Autechre Autechre - Oversteps (WARP210) [The MegaThread]

drane 3 is not possible. it would fol3d space and rip the very fabric of time apart. that, and as previously mentioned, it'd be a bonerfest.

i know i'm missing some other essential-sounding-by-the-title tracks. still going through all the remixes i do have trying to wrap my head around most. i feel like i know why a lot of them never made it onto an album.

still need inhake3. and inhake?????

  On 2/18/2010 at 8:47 PM, theSun said:

i know i'm missing some other essential-sounding-by-the-title tracks. still going through all the remixes i do have trying to wrap my head around most. i feel like i know why a lot of them never made it onto an album.

 

still need inhake3. and inhake?????

No Inhake 1

how do you know?

when is this shit finally released

they are not really waiting with the files are they???!!!!

these clips sound incredible, not sure what people are whining about

  On 2/16/2010 at 3:38 AM, kakapo said:

Right, cd vs vinyl. The technical aspect, at least some of it, is as follows. CDs have a higher dynamic range, whereas vinyl has a higher frequency response, in theory.

 

But in reality, for various reasons, vinyl does not take advantage of the potential for higher frequency response.

This is the main reason why i don't like vinyl:

''The frequency response of vinyl records may be degraded by frequent playback if the cartridge is set to track too heavily, or the stylus is not compliant enough to trace the high frequency grooves accurately, or the cartridge/tonearm is not properly aligned. The Recording Industry Association of America has suggested the following acceptable losses: down to 20 kHz after one play, 18 kHz after three plays, 17 kHz after five, 16 kHz after eight, 14 kHz after fifteen, 13 kHz after twenty five, 10 kHz after thirty five, and 8 kHz after eighty plays.''

  On 2/16/2010 at 3:38 AM, kakapo said:

Whereas it is often the case that vinyl is more sympathetically mastered than cd, and while a cd will have a lower noise floor, its mastering may well mean the dynamics are squashed to oblivion.

Bad conclusion!

i thought most vinyl record cutters could only do up to 12khz anyways. Does the RIAA have scientific research to back that up?

I don't know if i would take anything they say at face value without evidence, those are the same dudes responsible for all the fucked up copyright lawsuits

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:15 PM, Awepittance said:

i thought most vinyl record cutters could only do up to 12khz anyways. Does the RIAA have scientific research to back that up?

 

Yes... they have this tarot vinyl.

I don't know man ...but i've noticed degradation.

i've noticed degradation too but those numbers don't make any sense, no vinyl record is capable of having 20khz tones cut to it. i mean ive just never heard of one, i always read that anything above 12khz is hard to get to be audible

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:12 PM, xox said:

 

  On 2/16/2010 at 3:38 AM, kakapo said:

Whereas it is often the case that vinyl is more sympathetically mastered than cd, and while a cd will have a lower noise floor, its mastering may well mean the dynamics are squashed to oblivion.

 

 

Bad conclusion!

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Explain?

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:26 PM, Awepittance said:

i've noticed degradation too but those numbers don't make any sense, no vinyl record is capable of having 20khz tones cut to it. i mean ive just never heard of one, i always read that anything above 12khz is hard to get to be audible

AFAIK that's not true.

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:33 PM, kakapo said:

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:12 PM, xox said:

 

  On 2/16/2010 at 3:38 AM, kakapo said:

Whereas it is often the case that vinyl is more sympathetically mastered than cd, and while a cd will have a lower noise floor, its mastering may well mean the dynamics are squashed to oblivion.

 

 

Bad conclusion!

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Explain?

Vinyl can't handle dynamics like CD so before cutting the master must be more compressed.

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:44 PM, xox said:

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:33 PM, kakapo said:

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:12 PM, xox said:

 

  On 2/16/2010 at 3:38 AM, kakapo said:

Whereas it is often the case that vinyl is more sympathetically mastered than cd, and while a cd will have a lower noise floor, its mastering may well mean the dynamics are squashed to oblivion.

 

 

Bad conclusion!

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Explain?

 

Vinyl can't handle dynamics like CD so before cutting the master must be more compressed.

Yes, as I stated, CD has better dynamic range than vinyl. But 'squashed to oblivion' was a reference to the 'loudness war' and brickwall limiting. I'm not suggesting vinyl is completely immune to mastering that tries to get the material as loud as possible at the expense of other considerations, but certainly less so than some modern CD mastering. Hence my conclusion of vinyl often being more sympathetically mastered.

  On 2/18/2010 at 11:00 PM, kakapo said:

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:44 PM, xox said:

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:33 PM, kakapo said:

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:12 PM, xox said:

 

  On 2/16/2010 at 3:38 AM, kakapo said:

Whereas it is often the case that vinyl is more sympathetically mastered than cd, and while a cd will have a lower noise floor, its mastering may well mean the dynamics are squashed to oblivion.

 

 

Bad conclusion!

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Explain?

 

Vinyl can't handle dynamics like CD so before cutting the master must be more compressed.

 

Yes, as I stated, CD has better dynamic range than vinyl. But 'squashed to oblivion' was a reference to the 'loudness war' and brickwall limiting. I'm not suggesting vinyl is completely immune to mastering that tries to get the material as loud as possible at the expense of other considerations, but certainly less so than some modern CD mastering. Hence my conclusion of vinyl often being more sympathetically mastered.

1) having better dynamic range

and

2) not being immune to mastering that tries to get the material as loud as possible

...are two different things.

