Awesome stuff you've just bought (+pics please)

[cools]

Those masters could far exceed CD specifications.

[kernow]

True true

[elmagicochrisg]

Vinyl will ALWAYS sound better than that digital shit.

Does that apply to vinyl pressings of albums recorded digitally? I've generally been buying CDs of more modern releases even if vinyl is available, since it's cheaper and I'm skeptical that there's really a difference.

1. As mentioned before me, the Master can be much better quality than a cd can handle, even if the Master is digital.

2. Vinyl has more continuity. It's a continuous sound, as opposed to cd that works with a limited number of sound 'frames' so to speak. Same with analogue and digital amplifiers. On a digital amplifier you can only turn up the volume in intervals, on an analogue one you can turn it up more gradually.

3. The sound spectrum on vinyl is much wider than on cd. They cut the low and high ends on cd to get more data on it. So that's one of the reasons even a digital Master (with a broad spectrum) may sound better than what you get on cd. SACD's get closer to vinyl quality though...

But yes, there are downsides to vinyl too. Storage, wear and tear... That's why they should make a new analogue platform that copes with these problems.

[emphatic]

That's why they should make a new analogue platform that copes with these problems.

http://www.elpj.com/

[GaijinPunch]

^^^ please don't tell me those cubes are speakers.

I'm late, but they're my monitors.
I have other speakers but rarely have them on due to a sleeping kid. Best speakers in the world do shit for you if they're not right in your ear (at least for me) so I got the little guys there. They're almost a 2nd pair of headphones they're so close.

LOL on CD scrachers.

Why don't go with vinyl?
All my DJ buddies look down on CD DJ units and I must agree, they don't sound that great to be honest.

B/c I don't scratch at all whatsoever maybe? And b/c of what else I'm about to write...

Because Tokyo apartments are too small for a vinyl collection of any significance?

It's not like GP wouldn't go vinyl if he could.

Actually, you'd be surprised. I have a friend that cut his collection down to a mere 4000 records (and he lives in Shinjuku). I actually have about 30 vinyls I stored from the old days. I'm not going to get into a Vinyl versus digital debate... they are totally fucking gay. I like the feel of vinyl better. I wont' lie. But, practical they are not. They're 3x the cost, they take up physical space, a fraction of my tracks are released on them, and I'd have to take MORE time I don't have to go to the record store to buy them. Just not happening.

I was one of the last to jump on the bandwagon. When I started getting back into music I asked all DJs I crossed paths with. A close mate books talent from Europe... some of the best, so I'm not talking about some jackass at a local club. They're all on the same bandwagon. CDs or other digital form. All of them. Christian Smith actually gave me a nice analogy. He claimed CDs just give you bigger bass, and he's a big bass DJ.

That work on the time coded CDs or it link up directley via USB?

I think w/ Traktor Scratch Pro you can use time-coded, but that's just way over my head, and ATM, not necessary. I haven't gotten the A&H Xone:1D yet, so I'm only on 2 decks. Even when I get into the threesome, I'll likely just synch the 3rd to either 1 or 2 and use it for looping.

Why would anyone spin 24 bit, 96kHZ FLAC files with music that would be terrible produced to begin with

If it's good enough for Ritchie Hawtin and every other DJ on the planet, it's probably good enough for me. Anyway, this is a stupid debate to do here. It's like using joysticks versus pads. Worker doen't blame his tools. There's all kinds of shit you can do digitally you can't do w/ an analogue setup. ALL music I play is created digitally these days, so it's a non-issue for me.

Ritchie Hawtin's Take. This is really good. I like his theory.

[The Expanding Man]

I'm a vinyl nut.

I've also got into SACD and DVD-A, but they still don't match vinyl.

Digital suffers from the following flaws:

Bad mastering. The sound is compressed deliberately to make the music sound loud on car stereos and iPod buds. Compression ruins the dynamics of a good recording.

Lower resolution. This is particularly bad in the higher frequencies.

20 khz cut off. Yes, few people can hear high frequencies, but you notice that they are missing. Cymbals don't sound right - you are missing the natural high frequency harmonics.

But I'm an old fart. The market has actually moved backwards, demanding lower resolution (MP3's - yuck!!).

I'll try and dig up an article by Steve Hoffman - one of the best mastering engineers around. He did a comparison between the original master tapes, CD, SACD and vinyl. Only vinyl came anywhere close to capturing the detail on the master tape.

