Sculpting Sound: The Art of Vinyl Mastering
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2024
- Watch our short film in the art of vinyl mastering, featuring Rashad Becker of Dubplates and Mastering, Andreas 'Lupo' Lubich of Calyx Mastering and Noel Summerville of 3345 Mastering.
Click here for more info: www.thevinylfac...
Music: Haroon Mirza x James Lavelle (The Vinyl Factory, 2014)
very good and informative video!
well done
1:20 Best advice yet. Thanks!
Great mini-documentary--vinyl mastering is truly an artform, and it's engineers are truly craftsmen. Just wondering, does anyone know the song at 2:16 being played (the one that Noel Sommerville is mastering)? Sounds a bit like Basic Channel....
Maybe Aphex Twin ;-)
There is always Direct Metal Mastering. Plus I've heard it's becoming difficult for companies to find quality blank Lacquer to cut.
I wonder if vinyl is mastered better sometimes because it forces them to pay more attention to what they're doing. Digital is apparently much easier with pro tools and all that.
I guess that's sort of what they're saying.
That's partly the reason. But mastering is also a matter of taste, so some people who're used to vinyl might prefer the sound of a typical vinyl master over an equally well done digital master that goes beyond the limitations of vinyl.
@@VulumeI listened to flac and other lossless formats for years before I ever got into vinyl, and for me there's no comparison. Vinyl has by far and away the best tones. I'm not even talking about the audiophile stuff. I'm just talking about good pressings of standard releases stuff.
@@user-zx1ir7jt4c Vinyl is digital. The difference is in the master. th-cam.com/video/Xb32bj0XmW8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=PdP-84NSb9mViaUj
great video....
If the laquar plants close down, just go back to DMM (direct metal mastering), where they cut directly into a copper disc! Problem solved! I know laquars sound better, but at least it'll keep going!
Depends, I think DMM sounds a lot better personally, in the few direct comparisons I’ve made (of rock music). And certainly I would always prefer it for classical.
I appreciate the physical aspect of vinyl records. There is something special about physically holding the music. But there is no reason anyone should expect higher fidelity sound from something other than a digital mastering. I find it dishonest and greedy for anyone to put a better recording on vinyl and not making it available in a digital format. Give people the best quality recording and then it will ultimately be up to the end-user to have decent enough equipment to reproduce the intended sound.
cool report ! :)
“Reign things in” for instance, the low end from the cello and harp on Nirvana Unplugged. Those things did not get reigned in lol
Does the first guy have an open baffle monitor?
Vinyl is so 2014...Tape is where the action is now.
Nathan Hassall I hope tapes and CD's come back and records become uncool again. This vinyl resurgence has just driven up the price of all records and it really sucks.
I have a hard time believing that nobody will start another company that makes cutting machines to make the lacquers.
"if one of them goes broke" Or burns down lol
As big as the industry is right now, why can't they open more "laquar" companies? Or manufacture more of what they need? They certainly make enough income to invest in that!
It the machine that where old and hard to recreate
@@jjjjj2220 like the moon landing, this is why we can't have nice things.
im getting that first dudes haircut tomorrow
3:38, I never understood the theory about distortions is what makes vinyl sound so great! WHAT? Seriously? That's like saying "the reason your sandwich taste remarkable, is because I used stale bread and out-of-date mayonnaise"! That makes just about as much sense! The reason vinyl sounds so great is because it's a HI RESOLUTION medium! It captures ALL the information from the tape or file, rather than cutting it off at 20k, the way CD'S do! It's like that little attention note on the back of some CD'S back in the day, when it said (now get this) " we have attempted to preserve as closely as possible the sound of the original recording, however because of its "HI RESOLUTION" the compact disc can reveal limitations of the source tape"! Are you kidding me? Does anyone believe that? They were trying to say that the resolution of the CD'S were higher than the original Master's! Smfh! The compact disc is a MEDIUM RESOLUTION medium, and it doesn't come close to the original Master! Now most people get it, CD'S were nothing more than pump up hype!
Vinyl City not true, vinyl is able to produce less dynamic range and high frequencies than a CD. The fact classic music listeners prefer a CD tells you what you need to know. I am a mix engineer and when we cut a vinyl we have to attenuate high frequencies. I love vinyl but the 20khz cut off are not what make a cd a lesser medium :)
It actual had to do with how it never plays back exactly in perfect time there a very slight swing on vynil that is why people like it
Vinyl adds warmth and noise and distortion and compresses the dynamic range, yes, which is what makes it pleasing. Just like a guitar player adds those things on their amp to make the sound more pleasing, just like pop/rock/rap recordings go through all manner of heavy processing (EQ, distortion, compression, echo/reverb, etc) to make them sound nice.
The supposed high frequency extension of vinyl is kind of a myth and/or unimportant. That is, signal may be there, but is completely inaudible, would probably be pretty distorted if we could hear it, and often even much lower frequencies, well within normal hearing range, need to be attenuated to prevent some nasty distortion. Certainly vinyl mastering usually involves de-essing for the vocals at the least. Phase differences need to be reined in, bass needs to be made mono, and there’s a final limiter just in case. And these are just to prevent the cutting from sounding disastrous or even skipping; the vinyl still shapes the sound all by itself. It may sound great, but it diverges from the original recording far more than a cd does.
If you put the output from a turntable through a high quality 16/44 ada interface with matched levels and do a blind a/b test, pretty much nobody can tell the difference. (They can’t tell the difference if the source is 24/196 at any normal listening volume either. If you turn it up loud enough to hear the actual noise floor inherent to the cd, any actual music will be extremely loud.) The cd standard got it right in that anything beyond what it can reproduce is inaudible under any normal circumstances, and it is able to reproduce any audible sound accurately enough that humans can’t hear the differences. (Most people can’t reliably tell the difference with decent quality digitally compressed sound either, and that’s actually throwing away a ton of data.)
Of course 24/96 is worthwhile during production since a lot of layering and editing and processing occurs, so noise adds up, so the extra dynamic range allows even that accumulation to stay inaudible.
If you mastered a recording for vinyl, burned that to cd, then cut the record from that cd, then assuming you have good ada conversion, most likely you would not be able to tell it hadn’t gone straight to vinyl.
Of course early on probably the d/a converters and filters weren’t so good, and certainly people didn’t know how to master for cd yet. A cheap CD player still has cheap components, including especially the analog ones. And also, unless you add the same noise and EQ and distortion and compression that vinyl does naturally, it won’t sound the same. (Even tape adds subtle changes to the sound, which are also generally pleasing. But they still make it technically less accurate.)