Pirate Vinyl Records! :D

[Renegade]

This is just really damn cool!

http://www.mikesenese.com/DOIT/2010/07/how-vinyl-records-are-made-and-how-to-pirate-a-vinyl-record/

[attachimg=#]

It walks through how to pirate vinyl, and man... this will have your inner-geek screaming for more!

[f0dder]

I wonder how accurate that copy is... and what the risk of damaging the original vinyl is?

Also, the obligatory: "pfft, vinyl." - it's great for artwork, but anybody claiming that the sound quality is objectively better than a proper digital format doesn't really know what they're talking about :-)

[Renegade]

I have some collector's vinyl that would fetch a pretty penny. And I'm not sure that I'd want to test the process with it. But, it's still pretty cool!

[Giampy]

anybody claiming that the sound quality is objectively better than a proper digital format doesn't really know what they're talking about :-)

You have your part of reason but yours is a theoretical speech.
In practice the situation is completely different. The Digital Era has created the plague of the "digital" sound in the worst sense of the word: a cold, cutting, caustic, harsh, metallic sound. I have never heard a such crap coming from a LP. Never.

[f0dder]

In practice the situation is completely different. The Digital Era has created the plague of the "digital" sound in the worst sense of the word: a cold, cutting, caustic, harsh, metallic sound. I have never heard a such crap coming from a LP. Never.

Blame the musicians and the mastering engineers - not the playback media.

(In addition to that, there's of course subjective preference and the psychological/self-suggestive effects of putting a vinyl on your record player. Just like there's people who violently claim they can tell the difference between Monster Audio cables and electrical wire, even though they produce identical waveforms on an oscilloscope ).

[40hz]

+1 w/f0dder.

The entire esthetic for what constitutes a "good" recording, along with the techniques and process  used to record it, has changed so radically with the advent of digital that it's pointless to compare analog and digital - let alone to try to estabish (in absolute terms) which is superior. Each is good in its own way. And each has its own unique strengths and shortcomings.

Comparing analog to digital would make as much sense as trying to determine whether an electric guitar, a synth, or a flute is "better."

It all depends on what sounds good to your ears. And no two are exactly alike.

[Edvard]

1 - This if freaking awesome.  Makes me want to start buying stuff on vinyl again, copy it and stow away the original until the copy wears out.  If only this could be used to cure skips...
2 - The only beefs I really have with digital vs. vinyl is the artifacting produced by compression (almost non-existent on properly recorded CDs, and only distractingly noticeable to MY ears on mp3s of 128Kbps or less) and the god-awful sonic vomitry of the Loudness War^w.  And as f0dder said, both cases can be corrected by the judicious hand of an experienced producer/engineer.  On the other hand, a worn needle or over-played vinyl is as bad or worse than any claimed digital harshness.

That said, I remember I once had a cassette of a band called Arsenal, their album "Factory Smog Is a Sign of Progress".  I thought it was pretty good, but I happened to hear a recording of the same album a friend of mine recorded from vinyl.  The difference was like comparing bologna to steak, and sold me on vinyl for a number of years. 
Great years those were... 

[40hz]

I still prefer vinyl for the more organic ambiance and softness of the sound. But that's what I grew up with so that probably has a lot to do with how I feel about it. It's what I learned sounded "right" - and the preference is now linked too deeply in the neurons processing sound for me to feel differently.

Those who go back to vinyl may remember a company that did half-speed vinyl mastering. They were called Mobile Fidelity. An album by them went for about $15 when a regular LP cost about $5-$8. If you had a really good cartridge in your turntable and a decent stereo amp and quality speakers, the difference was like night and day. No warble, hiss, clicks or pops!

My Garrand turntable (with a high-end Pickering cartridge) running through a homebrew tube preamp and Carver Cube stereo amp attached to a pair of ESS speakers really did half-speed mastered albums justice.

