Imagine a place far away, the physics laboritory! where there is no air resitance! etc!

In theory you can drill a 2mm hole in a cd, and it will still play!

and why won't that westlife cd I got free in the newspaper stop working? its been scratched to death with a x-acto blade, and a hole drilled and it still works!

but my limited edition Biffy Clyro, well that got a tiny weany scratch! and it was brown bread!

hehe I own some limited press vinyl by babyshamles (yeah mock me) anyway its got one of the worst cutting imperfects i've ever seen in my life!

--------------------
P.I.G.L.E.T - where is polly?

Quote The Byre:

---

I REALLY miss having 12" by 12" front and back and a sleave to let my creative graphic side run riot...I have just finished a CD cover and that is such a fiddley, stupid little format. It is very difficult to make a statement on a 15cm square.

---

Totally agreed. Maybe 12" graphics (just the cover, sleeves and books, no record) could be sold in cd stores. Seriously, that's why I still have my old albums even when I own it on CD.
I love the sound of vynil. Don't get me wrong, But...
The CD, and now DVD, Are better only in the respect that you gaurantee the product. It is far more affordable to buy a digital playback device, and potentially deliver what the producer had in mind; than to buy an equivalent quality turntable, arm, cartridge and preamp.
Let's face it money is a big factor for everybody. If music can be properly listened to for less money, then we have more aggregate enjoyment. Digital mediums are also a heck of a lot more portable and shock resistant than lp.
Not to mention allowing lows to be panned to one side if you wanted....
or 5.1 capabilities

Finally, yes it is a shame people don't use higher resolution to put music on their iPods etc but that's ok.
Keep easily exchanged file formats low fidelity. That might actually encourage people to go and buy the high fidelity version.
' Nuff ranting
DAn
PS Mr Albini Not being starstruck or anything, but it is cool seeing you post in this forum. You're, like, talked about all the time here.

--------------------
Gear list: If you can't find it, grind it

Edited by MadManDan (18/08/05 10:38 PM)

Quote Steve Hill:

---

One other thing. I was much taken with Steve Albini's comment that he'll track and mix an album in 4 - 10 days... And a zillion overdubs of every part, all comped to smithereens, because of course track count was essentially limitless, "so they could".....Oh for the luxury of being able to say "you can record it again if you like, but you'll have to lose the previous take"...!

---

Steve great point. Maybe it’s time for the engineer to make a stand. Perhaps talk about your philosophy before tracking. If you can’t get it in 3 takes forget it!!

--------------------
Gear list: If you can't find it, grind it

I think we're all comparing apples to pears and [ ****** ] here, there are a whole number of things that come into the sound of a record. I have every respect for Hugh's technical knowledge on the subject and like Hugh I wouldn't begin to question the technical quality of a good digital system over any analog one. If we were trying to capture some audio for a forensic purpose, I would choose digital every single time. But is this debate about quality?

When we're talking about the difference between tape, vinyl and cd, we are confusing so many different stages in recording. I'll explain what I mean - personally, I think that tape is more flattering and dare I say "tolerant" when we track onto it. The sound of 16 analog tracks mixing together and playing directly out in a good monitoring system is fantastic. But when it comes to the final playback of a song, I think a good quality digital master can sound great, there's no need to add more noise and artifacts through vinyl.

I'm not going to get into technical discussions of why multitrack sounds better on tape, I no longer involve technical theory since I realised that it is a subjective and "artistic" or aesthetic difference. The fact that each track laid down on tape has it's own bit of softening hiss, warble, pitch fluctuation, crosstalk, saturation, filtering....I believe is precisely the reason why the combined mix sounds more pleasing to some of us. This is exactly what the perfect, forensic digital recording system does not offer. Which is why I would not track and mix entirely digitally and then naively dump the song to tape to "improve it", but I would track and mix entirely on tape and then master to 24/96 digital audio. Along the way you've added exactly what makes tape sound flattering, and the final song is going to play that back with perfect fidelity.

