Guest Jackson Michaels Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 I couldn't be bothered to search if there's already an answer to this, so... fuck it. My middle name is "Cool". Here goes: The CD version of ICBYD is mastered lossy. This is probably something most of you guys know. If you didn't know, just check the frequency range of the songs in Adobe Audition or whatever. However, I'm asking about the (rather) hard to find vinyl of ICBYD: Is there any difference in mastering compared to the CD version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 how exactly can one master something lossy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jackson Michaels Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 how exactly can one master something lossy? Well all of the songs' frequencies are cut off (or brick walled) at around 16 Hz. It's suspiciously similar to 192 kbps MP3s, but that's just my humble opinion. Just look at the god damned frequencies yourself (if you have a lossless copy of the album). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxus Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 oh no, an absence of inaudible frequencies. fuck off and read some rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elusive4 Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 been waiting for vinyl but always comes up too pricey for my tastes maybe on1day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jackson Michaels Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 oh no, an absence of inaudible frequencies. fuck off and read some rules I knew it would come to this. Someone would get all defensive because his favorite artist went against the rules on mastering. It's not like I'm discrediting Mr. The Aphex Twins or anything, I'm only stating facts. Don't get butthurt. Please. You're right about the frequencies. Partly. Most people can hear frequencies between 16-17 Hz. Some (particularly young people) can hear between 17-18 Hz. Above that it's just mumbo jumbo audiophile bullshit. I feel like I have to state this (again): I love ICBYD, but I was wondering if the vinyl was mastered differently... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxus Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 lol i wasn't trying to defend the integrity of the album. i don't really give a shit how it was mastered, it's one of his weaker releases imo. just thought you sounded like a pretentious dick so i wanted to call you out on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jackson Michaels Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 lol i wasn't trying to defend the integrity of the album. i don't really give a shit how it was mastered, it's one of his weaker releases imo. just thought you sounded like a pretentious dick so i wanted to call you out on it. Do you still think I'm a pretentious dick? Personally I think you sound like a teenager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxus Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 and you sound like someone who is trying way too hard not to sound like a teenager, which is ultimately a lot more immature. pull your head out of your ass. ps - don't take this too seriously man, its an internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jackson Michaels Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 and you sound like someone who is trying way too hard not to sound like a teenager, which is ultimately a lot more immature. pull your head out of your ass. ps - don't take this too seriously man, its an internet. Edit: Please disregard this Boxus troll. There has to be someone with a vinyl of ICBYD who can confirm if it's the same mastering, or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elusive4 Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 You're right about the frequencies. Partly. Most people can hear frequencies between 16-17 Hz. Some (particularly young people) can hear between 17-18 Hz. Above that it's just mumbo jumbo audiophile bullshit. you're retarded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jackson Michaels Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 You're right about the frequencies. Partly. Most people can hear frequencies between 16-17 Hz. Some (particularly young people) can hear between 17-18 Hz. Above that it's just mumbo jumbo audiophile bullshit. you're retarded How? Edit: The audiophile mumbo jumbo part is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 yes, you are retarded. read the rules. and then go and master something with FLAC - it isn't lossy® Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 how exactly can one master something lossy? Well all of the songs' frequencies are cut off (or brick walled) at around 16 Hz. It's suspiciously similar to 192 kbps MP3s, but that's just my humble opinion. Just look at the god damned frequencies yourself (if you have a lossless copy of the album). just because something has been rolled off using an EQ at a high frequency does not mean it's 'lossy' , lossy by definition is done with compression. Unless you define the nyquist limit of 44.1khz as lossy compression, you shouldn't be using the term lossy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbpete Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Mmm, I knew some of the 26 Mixes for cash were from 'brick-walled' source files ( I just made up that term, don't think it's the proper one though... ) but didn't realise that was the case with ICBYD. I'm thinking some of the tracks might have been originally