[Tinman57]

 For those of us who have had the experience of listening to Japanese pressed vinyls, there's the difference between night and day.  Their albums are mastered on a thick plate, about twice as thick as a cheap-ass LP's from the states.  You don't get all that pop, hum, clicks, etc like the U.S. versions.  There was once an organization trying to get the U.S. standards up to par with the rest of the world, but if failed and soon after CD's came into being.
 As far as the U.S. pressed LP's, I don't like them.  To me CD's are pure sound, as long as it's played on a good quality CD player and a proper Pink-Noise adjusted Graphic Equalizer.  And even better when ran through a Dynamic Sound Expander.  Just my  

[Renegade]

I generally use a flat EQ with no effects. Why mess with what the band and recording engineers intended? Sometimes I'll put up the bass for some music, but in general, I listen to it flat.

For LP sound vs. CD, well, they're different. LPs have that analog warmth with all it's imperfections. The perfect sound of a CD is, well, it is what it is.

There are quite a few small studios/labels that put out LPs in small batches for collectors. They typically charge a bit of a premium, but the product you get is extraordinary.

[Carol Haynes]

I generally use a flat EQ with no effects. Why mess with what the band and recording engineers intended? Sometimes I'll put up the bass for some music, but in general, I listen to it flat.

Because there is a difference between what is heard in a studio with studio monitors and what comes out of, even expensive, domestic audio equipment.

[xtabber]

I still prefer vinyl for the more organic ambiance and softness of the sound. But that's what I grew up with so that probably has a lot to do with how I feel about it. It's what I learned sounded "right" - and the preference is now linked too deeply in the neurons processing sound for me to feel differently.

Those who go back to vinyl may remember a company that did half-speed vinyl mastering. They were called Mobile Fidelity. An album by them went for about $15 when a regular LP cost about $5-$8. If you had a really good cartridge in your turntable and a decent stereo amp and quality speakers, the difference was like night and day. No warble, hiss, clicks or pops!

Mobile Fidelity is still around, issuing both LPs and CDs in superior sound.

But there are plenty of others now producing superior quality CDs today. There is a much better understanding of digital sound and how to get it right today than there was in the first couple of decades of the CD era (1980-2000).  Among other things,  even though all CDs still play at a 16bit 44.1K sample rate, the quality of the perceived sound is greatly improved by mastering at higher bit depth and sampling rates. This used to require very expensive equipment, but can now be done by anyone on a $500 PC.

The best sound you will find today is from DSD recordings issued on SACD discs, but just listening to the CD tracks on hybrid SACDs mastered by firms like Analogue Productions in the US and PentaTone in the UK will give you an idea of how good a properly mastered CD can sound.

[xtabber]

I generally use a flat EQ with no effects. Why mess with what the band and recording engineers intended? Sometimes I'll put up the bass for some music, but in general, I listen to it flat.

Because there is a difference between what is heard in a studio with studio monitors and what comes out of, even expensive, domestic audio equipment.

The difference is because of the location, not the speakers.  You can put the same exact speakers in your living room that are used in a recording studio, but the sound will not be the same because of a different acoustic environment.  The best sound in any given room will be obtained by matching the capabilities of the speakers to the characteristics of the room, and also to where listeners will be positioned.

Sound is the result of complex interactions of pressure waves and it varies as you move around a room, or how many people are in that room.  Newer home audio equipment can do a pretty good job of emulating the ambiance of different concert halls, and the effect can sometimes sound more "natural" than straight reproduction, but neither is more "accurate" than the other.

[Renegade]

I generally use a flat EQ with no effects. Why mess with what the band and recording engineers intended? Sometimes I'll put up the bass for some music, but in general, I listen to it flat.

Because there is a difference between what is heard in a studio with studio monitors and what comes out of, even expensive, domestic audio equipment.

The difference is because of the location, not the speakers.  You can put the same exact speakers in your living room that are used in a recording studio, but the sound will not be the same because of a different acoustic environment.  The best sound in any given room will be obtained by matching the capabilities of the speakers to the characteristics of the room, and also to where listeners will be positioned.

Sound is the result of complex interactions of pressure waves and it varies as you move around a room, or how many people are in that room.  Newer home audio equipment can do a pretty good job of emulating the ambiance of different concert halls, and the effect can sometimes sound more "natural" than straight reproduction, but neither is more "accurate" than the other.

