3 ms·

I get that you're saying this as if to point out the hipster-ness of vinyl. I work in the music industry and have personally overseen the manufacturing of 100's

I get that you're saying this as if to point out the hipster-ness of vinyl. I work in the music industry and have personally overseen the manufacturing of 100's of thousands of records, so I'm as much an expert as anyone on this topic. Yes, vinyl is technically an inferior sound quality to FLACs. I'm happy to rant all day about the flaws of vinyl. I personally prefer high quality digital. However on a good pressing there is an undeniable difference to a good vinyl pressing. It's not dissimilar from why I said that my kids frame the shots on digital cameras in ways that are different using an iphone. The processes that surround vinyl are different (better?) than those we use for digital mastering. Engineers pay more attention to vinyl mastering than they do digital. While there's a lot of shitty USB turntables, even those are often far better than how most people listen to music digitally which is often on iphones and shitty laptop speakers. The physicality of vinyl manufacturing incurs requisite different attention and processes that sometimes (emphasis on sometimes) results in a "better" listening experience. Could you get the same "better" listening experience with lossless digital? Yes. but most don't. So vinyl is "better."

tekla 2y ago
> The processes that surround vinyl are different (better?) than those we use for digital mastering. Engineers pay more attention to vinyl mastering than they do digital. I call BS. I know people who work in music mastering, and I've asked about this. They use the same digital masters for the digital release and for vinyl. They know people will buy vinyls if they want to no matter what if they want to, so it doesn't matter if the digital master isn't perfectly attuned to the vinyl medium
- superultra 2y ago
  > They use the same digital masters for the digital release and for vinyl. With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. If the engineers you know do that, you don't know good engineers. edit: I can't reply to tekla's comment, so I'm editing here. It's frustrating on Hacker News for an expert - like myself, who has sat in on dozens of mastering sessions - to be disputed by someone who "knows some people." I'll clarify further. Do some engineers use the same mixes for vinyl as they do for digital? Sure. They're not good engineers. Or the customer hasn't paid enough (it's usually about $60-$100 per song to master per format). Vinyl is a drastically different medium than digital - of course - and any decent engineer will 100% mix differently and accordingly. If there are artists reading this and your engineer is using the same mix, fire them. You're paying a lot to press to vinyl so do the followthrough and get vinyl-specific mastering. Here's a good article from an engineer I have worked with many times on why mastering for vinyl is different: https://www.oregonlive.com/music/2014/11/does_vinyl_really_sound_better.html https://www.oregonlive.com/music/2014/11/does_vinyl_really_s...
  - tekla 2y ago
    /shrug. He said/she said standoff is always fun, with a mix of insults. People who are the type to buy vinyls will buy them no matter what, as long as its not obviously a bad press. Why would any sound engineer bother to do extra work for such a low volume, high chance of losing money, PITA to work with medium, unless they were some sort of super artist.
  - unvs 2y ago
    I'm a good engineer. I've done tons of mixes for records released both digitally and on vinyl or even tape. I never create different mixes for the formats - but I work with great mastering engineers and cutters who will create different masters for each format.
    - superultra 2y ago
