Inside One Of the Last Vinyl Record Manufacturers 382
jonerik writes "The Nashville Tennessean has this look at Nashville's United Record Pressing, one of the last vinyl record manufacturers left in the U.S. Although LPs and 12" and 7" singles make up a tiny portion of the American music market at this point, the article reports that United's business is booming, thanks to consolidation within Nashville's record pressing business community, steady orders for the jukebox market, techno, dance, reggae, and rap orders, and this year's 25th anniversary of Elvis Presley's death. 'Elvis has been good to us. I can't complain,' says Cris Ashworth, the company's owner."
DJs (Score:3, Informative)
final scratch (Score:4, Informative)
Re:DJs (Score:2, Informative)
Vinyl market is not dying (Score:4, Informative)
Re:DJs (Score:1, Informative)
Pioneer has been making them for years and I've been using them for quite a while. If you make something in pro tools in the afternoon and want to play it in the club that night, just burn the cd and play it. Get it pressed into vinyl when you have more time.
BTW: most of us who dj still favor vinyl for the total control you have and vinyl holds its value much better for re-sale as well.
http://www.pioneerprodj.com/products/cdj800/cdj
When all else fails... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Vinyl writers? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Last??? (Score:5, Informative)
Vinyl still has a massive hold on the DJ industry, but it's slipping... Just my 0.02.
Re:Vinyl writers? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:DJs (Score:4, Informative)
The difference is the interface. The tactile involvement of vinyl is the biggest key. It's just not the same scratching with a mouse on a screen. There's just something that feels right and easy with two turntables and a crossfader in front of you. There has been progress with some of the newer simulated turntables that plug into a USB port of a computer, but it still doesn't come close to what is needed to spin at a professional level.
It's just a matter of time before hardware designers come up with a proper interface to allow the flexibility and style required for a DJ. Until then, Technics turntables and vinyl record producers still have a place in the world.
Re:Vinyl writers? (Score:4, Informative)
punk (Score:3, Informative)
Re:final scratch (Score:3, Informative)
Out of the 4-5 DJing friends I have, not one is spinning digital media. Mixing CDs doesn't appeal to them, and neither does using ipods or similar.
You need to be able to mix the music correctly, if you want to advance from school-disco gigs. Mixing on anything other than decks is always going be awkward. You need to be able to touch the record to advance/halt it the 0.05 ms required to get the beats in sync. It's an art form, and facinating to watch.
For dance music, there will always be vinyl. Perhaps the title of this topic should be "major RIAA artists stop using vinyl". Those in the "underground" scene couldn't care less.
Re:MPAA should take notice... (Score:3, Informative)
Hint: use the tape recorder output connections on your amp (consult you manual or figure it out). Already set at the correct levels. Few (good) turntables can be plugged direct into your soundcard. RIAA equalisation and pre-amplification are required for the best sound.
Yeah, I did find it quite amusing that the article had to explain what an LP was :)
Re:final scratch (Score:4, Informative)
The only reason that vinyl is still alive is because most dance/underground/techno is released on vinyl FIRST. That's why.
Cool "vinyl" in new zealand (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Last??? (Score:5, Informative)
You're obviously not getting out to the dance/Hip Hop clubs then...
For years the family business has been a DJ/Karaokee business
Ah, wedding singer type DJs. They don't even mix the music. They cue up one track after another. Winamp can do that. I know people who would kill you for calling that DJing.
With high end CD decks, it's possible to do anything that can be done with a record, and in fact it can be done better.
Try telling that to Grand Master Flash. I'm sure anyone who has seen him live would agree that you can't do what he does on a CD deck.
simply rip the music you paid for the proper way, assuming you're doing it legal.
Most professional DJs (e.g. those with a club residency) don't buy the music. They get given it for free on white labels. It's a great promotion for the song, so I doubt the record industry is going to come after you for promoting their material... ;-)
Vinyl (Score:3, Informative)
Since cassettes came out, Vinyl has always had somewhat of a cult following. From audiophiles who liked the 'warm' vinyl sound better than hissy cassettes to the punk-rock scene, and of course nowadays, hip hop and techno dj's..