So going back to my point earlier, I like vinyl, but when I say that, I'm usually meaning my original vinyl copies of records that were already recorded and mixed on tape in the 70s, like Stevie Wonder. Vinyl copies of records that people make currently, mastering from Pro Tools to both CD and Vinyl, I probably couldn't care less about, because the source music is lacking that "wow and flutter" charm it might have had if recorded and mixed on tape.

To summarise, I'm disagreeing with the initial "Steve Albini" post here, in that I think going to vinyl from an entirely digitally recorded album is the stuff of nonsense, vinyl can only really be wonderful if it's come from a great analog recording. Pro-Tools to vinyl is just a clean digital recording with some pops and clicks added. When I make vinyl of my own music, it's for no other reason than that some buyers like the large tactile format, the big artwork, and the fact they can spin it forwards, backwards, 33rpm, 45rpm any way they like on their decks. Maybe Toerag studios can rightly justify mastering for vinyl, but most other people are doing it for the aesthetic. And recording digitally but adding "valve" or "warmifying" plugins is asinine.

p.s. btw, clearly there hasn't been any shyness in people posting to this thread

Just realised that my last comment sounded like I disagreed generally with Steve Albini's comments, actually I go with 99% of what he says in the article, the comments about Star Wars are utterly spot on. I just think there are people who might take his comment about vinyl as meaning "if I chuck my totally virtual Ableton Live & Reaktor songs to vinyl, they will miraculously sound awesome", and that's clearly not his philosophy when you look at the Electrical setup. Hence my post above about separating the concept of recording from the final playback medium. It's a bit like something I brought up before on the SOS forum - just because you can get software instruments that "approximate" some original analog synthesizer, e.g. Roland SH101, doesn't mean you'll make anything with the charm of say, a vintage Human League record. The moment you separate the hiss, the PSU hum, the detuning from the sound of that 101, you've lost half of what made it sound good. Native instruments may make some great software, but christ am I sick of hearing demo after demo that sound like bit perfect presets that have never once moved air.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

...In effect, each magnetic particle corresponds to a single bit in a digital system. magnetic tape is, inherently, a digital medium and exhibits the same quantisation effects as digital audio systems. This is also the reason why very slow speeds or very narrow tracks in analogue tape recorders are inherently noisier than fast and wide tracks. Fewer magnetic particles -- fewer bits -- higher quantisation noise.Hugh

---

Hugh
First let me double what Ow said about kitchen debates with wifey being more pleasant than challenging you but....
It was always my understanding that the reason tape sounds hissy is because of its' friction with the heads. And that higher speed recording only "sounds" less hissy because the hiss is at a higher frequency.
Respectfully, DAn

--------------------
Gear list: If you can't find it, grind it

So, it's rumoured that Steve Albini is not Steve Albini, as so reported in the now "disappeared" thread in community. Does it matter? Not a jot now.

Cd or vinyl?..... Minidisc foooorevaaaaaah!!!!!!

When you've not been in the record room for a couple of days, and you walk in with keen ears, and the smell of vinyl spanning the last 60 years or so wafts gently through the room evoking nostalgic memories. Thoughts turn to music.
You carefully tease that long unlistened album from it's sleeve, a gentle breeze and shafts of sunlight flicker through the swaying trees outside the window, enhancing the anticipation.... The powers on, carefully you place the record on the platter, taking care not to get the pads of your fingers on the delicate black surface, that almost inaudible sound as just a hairsbreadth from the platters surface you drop it, it's a clean stylus, your hand is poised, and with your deftest touch you place the needle on the record, a tiny crackle, the gentlest bump, nothing can detract from your anticipation as the music begins.

It's a good thing a lot of good music made it to vinyl.

As much as i love vinyl..... I like great music better.

Sings "... and that's what it's all about. Oi".

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Obviously. Just as a film can not capture every detail and nuance of real life. Both 'records' and 'films' are attempts to capture the essence of something and portray that in an aesthetically pleasing way -- with a combination of art and science.

The point is that once that essence has been captured, the delivery medium shouldn't change it... and vinyl records clearly do. A 16mm print from a 70mm master may be perfectly acceptable to watch -- enjoyable even, but I don't think anyone would try to claim it was 'better' than the 70mm original -- either technically or 'looks better, more enjoyable'. I think that is quite an appropriate comparison... but the debate will rumble on...

---

Yes, I wanna rumble.
I think that's a very good way to understand issue by drawing parallels.
It is always easier to reach an agreement about picture quality then sound quality.

You said that if motion picture was shot on 65mm negative and then two release prints
were struck, one 70mm and one 16mm. 70mm print always will be superior. I myself
and everybody who is anybody will agree with that. It is true.

However let's continue with film analogy.

Hugh, you know a lot about media production. You sure heard about original Technicolor
dye-imbibition process (sometimes called dye-transfer but this term can be confused with
different process).
Dye-imbibition was expensive, labor intensive, slow and required highly trained personnel.
However, in 60s and 70s dye-imbibition prints were of such a good quality that no modern
technology can recreate it. And I'm not talking about that distinctive reach Technicolor look.
I'm saying they are better. Even today those prints look better then new prints
struck from original negative.
Better from everyones point of view.
From cinematographers and lab technicians to Joe Six Pack.
But that's not all.
In 60s, Italian Technicolor lab came up with process called Techniscope.
In Techniscope frame of 35mm film was only 2 sprockets high, exactly half size of
CinemaScope. However release prints were blown up to CinemaScope specifications.
Techniscope prints looked better then prints produced by process which is now employed
everywhere (I'm not talking about Digital Intermediate here).
Better I mean better for everybody. You could ask thousands of people for opinion and
everybody would say the same, that half frame Techniscope blown up to CinemaScope is better
than straight CinemaScope contact print. OK maybe BigAl will have different opinion,
but that's another story.
Contact print is more faithful reproduction, dye-imbibition is not, it is better.

If you have friends who can screen for you at least one reel of original Technicolor print.
I strongly recommend that you do have a look and compare it to what you can watch
in multiplexes. Or you can ask around about large format photographs printed
by dye-imbibition process on Kodak materials. It should give you some idea about Technicolor.

Little more information here. There were three dye-imbibition Technicolor labs.
One in California, one in England and one in Italy. Few English prints I've seen were ugly,
American were very good and Italian were fantastic.



Dear Hugh, I have the utmost respect for you, we all do.
But at this point in time I feel qualified to give you advice.



Start your next day with a nice joint, it might give you fresh outlook on life.


Digi Em.

Quote The Bob Campbell:

---

Why paint a watercolour when you can take a photograph?

---

That's a bit of a strawman though -
if you think about it, a photograph doesn't look identical to what you see if you just look at something with your eyes.
And in fact, a good oil painting can often tell you more about light that a photograph of the same thing.
Also, don't forget that Sapphire and Steel episode where thre was a man with no face....

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote The Byre:

---

And another thing . . .

I REALLY miss having 12" by 12" front and back and a sleave to let my creative graphic side run riot.

I have just finished a CD cover and that is such a fiddley, stupid little format. It is very difficult to make a statement on a 15cm square.

---

Agreed! Have you tried badges? Even worse. And what about the new coin competition??


What an amazing topic! Well done, Steve . . .

I'll have to add my Ha'pence worth this evening. I have some building-work to do now. But vinyl does sound fabulous with good kit.

TTFN,

G

--------------------
PA stuff on FB

A few people have talked about pops and crackles with vinyl; on a good turntable/arm/cartridge combination there will not be any or they will be surpressed. T/Ts have come a long way since the early 90s when someone here, I think, said that they stopped progressing. If you are in London you should visit the best turntable shop in the UK - it is called Walrus and you can check out their vinyl stuff here http://www.walrus.co.uk/vinyl/vinyl.htm They even have some famous musician and singer clients!

Welcome (or is that goodbye) to the forum of opinions.

--------------------
Jack of all trades, master of some.

QUOTE:"OK maybe BigAl will have different opinion,
but that's another story."

Not this time.

Is this shoot BigAl day?

--------------------
Jack of all trades, master of some.

Quote:

---

The Byre:
And another thing . . .

