General Music Chat

The Village Idiot mentioned something about a super clock. What exactly is that?

[quote="SirJamsalot"]You are the first person I've ever heard say this - I've never compared vinyl with digital so I dunno - but I'm sure the vinyl purists will be creating Slacker G dolls and sticking needles in it after they read this [quote]

I'm one o those... A producer I know bought $50,000 worth of digital recording gear. Supposedly the best money could buy (and he is loaded).
I asked him why he chose digital over analog... "it's the best reproduction of sound, that's why"

1 year later he replaced every bit of it with analog equipment...
he said "I had to learn the hard way that digital simply cannot reproduce the sound that analog does, and until it can I'll waste no more money or time on it"

Apparently digital recording omits any signals that are too similar and therefore loses the expression of the original sound. At least that's the way he explained it to me, after noticing the difference and investigating the reasons why.

I have noticed that I hear things on albums that I don't on CD's. In fact I think CD's pretty much suck as far as sound quality... I have yet to hear anything that sounds as good as an LP.

The thing I never liked about records was their ability to skip. CD's used to be better quality, but the industry downgraded to keep sales up.

I prefer analog over digital, mostly. Digital can be too clean. And a poor digital recording is far worse than poor analog. I'm gonna try my hand at better digital recording, with hopes that sampling quality will help with the sound...aside from using proper mics this time...etc.

I'm very thankful for digital though, don't get me wrong here. It's very convenient to be on the go and listen to music, thanks to the MP3. Home recording set ups are small and compact too, which is cool.

We're living in the good old days.

As I've stated before, I have a huge collection of vinyl and an excellent turntable. I prefer an LP, even with all its occasional pops and hisses, to a CD. You just have to make sure you have a quality stylus and take care of your records. I've done side by side comparisons, in particular with UB40's "Labor of Love". The bass sounds more real, as do the vocals. You do lose a little on the high end.

CDs were always problematic. When they came out in the 80's the low end was shite and the high end was often too shrill. They got better at making 'em and the converters improved. But, I don't get it why studios often record at 24bits when CD's are STILL a measly 16bits. You'd think it could capture a broader frequency range if CD's matched the studio's specs a little closer. Add to that the shorter shelf life CD's have compared to vinyl. The aluminum film inside continues to rot away, making expensive beer coasters.

All considered, vinyl is still the best format to archive music on. CD's are disposable. Cassettes are in-between, concerning shelf-life and sound quality. MP3s are pure sh*t. Nice to try stuff on. But, no staying power, lower quality, etc. JMHO

I agree with you 110% but ultimately, it's going to come down to the play-back equipment you're using. Vinyls scratch or break, CD's corrupt, Cassettes drop out.
What is your audience using to listen to your music at home, or on the go? I say, record 24 analog. Mix it down to 2 track tape. Re-mix it using a typical car stereo set-up as your monitor, then remix it for CD using a CD player for playback, and finally re-mix it for MP3. Get the best sound out of all three before you walk out of the studio. Believe me, the EQ, Panning, and relative gain will be different for each.

We're living in the good old days.

We frequently forget this, it seems.

I believe that if we could create an analog medium as reliable, fault-tolerant and noiseless as CD's it would be far superior to either CD's or vinyl. But nobody's done it yet. So I'll take CD's over vinyl.

Skips, noise, and just plain wearing out. Vinyl doesn't hold much nostalgia for me.

What I do miss is the album jackets. CD cases are too small for some of the cool album jackets we used to see. Although, I do think the booklets that come with the CD's could better. Substance over style. Better yet, style with substance.

We're living in the good old days.

What I do miss is the album jackets.

I know, man! Some of the record I've bought came with posters, stickers...etc. I love the fold out albums.

The Village Idiot mentioned something about a super clock. What exactly is that?

Your going to get to involved on the tech side of music if you pursue. It has to do with jitter, which is known to detract from CD quality. (In its most rudimentary definition) A super clock will give a CD recording more clarity and give it a higher palp. Make it sound better. Run a search on it. It's interesting stuff, but I draw a line in the sand where it comes to tech. I try to learn enough to know whats out there, but my time is better spent creating.