      Thanks for commenting. I'm curious why you wouldn't master specifically to the format. There are so many nuances to vinyl with mistakes that can deeply impact sales when the job isn't done right. For my own part, we had to recut the lacquers on a vinyl release five times to get it right, because the nature of the mix created a middling sound that bounced the needle around and caused intense surface sound. Once we solved that problem, the pressings sounded great. Obviously with cassettes the profit margin isn't there to justify the additional expense of mastering, and to my ears cassette mastering rarely sounds different than the digital master (maybe some slightly different leveling). I believe NAC actually has a mastering guide to master to cassettes kicking around. But...not sure anyone follows it. Just to be honest, I don't doubt you're a great engineer. But if you weren't mastering specific to format...I wouldn't hire you. Increasingly we've gone to vinyl-exclusive engineers on bigger projects, because it's so crucial to get the sound right at the start and poor vinyl mastering can cause problems months down the manufacturing line that are costly.
      - unvs 2y ago
        Are you confusing mixing and mastering, maybe? I just said that I don't MIX to different targets. I create the best mix I can, checking phase to mono every step of the way, then I deliver my mix to a mastering engineer who will create a master for digital as well as a master for vinyl. The vinyl master will sometimes be more agressively summed to mono in the bass if we're dealing with too much information in that registry. My point is you don't have to mix to different formats if your mix is good. Good mastering engineers and lacquer cutters will sort the rest for you! Maybe we just misunderstood eachother?
- louthy 2y ago
  > I call BS. I know people who work in music mastering, and I've asked about this. They use the same digital masters for the digital release and for vinyl. Nah, they don't. There is always a vinyl master. I have several here from records I have released. It may well be made from the digital master, but vinyl needs low and high end roll off and mono low end bass to stop the needle jumping out of the grooves.
  - tekla 2y ago
    I know that part. I was imprecise in the words I used. There is a different vinyl master of course, but its almost always based off the digital master that is than modified to not fuck up on vinyl medium. The vinyl master has more "attention" because the vinyl is more limited, it has nothing to do with being "better"
    - louthy 2y ago
      I'm not a mastering engineer and I always send my pre-masters off and get a digital and vinyl master back. So, whether they prefer to create the vinyl master from the digital I wouldn't know for sure, but that would be my assumption, yes. I would also agree that the vinyl master wouldn't have more attention outside of dealing with the limitations of the format. Most mastering engineers are working on pretty tight schedules, for not much money, so it wouldn't make sense for them to take longer on the vinyl master (outside of the known limitations). There isn't any aspect of vinyl which is (technically) better. So, it's not like they can improve on the digital master.
    - superultra 2y ago
      > The vinyl master has more "attention" because the vinyl is more limited. This isn't really true from my perspective. There are a lot of factors as to why vinyl mastering gets more attention. It's harder to do right, so there's that. Artists will often pay far more attention to the vinyl master, so it's a crucial A&R issue. But there's an issue on digital master, we can easily (more or less) change the material on DSPs. It's not fun but it's possible. On vinyl, mistakes made on the mastering side may not even reveal themselves until past the test pressing stage and can be very costly. > its almost always based off the digital master that is than modified to not fuck up on vinyl medium This might be true at some levels of skillsets, I guess. But in my circles for at least the last ten years, the vinyl master is sourced from the original mix, not a digital master. In fact, on larger projects more independent labels and artists are hiring vinyl-specific engineers who can oversee what is a very physical process from mastering to lacquer cutting in one sitting. Having sat in an a number of sessions, there's a lot of attention to the ways in which the master is effecting the physical nature of the cut. This is actually how it used to be when vinyl was the imminent format, for reasons I've already stated (cost). In fact some vinyl plants had apartments for record label people to stay on site and oversee the vinyl mastering process.

