Dubplate Question?

[circleofpsy]

I've been wondering this for a while now, i just dont get on well with serato. In light of this "Jus A Beat" business + having heaps of talented mates im looking for answers

What is the score with acetate vs vinyl for cutting dubs?

From what i gather acetate, according to one studio, "has a much finer sound". Mala has mentioned using acetate a few times, as have a few of the other big names. BUT don't they wear out after a few plays??? surely they cant smell that great. Why not use Vinyl for cutting? what are the benefits?

Vinyl on the other hand... is the same as a run of the mill 12" ? i remember reading that to cut a vinyl you need a metal master & a minimum press of 500. Whats going on?


Id use Transition given the choice, no contest. I didn't see a 'vinyl dubs' option on their sight, if Transition dont do them im a little suspicious


Any help would be appreciated
Cheers

[hedmuk]

Cheaper. Quicker. No need to mass produce a track and have expensive spares left over.

No?

[4n general]

I BEEN USING DUBS SINCE 2006 AND STILL DO NOW, IF U LOOK AFTER THEM THEY DNT WEAR DOWN SO QUICK AND U CAN ALWAYS BOOST THE HI OR MID GAIN TO COMPENSATE!! DUBPLATE TILL I DIE!!

FUCK CD!!

[circleofpsy]

Cheaper. Quicker. No need to mass produce a track and have expensive spares left over.

No?

http://www.dubstudio.co.uk/ & loads of other sites are offering tracks cut straight onto vinyl...

Basically, my question is are these AS GOOD as a real vinyl? , & are there any advantages to acetate?

Seems to good to be true...

[pkay]

Cheaper. Quicker. No need to mass produce a track and have expensive spares left over.

No?

http://www.dubstudio.co.uk/ & loads of other sites are offering tracks cut straight onto vinyl...

Basically, my question is are these AS GOOD as a real vinyl? , & are there any advantages to acetate?

Seems to good to be true...

All a matter of the equipment used to cut the dubs and the folks cutting the dubs tbh.

From my experience cutting into wax or the kinda pseudo vinyl cuts are shit (the tracking on them is usually pants). Acetate the only way to go if you're going to bother cutting a dub. Cutting a 10" vs a 12" one could debate some fidelity issues there... usually better to cut a 12" but pricier. You also kinda have to acquire how to handle them. You can fuck an acetate up fairly easy (especially in DJ applications, ie backcueing).

So to answer your question: are they as good as real vinyl? Under ideal conditions, Yes for a couple months if in heavy rotation, outside that even the most careful dj is going to get some sound loss on them.

[solphy]

for me, holding a fresh acetate is one of the best feelings ever. in a time where everytime seem to be disposable to some extent, it makes me feel quite good to have gone through the hassle (time and money) of getting a dub cut. I know it wears out, but it's something that lasts in a way, because hearing a tune on dub makes it a little more special imo.

that said, go for acetate. it does smell that good

[Basic A]

Noones giving you a straight answer about 'vinyl dubs' and how they work and if they sound good.

Id really be interested to know how the fuck these are being made, and if they have the quality of what runa of vinyl would...

As stated dont you need metalplating for vinyl?

how is that practical when there only selling them at the same price of thier acetate plates?

Is the sound difference for the better or worse vs. ran vinyl, Im only seeing 'vinyl vs. acetate' comparison, I want vinyl dub vs. vinyl ran comparison.

Im considering buying a batch of these vinyl dubs if there worth there snuff now that Im looking at them...

I was already about to cave for acetates

[solphy]

vinyl can be one-off as well. Check dubstudio for those. I don't really know how they are made though, i think it's with some sort of special cutter head and a modified technics turntable.

difference between one-off and a whole run (which i think is plain dumb, why would you want 500 copys of the same vinyl, especially when it's a dub and only you're supposed to play it?) is mastering. A one-off gets a basic treatment, for a whole run you would need a more detailed master and metalwork.

to conclude: a one-off vinyl dub will sound as good as pressed vinyl (no-one will notice the difference in mastering), when mastered by the right engineer. Nothing but love for henry at dubstudio when it comes to that.

