[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by tktran When was the last time he made a module? Or made extensive use of a module(s) in his works?

I don't know, I just remember reading that once. I got the impression from the article that it was fairly recent, like in the 90's, but it could have been as early as in the 80's. He's not old enough to have been fooling around with this **** back in the 70's. And no, he didn't make a whole freakin' synthesizer, the context of the statement was that he had a modular synthesizer, and that he had made his own modules for it, you know, like obscure waveshapers and rise-time filters, and oscillators etc. Quote:

Today few people have the technical know-how to make brilliant synthesisers to compete with those of Roland, Yamaha, EMU etc and even if they could, investing all that effort into making a device takes a lot of time (a lot of musicians are more concerned with MAKING music) when it can be bought off the shelf...

Yeah, except that some people enjoy tweaking. RDJ is a serious tweakhead. Quote:

[a lot of digital synthesizers are higher than 16/44.1 these days.] Which synthesier?

Nord Modular is 18 bits, 96 kHz: http://www.clavia.se/nordmodular/hardware.htm ; Kurzweil is 20-bit:
http://www.kurzweilmusicsystems.com/html/k2600r.html ; those are just two off the top of my head, but that's not even the point. Even if all the synthesizers you use are 16-bit, once you mix 'em, if you do it with high enough fidelity, it goes up. Quote:

I know of DAWs use 20/24/32 bits for higher internal mixing precision. But their sources are usually at 16bit/44.1Khz.

First, most people who sample for themselves use 16/48. Most are 16/44.1 only because they use audio CD's. But since many of them are making the move towards computers (Gigasampler is very popular), there's no reason to stick with this, and now they use .wav files and such.

Secondly, what's funny is, once you get going in, for example, ProTools, you don't even need sound sources any more, so whatever the fidelity of the system is, is the fidelity that you end up dealing with, and has no bearing on what you start with. Quote:

In fact a lot of samples are of lower bit/sample rate than this.

Older only. No serious sample maven would put up with anything less than 16/48 unless he was deliberately going for that low-fi sound.

Look, whatever, you are absolutely right, it is impossible for an electronic musician to produce anything of merit, fidelity-wise. You are a DJ, you receive this drivel all the time, you should know. I will stop pestering you with information to the contrary. The fact that magazines use electronic music to test, for example, the tightness of the bass of speakers all the time probably does not mean anything, either. Goodnight.

 

[tktran]

[The fact that magazines use electronic music to test, for example, the tightness of the bass of speakers all the time probably does not mean anything, either. Goodnight.]

Yes!!!Agreed!

But do they test it using electronic music from CD or from vinyl?

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by tktran But do they test it using electronic music from CD or from vinyl?

Well, your original point was (if I may be so bold as to put words your mouth) that it was not possible for electronica to be audiophile, correct? So it doesn't really matter. The point is that recognized people in the field use electronica as reference material.

Not that I care what recognized people in the field use -- I judge for myself. But in this case, I agree with them. There's a purity to electronica that isn't possible with natural instruments. Sure, it may not have "soundstaging", but it's got everything else -- separation, range, isolation, etc. All things that we headphone users care about, and nothing we don't. Therefore, it is the perfect music for us.

And another thing -- some people just prefer vinyl as the medium, even on recordings which may not have ever been analog. There's just something about the mechanical process of committing that information to vinyl and then having to read it back that way that's "pure". There's sort of an inherent interpolation between the bits, and to have that information committed to analog earlier is just more "high-fi".

 

[ppl]

I can't belive that someone would think of Electroic music as not Audiophile. First off regardless of How low or Hi quality the Source is it will at least suffer the Least amout of Additional degragation if the Playback system is of Good Quality. I am sure that anyone will agree that Electronic Music sounds alot Better on evean a Modest High End System than it will on a Boombox.Electronic Music has Layers to it and i find the Better the system the more of these layers become audibly separate from one-another. Also the bass on lots of Synth. is Deeper and quicker than some Acoustic Recordings. A synthisizer can go way lower that say a Pipe organ. Now i Like Classical and Acoustic music alot and I truly Love deep Organ notes. So my poiint is regardless of the Quality of the Source it will sound better if not futher degraded by a Low Fi system.

 

[tktran]

[Well, your original point was (if I may be so bold as to put words your mouth) that it was not possible for electronica to be audiophile, correct?]

Ok if I did say that then I must retract that comment.
I'm looking over my original post and realise how I may have sounded. What i meant to say was that:

"I think it is ridiculous to think that electronic music released on vinyl is anymore "audiophile quality" than on CD/other digital

I always thought that "audiophile quality" meant "as close as possible to the original recording", because as a music lover, that's what "quality" means to me.

[...And another thing -- some people just prefer vinyl as the medium, even on recordings which may not have ever been analog. There's just something about the mechanical process of committing that information to vinyl and then having to read it back that way that's "pure". There's sort of an inherent interpolation between the bits, and to have that information committed to analog earlier is just more "high-fi".]

