BWGK on Vinyl

[trautwein.m]

Originally Posted by som3d3vil34

Imagine a 5.1 release of BTCS

that would blow my mind.

Originally Posted by thestand

I had it in my head that it was exactly 1000, though I could be wrong on that. Which never made sense to me, because it only promotes people collecting it and never listening to it, which is amazingly stupid. Until DMB starts releasing albums on SACD or Blu-Ray audio, vinyl is the best sounding format they have. A limited release makes people put it on their shelf, not on their turntable.

what is SACD and why is vinyl the best sounding format over cd? i am not knowledgeable about this...

[thestand]

Originally Posted by trautwein.m

what is SACD and why is vinyl the best sounding format over cd? i am not knowledgeable about this...

SACD is Super Audio CD. It is much more data on the disc, producing the same sound, providing for a much more high-definition sound. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

Vinyl, when done right, sounds better than CD for a few reasons. One of them is an intangible, but is generally accepted: it's a warmer sound. Less harsh and digitalized. Vinyl can produce lower frequency waves, though these waves often fall into the range of sound normal ears cannot hear, so it is not a direct sound enhancement, but the effects can be felt in other ways. This won't be the case with the new album, as I'm sure they recorded into a digital board, but for albums that are recorded to an analog source, vinyl reproduces the sound as the artist intended for it to be heard. With CDs, the sound has to be digitized. But with vinyl, when taken from a master tape, it is taken directly from that, built into a master, and pressed onto vinyl. Then you get it, put it on your turntable, put the stylus to it, and it goes directly from the stylus to the preamp to the amp to your speakers, never being digitized, never being altered from how the band played it in the studio.

But like I said, that only goes for older albums (and newer albums where the band records to tape, which isn't done as often anymore).

[trautwein.m]

^^thanks for the time and information man. cool stuff.

[maqic]

The whole reason I got into vinyl collecting was for the BTCS albums (which I still don't have) so every thing DMB releases on vinyl I will not pass up.

[TBolts712]

I would the new album on vinyl! Sadly, I've never heard any DMB on vinyl yet, despite having Streets. My brother, who is awesome, picked up BTCS last year on vinyl for me for Christmas. Still wrapped, no imperfections, perfect copy, so I haven't opened it. For BWGK, I would happily get 2, 1 to listen, and 1 to have. Hell, bring on that box set that everyone is discussing!

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by thestand

This won't be the case with the new album, as I'm sure they recorded into a digital board, but for albums that are recorded to an analog source, vinyl reproduces the sound as the artist intended for it to be heard.

I'm sure that they are recording to at the very least 24/96 if they're keeping a digital master, perhaps even 24/192.

This would allow the vinyl to be quite superior to the CD as the vinyl master will come from a 24/192 source > analog or they might even be recording to tape.

Originally Posted by som3d3vil34

Imagine a 5.1 release of BTCS

I've been imagining it for years!


However it would suck if we got some crappy DualDisc or CD+DVD package with Dolby or dts 5.1 on it only versus an SACD release, Blu-ray disc 24/192 5.1 release or DVD-A layer 24/96 5.1 issue.

Maybe if RCA waits another 2 years before re-issuing all the albums a Blu-ray Disc of each album might be a possibility, Sony would help.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by som3d3vil34

BTCS was a limited release. Only a couple thousand printed if I remember correctly. Assuming this will be on vinyl, it will get a mass release.

1,000. They are extremely rare.

Originally Posted by RSSR

The reason why I haven't splooged on a BTCS vinyl yet is, according to Matt and Jake in a podcast from less than a year ago, mgt was reportedly planning on eventually releasing UTTAD, Crash, and BTCS on vinyl sometime down the line.

It's definitely a choice. The re-issue will only make the original pressing that much more coveted to collectors, and thus more valuable. But, if you're just interested in grabbing a copy to listen and aren't concerned with the collector value, sit tight. And I really, really hope you never, ever splooge on a BTCS vinyl.