Okay I previously mentioned doing a one minute song challenge. I should probably post this as a new topic... but I'm lazy. So I just wrote, recorded and mixed a 25 second song. It took 20 minutes from idea to mp3. I left in all the nasty's including a bit of distortion, some pitchy vocals, out of tune instruments (No time for things like tuning now) and added three reverbs without looking at the settings. It's called "Shades of Blue" and is posted as the last song on my BM page.

Now it's your turn to give it a try. Just think of it, record it and give it wings. It's actually a lot of fun. The idea is to also have it be a complete idea in short form.
Are you in?????

As I've stated before, I have a huge collection of vinyl and an excellent turntable. I prefer an LP, even with all its occasional pops and hisses, to a CD. You just have to make sure you have a quality stylus and take care of your records. I've done side by side comparisons, in particular with UB40's "Labor of Love". The bass sounds more real, as do the vocals. You do lose a little on the high end.

CDs were always problematic. When they came out in the 80's the low end was shite and the high end was often too shrill. They got better at making 'em and the converters improved. But, I don't get it why studios often record at 24bits when CD's are STILL a measly 16bits. You'd think it could capture a broader frequency range if CD's matched the studio's specs a little closer. Add to that the shorter shelf life CD's have compared to vinyl. The aluminum film inside continues to rot away, making expensive beer coasters.

All considered, vinyl is still the best format to archive music on. CD's are disposable. Cassettes are in-between, concerning shelf-life and sound quality. MP3s are pure sh*t. Nice to try stuff on. But, no staying power, lower quality, etc. JMHO

I agree with you 110% but ultimately, it's going to come down to the play-back equipment you're using. Vinyls scratch or break, CD's corrupt, Cassettes drop out.
What is your audience using to listen to your music at home, or on the go? I say, record 24 analog. Mix it down to 2 track tape. Re-mix it using a typical car stereo set-up as your monitor, then remix it for CD using a CD player for playback, and finally re-mix it for MP3. Get the best sound out of all three before you walk out of the studio. Believe me, the EQ, Panning, and relative gain will be different for each.

Well, that's supposed to be standard operating procedure, trying the mix in different environments. But, what you're describing sounds like mastering. Part of the problem with older CDs was they just used the masters made for LPs. But, LPs are mastered with higher treble to compensate for the nature of vinyl, which loses higher frequencies. Apparently, it took awhile to occur to anyone that separate masters were required for different formats.

Some folks who record and master in home studios still make this mistake, using the same master for vinyl and CD... with irritating results.

Okay I previously mentioned doing a one minute song challenge. I should probably post this as a new topic... but I'm lazy. So I just wrote, recorded and mixed a 25 second song. It took 20 minutes from idea to mp3. I left in all the nasty's including a bit of distortion, some pitchy vocals, out of tune instruments (No time for things like tuning now) and added three reverbs without looking at the settings. It's called "Shades of Blue" and is posted as the last song on my BM page.

Now it's your turn to give it a try. Just think of it, record it and give it wings. It's actually a lot of fun. The idea is to also have it be a complete idea in short form.
Are you in?????

That was sweet! great job.

Okay I previously mentioned doing a one minute song challenge. I should probably post this as a new topic... but I'm lazy. So I just wrote, recorded and mixed a 25 second song. It took 20 minutes from idea to mp3. I left in all the nasty's including a bit of distortion, some pitchy vocals, out of tune instruments (No time for things like tuning now) and added three reverbs without looking at the settings. It's called "Shades of Blue" and is posted as the last song on my BM page.

Now it's your turn to give it a try. Just think of it, record it and give it wings. It's actually a lot of fun. The idea is to also have it be a complete idea in short form.
Are you in?????

Sounded good. Very George Harrison-esque. Shorter than my old cellphone ringer though. I'll post that for comparison.