[GaijinPunch]

I don't think anyone would ever disagree w/ Vinyl looking better on paper. The fact is, just about any hardware (especially stuff in a club) these days will be manufactured around uncompressed digital audio as the defacto format.

[Stormwatch]

Why do people accept lower quality sound? It's a matter of hardware.



With today's crap, it's not like they could hear the difference anyway.

[GaijinPunch]

With today's crap, it's not like they could hear the difference anyway.

At the sake of sounding right, I'll just point out that this is the same fucking debate we've had over, and over, and over in the main forums in the form of

1) Why handhelds are totally gay
2) Why you suck ass if you don't love 240p or 480p w/ fake scanlines.

The only difference w/ audio is that as the devices have become smaller, you can listen to music almost anywhere. Work, excercise, car. You can't do that w/ games. But, it's still the same argument. DS/GBA/PSP screen looks like complete and total ass compared to an arcade monitor, but how many people own the latter? About 7.

[Stormwatch]

Not the same thing at all. A handheld is meant to take games everywhere, as a portable player with headphones is meant to take music everywhere; a compromise in quality is unavoidable. On the other hand, having those shit speakers on your desk, which is incredibly common (even though a respectable 2.1 setup can be had for around $100~150) is like using an old cheapo 14-inch CRT monitor.

Now, I've seen people listening to music from a cell phone -- not earbuds, but the damn thing's internal speaker! Of course it sounded all tinny and unpleasant. Someone who can accept that madness certainly won't care about the difference between vinyl or CD versus a 128k mp3.

Then again, most of today's "music" is shit anyway...

[GaijinPunch]

Not the same thing at all.

Exact same thing.

Then again, most of today's "music" is shit anyway...

Not if you dig.

EDIT: Is this a good time to bring up the pops and cracks you get on even new vinyl, even if you have above average needles?

[kernow]

I can't be arsed with Vinyl, I have a very good CD system and it sounds great, Vinyl is too much hassle. And yes pops and hiss. Bleh.

[cools]

Then again, most of today's "music" is shit anyway...

Not if you dig.

I agree.

[GaijinPunch]

I can't be arsed with Vinyl, I have a very good CD system and it sounds great, Vinyl is too much hassle. And yes pops and hiss. Bleh.

I'll bring my setup to your house next time I'm in the UK.

I agree.

Good gravy. Do you eat babies for breakfast?
Best techno song evar

[t0yrobo]

I understand the argument for vinyl etc. But for myself, and the majority of other music listeners on the planet a nice quality digital file or cd is just fine. The reason, I don't have thousands of dollars to spend on a setup that can actually get that sort of quality sound, and I don't have superhuman hearing.

[cools]

I agree.

Good gravy. Do you eat babies for breakfast?
Best techno song evar

White meat before 10am is a no-no.

(Nice track )

[spadgy]

The arguing about Vinyl vs. CD

If the crowd gets dancing and cheering, who gives a shit what platform/format/hardware you use?

I love my vinyl, so I'm not without bias, but when I play to a crowd as long as the fuckers are having fun I don't give a crap if I'm using cassettes (I have for one particular tune I've still not found in any other form!), CD's, vinyls, wax cylinders or dog shit sandwiches.

There's pros and cons to both formats, and it's partly a matter of taste, so we're never all going to agree, which means there's all kinds of DJing out there. Great for everybody right?

I agree.

Awesome! Thanks cools...


EDIT: Spelling and formatting fix.

[GaijinPunch]

which means there's ll kinds of DJing out there. Great for everybody right?

This is what I actually hate about the hobby these days. Back when I used to walk uphill to work in both directions, you really only had one thing to consider: what mixer to buy. Everyone used Technics turntables. They were the industry standard, and for a reason. There were other good ones out there, but why bother? The mixer was the only real variable (other than the needles). Now it's a mish-mash of different maker of CDJ, different model, whether they're MIDI controllers or not, how much software you use, how much more hardware do you add, etc. etc. Crazy.

[robivy64]

[spadgy]

which means there's ll kinds of DJing out there. Great for everybody right?

This is what I actually hate about the hobby these days. Back when I used to walk uphill to work in both directions, you really only had one thing to consider: what mixer to buy. Everyone used Technics turntables. They were the industry standard, and for a reason. There were other good ones out there, but why bother? The mixer was the only real variable (other than the needles). Now it's a mish-mash of different maker of CDJ, different model, whether they're MIDI controllers or not, how much software you use, how much more hardware do you add, etc. etc. Crazy.