Originally Posted by comerelaxnow

How do you know this??

Because we said so in a podcast.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntsP...3-06222008.m4a

[Matt]

Originally Posted by thestand

SACD is Super Audio CD. It is much more data on the disc, producing the same sound, providing for a much more high-definition sound. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

Vinyl, when done right, sounds better than CD for a few reasons. One of them is an intangible, but is generally accepted: it's a warmer sound. Less harsh and digitalized. Vinyl can produce lower frequency waves, though these waves often fall into the range of sound normal ears cannot hear, so it is not a direct sound enhancement, but the effects can be felt in other ways. This won't be the case with the new album, as I'm sure they recorded into a digital board, but for albums that are recorded to an analog source, vinyl reproduces the sound as the artist intended for it to be heard. With CDs, the sound has to be digitized. But with vinyl, when taken from a master tape, it is taken directly from that, built into a master, and pressed onto vinyl. Then you get it, put it on your turntable, put the stylus to it, and it goes directly from the stylus to the preamp to the amp to your speakers, never being digitized, never being altered from how the band played it in the studio.

But like I said, that only goes for older albums (and newer albums where the band records to tape, which isn't done as often anymore).

If I may expand on your explanation...which is very good...

Digital sound is sampled at a certain rate, most often 44.1KHz, which means that if you take an analog sound wave over the period of one second, to convert to digital, it needs to be "sliced" into 44,100 pieces. Now that sounds like a ton of slices for one second, and it is, but imagine that one of those slices catches the very back end of one of Carter's high hat hits. The sound muddles or isn't as crisp as the original analog sound wave. That is an example of why analog sound will always reign supreme to digital in terms of fidelity. With sampling, there is *always* a loss.

[BDJCL3]

I would love for BWGK to be released vinyl, I'm sure they'd do something like Radiohead just did with In Rainbows. Looks like I'll be spending a lot of money the first part of June!

[Arby]

^A nice big box set? Id love that, but I doubt it happens. Bonus disc at the most

[MPizzle06]

Originally Posted by RSSR

The reason why I haven't splooged on a BTCS vinyl yet is, according to Matt and Jake in a podcast from less than a year ago, mgt was reportedly planning on eventually releasing UTTAD, Crash, and BTCS on vinyl sometime down the line.

This is specifically WHY I want to get my hands on a BTCS original pressing vinyl because its value will only increase when they re-release it. That way I can have the original to keep and th re-issue to play

[cotton#36]

i read that the new U2 album is getting released on 5 different formats. there is no way DMB doesnt release this on vinyl.

[Jamima2fl]

Originally Posted by cotton#36

i read that the new U2 album is getting released on 5 different formats. there is no way DMB doesnt release this on vinyl.

U2 spent more time on their packaging than they did writing the album.

Now they have a crappy album that no one really wants in numerous formats. Bad move... All That You Can't Leave Behind or Best of in multiple formats with a free digital download of new crappy album, better idea.

[ducker2448]

Originally Posted by Matt

If I may expand on your explanation...which is very good...

Digital sound is sampled at a certain rate, most often 44.1KHz, which means that if you take an analog sound wave over the period of one second, to convert to digital, it needs to be "sliced" into 44,100 pieces. Now that sounds like a ton of slices for one second, and it is, but imagine that one of those slices catches the very back end of one of Carter's high hat hits. The sound muddles or isn't as crisp as the original analog sound wave. That is an example of why analog sound will always reign supreme to digital in terms of fidelity. With sampling, there is *always* a loss.

Even with digitally downloading FLAC(lossless)? what is this exactly?

[Arby]

Originally Posted by ducker2448

Even with digitally downloading FLAC(lossless)? what is this exactly?

You sorta quoted the answer to your question. Digital audio is never a true wave (not talking wav.) form. It's always going to be samples (like Matt said, usually 44.1), so it will never be as pure as analog.