Sure, there's new digital equipment that lets you mix and even scratch .. but nothing better than putting your finger over the record, adjusting the pitch control and mixing a perfect beat.. As far as scratching goes, you can see the influence this has made in a lot of today's music. From rock bands with dj's (limp bizkit, incubus, linkin' park) to even jazz artists (courtney pine, herbie hancock). The turntable has turned into an instrument with the help of turntablists like q-bert, dj shadow, kid koala, etc.
As far as record pressers go, there's plenty of places out there cutting vinyl for hip hop/club/and techno producers. There's also a lot of independent places that do it for a lot less..
Recently, Vestax introduced a Vinyl cutter for under $10,000 [hollywooddj.com] (about 8400).
Overall, I'm glad vinyl is still around after all these years. I doubt it will go away anytime soon.
analog (Score:4, Informative)
Frequency Response: digital music *must* filter out everything above half its sample rate (plus or minus a few hertz for data). Conventional CD's filter out everything above 22kHz. some people can hear a 25kHz pitch, some cannot. but nearly everyone can hear the interaction of 24 and 25, which can manifest itself within their hearing range. recording techniques improve this situation, and higher sampling rates are coming, but this is still a fundamental limit.
Dynamic Range: analog music naturally compresses from the quietest to the loudest portions in much the same way the human ears work. when you go to a really loud concert, does the sound clip? no, your ears compress the sound. digital music can emulate this with algorithms, and some of them are quite good, but again, all decent analog equipment does this as a side effect, and no digital recorder will ever get this excatly right (although digital recordings can best the 96dB range that good tape machines can offer, does anyone listen to music in a *totally silent* environment?)
Simplicity: no processing is required to record/play analog. the medium is a physical imprint of the sound waves in the room as a function of time. all you need is a magnet and some energy.
Of course, analog media is not as convienient as modern digital media, but since I have a home with the space in my home, I will keep listening to my big, bulky, dusty records because they just sound better.
Re:Burp QWZX (Score:3, Informative)
Digital music has exactly zero distortion. I have tried this, output a sine wave and link it back to the input on a Sound Blaster. Doing a FFT on the result shows no harmonics at all above the noise floor, which is 100+ dB down.
You are right in that tube amplifiers do introduce a coloration, but this is mostly in frequency response. I have recently done a search, both over the web and in my dead tree files, for tube circuits to build. All of the schematics I could find, from the simplest single-tube amplifiers to a 10 tube per channel RIAA phono pre-amp, have worse performance, from the frequency flatness point of view, than very simple solid-state amplifiers. This is because tube amplifiers have very high output impedances and they interact with the following stage input capacitance.
About the even-odd harmonics, the worse culprit in solid-state is the output AB-class stage. If the bias level on the output stage is not adjusted exactly to spec (in most amps it isn't adjustable at all), third order harmonics can be very high. Of course, some people debate this point endlessly, but I'm not certain that second-order harmonics are intrinsically more pleasing to the ear than third order. I think it's more the absolute level of the distortion that matters.
Re:Obviously doesn't reflect the UK market... (Score:2, Informative)
For a list of a bunch of record pressing plants, check out indiecentre.com [indiecentre.com].
Re:final scratch (Score:3, Informative)
Fair point, but it's not the same as a pair of decks. It doesn't have the hands-on feel to it, and it certainally doesn't hold the same mystique for the fans of the art.
Plus, let's hear some scratching on those CDs... ;-)
The only reason that vinyl is still alive is because most dance/underground/techno is released on vinyl FIRST. That's why.
Not strictly true, the whole scene is dominated by vinyl, not just the releases. Fans don't get excited by someone pressing buttons!
Don't get me wrong, I love all the new tech here, I for one have never owned any vinyl, despite being old enough to have had it available. The apps like Atomix [atomixmp3.com] and Trakor [nativeinstruments.de] really interest me as all my media is digital, but when I show them to my DJ friends, they are curious, but uninterested. DJs get the girls, nerds don't.
