Just my boring 2 cents: I love the ability to stream music thanks to its convenience, but there’s something special about owning a physical copy of music that is hard to beat. It feels like you get one step closer to how the artist intended you to enjoy it, including the cover art, the messages or lyrics, etc. I remember how cool I thought Pet Shop Boys’ orange, Lego-like album cover was, or how Michael Jackson’s History album with golden discs felt so luxurious. That dimension is lost with the streaming services.
Vinyl vs CDs I care less about, I guess either works as long as I can still stream the music too.
It does look interesting but I’ll admit I’m probably not going to read a whole book on the topic. Any big takeaways or worthwhile findings? I would be surprised if he found physical media like records or tapes more environmentally friendly than digital downloads, which for me seem difficult to beat.
Indeed they are. Various organic dyes are used in the production of CD’s, the information is either burnt in to a single disc sequentially by a laser or ‘stamped’ in one go for mass duplication. The dyes (over various time scales, storage, handling and atmospheric conditions) will naturally and inevitably degrade / breakdown resulting in data loss.
With this new process records are produced one at a time on-demand, available without a lead-time. Being made without pressing from a master, it is said to produce a better sound. Because there is no hot pressing process, and using an alternative to PVC, with no waste of surplus records, the production of hazardous chemicals is said to be nearly eliminated.
The process has been developed and patented by elasticStage, a startup, who are schedule to open their first record fulfillment centre in London in the fourth quarter of this year. The records are said to be competitive with conventional records in price.
Read more here :
Seems appropriate on the 40th anniversary ( to the day ) for the birth of the CD.
I’m of the opinion that it’s not the format that matters, but the quality of the master. I’m pretty sure that what a lot of people perceive as “higher sound quality” with vinyl releases comes primarily as a result of many vinyl releases featuring a more tasteful/dynamic master than their digital counterparts.
Personally, I’m sick of dynamic masters being locked to vinyl releases when I have no interest in vinyl as a format.
Vinyl is a lot less dynamic format than digital, which pretty much has no limits to the range of frequencies like vinyl does. I’m not sure what you mean by dynamic masters being locked to vinyl releases, since if an album has been pressed to vinyl, it’s usually the same master used excluding the technical specifications that are unique to vinyl as a format.
Vinyl, like analog photography does have a distinct quality to it that comes from it’s inherent technical specifics. With vinyl, it’s the restrictions that give it that quality.
“There is sharper definition in all frequency ranges without losing any of the vinyl character.”
And
“Largely indistinguishable from the original master in blind tests”
A bit of an oxymoron if when talking about “vinyl character” they are referring to audio character?
I wonder how scaleable it is, will it be able to keep up with demand, pressing plants are back booked for 12-18 months, thanks to popstars/majors jumping on the “vinyl is cool” bandwagon and all those horrible Crosley “retro” turntables in every large supermarket chain, that subsequently end up at car boot sales within 6 months of purchase.
Perhaps I was being a little disingenuous when I said it’s not the format that matters, that’s way too absolute - I guess what I should have said was, yes, the format matters, but not as much as the master.
I can’t say that my experience aligns entirely with what you’re saying with regards to vinyl masters, though. I think two good examples of what I’m talking about would be BoC’s Music Has The Right To Children, and Aphex Twin’s Syro. The vinyl releases of both sound considerably different to their CD/digital counterparts, and sound a fair bit more dynamic for it (despite the format being, as you said, inherently “less” dynamic). It’s not just the format that plays a part in those particular releases, but the vinyl masters sound considerably less hyped… and it kind of sucks that those versions are tied to a format I’m not particularly interested in.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’d be nice if folks who aren’t super into vinyl for whatever reason (i.e. me ) weren’t being penalised in a way for not buying into it as a format in a manner that isn’t dependent on the medium itself.
Can’t comment on any specific albums, but generally speaking there’s no reason why a vinyl master would be more dynamic as vinyl is capable of a lot less dynamics than digital. Personally the music I listen to sounds fairly similar on all formats, excluding naturally the inherent sonic qualities of different formats. Dynamics are mostly the same, if not more pronounced on CD releases, which is the ultimate physical format for extremely dynamic music like classical for example.
That’s what I mean, though - I totally agree that there’s no reason why a vinyl master should be more dynamic when compared to its CD counterpart, but in many instances (in my experience, at least) it is.
I suspect in modern times that’s a compromise with the label and artist, that they get to make a more dynamic, better sounding vinyl master where the digital needs to be optimized for streaming and phone speakers. Haven’t personally noticed that, but then again I listen to music that makes no money from streaming so they don’t have to optimize for shitty speakers.
I wondered the same thing. Depends what the bottlenecks are for the current methods of production.
elasticStage will be able to increase the production of records by having more record fulfillment centers. If the machine that does the manufacture is economically efficient, you could have many, around the world, decreasing shipping, getting around import issues, and being more flexible regarding warehousing of product.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
As for sound quality there is certainly a possibility of sound improvement by eliminating a layer of generational loss.
The old process of record making being :
A copy (digital master ) => copy ( master pressing disc ) => copy ( times 10,000 of final vinyl product )
And the new elasticStage process as described being :
A copy (digital master ) => copy ( final vinyl product )
Two steps vs three.
This is an improvement, especially if you buy a record #5128 made with the old process as the mold has worn. The mold only lasts so long.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Which points out another advantage for this sort of manufacture. The record producer only needs to pay for the making of one or ten, or twenty records up front, rather than having to buy 1000 or 2000, or 10,000 that are produced by the old bulk production method. This costs them less up front, meaning a smaller perhaps startup producer could afford to make records, and ramp up production with demand. Plus the producer, or even an artist themselves can take the risk, opening the door for other producers and artists, and productions. ( There being a downside to this too. )
You have some factual errors here. The lacquer master is only used to make a metal stamper, a negative mold of the record which is used for the actual pressing. The lacquer doesn’t get used 10k times so it doesn’t degrade in the process. If done correctly, every record from a pressing should sound more or less the same.
Secondly, you absolutely don’t have to pay for 1000 vinyl. You can press any amount from 100 upwards, and even less but then it costs like 20-30 euros per record. Still, you can do that. Pressing vinyl isn’t that expensive, really. 1000-2000 euros for 300-1000 records.
This was not including the covers and shipping, 4-colour prints etc. Naturally only the records is cheaper. You can get 1000 records for 1500 with plain covers I think.
) weren’t being penalised in a way for not buying into it as a format in a manner that isn’t dependent on the medium itself.