acetate discussions

debate, appreciation, interviews, reviews (events or releases), videos, radio shows
User avatar
Muncey
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:30 pm
Location: Northants/Manchester

Re: acetate discussions

Post by Muncey » Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:49 am

How well/badly would it work cutting .wavs ripped from CDs? Ruff Sqwads White Label Classics for example? Or for an older example one of the old Terror Danjah or Wiley instrumental CDs? I assume the older ones will produce a poorer quality?

Don't wanna spend money getting them cut and finding out its doo doo.. but it almost seems worth it for some grime instrumentals. Functions on a low for example.

charliefoy
Posts: 1899
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: the fez

Re: acetate discussions

Post by charliefoy » Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:09 am

Muncey wrote:How well/badly would it work cutting .wavs ripped from CDs? Ruff Sqwads White Label Classics for example? Or for an older example one of the old Terror Danjah or Wiley instrumental CDs? I assume the older ones will produce a poorer quality?

Don't wanna spend money getting them cut and finding out its doo doo.. but it almost seems worth it for some grime instrumentals. Functions on a low for example.
wavs should be cool

User avatar
Muncey
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:30 pm
Location: Northants/Manchester

Re: acetate discussions

Post by Muncey » Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:13 am

Do they not lose any/much quality being ripped from a CD? I always assumed they would, don't know why lol.

User avatar
antipode
Posts: 4922
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:26 am

Re: acetate discussions

Post by antipode » Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:37 am

Muncey wrote:Do they not lose any/much quality being ripped from a CD? I always assumed they would, don't know why lol.
nah CD quality is CD quality. if you rip it as a wav it should sound great.
only thing is that it would have been mastered for CD so itl be quite loud and not IDEAL for cutting but it should sound fine imo
jrkhnds wrote:
and I've never really rated dubstep..
- dubstepforum, 2014.

User avatar
Muncey
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:30 pm
Location: Northants/Manchester

Re: acetate discussions

Post by Muncey » Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:44 am

epochalypso wrote:
Muncey wrote:Do they not lose any/much quality being ripped from a CD? I always assumed they would, don't know why lol.
nah CD quality is CD quality. if you rip it as a wav it should sound great.
only thing is that it would have been mastered for CD so itl be quite loud and not IDEAL for cutting but it should sound fine imo
Ah fair enough, cheers :Q:

User avatar
Amantus
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Hampshire, UK
Contact:

Re: acetate discussions

Post by Amantus » Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:51 pm

it only loses quality if you rip and then convert it to a lossy format (ie mp3). lossless formats (FLAC etc) don't lose anything.

User avatar
Raad
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 8:17 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: acetate discussions

Post by Raad » Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:31 pm

epochalypso wrote:
Muncey wrote:Do they not lose any/much quality being ripped from a CD? I always assumed they would, don't know why lol.
nah CD quality is CD quality. if you rip it as a wav it should sound great.
only thing is that it would have been mastered for CD so itl be quite loud and not IDEAL for cutting but it should sound fine imo
Yeah, I've cut tunes mastered for digital and they still sound pretty great.

didi
Posts: 3788
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:52 pm
Location: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_dvT8dttyQ
Contact:

Re: acetate discussions

Post by didi » Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:32 pm

Muncey wrote:How well/badly would it work cutting .wavs ripped from CDs? Ruff Sqwads White Label Classics for example? Or for an older example one of the old Terror Danjah or Wiley instrumental CDs? I assume the older ones will produce a poorer quality?

Don't wanna spend money getting them cut and finding out its doo doo.. but it almost seems worth it for some grime instrumentals. Functions on a low for example.
It's been fine for me.
[+]
bennyfroobs wrote:cool it vip is one of the best funky tracks of all time, hands down
[+]
Agent 47 wrote:photek? who is photek

photek is my mate whos a house dj from london lol
[+]
wolf89 wrote:Me and my mates play a game where we remember the worst or most obscure nu metal bands we can and listen to them when drunk

User avatar
antipode
Posts: 4922
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:26 am

Re: acetate discussions

Post by antipode » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:24 am

(and mala does it)
jrkhnds wrote:
and I've never really rated dubstep..
- dubstepforum, 2014.