There was a compilation album produced in the 1980's called Miniatures, consisting entirely of songs under 60 seconds. A sequel album was made a few years ago. There was another album, produced in the 1990's called Electroclips, which featured songs about 25-30 seconds long. Your track would work on those compilations very well.

As I've stated before, I have a huge collection of vinyl and an excellent turntable. I prefer an LP, even with all its occasional pops and hisses, to a CD. You just have to make sure you have a quality stylus and take care of your records. I've done side by side comparisons, in particular with UB40's "Labor of Love". The bass sounds more real, as do the vocals. You do lose a little on the high end.

CDs were always problematic. When they came out in the 80's the low end was shite and the high end was often too shrill. They got better at making 'em and the converters improved. But, I don't get it why studios often record at 24bits when CD's are STILL a measly 16bits. You'd think it could capture a broader frequency range if CD's matched the studio's specs a little closer. Add to that the shorter shelf life CD's have compared to vinyl. The aluminum film inside continues to rot away, making expensive beer coasters.

All considered, vinyl is still the best format to archive music on. CD's are disposable. Cassettes are in-between, concerning shelf-life and sound quality. MP3s are pure sh*t. Nice to try stuff on. But, no staying power, lower quality, etc. JMHO

I agree with you 110% but ultimately, it's going to come down to the play-back equipment you're using. Vinyls scratch or break, CD's corrupt, Cassettes drop out.
What is your audience using to listen to your music at home, or on the go? I say, record 24 analog. Mix it down to 2 track tape. Re-mix it using a typical car stereo set-up as your monitor, then remix it for CD using a CD player for playback, and finally re-mix it for MP3. Get the best sound out of all three before you walk out of the studio. Believe me, the EQ, Panning, and relative gain will be different for each.

Well, that's supposed to be standard operating procedure, trying the mix in different environments. But, what you're describing sounds like mastering. Part of the problem with older CDs was they just used the masters made for LPs. But, LPs are mastered with higher treble to compensate for the nature of vinyl, which loses higher frequencies. Apparently, it took awhile to occur to anyone that separate masters were required for different formats.

Some folks who record and master in home studios still make this mistake, using the same master for vinyl and CD... with irritating results.

I know the difference between mixing and mastering, and what I meant was what I wrote.

"Mixing - Mixing is basically tinkering with everything you have recorded to complete your songs. You'll do things like drop in effects, adjust fader, EQ your tracks and so on."

"Mastering - Mastering is adding sparkle and shine to your music. In a very basic sense, when you master your album, you're making sure that song one doesn't blow out the speakers while song two is barely audible"

Okay I previously mentioned doing a one minute song challenge. I should probably post this as a new topic... but I'm lazy. So I just wrote, recorded and mixed a 25 second song. It took 20 minutes from idea to mp3. I left in all the nasty's including a bit of distortion, some pitchy vocals, out of tune instruments (No time for things like tuning now) and added three reverbs without looking at the settings. It's called "Shades of Blue" and is posted as the last song on my BM page.

Now it's your turn to give it a try. Just think of it, record it and give it wings. It's actually a lot of fun. The idea is to also have it be a complete idea in short form.
Are you in?????

That was sweet! great job.

Thanks, it was a lot of fun making it. I may even expand it out into a song someday.

As I've stated before, I have a huge collection of vinyl and an excellent turntable. I prefer an LP, even with all its occasional pops and hisses, to a CD. You just have to make sure you have a quality stylus and take care of your records. I've done side by side comparisons, in particular with UB40's "Labor of Love". The bass sounds more real, as do the vocals. You do lose a little on the high end.

CDs were always problematic. When they came out in the 80's the low end was shite and the high end was often too shrill. They got better at making 'em and the converters improved. But, I don't get it why studios often record at 24bits when CD's are STILL a measly 16bits. You'd think it could capture a broader frequency range if CD's matched the studio's specs a little closer. Add to that the shorter shelf life CD's have compared to vinyl. The aluminum film inside continues to rot away, making expensive beer coasters.

