Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 9:45 pm
I really hope they are repressed, merely for the fact my wallet can't handle 100 pound haymakers for a vinyl. Even though I desperately want the ones I am missing!
Yeah but you're still compressing it to CD so it won't be even be close to the vinyl. And if they indeed do that, why would they digitally record a record when they have the master tapes?harpoon dodger wrote:It's possible MBV mixed it all down to an lacquer acetate, then recorded it back for the digital master...by doing this, your record will sound identical on CD or vinyl, apparently. Arcade Fire did it on their last record. Makes sense to me?polar sky wrote:Unfortunately I think most albums these days are mastered digitally and then pressed on vinyl (Not 100% on that). That's why I was surprised when MBV announced their vinyl would be mixed and mastered strictly in analog and then pressed.Magrathea wrote:ok I read the whole explanation above re: Analog vs Digital (confirmed what I thought I knew)
However how are we sure that the final mix is in analog? I mean the brothers usually work with analog all the time, and I expect that TH is no difference, but once it is mastered and all, isn't it done in digital format or is the mastering also done analog?
So are we sure it's AAD (for CD) and AAA for vinyl? because if it's AD and the vinyl, what gives?
Some info on AAA:
http://darkermydudes.blogspot.com/2010/ ... in-uk.html
So I guess if you record, mix and master all of your music on your computer, it makes no sense to press it on vinyl.
look on ebay man...i was looking to get one. there was an OTARI 2" mastering unit for i think it was 1200. which is CHEAP. seems like a lot of studios in hollywood are dumping the old gear for digi. might want to look at taking advantage of that [granted...when i was looking it was about 5 years ago. maybe they are back in style again]harpoon dodger wrote:Indeed! I'm lucky enough to be going through recording school right now, and we're working off a Sony/MCI JH-24 this semester. Beautiful 2-inch machine..wish I could afford onere-phaelam-ed wrote:you just use one of these...harpoon dodger wrote: It's possible MBV mixed it all down to an lacquer acetate, then recorded it back for the digital master...by doing this, your record will sound identical on CD or vinyl, apparently. Arcade Fire did it on their last record. Makes sense to me?
then transfer from tape...like they used to
I agree wholeheartedly..was just thinking out loudpolar sky wrote:Yeah but you're still compressing it to CD so it won't be even be close to the vinyl. And if they indeed do that, why would they digitally record a record when they have the master tapes?harpoon dodger wrote:It's possible MBV mixed it all down to an lacquer acetate, then recorded it back for the digital master...by doing this, your record will sound identical on CD or vinyl, apparently. Arcade Fire did it on their last record. Makes sense to me?polar sky wrote: Unfortunately I think most albums these days are mastered digitally and then pressed on vinyl (Not 100% on that). That's why I was surprised when MBV announced their vinyl would be mixed and mastered strictly in analog and then pressed.
Some info on AAA:
http://darkermydudes.blogspot.com/2010/ ... in-uk.html
So I guess if you record, mix and master all of your music on your computer, it makes no sense to press it on vinyl.
It's like fitting a Blu-Ray on to a DVD, sure it's the same movie, but youre going to have a loss of quality.
Lol, I do look from time to time..however, the cost of shipping a giant 24-track machine (and making space for it in my house, etc) doesn't make it that feasible at the moment. I'm more in the market for a nice 1" or 1/2" machine, my Sony TC-366 ain't getting enough use these daysre-phaelam-ed wrote:look on ebay man...i was looking to get one. there was an OTARI 2" mastering unit for i think it was 1200. which is CHEAP. seems like a lot of studios in hollywood are dumping the old gear for digi. might want to look at taking advantage of that [granted...when i was looking it was about 5 years ago. maybe they are back in style again]harpoon dodger wrote:Indeed! I'm lucky enough to be going through recording school right now, and we're working off a Sony/MCI JH-24 this semester. Beautiful 2-inch machine..wish I could afford onere-phaelam-ed wrote: you just use one of these...
then transfer from tape...like they used to
heh fair enoughharpoon dodger wrote:Lol, I do look from time to time..however, the cost of shipping a giant 24-track machine (and making space for it in my house, etc) doesn't make it that feasible at the moment. I'm more in the market for a nice 1" or 1/2" machine, my Sony TC-366 ain't getting enough use these days
Finally, someone notices meMexicola wrote:Ha! Was just about to reference that book! An amazing read and one everyone on this forum should seek out
Magrathea wrote:ok I read the whole explanation above re: Analog vs Digital (confirmed what I thought I knew)
However how are we sure that the final mix is in analog? I mean the brothers usually work with analog all the time, and I expect that TH is no difference, but once it is mastered and all, isn't it done in digital format or is the mastering also done analog?
So are we sure it's AAD (for CD) and AAA for vinyl? because if it's AD and the vinyl, what gives?
Of course if vinyl is thicker it's going to be less prone to warping. Though stating that 180g vinyl is the best sounding, and that represses are generally of lower quality is just a load of rubbish, and clearly though you think you know, you DON'T.re-phaelam-ed wrote:actually the weight of the vinyl has a lot to do with the quality. youre looking at a better press. a more stable press. less likely to change shape more receptive to a better groove. the thin shit wears and warps quicker.jcotteri wrote:I think you have no idea what you are talking about, the weight of the vinyl has nothing to do with the quality of the sound or the pressing, the only difference is that it's more likely to be virgin vinyl rather than recycledre-phaelam-ed wrote: a lot of time represses are lower quality. perhaps not on the vinyl side, but generally the packaging.
sucks getting lower grade vinyl too. geo seems like its on 180g vinyl. SOLID...nice. i got in a beautiful, thin shitty vinyl. plays like crap and has a pink chip in it. probably scrap from another press of something that jumped into the pressing. got lucky and found a white label promo copy. 180g...FLAT and awesome sounding.
there CAN be value in a first pressing. dont discount it. but if they repress...dont pass it up. may not happen again.
In fact you will more than likely find that represses have higher quality sound in general, as they are likely remastered and probably have more cash flow with the time that has elapsed.
the sound quality is based off of the width of the groove. but weight helps sustain that groove. i probably dont know though.
dont feel bad...one day you might be able to afford it.jcotteri wrote:Of course if vinyl is thicker it's going to be less prone to warping. Though stating that 180g vinyl is the best sounding, and that represses are generally of lower quality is just a load of rubbish, and clearly though you think you know, you DON'T.
jcotteri wrote:resorting to insults because you have no factual retort to contribute?![]()
Good one mate!