I REALLY miss having 12" by 12" front and back and a sleave to let my creative graphic side run riot.

I have just finished a CD cover and that is such a fiddley, stupid little format. It is very difficult to make a statement on a 15cm square.

---

It's even less fun if you're working on a normal 12cm square CD booklet.

And and allowing a little tolerance for the printer takes off another 0.5mm. Then there's taking into account the number of pages and paper weight. That was always such fun And working for a cheapskate who thought that 450 words per page still allowed a reasonable font size made for some animated discussions! Manually kerning pairs of letters and playing with the justification parameters would often make the difference between blocks of text fitting or not. Ah, happy days

QUOTE:"O.K. I'm gonna call it a day."

Is that because not everyone agrees that vinyl is best?





--------------------
Jack of all trades, master of some.

nobodys allowed to talk to you today, we all had a mail about it from SA, sorry man. Have a nice weekend.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote Stephen Bennett:

---

I have a lot of new vinyl and it's almost always better than the CD version.

---

But how do you define better? You clearly don't mean better in any technial, objective sense, because we can show that vinyl technology certainly isn't better than digital technology.

So you must be talking about subjective preferences... and that is a no-win argument isn't it.
hugh

---

I did put 'IMHO' all over my posting.

Quote:

---

Just to clarify Hugh, I don;t mean "better" as in more technically accurate, but better as in "sounds better, more enjoyable" which vinyl is.

---

What he said.

Regards

Stephen (Listening to 'Hail to the Thief' - on vinyl.)

--------------------
New Henry Fool album (Featuring Phil Manzenera and Jarrod Gosling) out now. https://www.burningshed.com/store/henryfool/


Edited by Stephen Bennett (19/08/05 08:58 AM)

Quote MadManDan:

---

It was always my understanding that the reason tape sounds hissy is because of its' friction with the heads. And that higher speed recording only "sounds" less hissy because the hiss is at a higher frequency.
Respectfully, Dan

---

'fraid not Dan. Friction has nothing to do with it. Tape sounds hissy because of the random alignment of magnetic particles. It is less hissy at higher speeds because more magnetic particles pass under the head per unit time than at slower speeds. The same is true of wider tracks -- which is why Mr Albini prefer 16 tracks on two inch rather than 24. Its a lot quieter!

Hugh

Quote ow:

---

nobodys allowed to talk to you today, we all had a mail about it from SA, sorry man. Have a nice weekend.

---

Ehhh???

--------------------
Google less; read more!

forgot the

Quote Back_AndToTheLeft:

---

Quote The real musiclover:

---

Quote Jon Dickinson:

---

As for vinyl being better than CD, I prefer to concentrate on the emotion of the music

---

I agree with that bit.

---

Music doesn't have emotion, people do. Music has 'intensity' - all other responses are due to learned references, as Eduard Hanslick said back in 1854.

---

OK, how about 'the emotion(s) I experience when listening to, or thinking about, the music'. Pedant!

Wow - what a thread...

The first time I did a vinyl/CD comparison back in the 80's I was surprised to find that the vinyl version sounded sharper then the CD. That was probably entirely down to the arm/cartridge that I was using at the time - a Decca ffss.

With a more conventional arm/cartridge combination there is far less difference - in fact, to my ears, there is more of a difference in sound between cartridges than there is between vinyl and CD.

The other major advantage that CD has is convenience. If you want to play vinyl then you have to have somewhere firm and level to put the turntable - any you can't move it while the record is playing. CD's can be played in a much wider range of situations with no loss of sound quality. CD's are also easy to cue up and you're not necessarily stuck with playing the tracks in the same order each time.

Music buyers aren't particularly interested in sound quality but they are aware of blemishes. They don't like surface noise, scratches, hiss or drop outs. The average music buyer isn't a hifi fan so their record/tape players aren't going to deal with these blemishes in a subtle way. They don't mind the lack of detail that you get with mp3 because the bass thump and treble zing are still there and that's what's important. If you can hear the beat it doesn't matter whether you can hear every other note with perfect clarity.

Cheers.

James.