All considered, vinyl is still the best format to archive music on. CD's are disposable. Cassettes are in-between, concerning shelf-life and sound quality. MP3s are pure sh*t. Nice to try stuff on. But, no staying power, lower quality, etc. JMHO

I agree with you 110% but ultimately, it's going to come down to the play-back equipment you're using. Vinyls scratch or break, CD's corrupt, Cassettes drop out.
What is your audience using to listen to your music at home, or on the go? I say, record 24 analog. Mix it down to 2 track tape. Re-mix it using a typical car stereo set-up as your monitor, then remix it for CD using a CD player for playback, and finally re-mix it for MP3. Get the best sound out of all three before you walk out of the studio. Believe me, the EQ, Panning, and relative gain will be different for each.

Well, that's supposed to be standard operating procedure, trying the mix in different environments. But, what you're describing sounds like mastering. Part of the problem with older CDs was they just used the masters made for LPs. But, LPs are mastered with higher treble to compensate for the nature of vinyl, which loses higher frequencies. Apparently, it took awhile to occur to anyone that separate masters were required for different formats.

Some folks who record and master in home studios still make this mistake, using the same master for vinyl and CD... with irritating results.

I know the difference between mixing and mastering, and what I meant was what I wrote.

"Mixing - Mixing is basically tinkering with everything you have recorded to complete your songs. You'll do things like drop in effects, adjust fader, EQ your tracks and so on."

"Mastering - Mastering is adding sparkle and shine to your music. In a very basic sense, when you master your album, you're making sure that song one doesn't blow out the speakers while song two is barely audible"

Please don't take this wrong. I mean what I say with all the best intentions. Mixing and mastering are not what many think they are. I was in motion picture sound for 27 years as well as radio production and music studio work. I'm hardly famous or a household name but everyone has probably seen my name at some point on a movie. So I may or may not have enough credibility to address the subject. That said, let me offer some small wisdom about the realities of mixing and mastering. Mixing can be tinkering and adding EQ and the likes but for the most part it is all about balance. If everything is balanced and each instrument has a niche carved out in the soundscape often there is little more that needs to be done. Always keep at the forefront that the song is king, the vocal is the messenger and you are there to serve the music. Mastering today is unfortunately....make it loud dude. Lots of compression and basically f-ing with what is most likely pretty close to where it needs to be. It's a shame. Mastering should be as you say adding that small sparkle and evening out overall levels...but it's not.

VI,

Look up RIAA Compression.

All vinyl used it. It is a frequency boost / cut system that allows more information to be put in the walls of groove. Without it you couldn't get any bass response since the bass would rip right through to the adjacent track . Certain frequencies are compressed when pressing the vinyl, then the RIAA preamp that is built into any vinyl player restores the signal to kinda what it was like before it was compressed.

They later used the same type of system to compress and decompress signals going through analog delays. It works something like this. When you record you boost the highs, then when you decompress you cut the highs. By doing that you can push more signal through a limited headroom device. In an analog delay (Bucket brigade) chip it enables you to pack more signal through the stages before clipping. That lowers the noise floor considerably. Samey samey with vinyl. (That's the non technical explanation)

Now don't get me wrong. I always had the BEST gear, and I did enjoy my vinyl system in its day. But with digital I became sort of a purist. I love the extended freq and the almost indiscernible noise floor. I am a big quite freak. I hate noisy FX and the likes. Digital sounds so clean it is like I am playing live in my room. Like it went right from the guitar into my ears. Vinyl has a softer sound, but consider the inaccuracy of a needle bouncing off a wall with the highs mids and lows all fighting for dominance. Hard to imaging how that could have ever possible have worked. And did you know that loudspeakers can only reproduce a very limited number of frequencies? And how does the massive return surge from a collapsing magnetic field in the transformer of a tube amplifier not drown out the itsy bitsy tiny little higher frequencies trying to make their way through that electromagnetic tsunami bass note? The more I know the more I wonder how it all could have sounded so good.

OUCH ! OUCH! Stop that....