Styrene'S Acetates And Strange Holes In Records

[ImberBoy]

Ady I spent all day trying to get a record identified, it turned out to be Tranells - Blessed with a love.

It turns out to be a two thousand pound record so next time I hear it I will be mindful of the fact that its either a pressing or that the DJ has forked out a substantial wedge in order for me to throw my little fat shapes too, this for me, adds to the who experience of going to a top class allnighter, not telling you anything you don't already know and advocate here.

You are no doubt right in what you say but I kinda suspect that most top venues stick to wax and we don't condone electronic media on the whole as those less interested in High Quality would just use this as an excuse to sling on a laptop?

Besides, I don't mind a bit of snap crackle and pop when I'm dancing to a vintage disc.

[Ady Croasdell]

I know simon, i was just doing my job!

So you like the idea of the DJ's wife on the streets and the kids up the chimneys (or down the mine up your way)!

[Guest Lobster Madras]

What this whole discussion inadvertently highlights is the superiority of digital.

In each of the stages from recording onto multi track tape to bouncing it down to 1/4" tape to cutting the master acetate, to making the mothers to making the stampers to pressing the vinyl (I may have missed out one or two), sound quality is lost. Now with digitally remastered sound you can get it directly from multi track tapes (if they exist) and at least five generations of sound quality reductions are avoided (bouncing digitally does not reduce quality).

it's still down to the skill of the post production engineer to get the optimum sound and EQ from a tape and if there's a monmkey in charge of that it can easily sound worse than the 45. At Ace we have our own post production studios who have had decades of experience in getting the right sound from such tapes.

To summarise if you want the best sound at your all nighter install CD players (or a laptop) and play properly master sourced digital tracks.

nb if the CD is from a crap company that only dubs from original discs as they don't have the rights or expertise to handle tape correctly, they will sound worse than the 45 as that's dubbing is a further generation of sound quality lost.

I'm not sure that everybody would 100 per cent agree with you on this Ady; I still prefer the sound of vinyl on a new top quality system over pure digital.. Probably a mental block in my case !! ... Admittedly not losing generations of sound between the mix downs between multitrack tapes and final cuts improves sound quality no end, but some people swear that they prefer the original analog sound of vinyl compared to sometimes too hard and clean digital sound... My ears/ hearing are far too gone and shot to bits with high volume but I definitely agree with you, great engineers all the way along the process from recording, final mix,mastering/ cutting ( always attend the cut it's a 100 per cent necessity !!!!) or all the hard work can be ruined..

Bad dubs from vinyl on cheap CD's are horrible but I worked with Jay Burnett ( a very experienced mastering engineer ) in transferring from vinyl originals and the results can be amazing using Ceta valve hardware or the massive selection of software that is available to restore, de click, boost or re eq old recordings.. I personally think the blend of analog recording and digital mastering gives the best sound, again its all down to the engineers after the artists have done their bit !

[Chalky]

I do agree with Ady to a point with cds, why not play the unissued stuff from cd's? Getting them cut to a carver dulls the sound too much for me.....the acetates from Timmion are far better quality than the vinyl carvers but I can't see the point really spending 20 quid to play something which the cd is the original format?

[Ady Croasdell]

I'm not sure that everybody would 100 per cent agree with you on this Ady; I still prefer the sound of vinyl on a new top quality system over pure digital.. Probably a mental block in my case !! ... Admittedly not losing generations of sound between the mix downs between multitrack tapes and final cuts improves sound quality no end, but some people swear that they prefer the original analog sound of vinyl compared to sometimes too hard and clean digital sound... My ears/ hearing are far too gone and shot to bits with high volume but I definitely agree with you, great engineers all the way along the process from recording, final mix,mastering/ cutting ( always attend the cut it's a 100 per cent necessity !!!!) or all the hard work can be ruined..

Bad dubs from vinyl on cheap CD's are horrible but I worked with Jay Burnett ( a very experienced mastering engineer ) in transferring from vinyl originals and the results can be amazing using Ceta valve hardware or the massive selection of software that is available to restore, de click, boost or re eq old recordings.. I personally think the blend of analog recording and digital mastering gives the best sound, again its all down to the engineers after the artists have done their bit !

Yes you can get very good results from de-clicking and de-hissing etc but every time you do it you lose some of the music as well. No vinyl single will ever sound as good as a master tape and if you've got the proper engineers etc your CD will be master tape quality. People who prefer 100 % analogue right through the process are fooling themselves in my opinion. The actual music isn't technically digital or analogue it just needs reproducing most efficiently and digital is the most efficient and perfect way of doing that short of a time machine to the studio session.

[Ady Croasdell]

I do agree with Ady to a point with cds, why not play the unissued stuff from cd's? Getting them cut to a carver dulls the sound too much for me.....the acetates from Timmion are far better quality than the vinyl carvers but I can't see the point really spending 20 quid to play something which the cd is the original format?

