Dubstepforum.com

http://www.factmag.com/2012/02/03/steve ... ate-vinyl/

Interesting
I wonder if this is still being worked on and also how it would work and sound exactly...

What do you think?

This is pretty cool, but surely nowadays most vinyl releases come from a digital master anyway? How could this format be any better than a WAV or FLAC?

I guess I don't know much about this sort of thing though, so I'm probably missing something obvious.

vishes wrote:http://www.factmag.com/2012/02/03/steve ... ate-vinyl/

Interesting
I wonder if this is still being worked on and also how it would work and sound exactly...

What do you think?

Get WAV > Add crackle > Sell for £3.99

I've got vinyl cuts from WAVs before. Surely the quality of that vinyl is only as good as the quality of the WAV?

garethom wrote:

vishes wrote:http://www.factmag.com/2012/02/03/steve ... ate-vinyl/

Interesting
I wonder if this is still being worked on and also how it would work and sound exactly...

What do you think?

Get WAV > Add crackle > Sell for £3.99

I've got vinyl cuts from WAVs before. Surely the quality of that vinyl is only as good as the quality of the WAV?

Hahaha.

But yeah, as far as I know all vinyls are cut from WAV files, right? So I don't really get what is meant by the "replicate vinyl" part, but the fact that it supposedly has 20 times the fidelity of a standard mp3 is what interests me...
If by standard mp3 they mean an mp3 file of 320 kbps, then this file should have a bitrate of 6400 kbps which is obviously a lot better than a WAV file (usually just over 2000). Or am I incorrect? (Cos I'm not entirely sure what they mean by fidelity in this case)

if someone told me "standard mp3" i'd think 128 or 192.

edit: wow how am i logged in under this old ass name
-south3rn

Yeah maybe they were talking about 192, that would also seem logical. I doubt they meant 128 though, cos that really is too shit to listen to.
But still, if this file is has an audio quality that is 20 times better than 192 kbps, it would still top a WAV file.

vishes wrote:Yeah maybe they were talking about 192, that would also seem logical. I doubt they meant 128 though, cos that really is too shit to listen to.
But still, if this file is has an audio quality that is 20 times better than 192 kbps, it would still top a WAV file.

Isn't 128 the standard for itunes?

garethom wrote:

vishes wrote:Yeah maybe they were talking about 192, that would also seem logical. I doubt they meant 128 though, cos that really is too shit to listen to.
But still, if this file is has an audio quality that is 20 times better than 192 kbps, it would still top a WAV file.

Isn't 128 the standard for itunes?

I am pretty sure it's 256?

Yeah its 256.

I thought that .wav at 48khz was uncompressed and therefore the same quality as listening to the tune straight from the DAW?

LumiNiscent wrote:I thought that .wav at 48khz was uncompressed and therefore the same quality as listening to the tune straight from the DAW?

Yeah that's what I thought too. That's why I wonder what they meant by "20 times the fidelity of a standard mp3" Because if they were talking about the sound quality then that would mean it would be better than WAV, but that's a bit hard to believe isn't it?

they want to charge more for a new format thats what its all about when instead they shouldnt be selling lossy formats

All of this is basically bullshit. I love vinyl but logically I don't see how digitally recorded music will somehow be transformed and sound better through analog mediums/equipment.

Jobs was, apparently, shocked that consumers were so willing to “trade quality… for convenience or price”

that's why he only sold shite quality files on itunes...

well as far as i know anyway, i'd never buy anything from itunes.

Raad wrote:All of this is basically bullshit. I love vinyl but logically I don't see how digitally recorded music will somehow be transformed and sound better through analog mediums/equipment.

What is it you love about vinyl then mate?

garethom wrote:

vishes wrote:Yeah maybe they were talking about 192, that would also seem logical. I doubt they meant 128 though, cos that really is too shit to listen to.
But still, if this file is has an audio quality that is 20 times better than 192 kbps, it would still top a WAV file.

Isn't 128 the standard for itunes?

If you mean default CD ripping bit rate, then 128 is right (I was ripping CDs on freshly installed iTunes the other day). Sneaky bastards try and fool people so they can say you can fit more tunes on their iPods. Same as taking a laptop making it shiny and charging twice the amount, and same as this topic.

Pedro Sánchez wrote:

Raad wrote:All of this is basically bullshit. I love vinyl but logically I don't see how digitally recorded music will somehow be transformed and sound better through analog mediums/equipment.

What is it you love about vinyl then mate?

Less harshness in the highs (which is actually a flaw in sound quality but is much more pleasant on the ears when played on big rigs IMO). Also I like the feel and looks.

i think he was referring to the fact that vinyl IS an analog medium

fractal wrote:i think he was referring to the fact that vinyl IS an analog medium

I'm confused. My point is that if the music is digitally recorded/mastered then whatever medium you play it on will not change the signal and somehow make the music analog and sound better.

I'm a layman when it comes to this stuff though but this is what I gather from what I've read.

the signal changed from digital to analog at the cutting head. so the signal is no longer the same when it's on vinyl as it was on the original wav. alot of people prefer how the analog signal changes the sound. it's the same as people using valve amps instead of digital amps, they prefer the processing of the original signal when it goes through this medium.