undefined | Better HN

0 pointspolshaw14y ago0 comments

> Digital music is technically superior to bumps on a plastic disc

What you completely failed to realise, is that technical superiority is not the only factor as to how music sounds.

CD mastering these days is almost invariably awful. The real advantage to vinyl (which comes partly because it is a niche format, and partly because of how it is made) is that it has better mastering. This is not subtle on anything better than PC speakers.

0 comments

sjwright14y ago

> What you completely failed to realise

...is that you're going to invent quotes? Nice.

> [Vinyl] has better mastering

A common myth -- google it. For music produced in the past decade, it's exceptionally rare for a vinyl mastering to be superior to the 16/44.1 digital release. Of course there's always exceptions to prove the rule, but the rule is definitely not as you assert.

> partly because of how it is made

Because of how it is made, a vinyl release is often the same master as the CD but with an additional pass through a multi-band limiter. This unquestionably degrades the quality of the vinyl master, and is done to stop the cutting head coils from literally burning up.

polshawOP14y ago

I paraphrased. It was done for brevity. Did i misrepresent the intent of your post?

I do not need to google it, becauase i can hear it myself. Like i say, not subtle. I haven't got vinyls/rips of everything, but i can assure you it is not uncommon. Must i provide examples?

Destructive 'loudening' of music is not useful with vinyl music (IE. compressing the waveform 'up' does not make for a louder output, as what happens with the digital loudness wars-- thus is 'pointless'), because there is no 'reference point' (that is, you can't have a waveform offset, because the needle is already moving wherever to meet the waveform), you can only increase/decrease the dynamic range. Because of a greater difference in amplitude, it is easier to cut a record with a larger dynamic range.

sjwright14y ago

> I do not need to google it, becauase i can hear it myself

Try doing an ABX comparison of whatever it is you think you can hear, and then talk to me.

> Must i provide examples?

Prove it to yourself first with a representative sampling of vinyl records and a blind waveform analysis.

> Destructive 'loudening' of music is not useful with vinyl music

That's true in theory. It's also true that destructive loudening of music is not useful with digital music, but they still do it. In reality, most vinyl masters are the same mastering plus an additional pass through a multi-band limiter. This is not a guess, by the way.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

sjwright14y ago

> What you completely failed to realise

...is that you're going to invent quotes? Nice.

> [Vinyl] has better mastering

> partly because of how it is made

polshawOP14y ago

I paraphrased. It was done for brevity. Did i misrepresent the intent of your post?

I do not need to google it, becauase i can hear it myself. Like i say, not subtle. I haven't got vinyls/rips of everything, but i can assure you it is not uncommon. Must i provide examples?

sjwright14y ago

> I do not need to google it, becauase i can hear it myself

Try doing an ABX comparison of whatever it is you think you can hear, and then talk to me.

> Must i provide examples?

Prove it to yourself first with a representative sampling of vinyl records and a blind waveform analysis.

> Destructive 'loudening' of music is not useful with vinyl music

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse