location: midwest Posts: 8,771	I'd be more than happy to read it. spiteface82@hotmail.com