+1

You nailed it.

[40hz]

That said, professional engineers and producers also check and adjust their mix for a variety of speakers and listening environments before committing to a final mix. Because the goal is making things sound as good as possible in as many situations as possible. That's the hardest part of recording and mixing. Anybody can optimize a mix for studio monitors. It takes considerably more talent and skill to make a mix sound really good everywhere. Commercial recording releases are usually masterpieces of audio compromise.

[attach]

[Carol Haynes]

I generally use a flat EQ with no effects. Why mess with what the band and recording engineers intended? Sometimes I'll put up the bass for some music, but in general, I listen to it flat.

Because there is a difference between what is heard in a studio with studio monitors and what comes out of, even expensive, domestic audio equipment.

The difference is because of the location, not the speakers.  You can put the same exact speakers in your living room that are used in a recording studio, but the sound will not be the same because of a different acoustic environment.  The best sound in any given room will be obtained by matching the capabilities of the speakers to the characteristics of the room, and also to where listeners will be positioned.

Sound is the result of complex interactions of pressure waves and it varies as you move around a room, or how many people are in that room.  Newer home audio equipment can do a pretty good job of emulating the ambiance of different concert halls, and the effect can sometimes sound more "natural" than straight reproduction, but neither is more "accurate" than the other.

True - but domestic speakers are going to have different response profiles to studio speakers (actually any two different speakers will have different response profiles). So if you are using different speakers in a different environment you won't hear what the engineers heard by using a flat EQ.

As you say you won't even hear what the engineer heard even if you steal their whole set up and take it home - that is why EQ is used to tweak the sound you hear.

At the end of the day it is all a matter of taste - even if you do hear what the engineer hears it still isn't necessarily the best sound. IMHO engineers in concerts can't mix a decent sound at all - I have yet to go to a concert of any band and not be irritated by the bad mixing!

[40hz]

IMHO engineers in concerts can't mix a decent sound at all - I have yet to go to a concert of any band and not be irritated by the bad mixing!

Agree. And IMHO the problem is generally worse with British bands. I guess audio engineers are trained differently over in the UK?

The only UK group I've ever heard sound really amazing in a live setting is Jethro Tull. Tull is hands down the best sounding group I ever heard, regardless of which side of the pond a band calls home -  and only somewhat rivaled by the Moody Blues in a large concert venue. The Rolling Stones, The Police, Genesis, and The Who all sounded absolutely awful whenever I've heard them play over here. Which is a bloody shame considering the level of musicianship all these groups are capable of. Go figure...

Note: I left Pink Floyd   out of the above because they occupy a space all their own when it comes to live performance. It wouldn't be fair to most groups (with the possible exception of Jethro Tull) to lump them in for comparison.

[xtabber]

I don’t even consider rock and pop music when talking about the accuracy of sound reproduction, because most of the original sound is electronically generated in the first place. Even the sounds of drums and vocals, which are acoustically produced, are almost always electronically enhanced in performance, as well as in recordings.  Classical music, and to a lesser extent, Jazz, provide a better test of recording techniques.

Binaural sound is a great in theory, not so much in practice, unless you usually attend concerts encased in a concrete block so you cannot move your head.  In practice, we move our heads and ears to adjust both sights and sounds when we listen to music, and that affects what we hear.  And yes, even though it sounds counter-intuitive, what we see affects what we hear, because what the brain perceives as sound is reconstructed from signals received from the ear, and that reconstruction process is affected by other stimuli as well.

[40hz]

Older binaural recordings used static microphone placements. more modern examples use a variable positioning mechanism and special microphones designed purely for binaural use.  Can't speak for theory too much when it comes to binaural. But from my purely subjective listening to binaural playback with open design headphones, (and from a working musician's perspective) I find it as close to life as it gets.  YMMV.  

