25 Dec
2012
25 Dec
'12
2:41 p.m.
On 12/25/2012 02:24 PM, Jeremy Jongepier wrote:
On 12/24/2012 10:45 AM, Florian Paul Schmidt wrote:
Yes, that was my impression, too.. For a good vinyl cut you have to have
a different mastering to work around the limitations of the medium..
Actually I worded that second point rather badly. The point was that the
vinyl cutting process (including special/professional mastering) will
introduce many more audible artefacts than the 44.1khz/16bit
downsampling export for a CD. Vinyl is an audibly inferior medium to a
good digital chain. So much worse that you need highly trained
professionals to work around the limitations to create a bearable
product. Some people might still prefer the sound. But that has nothing
to do with vinyl being the measurably better medium.
Flo
P.S.: I still like my vinyl collection of records. The haptics. The
nostalgia. The big pictures on the covers.. The handling of a pair of
Technics MK1210 and a good mixer is still awesome for mixes, etc..
--
Florian Paul Schmidt
http://fps.io
Now do it the other way around: Take some digital
masters of albums and
cut vinyl records from then. Now do a double blind test. My hypothesis
is that you will be able to discriminate the vinyl from the digital
playback for the simple reason that the vinyl cutting and playback chain
introduces loads of imperfections that will be clearly audible.
Doesn't this result in vinyl that can barely be played (unless the
digital master was done for vinyl specifically)? I thought masters for
vinyl and digital media were slightly different.