[cry_minarets458]

vinyl is the top of the line for anything.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by ducker2448

Even with digitally downloading FLAC(lossless)? what is this exactly?

It's not lossy in the sense of frequencies, it's just, you can sample a million times a second. You are still missing SOMETHING from the original analog recording. Imagine a wall, and you're standing 10 feet away from the way. You then walk halfway between yourself and the wall. Then cut the distance in half again. And then again. You can take an *infinite* amount of steps to the wall, halving the distance each time, and still *never* reach the wall. Same goes for digital sampling, more or less. You can take an infinite amount of slices per second, but you'll never get it *all*

[amoore624426]

is anyone not that excited for the new album?

[cry_minarets458]

Originally Posted by Matt

It's not lossy in the sense of frequencies, it's just, you can sample a million times a second. You are still missing SOMETHING from the original analog recording. Imagine a wall, and you're standing 10 feet away from the way. You then walk halfway between yourself and the wall. Then cut the distance in half again. And then again. You can take an *infinite* amount of steps to the wall, halving the distance each time, and still *never* reach the wall. Same goes for digital sampling, more or less. You can take an infinite amount of slices per second, but you'll never get it *all*

It sounds like you're doing some mad calculus-based integrals there haha.

[dobyblue]

There's always a point of no return though.
DSD is 1-bit samples at 2,822,400 samples per second.

If anyone thinks they can tell the difference between SACD and a perfectly clean vinyl, they're kidding themselves. However given that it's impossible to play a vinyl and SACD on the same player, it's impossible to ascertain what differences would be from. For example, using a pair of Martin Logan Summit speakers - a $5,000 Rega P5 with a good phono pre-amp and Roxsan amp will sound much better than a Sony entry-level SACD player hooked up to a $500 home theater receiver. Much in the same way as the $7,000 Marantz Reference SACD player hooked up to the $14,000 Marantz reference pre/pro set-up will sound far superior to a $150 Denon turntable hooked up to an entry-level home theater receiver. You choose where to go.

That's why DSD is preferrable to most discerning listeners over DVD-A, because DVD-A, while 24-bit, only uses 96,000 samples per second (192,000 for stereo).

DSD much more closely resembles an analog waveform and can actually be more accurate for frequencies outside human hearing as it has frequency response of 5Hz to 100kHz. Where digital suffers from jitter, analog suffers from resonance.

As for vinyl, if you're not using a very good diamond stylus properly aligned and tracked, your record IS a lossy medium because you're eroding it every time you play it.

Properly set-up a good stylus will actually polish the records grooves and sound better with time.

It is easier to get good sound from digital, but if you're willing to spend some money and have patience to get good pieces of equipment then vinyl is the easy choice. Not only when done right with good stampers is it a wonderful aural experience, but there are 60 years of recordings available to choose from through sites like Discogs, etc., and you'd be amazed how many unplayed recordings there are out there. With SACD, there are 5,000 recordings, mostly classical and jazz.

It's a shame they fucked it up (Sony, Warner, EMI, Universal) because SACD would have been the ultimate future for music - ease of set-up, storage, fidelity, multi-channel, hybrid CD's for other players, etc.

Hopefully they get it right with Blu-ray. But for the next few years vinyl is the only choice for those who want to hear the music at its best.

In addition the source has to be analog for vinyl to be 100% authentic to the source. If it's DXD or any digital format, then both the digital and vinyl will be the same providing the digital medium is capable of the same resolution as the source.

DXD = 32/384, no medium out there for this. Not anyone in rock using this afaik though. Most places should have both an analog and digital master, then you have to ask if the mixing was done on both analog and digital.

There's no straightforward answer.

[Joruus]

Originally Posted by ducker2448

Even with digitally downloading FLAC(lossless)? what is this exactly?

The link below is a visual reference of what Matt is talking about.

http://www.webbasedprogramming.com/T...Gurus/f4-1.gif

The top graph is a analog sound wave. This is what you hear when you talk to someone. Vinyl can recreate that wave almost exactly.