Re:analog (Score:5, Informative)
First, farnsworth's post asserts that some people can hear a 25kHz pitch. Yeah. Right. Maybe if they're six months old. The reality is, there are probably a handful of adults on the planet who can hear a 25kHz pitch, and I doubt any of them live in the noise-drenched environments of western civilization. Most adults are lucky if they can still hear anything out past 18kHz, especially if they listened to a lot of loud music at any point in their lives.
It's also vital to note that even then, the sensitivity of our ears to sound at high frequencies is extraordinarily low. In other words, a sound at 20kHz would have to be phenomenally loud for us to hear it compared to a sound at, say, 5,000Hz, where our hearing is much, much more sensitive. Few musical instruments produce loud sounds at or above 20kHz as a result - at least, not intentionally. There could be harmonics at frequencies in excess of 20kHz (for example, perhaps cymbals produce such harmonics), but by their very nature, those harmonics are going to be soft in relation to the rest of the signal - and again, most adults don't stand a snowball's chance of hearing them anyhow, even if they were deafeningly loud, which they're not.
Worse, vinyl doesn't stand a snowball's chance of reproducing such ultrasonic information with any kind of accuracy. The format was never designed to record high frequency signals - engineers have enough trouble squeezing 60Hz - 15,000Hz out of them reliably, let alone with any kind of fidelity when compared to CDs. I have no doubt that LPs produce a fair amount of ultrasonic signal, but again, most of that is going to be unintentional - clicks and pops, surface noise, electrical noise, and harmonic distortion generated by the stylus and cartridge as they vibrate. Any "real" ultrasonic information on the record would be swamped by all the fake ultrasonic garbage. You also seem to be assuming that the master tapes contain such ultrasonic information. They don't. The usable frequency response of even the best analog tape decks used historically for studio recording typically topped out at around 25kHz. Beyond that the levels fall off so rapidly as to be useless, and even there, the levels are going to be pretty low. And this assumes the deck doesn't employ filtering beyond around 22kHz, to eliminate unwanted ultrasonic noise that can impinge on the bias signal. Many do. Older or lower-quality equipment (and/or tapes) won't even make it to 25kHz (except for all the hiss!).
Even if the decks can record 25kHz sounds, in order to get them onto the tape the microphones would have to be capable of picking up such ultrasonics to begin with, which of course they can't. 99.9% of the microphones used over the past 60 years to record audio in the studio or concert hall are lucky to have a usable frequency response out to as far as 20kHz - most begin a pretty severe rolloff at 15kHz, and by 20kHz only a handful manage to maintain a flat response, with performance dropping off rapidly thereafter. Anything they're picking up beyond 20kHz is going to be so faint as to be inaudible once it passes through the gauntlet of noise and distortion inherent in the vinyl format. Here's a sales listing [digitalvillage.co.uk] for the legendary Neumann U87, a mic that's been the studio standard for vocal recording since the '60s - the Beatles used this mic, and singers & engineers continue to choose this mic over all others even to this day. Its frequency response tops out at 20kHz. So much for recording ultrasonics. And the instrument probably most likely to produce ultrasonics - the cymbal - is typically recorded using a mic like the Shure SM57, which has been a standard for recording percussion since its introduction over thirty years ago. Its frequency response tops out at a measly 15kHz. What ultrasonics?
Of course, it's all utterly inconsequential compared to the trashing of the original waveform caused by all of vinyl's other numerous limitations, including the damage done in the crucial 50Hz-5,000Hz range where human hearing and perception is so much more sensitive, and accuracy therefore so much more important. You're lucky if you can get a flat 50Hz - 15,000kHz response out of vinyl. Most signal above and below those limits is likely to be noise (rumble and hum below 50-60Hz, clicks, pops, hiss and harmonics above 15,000kHz).