PS - to the Goldring Lenco owner - you'll be OK with most cartridges that have half inch centre fixing holes. A Shure M75ED would have been a good match back in the 70's - I think the Stanton 680 was the nearest equivalent. There seems to have been a resurgence of interest in those old Lenco turntables recently.

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

Apologies (not) for absence.

Just in case anyone was thinking of dusting off their autograph books for a little fawning adoration, the very entertaining incarnation of "Steve Albini" who so wowed everyone with his star presence yesterday won't be joining us today. Neither will his associate, "Digital Emotions". One of their little friends "Digi Em" is still able to visit - for now - if he wants to. Just in case he wishes to comment - or leave the appropriately grovelling apology that I hope he is man enough to write!

Another of their party, a Mr ChickenJohn, also is unavailable for comment at present.

IP addresses are wonderful things when it comes to curing sufferers of internet schizophrenia.



On a more serious note, however amusing it appears to be to impersonate a recognised industry figure and stir up a little debate in his name, it is unsporting, of dubious legality, and against the forum rules which you agreed to when you signed up. Such behaviour is potentially very damaging for the reputations both of everyone involved and the wider forum and it's not something that will be tolerated.

A joke's a joke, and your very gorgeous, and slightly fluffy, moderators like a laugh just as much as the next sad, light-starved studio addict but when the joke has potential to damage the reputation and legal standing of this forum and, by association, our favourite magazine, it ceases to be funny. People instigating similar games can expect, without warning, to feel the gentle caress of the door hitting them on the arse on their way out!


That's it from me. Back on yer 'eads.

Glad you posted that. I was just about ready to top myself.

--------------------
Jack of all trades, master of some.

Just in case anyone's still not sure, the Steve Albini ID that generated this thread was a hoax...

2 members have been banned as a result.

Wilful impersonation , with intent to deceive, of Anyone, never mind an industry "name" is decidedly unsporting and contrary to both spirit and letter of the forum regulations.



Max

--------------------
if you don't know who i am, i aint gonna tell you.

Phew!

In total agreement.

They are all sounds at the end of the day and some may be better than other in different scenarios regardless of whether it's 'real' or 'fake'.

There are pieces I would love to do with a real string quartet and that's when the sampler let's you get that authenticity without having to hire a SQ. I had a DX21 many years ago and used sounds to attempt at being authentic (at times), but hearing them now, they don't sound too great.
I heard a 1970s disco song on the radio yesterday with the string machine. It sounds a bit like real strings, but really it's not. It's just a sound which works in the context.

--------------------
Jack of all trades, master of some.

Quote 0VU:

---

Quote:

---

The Byre:
And another thing . . .

I REALLY miss having 12" by 12" front and back and a sleave to let my creative graphic side run riot.

I have just finished a CD cover and that is such a fiddley, stupid little format. It is very difficult to make a statement on a 15cm square.

---

It's even less fun if you're working on a normal 12cm square CD booklet.

And and allowing a little tolerance for the printer takes off another 0.5mm. Then there's taking into account the number of pages and paper weight. That was always such fun And working for a cheapskate who thought that 450 words per page still allowed a reasonable font size made for some animated discussions! Manually kerning pairs of letters and playing with the justification parameters would often make the difference between blocks of text fitting or not. Ah, happy days

---

The best are the DIY layouts! "I've got a friend who teaches graphics and art at the college . . ." is a phrase I get to hear very often. Producers love to hear "We've done the layout already . . ." from band members, who then produce bits of paper from their pockets.

"What IS a pdf file, exactly?" always seems a good way to get a party going.

No, I'm all for CDs, but they should be at least 15" across, so that my inner Picasso has a chance to live!

On the impersonation front: why not have open IDs on this forum? Then I wouldn't have to tried to persuade you to use SPL mastering kit

--------------------
www.the-byre.com No longer Forum Member

The size thing is a shame.
Albums could actually be tiny these days, but the 12" gatefold sleeve with some good artwork/art direction is somethig which is sadly missing from CDs.
Jewel cases and all the hassle which goes with it is crap.

