One-Step Vinyl - New 3 Vinyl Releases!

[LPMaskMan]

7 hours ago, martinez said:

So just to sums up, those vinyl will never have the 192 studio quality, case closed. But you can still buy them for collection purposes.

True. I doesn't matter how vinyl is praised by auidophiles, it has narrower dynamic and frequency ranger than digital media. Pressing digital to vinyl doesn't make it analog high fidelity medium.

Edited June 26 by LPMaskMan

[PartOfMe]

On 6/26/2024 at 12:41 PM, LPMaskMan said:

True. I doesn't matter how vinyl is praised by auidophiles, it has narrower dynamic and frequency ranger than digital media. Pressing digital to vinyl doesn't make it analog high fidelity medium.

Is the Hybrid Theory master digital or analog?

[LPMaskMan]

1 hour ago, PartOfMe said:

Is the Hybrid Theory master digital or analog?

I think it was mastered with analog effects chain (if you look at the vinyl description like it was mixed analog, so then I assume the mastering done analog too), just like how big studios do it. But however the original recording is digital anyway. Same thing for Meteora. Also i think MTM was mastered in analog way too.

[PartOfMe]

11 minutes ago, LPMaskMan said:

I think it was mastered with analog effects chain (if you look at the vinyl description like it was mixed analog, so then I assume the mastering done analog too), just like how big studios do it. But however the original recording is digital anyway. Same thing for Meteora. Also i think MTM was mastered in analog way too.

True, the ends do not justify the means 

[PartOfMe]

11 minutes ago, Rokaito said:

You know,I do plan on getting a vinyl player,but I never knew that I'd be seeing practically a "gajillion" vinyls of linkin park stuff,I'm actually starting to understand how upset you guys are about it,and yes I know gajillion ain't a word but it may as well be how many there are 

And most people won't buy any of them, anyway...

[xxHybridXeroxx]

2 hours ago, PartOfMe said:

And most people won't buy any of them, anyway...

I’d buy if they’d put unreleased stuff on it. 

[RentEznor]

Only way for records to sound good through vinyl is on older stuff, pre-1999/2000 I assume(?)

 

I have a bunch of them but mostly for aesthetic purposes. Hard pass for this as it seems that there's not much going on except the presentation, which looks pretty lame.

[lukislo]

13 hours ago, RentEznor said:

…Hard pass for this as it seems that there's not much going on except the presentation, which looks pretty lame.

Good, I have more time to order 😃

[bloodbath]

23 hours ago, RentEznor said:

Only way for records to sound good through vinyl is on older stuff, pre-1999/2000 I assume(?)

 

I have a bunch of them but mostly for aesthetic purposes. Hard pass for this as it seems that there's not much going on except the presentation, which looks pretty lame.

IMO anything pre 90 has more chances to sound better or more appropiate on vinyl since it was the standard format of music and most of the recording methods were pretty much analogic. After that CD become the new reigning force and, again, everything was recorded thinking of putting into a CD. 

 

For quality purposes, if HT would have been released 15 years before, vinyl would have been the format to go. Anything else is aesthetic. 

[martinez]

Added more covers (front+back) to main post, so make sure to re-visit it.

[gorast]

On 7/3/2024 at 2:53 PM, RentEznor said:

Only way for records to sound good through vinyl is on older stuff, pre-1999/2000 I assume(?)

 

I have a bunch of them but mostly for aesthetic purposes. Hard pass for this as it seems that there's not much going on except the presentation, which looks pretty lame.

 

I think any piece of music released after vinyl's dominance of physical media can sound good, and even great, on vinyl. I don't think digital recording techniques preclude that, either. And, frankly, what audiophiles consider "good" is a far, far cry from what the average vinyl consumer considers "good" anyway - as long as a record doesn't sound like it's being played through a tin can even on mid-level equipment and has no obvious anomalies in volume or dynamic range, that's plenty good enough for the majority of people who play their records. Anyone who tells you that records produced after the 1980s almost universally sound "bad" are either not engaging in good faith or simply have lost perspective because they've vanished into the audiophile ether - sound quality is, to a degree, subjective. There are upper and lower bounds to that subjectivity, certainly, but peoples' ears are all different, and it's a wide, wide range of acceptable quality, so wide that defining it in anything but the broadest of terms is pointless.

 

That's not to say that there aren't plenty of poorly-pressed records, particularly from major labels - the best way to make a record sound like it fits the medium is to remaster for vinyl, and most labels simply aren't going to put in that effort, but digital masters can still sound plenty good when pumped through what a regular consumer's got for their setup. Pressings like this are for the people who have the equipment to hear minute differences in pressings, picking up on the smallest imperfections both in the master and the quality of the pressing itself. Dumping these records onto an Audio Technica LP60 is a waste of time and money, so they're not for regular consumers and therefore are fair game to be nitpicked a lot more harshly by people who know what they're talking about.

 

I still question the idea that the target market for these is large enough to justify their existence, on the axes of price and demographic, but I suppose we'll hear more about that once they're actually in peoples' hands.

[PartOfMe]

9 hours ago, gorast said:

 

I think any piece of music released after vinyl's dominance of physical media can sound good, and even great, on vinyl. I don't think digital recording techniques preclude that, either. And, frankly, what audiophiles consider "good" is a far, far cry from what the average vinyl consumer considers "good" anyway - as long as a record doesn't sound like it's being played through a tin can even on mid-level equipment and has no obvious anomalies in volume or dynamic range, that's plenty good enough for the majority of people who play their records. Anyone who tells you that records produced after the 1980s almost universally sound "bad" are either not engaging in good faith or simply have lost perspective because they've vanished into the audiophile ether - sound quality is, to a degree, subjective. There are upper and lower bounds to that subjectivity, certainly, but peoples' ears are all different, and it's a wide, wide range of acceptable quality, so wide that defining it in anything but the broadest of terms is pointless.

 

That's not to say that there aren't plenty of poorly-pressed records, particularly from major labels - the best way to make a record sound like it fits the medium is to remaster for vinyl, and most labels simply aren't going to put in that effort, but digital masters can still sound plenty good when pumped through what a regular consumer's got for their setup. Pressings like this are for the people who have the equipment to hear minute differences in pressings, picking up on the smallest imperfections both in the master and the quality of the pressing itself. Dumping these records onto an Audio Technica LP60 is a waste of time and money, so they're not for regular consumers and therefore are fair game to be nitpicked a lot more harshly by people who know what they're talking about.

 

I still question the idea that the target market for these is large enough to justify their existence, on the axes of price and demographic, but I suppose we'll hear more about that once they're actually in peoples' hands.

Obtaining the material to make the most of these records is unfeasible for people like me who live in third world countries, these productions are for a very specific audience