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:12 PM, xox said:

The Recording Industry Association of America has suggested the following acceptable losses: down to 20 kHz after one play, 18 kHz after three plays, 17 kHz after five, 16 kHz after eight, 14 kHz after fifteen, 13 kHz after twenty five, 10 kHz after thirty five, and 8 kHz after eighty plays.''

you've done selective quoting here, if you go to that wikipedia page, right before this it states this is only if your turntable is putting too much weight down on the stylus, most low end turn tables dont even have real weights these days and are almost too light on the stylus

and most vinyl record collectors have properly weighted turntables. So your quote above only applies if you have a an improperly weighted turntable, and even then i'm doubting how drastic they claim the frequency loss will be

This seems to be on what.cd now -- AAC at 192kps. Strange format.

Still I shall resist, can't wait for that preorder to hit my letterbox.

it's a transcode of the widely spread leak.

  On 2/18/2010 at 11:22 PM, xox said:

  On 2/18/2010 at 11:00 PM, kakapo said:

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:44 PM, xox said:

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:33 PM, kakapo said:

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:12 PM, xox said:

 

  On 2/16/2010 at 3:38 AM, kakapo said:

Whereas it is often the case that vinyl is more sympathetically mastered than cd, and while a cd will have a lower noise floor, its mastering may well mean the dynamics are squashed to oblivion.

 

 

Bad conclusion!

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Explain?

 

Vinyl can't handle dynamics like CD so before cutting the master must be more compressed.

 

Yes, as I stated, CD has better dynamic range than vinyl. But 'squashed to oblivion' was a reference to the 'loudness war' and brickwall limiting. I'm not suggesting vinyl is completely immune to mastering that tries to get the material as loud as possible at the expense of other considerations, but certainly less so than some modern CD mastering. Hence my conclusion of vinyl often being more sympathetically mastered.

 

1) having better dynamic range

 

and

 

2) not being immune to mastering that tries to get the material as loud as possible

 

...are two different things.

Yes, I know... again, what is your point?.

  On 2/19/2010 at 12:00 AM, kakapo said:

Yes, I know... again, what is your point?.

This:

  On 2/19/2010 at 12:00 AM, kakapo said:

Whereas it is often the case that vinyl is more sympathetically mastered than cd,>>>and while a cd will have a lower noise floor, its mastering may well mean the dynamics are squashed to oblivion.

It's not correlated.

Cd can handle more extremes because LASER can read more accurate and faster than needle and that's way it's more appropriate for 'loudness war' not because CD has better dynamic range.

BREAKING: Autechre - Oversteps (WARP210) [The MegaThread] discusses vinyl vs. CD, misses more than all points.

SORRY phling...last one...

  On 2/18/2010 at 11:38 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 2/18/2010 at 10:12 PM, xox said:

The Recording Industry Association of America has suggested the following acceptable losses: down to 20 kHz after one play, 18 kHz after three plays, 17 kHz after five, 16 kHz after eight, 14 kHz after fifteen, 13 kHz after twenty five, 10 kHz after thirty five, and 8 kHz after eighty plays.''

 

you've done selective quoting here, if you go to that wikipedia page, right before this it states this is only if your turntable is putting too much weight down on the stylus, most low end turn tables dont even have real weights these days and are almost too light on the stylus

and most vinyl record collectors have properly weighted turntables. So your quote above only applies if you have a an improperly weighted turntable, and even then i'm doubting how drastic they claim the frequency loss will be

Ya i know that's why i bolded ''acceptable losses'' meaning that this losses are acceptable with an average domestic use not with some 10000$ record player in NASA's lab.

''While this degradation is possible if the record is played on improperly set up equipment, many collectors of LPs report excellent sound quality on LPs played many more times when using care and high quality equipment. This rapid sound degradation is not usually typical on modern Hi-Fi equipment with a properly balanced tonearm and well balanced low-mass stylus.''

Ok maybe sound degradation is not that rapid but you can't set up equipment not to having any degradation even on the 50000$ record player. Records are made of PVC not of steel and if they are made of steel we could also expect degradations. Or…?

Don't get me wrong…I LOOOOVE VINYL…but not because how it sounds.

I loooooove Oversteps... and can't wait for my vinyl to arrive

  On 2/19/2010 at 12:29 AM, xox said:

  On 2/19/2010 at 12:00 AM, kakapo said:

Yes, I know... again, what is your point?.

 

This:

  On 2/19/2010 at 12:00 AM, kakapo said:

Whereas it is often the case that vinyl is more sympathetically mastered than cd,>>>and while a cd will have a lower noise floor, its mastering may well mean the dynamics are squashed to oblivion.

 

It's not correlated.

Cd can handle more extremes because LASER can read more accurate and faster than needle and that's way it's more appropriate for 'loudness war' not because CD has better dynamic range.

I think there's a language gap here.

CDs have a greater dynamic range, hence lower noise floor, than vinyl.

CD mastering often means brickwall limiting, which means the loss of one of the advantages of the CD medium, the greater range of dynamics that is allowed, although it will retain the advantage of a lower noise floor. At no point did I say the loudness war was an unavoidable consequence of the greater dynamic range of cds. The 'loudness war' started with vinyl. Please stop cutting my quotes up to imply something that I haven't said.

Again, I'm totally confused about your argument here. We were talking about the advantages and disadvantages of vinyl in the real world. From my experience, vinyl tends to be more sympathetically mastered than cd. Are you suggesting that brickwall limiting isn't a problem for cds? That I don't believe that vinyl isn't more sympathetically mastered than cd? At no point am I making any correlation between dynamic range and brickwall limiting. I am saying that brickwall limiting negates one of the adavantages of greater dynamic range.

The probability of Hitler being discussed in the MegaThread has been approaching 1 for a really long time now, so I just thought I'd finish 'er off.

Carry on.