Even the new vinyl 45s we put out are by definition worse than the CD equivalent but we know a lot of people prefer to have it on vinyl. Carvers are a low quality reproduction but over a big system in a nightclub do the job adequately.

This is all really only relevant to people with good sound systems; mine's actually pants and Sonny has disabled it so it's all theoretical!

[Chalky]

Even the new vinyl 45s we put out are by definition worse than the CD equivalent but we know a lot of people prefer to have it on vinyl. Carvers are a low quality reproduction but over a big system in a nightclub do the job adequately.

This is all really only relevant to people with good sound systems; mine's actually pants and Sonny has disabled it so it's all theoretical!

I've used carvers for some stuff and always had to alter settings as really poor in comparison to an actual vinyl issue. As you say they are adequate but you guys do such a good job giving us some top quality unissued stuff why spoil it with a carver?

[Guest Paul]

Hello Ady,

I agree, digital audio is far more accurate and efficient than analogue - for recording, mixing, mastering and manufacturing.

But analogue and digital can both sound terrible if badly processed. Too many engineers fool their clients with excessive loudness, crushing the dynamics in the music. I'm not blaming digital audio for the "loudness wars", it's individual engineers who are to blame.

I also agree that we are fooling ourselves if we say that analogue sounds better but that's because we grew up with music which was contaminated with various additional sounds (and the partial loss of other sounds) during the recording and manufacturing processes. We got so used to that inaccurate sound that we can miss it.

For mixing, mastering and manufacturing you really can't improve on digital methods but I still have a soft spot for analaogue recording (at least with certain kinds of music) because it can sometimes capture things that often get lost on digital recordings. I suppose digital can be a bit "too perfect" for recording sometimes.

So I think the answer is both. I use a mixture of digital and analogue equipment for mixing and mastering but I'm getting lazy ...there's nothing more time consuming (and tedious) than working with a damaged master tape - and doing everything in "real time". The old engineers must have had a lot of patience.

One more thing... it's sad that some record companies (and bootleggers of course) are just too greedy to pay an engineer to do the job properly. Some of them treat their customers with no more respect than they have for rights owners etc.

Sadly, some people still buy that stuff.

[Guest Lobster Madras]

I've used carvers for some stuff and always had to alter settings as really poor in comparison to an actual vinyl issue. As you say they are adequate but you guys do such a good job giving us some top quality unissued stuff why spoil it with a carver?

Ordering a carver is like not attending the cut..Who knows what you will get... I've been very disappointed with some I've had back, flat, quiet cuts etc... We always used to have fun down at Music House as those lads were/are experienced in working from cassettes, minidiscs, CD's etc for DJ's to play on a big system.. Always used to ask for more bass on the funk tracks, and for loud cuts.. some of Ian Wright's remixes that Keb had cut came out really well.. No shortage of bass down there seeing as it was primarily a Reggae and later Drum and Bass producers haven !

[Chalky]

Ordering a carver is like not attending the cut..Who knows what you will get... I've been very disappointed with some I've had back, flat, quiet cuts etc... We always used to have fun down at Music House as those lads were/are experienced in working from cassettes, minidiscs, CD's etc for DJ's to play on a big system.. Always used to ask for more bass on the funk tracks, and for loud cuts.. some of Ian Wright's remixes that Keb had cut came out really well.. No shortage of bass down there seeing as it was primarily a Reggae and later Drum and Bass producers haven !

used to be an education watching those guys at the music factory doing their thing. Quality was great too. Not been down there since the days of the Dome.

[Guest Lobster Madras]

Hello Ady,

I agree, digital audio is far more accurate and efficient than analogue - for recording, mixing, mastering and manufacturing.

But analogue and digital can both sound terrible if badly processed. Too many engineers fool their clients with excessive loudness, crushing the dynamics in the music. I'm not blaming digital audio for the "loudness wars", it's individual engineers who are to blame.

I also agree that we are fooling ourselves if we say that analogue sounds better but that's because we grew up with music which was contaminated with various additional sounds (and the partial loss of other sounds) during the recording and manufacturing processes. We got so used to that inaccurate sound that we can miss it.

For mixing, mastering and manufacturing you really can't improve on digital methods but I still have a soft spot for analaogue recording (at least with certain kinds of music) because it can sometimes capture things that often get lost on digital recordings. I suppose digital can be a bit "too perfect" for recording sometimes.

So I think the answer is both. I use a mixture of digital and analogue equipment for mixing and mastering but I'm getting lazy ...there's nothing more time consuming (and tedious) than working with a damaged master tape - and doing everything in "real time". The old engineers must have had a lot of patience.