Some of that "inherent interpolation" is harmonic distortion and noise. But I can see your point. If it sounds better to your ears then all the power to you.

For me high-fidelity is as close as I can get to perfect accuracy to the artist(s)' recording. So I don't think transferring music that was worked on AND tested/auditioned almost exclusively from digital format, to vinyl helps.

Now if that electronic music was composed / sequenced / mixed / mastered/etc on say a reel-to-reel deck then vinyl may be a better choice than CD for distribution.

PS.
Here's something that Mike Walker wrote awhile back that was an interesting read for me:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showth...5&pagenumber=2

 

[ppl]

LOL, I understand your Point Now thanks for the Clarification. I tend to Agree with Mike on the Tube/ Solid State Issue. Ya and most surly on those single end Triode 300B Amps. This abserd tho think that sutch Low Performance with Distortion aproaching 10% No Misprint it is 10.0% that most Triodes operating with littel or no feedback Produce. Now Regarding DC vs LP's I Think the main Difference is the tranfer funtion of the Two. LP records have a Distortion that is reduced as the signal get's lower in Level where-as Didital the distortion Gose up as the Signal is reduced in Amplitude. While at it worst it may still be lower in Digital form but as far as the ear is concerned the Rising Distortion with reduced Amplitude is somthing unnatural and this may be one reason some folks like records. Another issue is the fact that a Coversion from one format to another takes place at all. with Digital the Waveform is fragmented and on amount of Noise shaping is going to Change that fact. Now I like Digital Audio if the Recording is done Right and This is the main reason most people dislike digital. Thay may then Preceive This as a fault of the format rather than the fact the recording is done poorly. Just my 2C worth.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by tktran Ok if I did say that then I must retract that comment.

Okay. Quote:

For me high-fidelity is as close as I can get to perfect accuracy to the artist(s)' recording. So I don't think transferring music that was worked on AND tested/auditioned almost exclusively from digital format, to vinyl helps. Now if that electronic music was composed / sequenced / mixed / mastered/etc on say a reel-to-reel deck then vinyl may be a better choice than CD for distribution.

Okay, I think we've almost beaten this dead horse into the ground, to mix metaphors. But it seems to me that this is the heart of the difference of opinion that we are having. You believe digital should be reproduced digitally, and analog ...erm... analogilly (?word)...on vinyl, that is. I don't. I believe all music is inherently analog, and therefore could be reproduced in whatever manner most suits your fancy. Take, for example, a recent article in Stereophile magazine by John Atkinson about the recording of some solo piano music (Beethoven? I don't remember). 16 bit, that's all he did, straight to DAT. I still think it would be appropriate to release this on vinyl. I suspect you do not. That is fine, but what you have to realize is that this is an opinion, not someone who is writing just because they are ignorant of the process. And if they are going to "go vinyl", it would be nice to have a higher grade option for those who desire it, and a lower grade option for DJ's and people less interested in fidelity. Quote:

Here's something that Mike Walker wrote awhile back...

Ah, the master debater...well, he may be a disciple, but we don't necessarily bow down to the same shrine. PS Don't learn your manners from him either.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

PS Don't learn your manners from him either.

ROFL!

Mike, your reputation is growing

 

[tktran]

Running tracks through T-racks gives me a fair idea of how it'll sound when it gets cut to vinyl.

Although it's not accurate to the source, it gives it that unmistakable analog sound. Warm, lush and liquid smooth.
I use it to conceal some of the harsh edges of my tracks.


Very "analog" - it can be very nice. But it sometimes obscures the textures I've worked so hard in creating.

If you prefer the "analog" sound you should give T-racks a try. I think you might like it.

And for a fraction of the cost of a rack of analogue processors.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by tktran ...If you prefer the "analog" sound you should give T-racks a try. I think you might like it...

Cool! Thanks for the rec...will look into it...URL? Never mind, I found it.

 

[Gluegun]

So, uh, where do I purchase this audiophile LP of this?

Thank you.

 

[wab]

The audiophile 4 LP set will be out in december. You can order it directly from Warp.

 

[setmenu]

All those various arguments aside I love this new album,and
his music in general, allways interesting and amusing.

I have a recolection of hearing that he won a classical music
award in the uk , I think it was something to do with BBC radio 2
not sure whether my memory serves though,pherhaps some
one can inform.

 

[Gluegun]

Yup! Listen to setmenu..... if anyone has a system that you would think would be overkill for electronica, it's him, LOL!

What, you have, what, the 2nd highest-end Stax system?

*grins*

 

[setmenu]

Quote:

Originally posted by Gluegun Yup! Listen to setmenu..... if anyone has a system that you would think would be overkill for electronica, it's him, LOL! What, you have, what, the 2nd highest-end Stax system? *grins*

Cheers Glugun
I definitley detect snobbery when it comes to etectronic music.
On the quality front electronica if done well deserves the very
best sound system after all hifi is electronic,the two are made
for each other,
I love electronic music Banging hardcore to delcicate ambient,
but for a banging strut around the room you cant beat
Wagner,s Ring cycle operas.