[Basic A]

vinyl can be one-off as well. Check dubstudio for those. I don't really know how they are made though, i think it's with some sort of special cutter head and a modified technics turntable.

difference between one-off and a whole run (which i think is plain dumb, why would you want 500 copys of the same vinyl, especially when it's a dub and only you're supposed to play it?) is mastering. A one-off gets a basic treatment, for a whole run you would need a more detailed master and metalwork.

to conclude: a one-off vinyl dub will sound as good as pressed vinyl (no-one will notice the difference in mastering), when mastered by the right engineer. Nothing but love for henry at dubstudio when it comes to that.

Cool, what I wanted to hear, but Ill give it a bit for objectivity...

A MODIFIED FUCKING TECHNIC?! Thats my kinda project... Why has this not been covered on hackaday?

I take it you know these dubstudio guys then? Its funny they come into this thread cause I was scoping them the other day for these one off deals... Do you tihnk better option owuld be to send them tracks in mixdown and trust thier guys to master them, or send them to subvert first then get .wavs to be plated from there?

WOndering if since its an odd process, if they have preferences on how things should be treated...

[solphy]

vinyl can be one-off as well. Check dubstudio for those. I don't really know how they are made though, i think it's with some sort of special cutter head and a modified technics turntable.

difference between one-off and a whole run (which i think is plain dumb, why would you want 500 copys of the same vinyl, especially when it's a dub and only you're supposed to play it?) is mastering. A one-off gets a basic treatment, for a whole run you would need a more detailed master and metalwork.

to conclude: a one-off vinyl dub will sound as good as pressed vinyl (no-one will notice the difference in mastering), when mastered by the right engineer. Nothing but love for henry at dubstudio when it comes to that.

Cool, what I wanted to hear, but Ill give it a bit for objectivity...

A MODIFIED FUCKING TECHNIC?! Thats my kinda project... Why has this not been covered on hackaday?

I take it you know these dubstudio guys then? Its funny they come into this thread cause I was scoping them the other day for these one off deals... Do you tihnk better option owuld be to send them tracks in mixdown and trust thier guys to master them, or send them to subvert first then get .wavs to be plated from there?

WOndering if since its an odd process, if they have preferences on how things should be treated...

Don't know them personally. I just had my share of vinyl and acetates cut by them, and it was a sick cut everytime. On their site you can find their process for mastering dubs. They do regular masters aswell (like the ones subvert does). Getting it mastered beforehand isn't a bad idea, but it'll cost you extra dimes. I honestly don't think you will hear a notable difference between a one-off mastered dub and a premastered wav cut onto vinyl. However i'm by no means an expert when it comes to mastering, there are far more qualified people on here to talk about this

[frebentos]

I've now purchased about 10 10" vinyl cuts from dubstudio and the they sound great and will last, and 50 quid for two is a good price.

go for the vinyl because although acetate feels and smells good it just won't last.

[circleofpsy]

I just had my share of vinyl and acetates cut

Oh yeah? Which one did you prefer??

[phrex]

it's all about the man who cuts it!

first time i cut a dubplate the guy didn't actually know what dubstep is and how my music should sound like or how i want it to sound like. i cut of way too much low end.

second time, someone else did it, the one who usually does the dnb/jungle dubs. so first i showed him some dubstep records which where in some way my kinda stuff. (he was astonished that they all where so loud, more than +5db)

anyway... this second dub was fine, played both on quite big rigs, the second one was banging!

i'd go for acetate anyway, doesn't wear out that fast as most people say. if you take care it takes very long time. and also, it wears out the highs. so after a while highhats and other high stuff will get a bit thud. bass will stay

[circleofpsy]

go for the vinyl because although acetate feels and smells good it just won't last.

yeah, no doubt. I dont mind spending that kind of money on something that is going to last, just like splashing out on a rare track but even better... totally unique. It would just be pissing money away to be cutting dubs that only last a few months

that said, il probably cut at least one acetate just to check it out

[frebentos]

It would just be pissing money away to be cutting dubs that only last a few months

nah not at all. It's a nice thing to have as well, but personally i want to be able to listen to a track and have it sound as good over years rather than months.