tekla 2y ago

> The processes that surround vinyl are different (better?) than those we use for digital mastering. Engineers pay more attention to vinyl mastering than they do digital. I call BS. I know people who work in music mastering, and I've asked about this. They use the same digital masters for the digital release and for vinyl. They know people will buy vinyls if they want to no matter what if they want to, so it doesn't matter if the digital master isn't perfectly attuned to the vinyl medium

superultra 2y ago
> They use the same digital masters for the digital release and for vinyl. With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. If the engineers you know do that, you don't know good engineers. edit: I can't reply to tekla's comment, so I'm editing here. It's frustrating on Hacker News for an expert - like myself, who has sat in on dozens of mastering sessions - to be disputed by someone who "knows some people." I'll clarify further. Do some engineers use the same mixes for vinyl as they do for digital? Sure. They're not good engineers. Or the customer hasn't paid enough (it's usually about $60-$100 per song to master per format). Vinyl is a drastically different medium than digital - of course - and any decent engineer will 100% mix differently and accordingly. If there are artists reading this and your engineer is using the same mix, fire them. You're paying a lot to press to vinyl so do the followthrough and get vinyl-specific mastering. Here's a good article from an engineer I have worked with many times on why mastering for vinyl is different: https://www.oregonlive.com/music/2014/11/does_vinyl_really_sound_better.html https://www.oregonlive.com/music/2014/11/does_vinyl_really_s...
- tekla 2y ago
  /shrug. He said/she said standoff is always fun, with a mix of insults. People who are the type to buy vinyls will buy them no matter what, as long as its not obviously a bad press. Why would any sound engineer bother to do extra work for such a low volume, high chance of losing money, PITA to work with medium, unless they were some sort of super artist.
- unvs 2y ago
  I'm a good engineer. I've done tons of mixes for records released both digitally and on vinyl or even tape. I never create different mixes for the formats - but I work with great mastering engineers and cutters who will create different masters for each format.
  - superultra 2y ago
    Thanks for commenting. I'm curious why you wouldn't master specifically to the format. There are so many nuances to vinyl with mistakes that can deeply impact sales when the job isn't done right. For my own part, we had to recut the lacquers on a vinyl release five times to get it right, because the nature of the mix created a middling sound that bounced the needle around and caused intense surface sound. Once we solved that problem, the pressings sounded great. Obviously with cassettes the profit margin isn't there to justify the additional expense of mastering, and to my ears cassette mastering rarely sounds different than the digital master (maybe some slightly different leveling). I believe NAC actually has a mastering guide to master to cassettes kicking around. But...not sure anyone follows it. Just to be honest, I don't doubt you're a great engineer. But if you weren't mastering specific to format...I wouldn't hire you. Increasingly we've gone to vinyl-exclusive engineers on bigger projects, because it's so crucial to get the sound right at the start and poor vinyl mastering can cause problems months down the manufacturing line that are costly.
    - unvs 2y ago
      Are you confusing mixing and mastering, maybe? I just said that I don't MIX to different targets. I create the best mix I can, checking phase to mono every step of the way, then I deliver my mix to a mastering engineer who will create a master for digital as well as a master for vinyl. The vinyl master will sometimes be more agressively summed to mono in the bass if we're dealing with too much information in that registry. My point is you don't have to mix to different formats if your mix is good. Good mastering engineers and lacquer cutters will sort the rest for you! Maybe we just misunderstood eachother?
louthy 2y ago
> I call BS. I know people who work in music mastering, and I've asked about this. They use the same digital masters for the digital release and for vinyl. Nah, they don't. There is always a vinyl master. I have several here from records I have released. It may well be made from the digital master, but vinyl needs low and high end roll off and mono low end bass to stop the needle jumping out of the grooves.
- tekla 2y ago
  I know that part. I was imprecise in the words I used. There is a different vinyl master of course, but its almost always based off the digital master that is than modified to not fuck up on vinyl medium. The vinyl master has more "attention" because the vinyl is more limited, it has nothing to do with being "better"
  - louthy 2y ago
    I'm not a mastering engineer and I always send my pre-masters off and get a digital and vinyl master back. So, whether they prefer to create the vinyl master from the digital I wouldn't know for sure, but that would be my assumption, yes. I would also agree that the vinyl master wouldn't have more attention outside of dealing with the limitations of the format. Most mastering engineers are working on pretty tight schedules, for not much money, so it wouldn't make sense for them to take longer on the vinyl master (outside of the known limitations). There isn't any aspect of vinyl which is (technically) better. So, it's not like they can improve on the digital master.
  - superultra 2y ago
    > The vinyl master has more "attention" because the vinyl is more limited. This isn't really true from my perspective. There are a lot of factors as to why vinyl mastering gets more attention. It's harder to do right, so there's that. Artists will often pay far more attention to the vinyl master, so it's a crucial A&R issue. But there's an issue on digital master, we can easily (more or less) change the material on DSPs. It's not fun but it's possible. On vinyl, mistakes made on the mastering side may not even reveal themselves until past the test pressing stage and can be very costly. > its almost always based off the digital master that is than modified to not fuck up on vinyl medium This might be true at some levels of skillsets, I guess. But in my circles for at least the last ten years, the vinyl master is sourced from the original mix, not a digital master. In fact, on larger projects more independent labels and artists are hiring vinyl-specific engineers who can oversee what is a very physical process from mastering to lacquer cutting in one sitting. Having sat in an a number of sessions, there's a lot of attention to the ways in which the master is effecting the physical nature of the cut. This is actually how it used to be when vinyl was the imminent format, for reasons I've already stated (cost). In fact some vinyl plants had apartments for record label people to stay on site and oversee the vinyl mastering process.