Regarding ICBYD vinyl vs. CD

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?

how exactly can one master something lossy?

  On 8/18/2010 at 10:24 PM, oscillik said:

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).

oh no, an absence of inaudible frequencies.

fuck off and read some rules

been waiting for vinyl but always comes up too pricey for my tastes

maybe on1day

  On 8/18/2010 at 10:42 PM, Boxus said:

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... ?

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.

  On 8/18/2010 at 11:18 PM, Boxus said:

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.

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.

  On 8/18/2010 at 11:29 PM, Boxus said:

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?

  On 8/18/2010 at 10:56 PM, Jackson Michaels said:

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

  On 8/18/2010 at 11:39 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 8/18/2010 at 10:56 PM, Jackson Michaels said:

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.

yes, you are retarded.

read the rules.

and then go and master something with FLAC - it isn't lossy®

  On 8/18/2010 at 10:32 PM, Jackson Michaels said:

  On 8/18/2010 at 10:24 PM, oscillik said:

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.

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.

  On 8/19/2010 at 12:52 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 8/18/2010 at 10:32 PM, Jackson Michaels said:

  On 8/18/2010 at 10:24 PM, oscillik said:

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

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'...

how much could i fetch on ebay with my ICBYD vinyl i wonder

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

  On 8/19/2010 at 1:00 AM, mcbpete said:

Dynamics compression should be renamed to something like 'Clarky'...

fuckinglol

i'm in agreements here

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?

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

  On 8/19/2010 at 1:23 PM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

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:

  Quote

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.

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.

ICBYD is one of his weakest releases? LOL

seriously, that one made me laugh.

  On 8/19/2010 at 1:09 AM, Fred McGriff said:

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.