[circleofpsy]

It would just be pissing money away to be cutting dubs that only last a few months

nah not at all. It's a nice thing to have as well, but personally i want to be able to listen to a track and have it sound as good over years rather than months.

Yeah, exactly. i want it for years, instead of having to recut acetates

[Sharmaji]

take care of your dubs and they'll last a long time. but yes, no matter what you get a ton of clicks and pops compared to vinyl, and you'll lose high-end and get cue burn over the course of time.

As is clearly evidenced by this thread, you play acetates to be part of both a history and a mythology.

...and it makes no sense to me that folks will cut to dub tunes that have already been released or broadcast-given-away. Your perogative, sure, but a big part of the dubplate world is every selectors individual collection.

[DubStudio]

Just thought I would chime in. As with all media, it makes a big difference who is cutting the tracks and what equipment they are using so the only way to accurately compare the two types of dub is to get the same person to cut both using the same settings. I cut both and I enjoy using them both equally, so hopefully I can compare the two honestly and without bias. There are objective differences between vinyl dubs and acetates as well as subjective ones. Here are some that I thought of:

Objective differences (10 inch dub):

Format: vinyl dub
Diameter: 250mm
Weight: 120g
Thickness: 1.9 mm
Substrate: plastic
Recording surface: plastic
Cutting stylus: diamond
Durability: excellent*
Surface Noise: good

Format: acetate 
Diameter: 254mm
Weight: 165g
Thickness: 1.4 mm
Substrate: aluminium 
Recording surface: cellulose nitrate
Cutting stylus: ruby
Durability: good**
Surface Noise: excellent

* last well under most conditions, but the more care the better.
** use a good stylus and they can last indefinitely, use a rubbish stylus and they can degrade from the first play.

The two types of dub also have a different frequency response, so this has to be offset during cutting. This is hard to quantify but acetates for example need a lot more high frequency pre-emphasis than vinyl dubs.

Subjective differences: - well that's a matter of taste of course. Personally I find acetates to have a more mellow and detailed sound, whereas vinyl dubs have a more up front sound. I use both, and it usually depends what sort of music I am cutting - if its modern dance music I find vinyl dubs better, and acetates tend to suit dub, reggae and acoustic music, but like I say its just a subjective viewpoint and both formats can handle all styles without problem. Ultimately the only way to find out is to test them yourself.

[Shum]

I love the smell of acetate in the morning.

[Basic A]

Just thought I would chime in. As with all media, it makes a big difference who is cutting the tracks and what equipment they are using so the only way to accurately compare the two types of dub is to get the same person to cut both using the same settings. I cut both and I enjoy using them both equally, so hopefully I can compare the two honestly and without bias. There are objective differences between vinyl dubs and acetates as well as subjective ones. Here are some that I thought of:

Objective differences (10 inch dub):

Format: vinyl dub
Diameter: 250mm
Weight: 120g
Thickness: 1.9 mm
Substrate: plastic
Recording surface: plastic
Cutting stylus: diamond
Durability: excellent*
Surface Noise: good

Format: acetate 
Diameter: 254mm
Weight: 165g
Thickness: 1.4 mm
Substrate: aluminium 
Recording surface: cellulose nitrate
Cutting stylus: ruby
Durability: good**
Surface Noise: excellent

* last well under most conditions, but the more care the better.
** use a good stylus and they can last indefinitely, use a rubbish stylus and they can degrade from the first play.

The two types of dub also have a different frequency response, so this has to be offset during cutting. This is hard to quantify but acetates for example need a lot more high frequency pre-emphasis than vinyl dubs.

Subjective differences: - well that's a matter of taste of course. Personally I find acetates to have a more mellow and detailed sound, whereas vinyl dubs have a more up front sound. I use both, and it usually depends what sort of music I am cutting - if its modern dance music I find vinyl dubs better, and acetates tend to suit dub, reggae and acoustic music, but like I say its just a subjective viewpoint and both formats can handle all styles without problem. Ultimately the only way to find out is to test them yourself.