recorded onto real cheap tape hence the loss of the [albeit inaudible] top end - I'd imagine some of the SAW 82-92 are probably the same. In which case the vinyl of ICBYD is gonna be the same too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 how exactly can one master something lossy? Well all of the songs' frequencies are cut off (or brick walled) at around 16 Hz. It's suspiciously similar to 192 kbps MP3s, but that's just my humble opinion. Just look at the god damned frequencies yourself (if you have a lossless copy of the album). just because something has been rolled off using an EQ at a high frequency does not mean it's 'lossy' , lossy by definition done with compression. Unless you define the nyquest limit of 44.1khz as lossy compression, you shouldn't be using the term lossy. since this new guy seems to be easily confused, it might be prudent to point out that the usage of the term "compression" in the above quote is related to data compression, not sound compression Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbpete Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Yeah, that's always annoyed me (annoyed it perhaps too strong a term !) having the term 'compression' referring to two very dissimilar ways in which sound can be altered. Dynamics compression should be renamed to something like 'Clarky'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred McGriff Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 how much could i fetch on ebay with my ICBYD vinyl i wonder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnar Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 knows nothing about tape frequency range if the tape only went up to 16000/32000 hz and you recorded it onto something better let's just say WAV file would there still be artifacts from the tape at higher frequencies and all of this is junk you can filter out/make the mix louder if you leave those frequencies out too. Isn't a 22050hz wave file louder when you normalize it to 0db Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Dynamics compression should be renamed to something like 'Clarky'... fuckinglol i'm in agreements here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chassis Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Im too drunk to read all that crap. More than likely the vinyl is master the same as the CD. But more importantly, why do you care? You gay or summit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadnessR Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 ICBYD at 192 sounds perfect to me.....Then again, I can't hear a difference between a wav file and an mp3 at 192...Try it. HERE'S A BOLD STATEMENT: NO ONE CAN. Welcome new member. You'll have to get over the fact that no one here wants to talk about anything. They just wait for the perfect opportunity to say something smart-ass.. ...in that aspect, I think you'll be fine... ...Read The Rules... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQuWCa0LiiE&feature=search ha ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbpete Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 also doesn't analogue recording equipment typically roll off at about 16khz anyway? or at least vinyl? that could explain it. Some real cheap cassette tape decks possibly but not certainly vinyl. From wiki-wiki-wa-wa-pedia: The frequency response for a conventional LP player might be 30 Hz - 20 kHz +/- 3 dB. Unlike the audio CD, vinyl records (and cassettes) do not require a cut-off in response above 20 kHz. The low frequency response of vinyl records is restricted by rumble noise (described above). The high frequency response of vinyl depends on the record itself and on the cartridge. CD4 records contained frequencies up to 50 kHz, while some high-end turntable cartridges have frequency responses of 120 kHz while having flat frequency response over the audible band (e.g. 20 Hz to 15 kHz +/-0.3 dB). In addition, frequencies of up to 122 kHz have been experimentally cut on LP records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ascdi Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 I always assumed this album was recorded to DAT, not anything analog. I do agree that the album sounds a little murky on CD. My personal random guess of an opinion is that the album as delivered to the mastering dude probably had a shitload of crazy high-end in it from the DAT distorting, MS-20 filter madness, etc. And so as part of the mastering they chopped everything nasty off the top. A lot of mid-period Warp albums sound this way to me. Selection Sixteen, for example. However, music from the same era that was mastered later (for example, the HAB CD reissue) sounds less restricted in the high-end, even though it was recorded (generally) around the same time. I think that fits with the more modern 2000s trend of it being more "okay" to allow really edgy-sounding stuff through the mastering stage onto the final CD. In other words, ICBYD is mastered almost like a rock and roll album, whereas HAB is mastered like a modern electronica album (say, Clark, for example). Even though they probably sounded similar, frequencies-wise, when they were recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubbhasdance Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 ICBYD is one of his weakest releases? LOL seriously, that one made me laugh. how much could i fetch on ebay with my ICBYD vinyl i wonder I saw it going for $40 on ebay once or twice, could probably get up to $80 for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.