Next, you make the ludicrous assertion that, "analog music naturally compresses from the quietest to the loudest portions in much the same way the human ears work." Eh? Human hearing most certainly does not "compress" the audio signal, and even if it did, what could possibly be "natural" about adding an external layer of compression to the signal? The only time our hearing "compresses" is when a really loud sound (think thunderclap) happens nearby - IIRC, the hammer will be temporarily pulled away from the eardrum, but that's a reflex that lasts only moments. With a dynamic range well in excess of 90dB (far greater than vinyl's pathetic 60dB under absolutely ideal circumstances), CD's and DVD's don't need to utilize any compression, unless they're recording the sound of a jet taking off six feet away or something. Nor do vinyl records magically compress the natural dynamic range of recorded music into their paltry 60dB of dynamic range (more like 40dB for virtually all consumer vinyl) - that compression is done by mastering engineers. You could perform the same signal-degrading compression before mastering the sound to a CD if you wanted, but what kind of an idiot would do such a thing?
Finally, this statement of yours the kicker: " Simplicity: no processing is required to record/play analog. the medium is a physical imprint of the sound waves in the room as a function of time. all you need is a magnet and some energy." No processing, eh? Apart from the already mentioned compression, of course, to get the natural dynamic range of music shoehorned into vinyl's pathetic dynamic range. And then there's the RIAA equilization, required before one can even attempt to squeeze high fidelity performance out of vinyl. Here's the standardized curve [tanker.se]. Looks pretty processed to me. Bass frequencies are cut by almost 20dB at 20Hz (they have to, otherwise the needle would pop out of its groove trying to reproduce bass), while at 19kHz treble frequencies are boosted by almost 20dB in an attempt to drown out all the vinyl noise. Then it all has to be reversed on playback. That's some serious processing.
I suppose this would also be a good time to mention that, if you want to put more than about 10 minutes worth of material onto a single side of a vinyl LP, you're going to have to further compress (or eliminate) any loud, low bass. The grooves can't be made wide enough to handle it. And of course, de-equalizing that RIAA curve on playback is an imprecise science, leading to all sorts of frequency response irregularities and phase issues. Whoops!
Ah yes, the wonderful, "naturally" compressed, unprocessed sound of vinyl. To summarize:
* Loud tics and pops caused by stray dust and wear, resulting in a *negative* signal to noise ratio - i.e. the noise can become louder than the music! (with N'Stynk, I suppose this would be a blessing in disguise . . . or simply redundant.)
* Rumbling caused by the turntable's motor and the friction of the stylus as it passes through the groove
* Wow and flutter, caused by speed irregularities in the turntable's drive system and by any imperfections in the geometry of the disc
* Phase irregularities caused by the RIAA equalization and the subsequent need for the preamp to de-equalize the signal
* Frequency response irregularities caused by the RIAA equalization / de-equalization process
* The inability to reproduce loud bass accurately (the cutter making the wax master would pop out of its groove if it tried to reproduce the kind of bass CDs can handle effortlessly)
* The tendency for the turntable, platter and even the disc to function as microphones, picking up room reverberations and - particularly - the sound being produced by the speakers, smearing and distorting the audio in numerous ways
* Cartridge / tonearm misalignments, causing inaccurate stylus pickup, accelerated record wear, or both.
30dB of stereo separation, vs. CD's 70+dB of separation
* A theoretical maximum of 60dB of dynamic range for virgin vinyl of the highest quality (and only at certain frequencies - obviously, not in the low bass) vs. around 90dB of dynamic range from even the cheapest CD players, across the entire spectrum
* In practice, roughly 40dB of usable dynamic range across the majority of the spectrum
* A relatively flat frequency response from only around 60 Hz to 15 kHz, with severe rolloffs beyond those limits
* The need for mastering engineers to severely compress and re-equalize the signal in order to steer clear of the format's limitations relative to CD, which requires no such distortion-educing compensation
* Pitch and frequency errors caused by the speed difference between the cutter used to produce the wax master and your turntable
* The tendency of the media itself to wear out as its played, and to be damaged during routine handling with audible results
You're clearly uninformed from a technical standpoint. If you prefer the "sound" of vinyl, that's your business. But don't try to cloak your preference in technobabble you obviously don't begin to understand
Re:You are the one who is uninformed (Score:3, Informative)
> FACT: most people can hear up to at least 30 kHz.