The bottom graph is a digital conversion of that same sound wave. This is what you hear if someone spoke into a microphone connected to a computer, burned it to CD, then you played it back through speakers.

The graph is a poor representation of an actual digital wave (the gaps between the actual wave and the digital one are much smaller), but you get the idea.

[dobyblue]

That chart shows roughly what PCM will do. DSD tackles it differently.
It is short loud bursts that digital has the biggest problem with, staccato's, crescendo's, this is probably why SACD was chosen by audiophiles for classical listening.

Look at this page - http://www.merging.com/2002/html/pyradsd.htm

The first diagram shows a short loud analog waveform and then how PCM at 48kHz, 96kHz and 192kHz and SACD (DSD) are able to represent said analog wave.

You can see how closely the 1-bit DSD signal is to the analog wave form, far superior to PCM.

[geoffc]

Originally Posted by MPizzle06

This is specifically WHY I want to get my hands on a BTCS original pressing vinyl because its value will only increase when they re-release it. That way I can have the original to keep and th re-issue to play

So glad I have two copies of the original pressing, one sealed, and the other open but still basically in mint condition. I really hope they release the new ablum and re-release the others on vinyl, that would be awesome!!

[dmbftp]

Originally Posted by geoffc

So glad I have two copies of the original pressing, one sealed, and the other open but still basically in mint condition. I really hope they release the new ablum and re-release the others on vinyl, that would be awesome!!

qft. I wonder how many people have 2 copies of the original pressing.

You and me. Any others?

[Arby]

Its never going to be worth as much as the BTCS vinyl. I dont know, maybe ill get 2

[dobyblue]

At least BTSC is attainable.
Imagine if it cost as much as a white wax test pressing of Nirvana's Bleach.

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Nirvana-Bleach-Wh...1%7C240%3A1318

[CUTiger41]

Originally Posted by MPizzle06

This is specifically WHY I want to get my hands on a BTCS original pressing vinyl because its value will only increase when they re-release it. That way I can have the original to keep and th re-issue to play

You'd think that but that may not be the case since the market will be diluted with new vinyl.

Case and point, Ryan Adams' original Gold lp would sell for $100-$135 consistantly before its re-issue. After the re-issue, it NEVER goes that high. Doesn't even break $25 now. Same goes for Elliott Smith when they re-issued XO ($100) and Figure 8 ($200). Prices plummeted. Next up: Ben Harper. His vinyl is doing the same thing.

Most people don't care if it's an original or re-issue, only collectors do. The people bidding those up so high just wanted the vinyl - now they can get it for cheap. They see no reason to pay $150 for a record they can get for $20.

Just my $.02.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by CUTiger41

You'd think that but that may not be the case since the market will be diluted with new vinyl.

Case and point, Ryan Adams' original Gold lp would sell for $100-$135 consistantly before its re-issue. After the re-issue, it NEVER goes that high. Doesn't even break $25 now. Same goes for Elliott Smith when they re-issued XO ($100) and Figure 8 ($200). Prices plummeted. Next up: Ben Harper. His vinyl is doing the same thing.

Most people don't care if it's an original or re-issue, only collectors do. The people bidding those up so high just wanted the vinyl - now they can get it for cheap. They see no reason to pay $150 for a record they can get for $20.

Just my $.02.

Exactly right, and if it's a 180g repressing most people will think the new one is the better one, even though no two records sound the same.

In which case the original goes down even more.

You could probably still move it for $350, but you'll have a lot less takers and it'll take a LOT longer to move it, like several months on Discogs.

[TheIdeaofYou41]

Listening to some DMB on vinyl would be great... if I had the diamond tip stylus so i wouldn't ruin the records with a crappy stylus

[dobyblue]

This is the stylus on my turntable - http://www.needledoctor.com/Goldring-1012-GX