Album covers were part of the CD from an artistic point of view. I don't have that feeling with CDs.

--------------------
Jack of all trades, master of some.

Hmm. I was thinking "Steve" was not as eloquent as he usually is. Of course, I still went ahead with a rant on the subject of vinyl

--------------------
madtheory creations
Synths and pianos for Kontakt

Fairly obvious from the get go that "Steve" a forumite, still an interesting debate nonetheless.

Maybe the answer is CDs released inside massive vinyl double gatefold packs, that way we get the artwork back again

Hehe . . . so size really DOES matter then!

I've also noticed that it's not as much fun to play along to the record brushes on CD packaging as it is to play the brushes on an LP sleeve. It's just not the same.

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Quote 0VU:

---

and your very gorgeous, and slightly fluffy, moderators

---

So should we call you Fluff Daddy, then? Or will F. Diddy do?

Quote:

---

People instigating similar games can expect, without warning, to feel the gentle caress of the door hitting them on the arse on their way out!

---

Indeed. Don't let it hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

This has been such a long thread, and I'm a bit tired and confused... so was that the real Steve Lillywhite or not??

--------------------
Funk this, arm half due wink a trump

Quote 0VU:

---

Apologies (not) for absence.
IP addresses are wonderful things when it comes to curing sufferers of internet schizophrenia.

---

Yep IP's are and IP pools are useful, but I would expect most users here to have dynamic ip addresses, so you can only really block them until they re-establish there connections.

Laurence

--------------------
P.I.G.L.E.T - where is polly?

Quote The Bob Campbell:

---

Maybe the answer is CDs released inside massive vinyl double gatefold packs, that way we get the artwork back again

---

I vaguely remember that there was some talk at the time of development of the CD being larger, perhaps even a full 12 incher. That would have been nice - but more expensive I guess.

I too miss the artwork. Having said that it's even worse on my iPod!



Does anyone else think that the plastic CD tray is possibly one of the the worse piece of design on the planet (after those 'wing pull' cartons that deposit the contents all over you)? They break, crack and you either have to bend the CD to get them out or the centre hubs are so loose that the CD slips around and gets scratched.



Regards

Stephen

--------------------
New Henry Fool album (Featuring Phil Manzenera and Jarrod Gosling) out now. https://www.burningshed.com/store/henryfool/

By getting the dynamic IP address, you can find out the ISP. From their records, they can tell you who was connected at the given times.
Then you send the heavies round to their house...

--------------------
Jack of all trades, master of some.

Do you mean my "My Sound File" review by Steve Albini was a fake?!
That's was going on my album cover!

http://www.soundonsound.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=167573&page=0&v iew=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1#167573

(I'd got wind of the wind-up actually, ......... but it would have been nice ........ hero of mine )

--------------------
www.wildhope.com - pike in a lilypond

Quote Stephen Bennett:

---

Quote The Bob Campbell:

---

Maybe the answer is CDs released inside massive vinyl double gatefold packs, that way we get the artwork back again

---

I vaguely remember that there was some talk at the time of development of the CD being larger, perhaps even a full 12 incher. That would have been nice - but more expensive I guess.

---

I seem to remember CD's being a spin-off from Philip's Laserdisc development so there certainly were 12" CD-like discs in the past.

Cheers.

James.

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

My sincere apologies and pledge


I would like to take this opportunity to extend my sincerest apologies to all of you
who were inconvenienced and disturbed by "Vinyl is better than anything else" thread.

My apologies go especially to the forumites who engaged in personal communications
with "Steve Albini" and those who sent "him" Personal Messages
(which I BTW deleted before giving "Steve Albini" away for others to enjoy.

I am taking this matter seriously, and so I have launched a comprehensive review
of my online practices and behavior to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

I will assure you that I will reform myself in order to comply with spirit and letter of
SOS Forum regulations. I will do so while fully drawing upon the lessons that can be learnt.
I will deliver on my promise, because I know that’s the only way to restore confidence.


Yours cordially.
Digital Emotions.

It's your lucky day.



--------------------
Jack of all trades, master of some.