FACT: Nobody can hear up to 30kHz. People *might* be able to hear harmonics of sounds above 20kHz, provided those harmonics fall within the range of human hearing, but they won't be able to hear the actual pure tones themselves (as you yourself indicated). Since any medium - such as CD - that records sounds up to 20kHz will also record the harmonics of tones above 20kHz, provided they fall within the range of human hearing, what exactly would we be missing? And apart from percussion or certain electronic instruments, what instruments are out there generating gobs of ultrasonic information, anyhow? And what microphones are capable of picking up such information? And what analog tape decks are capable of recording such information? And - here's the kicker - how many speakers are capable of reproducing such information? The answer to each of these questions is, vanishing few. Many tape decks filter out or fail to record tones much beyond 20kHz. Few microphones can pick them up to begin with. And most speakers are lucky to maintain a flat frequency response even out to 20kHz, let alone to 25 or 30kHz. You'd practically have to live in a laboratory to record and then accurately reproduce ultrasonic information. A 50-year-old format like the vinyl LP certainly isn't ideal for such a thing, given its noise, distortion, dynamic range, separation and phase issues. Only the high quality analog tape decks found in professional studios or digital recording formats utilizing higher sampling rates than 44.1kHz could hope to accurately record and reproduce such audio.
>Yes, such transients are reproduced on vinyl.
Maybe on audiophile grade, quarter-speed mastered vinyl played back on a $5,000 turntable equipped with a $1,500 cartridge run through a $2,000 preamp they are. Poorly. With oceans of harmonic distortion and waves of crashing high-frequency noise. Assuming, of course, the original performance was picked up using microphones and mic preamps capable of dealing with much of anything beyond 20kHz (such mics cost in excess of $2,000, and the preamps aren't much cheaper) onto tape decks capable of recording much of anything beyond 20-25kHz. None of which is likely, outside of studiously recorded audiophile sessions.
>Your final star'ed points are just dumb. You don't give any references,
>because of course you don't have any.
You must really enjoy looking like a boob. Hey, if you want to play the (in your case, irrelevant and apparently unavailable on the web) references game, I'd love to! (Actually, one "reference" you posted is available on the web - marketing material from a stereo company plugging their overpriced audiophile gear. You should have provided us with a link to the guy selling $10,000 tinfoil hats to protect us from government mind control rays, too.) Here are my bullet points, plus any references I could dig up (though much of this should be obvious to anyone with a brain in their skull):
* Loud tics and pops caused by stray dust and wear, resulting in a *negative* signal to noise ratio - i.e. the noise can become louder than the music! (with N'Stynk, I suppose this would be a blessing in disguise . . . or simply redundant.)
Well, this one is obvious. Whenever a tick or pop is louder than the music (happens a lot with vinyl, and even with tape during quiet passages), the signal to noise ratio goes negative.
* Rumbling caused by the turntable's motor and the friction of the stylus as it passes through the groove
Another obvious point. Many turntables even include rumble measurements in their specifications, though that's for the platter only and doesn't take into account additional noise caused by the friction of the stylus dragging through the groove.
* Wow and flutter, caused by speed irregularities in the turntable's drive system and by any imperfections in the geometry of the disc.
Another spec that's included for most turntables and even analog tape decks. Hard to see how this one is, "just dumb", unless you're so ignorant you've never looked at the specs for a turntable or tape deck.
* Phase irregularities caused by the RIAA equalization and the subsequent need for the preamp to de-equalize the signal.
