working on a new video

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:52 pm

Going to AWA has completely revitalized my relationship with anime music videos. I was hanging out with NME at the airport (he's an awesome guy), and we were talking about music and how today's mastering compresses the shit out of everything and theres no dynamic range anymore. We started talking about old bands and how awesome they all sounded on vinyl and whatnot.

My father and I are budding audiophiles, and he's been spending buckets of money on stereo gear. He's also a musician with his own recording studio in our apt so I tried ripping a vinyl record to possibly use as the tunes for my next AMV.

Cleaned off the record, plugged in our sooped up Tecnix direct drive turntable with a new top grade stylus into our Conrad-Johnson PV8 tube preamplifier, plugged that into his EMU and ripped a record at 24bit 96kHz.

Oh my fucking god, it sounds incredible. The dynamic range is huge, you can actually FEEL the sound. Its like swimming in a river instead of looking at a picture of a river. It sounds so warm and liquid gold, I just can't express it to you guys. Instead of having everything be loud, you actually have to TURN IT UP. There is no comparison.

So anyway, my next video will be using a vinyl rip, will be 6 minutes long, and probably have uncompressed audio. Hopefully if its popular it will help start an audio movement in the community for people who care about sound and don't like listening to 128mp3 garbage. Does anyone around here enjoy hi-fi audio? What kind of rig do you have?

MadScientist · Post by **MadScientist** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:06 pm

I know what you are talking about. I just wish I had the money to invest in a good rig. I have a decent collection of vinyl(not including my dance vinyl, cuz thats separate), that includes a wide range of old and new music. I just love how some vinyl sounds over a good hi-fi system. Such a warmer sound IMO. You are right about studios over-compressing, and trying to make stuff loud. For me it is not about being loud. Sound engineers these days in the label studios are trying too hard with compressors and limiters. When it comes to certain types of dance music that may fly because of the setting it is supposed to be played in, but for other styles and genres no. At some point I am going to be ripping my vinyl collection to a lossless format like FLAC to hopefully preserve that golden sound. Since I mix dance music I have the stuff to do it, its just the laziness factor.

Flint the Dwarf · Post by **Flint the Dwarf** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:57 pm

You still make videos?

mexicanjunior · Post by **mexicanjunior** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:46 am

I hope you use a good song...

Tsunami Jones · Post by **Tsunami Jones** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:53 pm

Might I suggest that when you release the video, you release it in two versions? One with the uncompressed audio, and one with standard compressed audio, so that for people like myself who are definitely not audiophiles, that we can clearly hear the difference so we understand what you mean, etc. and why you're doing it?

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:03 pm

Someday, you're going to make some sound tech at some convention's AMV contest showing very, very frustrated.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:44 pm

Tsunami Jones wrote:Might I suggest that when you release the video, you release it in two versions? One with the uncompressed audio, and one with standard compressed audio, so that for people like myself who are definitely not audiophiles, that we can clearly hear the difference so we understand what you mean, etc. and why you're doing it?

Thats a good idea:

My version will have uncompressed 16bit 48kHz audio ripped from the record.

The shit version will have a 128kb mp3 at 16bit 44kHz ripped from the remastered CD.

You'll notice the CD version will sound much more clean and sterile, and for lack of a better word, cold.

I don't know how much of a difference you'll hear if you have basic $20 computer speakers though. You should definitely be able to hear the difference on good headphones and your ass will FEEL a difference if you are plugged into an actual stereo receiver or pre-amp+power amp combo.

Go dig out the old 70s receiver your parents most likely have in the garage and plug it in.

Someday, you're going to make some sound tech at some convention's AMV contest showing very, very frustrated.

roflroflroflroflroflroflrfl you have

NO

IDEA

WHAT

YOU'RE

TALKING

ABOUT

Orwell · Post by **Orwell** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:26 pm

Beowulf wrote:
Tsunami Jones wrote:Might I suggest that when you release the video, you release it in two versions? One with the uncompressed audio, and one with standard compressed audio, so that for people like myself who are definitely not audiophiles, that we can clearly hear the difference so we understand what you mean, etc. and why you're doing it?
Thats a good idea:

My version will have uncompressed 16bit 48kHz audio ripped from the record.

The shit version will have a 128kb mp3 at 16bit 44kHz ripped from the remastered CD.

You'll notice the CD version will sound much more clean and sterile, and for lack of a better word, cold.

I'm also curious, but I'd like to see a larger experiment. I think even I would notice the difference between 128kb and a better encode. How about a uncompressed version with the exact same settings as the record for the CD track. A 192, 256 and a 320kb 48KHz mp3 along with the a 128kb 48KHz for the mp3.

Koopiskeva · Post by **Koopiskeva** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:05 pm

I'm gonna have a live band play instead of a recording.

|:

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:11 pm

Orwell wrote:
Beowulf wrote:
Tsunami Jones wrote:Might I suggest that when you release the video, you release it in two versions? One with the uncompressed audio, and one with standard compressed audio, so that for people like myself who are definitely not audiophiles, that we can clearly hear the difference so we understand what you mean, etc. and why you're doing it?
Thats a good idea:

My version will have uncompressed 16bit 48kHz audio ripped from the record.

The shit version will have a 128kb mp3 at 16bit 44kHz ripped from the remastered CD.

You'll notice the CD version will sound much more clean and sterile, and for lack of a better word, cold.
I'm also curious, but I'd like to see a larger experiment. I think even I would notice the difference between 128kb and a better encode. How about a uncompressed version with the exact same settings as the record for the CD track. A 192, 256 and a 320kb 48KHz mp3 along with the a 128kb 48KHz for the mp3.

While thats a much better experiment technically, I would rather convert people with the awesomeness of the sound, and not turn it into an intellectual debate about "what is better" and have to listen to a bunch of people go "i dont hear it". I don't want to turn my video into a debate about sound quality and compression, I just want people to watch the video. If they comment on the sound, they'll know why it sounds so great.

I should just rip a record and rip a "remastered" CD of the same song and upload it for you guys and give it its own thread instead of tacking on (what could possibly turn into) a giant debate too the end of my video. The video will rock whether you have ears or not.