BlahBlahCafe - Jean-Michel Jarre forum

Pat Gleeson wrote:Vinyl sounds better than CD / digital precisely because it can't be brick walled to the same extent - the damn stylus would skip off the platter. It's better by default. ...

that's a very odd way to think about it

The ideal delivery medium is transparent and has perfect fidelity to the finished mix from the multitrack.
CD, with its 44.1kHz 16bit PCM audio, *can* come very close perfect fidelity if the mastering engineer isn't a total dick.
Vinyl can never come close to fidelity in a million years, and inevitably imparts a variety of audio distortions all of which are objectively measurable

Here are some good articles about it
http://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advic ... est-medium
http://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advic ... l-releases
http://www.soundonsound.com/music-business/hot-metal (this last one will make you weep when you learn the sorts of things that happen to reference lacquers!)

Velodynamic wrote:So what about this "better" vinyl master, is it digital from the beginning before it becomes a vinyl record? How come we don't have direct access to download that one instead of the brick wall squashed shite?
In my world of thoughts it would've been much easier that way and saved the production one whole step!

The CD booklet says Oxygene 3 was recorded in Ableton Live on a MacBook Pro, so yes, the original multitrack and mixdown is all digital.

Depeche Mode's 2005 album "Playing the Angel" is a good example of the vinyl edition sounding better solely due to the vinyl mastering not being commercialized/half-assed/brickwalled - and in fact, the vinyl edition actually having a separate master.

In any case, a few months have passed since the release of the album. I must say, Oxygene 17 definitely is a true favorite of mine, and has passed Variation 3 in my "Top 4 Favorite Post-O7-13 Jarre tracks" list (Stardust, Paris Bourges, O17, Variation 3).

Oxygene 14-16 (honestly it's just one long track in my eyes) and 19 are my favorite. 17 is a fun upbeat track but nothing special, 18 is just boring though I get the idea and 20 while interesting execution I'm just not fan of it.

feline1973 wrote:

Pat Gleeson wrote:Vinyl sounds better than CD / digital precisely because it can't be brick walled to the same extent - the damn stylus would skip off the platter. It's better by default. ...

that's a very odd way to think about it

The ideal delivery medium is transparent and has perfect fidelity to the finished mix from the multitrack.
CD, with its 44.1kHz 16bit PCM audio, *can* come very close perfect fidelity if the mastering engineer isn't a total dick.
Vinyl can never come close to fidelity in a million years, and inevitably imparts a variety of audio distortions all of which are objectively measurable

Here are some good articles about it
http://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advic ... est-medium
http://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advic ... l-releases
http://www.soundonsound.com/music-business/hot-metal (this last one will make you weep when you learn the sorts of things that happen to reference lacquers!)

THANK YOU very much for these articles.

feline1973 wrote:if the mastering engineer isn't a total dick.

Which is why vinyl will continue to prevail in sales. Because the mastering engineer continues to remain a dick on digital media.

HunterTech wrote:

feline1973 wrote:if the mastering engineer isn't a total dick.

Which is why vinyl will continue to prevail in sales. Because the mastering engineer continues to remain a dick on digital media.

Hahah well there is that .

shadow wrote:Oxygene 14-16 (honestly it's just one long track in my eyes) and 19 are my favorite. 17 is a fun upbeat track but nothing special, 18 is just boring though I get the idea and 20 while interesting execution I'm just not fan of it.

O18 reminds me quite a lot of "Celestial Whispers" from Vangelis' Rosetta, tho' I definitely prefer the latter (even though it's also more of a segue).

Dr_Jones wrote:THANK YOU very much for these articles.

Well don't thank me, thank Sound on Sound magazine. I've been a subscriber for years, it really is a very good source of reliable technical info.

HunterTech wrote:

feline1973 wrote:if the mastering engineer isn't a total dick.

Which is why vinyl will continue to prevail in sales. Because the mastering engineer continues to remain a dick on digital media.

With the ReplayGain gaining (sic) popularity this might change? I hope so...

feline1973 wrote:
that's a very odd way to think about it

CD, with its 44.1kHz 16bit PCM audio, *can* come very close perfect fidelity if the mastering engineer isn't a total dick.

.. and if the mastering engineer is a total dick ?
My point precisely.

feline1973 wrote: Vinyl can never come close to fidelity in a million years, and inevitably imparts a variety of audio distortions all of which are objectively measurable

Again, I agree. The problem is that the so called 'loudness war' has meant mastering has become so loud that vinyl - with all the limitations you have outlined quite correctly - have to use quieter masters than the superior digital formats. Once such company - Audio Fidelity - insist on using only the original made-for-vinyl masters for their digital formats - SACD etc. The sound quality and dynamic range are fantastic.

feline1973 wrote: Well don't thank me, thank Sound on Sound magazine. I've been a subscriber for years, it really is a very good source of reliable technical info.

Thanks for finding the links all the same - very interesting articles ...

Jote wrote:

HunterTech wrote:

feline1973 wrote:if the mastering engineer isn't a total dick.

Which is why vinyl will continue to prevail in sales. Because the mastering engineer continues to remain a dick on digital media.

With the ReplayGain gaining (sic) popularity this might change? I hope so...

By "ReplayGain" I think you're alluding to things similar to the EBU R-128 "loudness normalisation" standard?
(Again, Sound on Sound did a good article on this - I linked to it about 20 pages back in this thread http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/end-loudness-war )

Basically, I'm amazed that any professional mastering engineer is still churning out squashed crap like Dadwater, because due to EBU R-128, pretty much *EVERY* broadcast or streaming medium now (radio, television, Spotify, YouTube, Google Play, etc etc - and most hardware MP3 players as well) all use "loudness normalisation" to basically make everything they play the same subjective loudness level. So you CAN'T master a track to make it sound "really loud", as it just gets turned down when played, and so just sounds crap (lacking in dynamics).

Pat Gleeson wrote: .. and if the mastering engineer is a total dick ?
My point precisely.

Yeah, and Dadwater does definately seem to be a dick!
The more I listen to Oxygene 3 (ripped from the CD to lossless FLAC, mostly listening on a Sony Walkman with nice MDR-1000 headphones ) the most I really do not like the way it's mastered. It's far too squished, it doesn't suit the material at all, which needs to be light and ethereal.