One more thing... it's sad that some record companies (and bootleggers of course) are just too greedy to pay an engineer to do the job properly. Some of them treat their customers with no more respect than they have for rights owners etc.

Sadly, some people still buy that stuff.

Thanks Paul, I think most musicians/producers of recorded music prefer the blend of the analogue and digital... I've dabbled in the recorded music world from a few different angles and nearly all of the people I've worked with echo your sentiments.. So many musicians use valve amplifiers etc, and recording music live onto digital recorders saves so much messing about if a live sound is what you are looking for ! We used to record live onto 16/24 tape then spend forever trying to recapture the sound in the mixing down to 2 track back in the 80s/ early 90s !

A lot of the valve equipment that studios junked back in the digital revolution days is so sought after... The success of Toe rag studios' analogue set up for example is something that nobody could have for seen back in the late 80s..

[Guest Paul]

Thanks Paul, I think most musicians/producers of recorded music prefer the blend of the analogue and digital... I've dabbled in the recorded music world from a few different angles and nearly all of the people I've worked with echo your sentiments.. So many musicians use valve amplifiers etc, and recording music live onto digital recorders saves so much messing about if a live sound is what you are looking for ! We used to record live onto 16/24 tape then spend forever trying to recapture the sound in the mixing down to 2 track back in the 80s/ early 90s !

A lot of the valve equipment that studios junked back in the digital revolution days is so sought after... The success of Toe rag studios' analogue set up for example is something that nobody could have for seen back in the late 80s..

Same here, most people I know use a mixture of analogue and digital. Whatever is best and easiest - from valve amps to Pro Tools or whatever you prefer.

You're right, vintage gear is very sought after (and expensive). My cousin Steve Met builds custom guitars and valve amps etc. He just made a nice guitar for Alex out of the Arctic Monkeys / Last Shadow Puppets. You just can't get those vintage tones from mass-produced instruments and digital equipment. He's building me a custom compressor.

There was a time when it had to be right or it had to be recorded again. In the 1980s some studios had basic automation and the attitude became "oh this will do, we can fix it in the mix". And now with further advances in digital technology the attitude is "this mix will do, we can fix it in the mastering".

Things can be fixed and enhanced but it would be nice to have it right in the first place. That's why I like the idea of analogue recording and at least trying to get it right from the start. This is also why the arts of songwriting and arranging are dying, in my opinion.

In the old days they didn't have many options at all so musicians and engineers had to be talented, well-rehearsed and disciplined. And I reckon that's why they made such great records.

Sorry for wandering off-topic a bit.

[Guest Lobster Madras]

Same here, most people I know use a mixture of analogue and digital. Whatever is best and easiest - from valve amps to Pro Tools or whatever you prefer.

You're right, vintage gear is very sought after (and expensive). My cousin Steve Met builds custom guitars and valve amps etc. He just made a nice guitar for Alex out of the Arctic Monkeys / Last Shadow Puppets. You just can't get those vintage tones from mass-produced instruments and digital equipment. He's building me a custom compressor.

There was a time when it had to be right or it had to be recorded again. In the 1980s some studios had basic automation and the attitude became "oh this will do, we can fix it in the mix". And now with further advances in digital technology the attitude is "this mix will do, we can fix it in the mastering".

Things can be fixed and enhanced but it would be nice to have it right in the first place. That's why I like the idea of analogue recording and at least trying to get it right from the start. This is also why the arts of songwriting and arranging are dying, in my opinion.

In the old days they didn't have many options at all so musicians and engineers had to be talented, well-rehearsed and disciplined. And I reckon that's why they made such great records.

Sorry for wandering off-topic a bit.

Please feel free to wander , it's very interesting !

By the way there is a tale of the supreme stupidity of mulitrack recording and excess i heard in a studio.. think it was a rock album recorded where there was a separate track for each drum, string of guitar etc etc . The opposite of the genius of some 60's 2 track recording where incredible results were achieved..

Off topic slightly but wasn't Phil Spector one of the first to link 2 track Ampex machines together or pioneer multitrack recording ?

Edited March 28, 2010 by Lobster Madras

[Guest Lobster Madras]

used to be an education watching those guys at the music factory doing their thing. Quality was great too. Not been down there since the days of the Dome.

Top lads.. I always used to ask for Paul who used to hold back 7 inch blanks for us soul and reggae customers.. Think they were something to do with Black Slate, the reggae outfit at one time... Used to be brilliant going there with Keb as he would purposely take a broadsheet newspaper with him to read in the queue to look as eccentric as possible ( not difficult for Mr Darge ... late 90s we were waiting in line with these rude boy Drum and Bass producers who looked at us like " ?? !!! W.T . F ? !!"

Love to think its still going , but the 7's blanks dried up long ago, I'm thinking...