Another obvious point. Anytime you process the signal to emphasize or de-emphasize certain frequencies, you're going to introduce phase discrepancies. Here's a $2,000 preamp from Daniels Audio [danielsaudio.com] that attempts to compensate for the phase issues. Notice I say "attempts". Even a manufacturer of $2,000 stereo components won't claim to be able to eliminate such issues. And who knows what issues all that additional processing is going to introduce.
* Frequency response irregularities caused by the RIAA equalization / de-equalization process
Again, a no-brainer. If the frequency response curve used to produce the wax master doesn't precisely match the frequency response curve in your preamp (and it never will), certain frequencies are going to be emphasized upon playback while others will be de-emphasized. Here's a big page detailing the design issues faced by folks trying to build the RIAA de-equalization circuits for a preamp [euronet.nl]. Notice the difficulties he's having making the response curve come close to the RIAA ideal. Even by the end, he's off by more than a quarter dB at many frequencies, including some smack dab in the middle of the most sensitive range of human hearing.
* The inability to reproduce loud bass accurately (the cutter making the wax master would pop out of its groove if it tried to reproduce the kind of bass CDs can handle effortlessly)
For references, please see this [planetdnb.com], this [aardvarkmastering.com], this [futurediscsystems.com], or this [djprince.net].
* The tendency for the turntable, platter and even the disc to function as microphones, picking up room reverberations and - particularly - the sound being produced by the speakers, smearing and distorting the audio in numerous ways
I should think this one would be obvious. Lots of turntable manufacturers sell heavy weights to sit on top of a record while it's playing. If you don't believe this is true, jump up and down next to your turntable while it's playing, or set it on top of a speaker pumping out a lot of bass. You'll get an "extreme" demonstration of the effect, but the truth is it's happening all the time.
* Cartridge / tonearm misalignments, causing inaccurate stylus pickup, accelerated record wear, or both.
Again, an obvious issue. Good luck getting it right! [nac.net]
* 30dB of stereo separation, vs. CD's 70+dB of separation
See this [www.foon.be], or the specs for the cartridges themselves here [audio-technica.com]. You'll be lucky to find a preamp that can come close to the 70-90dB of separation even a cheap CD player can provide, let alone a pickup.
* A theoretical maximum of 60dB of dynamic range for virgin vinyl of the highest quality (and only at certain frequencies - obviously, not in the low bass) vs. around 90dB of dynamic range from even the cheapest CD players, across the entire spectrum.
References to this abound. If you don't believe me, take it from an expert [georgegraham.com].
* In practice, roughly 40dB of usable dynamic range across the majority of the spectrum
See the reference above.
* A relatively flat frequency response from only around 60 Hz to 15 kHz, with severe rolloffs beyond those limits.
This one has been covered already.
* The need for mastering engineers to severely compress and re-equalize the signal in order to steer clear of the format's limitations relative to CD, which requires no such distortion-educing compensation.
Again, see the references above.
* Pitch and frequency errors caused by the speed difference between the cutter used to produce the wax master and your turntable.
That's another obvious fact to anyone but a blithering idiot.
* The tendency of the media itself to wear out as its played, and to be damaged during routine handling with audible results
Well, duh. On to dissect the remainder of your post:
>The reverse of most of what you say is true. E.g. your claim
>of 60dB dynamic range is nuts: the range is over 100 dB.
>You are confusing the noise floor of a high-hiss record with
>dynamic range--but you can hear 20 dB into that noise, and a
>good record need not have high hiss. Vinyl has poor bass???
>It's much better than CD. And so on.
Oh my. There doesn't seem to be anything left to dissect. I've already covered these points up above. Vinyl is *lucky* to hit 60dB of dynamic range with audiophile pressings played back on incredibly expensive equipment. No "confusion" with vinyl's truly outrageous noise floor is necessary. And the dynamic range decreases drastically as the length of the record increases - a problem digital formats don't suffer from. And as for vinyl's bass performance, I think half the links I posted up above note how crappy vinyl is at capturing loud, low bass.
Next time, you might want to learn something about a subject before you proceed to open your mouth and cram your foot down your throat.