I've played classic, jazz, and rock. And I'll have to disagree with the arbitrary distinction separating acoustic from electronic sound generation. Both ultimately depend on creating vibration in the air. So all of it ultimately becomes acoustic sound in the end for live performances. The real difference is found in the method rather than the results. beyond that it's just personal taste.

[Carol Haynes]

Classical music, and to a lesser extent, Jazz, provide a better test of recording techniques.

Classical recordings are generally pretty dreadful - especially when soloists are involved. The only place to hear classical music as it should sound is in the concert hall. On recordings the balance of instruments is always wildly different - and usually REALLY unbalanced.

Classic example a few years ago - I was at a live concert with a guitar concerto that was recorded. In the concert the players worked together to get a superb level of balance and integration of sound (all the more so as the soloist was playing with an orchestra for the first time). On the recording it sounded like the soloist and listener were in one room whilst the orchestra was in another. Been my experience of most classical music recordings.

Can't help wondering some times if soloists are to blame as they want their sound to the front!

[xtabber]

Classical music, and to a lesser extent, Jazz, provide a better test of recording techniques.

Classical recordings are generally pretty dreadful - especially when soloists are involved. The only place to hear classical music as it should sound is in the concert hall. On recordings the balance of instruments is always wildly different - and usually REALLY unbalanced.

I have to disagree with that.  I have attended many hundreds of live concerts over more than 50 years.  I'd guess about 75% classical, 20% Jazz and 5% popular music. I consider the concert experience to be almost always better overall, but the actual sound of the music often is not.

Sound balance varies tremendously within a venue, and what musicians hear on stage is not what you hear in the audience. And what those in the back row hear is not what those in front or in the balcony hear.  In orchestral concerts, soloists are often hard to hear in the middle of the hall, although they may stand out to those listening on the stage.  That doesn't mean that a recording where you can hear the soloist above the orchestra is out of balance - just that the balance is not the same as what you heard from where you were seated in the hall.

Carnegie Hall in New York is considered one of the finest for classical music. From personal experience, I have found that the best place to listen to a piano recital is nose-bleed territory in the top balcony, whereas the best sound for a full orchestral concert is in the parterre, but you won't hear the soloist as well there.  A good recording -- and many have been made in Carnegie Hall -- allows you to hear it all.

The biggest problem with most recordings is dynamic compression. For LPs, that was required by limitations of pressing and playback devices, although the actual range on the original tapes may have been much greater.  It is not as necessary for CDs, but is usually done because most people don't have playback equipment capable of handling wide dynamic ranges.

[Tinman57]

I generally use a flat EQ with no effects. Why mess with what the band and recording engineers intended? Sometimes I'll put up the bass for some music, but in general, I listen to it flat.

Because there is a difference between what is heard in a studio with studio monitors and what comes out of, even expensive, domestic audio equipment.

  Yes!  I have about $5K invested in stereo gear, and even then the CD's/LP's sound like crap if not "tuned" to the environment.

[Tinman57]

IMHO engineers in concerts can't mix a decent sound at all - I have yet to go to a concert of any band and not be irritated by the bad mixing! 

  Very Very True.  The only live album I ever truly liked was Peter Frampton's "Frampton Comes Alive".  Now that Aussie knew how to play a guitfiddle, and they mixed/mastered it perfectly. 

[Carol Haynes]

Sound balance varies tremendously within a venue, and what musicians hear on stage is not what you hear in the audience.

That is true but the sound heard by musicians is a lot different to what is presented on CD or vinyl or even DTS on BluRay disks and in a good concert hall, with well chose seats, you will not be far off what the musicians hear.

Recorded sound is the sound agreed between engineers, producers and performers and the balance is almost always heavily bent towards soloists. I can only assume that the engineers and producers have the biggest say in the final product because recordings never seem to reflect the balance sought in the live hall.

[Tinman57]

 It is not as necessary for CDs, but is usually done because most people don't have playback equipment capable of handling wide dynamic ranges.

 A dynamic Range Expander is one of the most important pieces of equipment on my stereo system.  It takes a mono sound and makes it wide, like going from 2D to 3D.  It really makes you feel like your surrounded by the instruments like Dolby Digital.