Fair enough. My experience is of using pretty low spec tech and old tunes that maybe offer a little more leeway for using a shoddy set-up (DJing of an old '78 for example, doesn't require the cutting edge). Perhaps I should consider myself lucky to be able to DJ to a crowd without the need for anything too flash. I'm effectively blissfully ignorant of the problem of a mish-mash of variable technology offerings.

I certainly agree that when there's an industry standard its a great help (at least for the lazy like me). It certainly makes getting on with what you're there to do a lot easier.




And robivy64 - that's a nice looking thing. I'm a real fan of old radios, tape-to-tapes, record players and so on. What is that?

[robivy64]

It is a Channel Master Transworld 6248 8-band shortwave radio.

Basically, you can listen to radio broadcasts all over the world, as well as AM/FM.

This was a flea market gem. $10 fully working with all of the pieces including the hard-to-find detachable cover and map.

[GaijinPunch]

offer a little more leeway for using a shoddy set-up (DJing of an old '78 for example, doesn't require the cutting edge).

I mix stuff in the 2-3 minute zone. If you have a 6 minute track, that leaves little time to cock around. So, in that case, digital saves my ass... in fact, w/o a third deck I'd say even the best DJ would have issues doing the same mix as you have to pull the record out and slap it on.

[Domino]

If it's good enough for Ritchie Hawtin and every other DJ on the planet, it's probably good enough for me. Anyway, this is a stupid debate to do here. It's like using joysticks versus pads. Worker doen't blame his tools. There's all kinds of shit you can do digitally you can't do w/ an analogue setup. ALL music I play is created digitally these days, so it's a non-issue for me.

Trust me you would need really expensive equipment to even tell the difference between 16-bit/44.1 khz and 24/96 khz. You're wasting your hard drive space doing things in 24/96 khz.

Then again there are reasons why I don't go clubbing besides the alcohol: terrible compressed music that sounds like shit.

Anyway because of this time to make a new thread.

[GaijinPunch]

Trust me you would need really expensive equipment to even tell the difference between 16-bit/44.1 khz and 24/96 khz. You're wasting your hard drive space doing things in 24/96 khz.

How expensive? Foreign talent usually bust a load over the quality of sound systems in clubs here. However, most of the events are HUGE so the sound is by and large, washed out. Some places it's just flat out bad b/c they have some cocked up array.

Then again there are reasons why I don't go clubbing besides the alcohol: terrible compressed music that sounds like shit.

Are you referrring to 16-bit/44.1 khz being compressed?

[cools]

Trust me you would need really expensive equipment to even tell the difference between 16-bit/44.1 khz and 24/96 khz. You're wasting your hard drive space doing things in 24/96 khz.

I beg to differ, as I can tell the difference on prosumer level equipment. Although I've not done any productions in years (and it's something I sorely want to get back into) the increased detail is audible on 24/96. It's certainly of benefit when making music.

[Domino]

Are you referrring to 16-bit/44.1 khz being compressed?

Nope, like the majority of of electronic or club music (or good amounts of modern music) when I say compress (not MP3 compression) I mean Loudness.

I beg to differ, as I can tell the difference on prosumer level equipment. Although I've not done any productions in years (and it's something I sorely want to get back into) the increased detail is audible on 24/96. It's certainly of benefit when making music.

I need to edit myself here, I can tell the difference with higher bitrate and sampling rate. But with GPs stuff that he's doing (and it is not like people who go to clubs are hardcore audiophiles) it would be a waste doing highly compressed music in 24/96. If you can for people who want to listen to music on a high-end setup I would recommend it.

[cools]

Oh absolutely, it's a waste for playback on a club setup.

It's not like this music isn't listened to in a home environment too though.

Hell, I do most of my listening on a set of Yamaha HS 80M reference monitors

[Stormwatch]

[Domino]

Hot.............

[elmagicochrisg]

Not the same thing at all.

Exact same thing.

Not exactly the same thing...

If you want to make a comparison with videogames, than that would mean you want top quality gaming in your livingroom (a console), and you'd settle for shittier quality on the road (a portable).

Compare this with music and you'd want the best possible sound at home (vinyl) and settle for shittier quality on the road (mp3/wave).

This is not the case. Both for in house and outdoors use we have settled for shittier quality.

That's why I really think they should look into a new up to date analogue format. Think that vinyl reader with laser (the link a few posts ago), but with smaller discs more durable than vinyl, but still with grooves (smaller) to capture the sound. Oh, and preferably cheaper than that f@%*$ laser vinyl reader... lol