User avatar
rev
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 11:15 am
Location: cph, dk
Contact:

Re: acetate discussions

Post by rev » Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:09 am

epochalypso wrote:(and mala does it)
could be added to almost any argument in this part of the forum, to end discussions... :4:

User avatar
Muncey
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:30 pm
Location: Northants/Manchester

Re: acetate discussions

Post by Muncey » Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:11 am

epochalypso wrote:(and mala does it)
He cuts grime tunes ripped from CDs? -t-

Haha but cheers guys, I was just worried because old grime isn't great quality at the best of times.

Pulp
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Leicester

Re: acetate discussions

Post by Pulp » Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:00 am

I am gonna get a couple of my tunes cut soon - going to have to send it off and receive in the post, would love to get down to a studio at some point, but for now, what internet service should I go with?

User avatar
Raad
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 8:17 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: acetate discussions

Post by Raad » Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:15 am


charliefoy
Posts: 1899
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: the fez

Re: acetate discussions

Post by charliefoy » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:18 pm

http://www.transition-studios.com
very fast and very good

__________
Posts: 6338
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:51 pm

Re: acetate discussions

Post by __________ » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:22 pm

I've emailed Transition about three times in the past wanting to try their dubs, they never responded :lol:
I use Music House in London and Dub Studio in Bristol, both good.

charliefoy
Posts: 1899
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: the fez

Re: acetate discussions

Post by charliefoy » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:39 pm

£10 Bag wrote:I've emailed Transition about three times in the past wanting to try their dubs, they never responded :lol:
I use Music House in London and Dub Studio in Bristol, both good.
Strange! I even had a jump in a dub and they re-cut it for free. Do you have a link for music house?

User avatar
baddis98
Posts: 2541
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: acetate discussions

Post by baddis98 » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:42 pm

epochalypso wrote:
Muncey wrote:Do they not lose any/much quality being ripped from a CD? I always assumed they would, don't know why lol.
nah CD quality is CD quality.
that's not completely true. ripping is not simple file copying. even with lossless formats like .wav or .flac the quality depends on the ripping process / the software you use. surely there should only be minor differences, but a rip from an audio cd is no 1:1 copy.

User avatar
rev
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 11:15 am
Location: cph, dk
Contact:

Re: acetate discussions

Post by rev » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:34 pm

"CD audio" encoding is uncompressed (wav/aiff) 16-bit, 44.1 KHz, 20-20000 hz = around 1411 kbps of data stream for a stereo audio signal

which is why if you 'rip' a cd with these settings, you should get as close to 1:1 copy as possible. Every other format ripped from a cd would be an encoding, and require more processing.

Fun fact: In the 90es studios and DATs often used 48 KHz instead (or 96 KHz, and/or 24 bit if you had a reason/money/tape to do it) - the 44.1 has to do with politics about wanting to have CD stay at 5 cm. A executive decision of 48 KHz would have made a lot more sense, and now we are stuck with 44.1 in a lot of audio encoding software. The story is interesting and available online somewhere, don't have time to google it now...

charliefoy
Posts: 1899
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: the fez

Re: acetate discussions

Post by charliefoy » Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:28 pm

rev wrote:"CD audio" encoding is uncompressed (wav/aiff) 16-bit, 44.1 KHz, 20-20000 hz = around 1411 kbps of data stream for a stereo audio signal

which is why if you 'rip' a cd with these settings, you should get as close to 1:1 copy as possible. Every other format ripped from a cd would be an encoding, and require more processing.

Fun fact: In the 90es studios and DATs often used 48 KHz instead (or 96 KHz, and/or 24 bit if you had a reason/money/tape to do it) - the 44.1 has to do with politics about wanting to have CD stay at 5 cm. A executive decision of 48 KHz would have made a lot more sense, and now we are stuck with 44.1 in a lot of audio encoding software. The story is interesting and available online somewhere, don't have time to google it now...
off topic...that jah war vip is naughty. very jealous

__________
Posts: 6338
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:51 pm

Re: acetate discussions

Post by __________ » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:20 pm

charliefoy wrote:Do you have a link for music house?
Pretty sure they don't have a website man. I get a mate to ring them up then we go there with the tracks on CD. Acetate cuts on a Neumann - it's fun watching the process first hand!

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests