154 wrote:Redline wrote:eliya wrote: vinyl is a lofi formatPlease, let's not turn the PRF forum into a house of lies.In the hands of most indie bands, he's not wrong.Not just in the hands of indie bands. If you look at the criteria of what is hifi. Objective criteria that you can measure, then vinyl is LoFi. High noise floor, dynamic range that diminishes as the record progresses, distortion, wow. Then there are tweaks you need to make to the music in order for it to be pressed on a vinyl.Just because we like the way it sounds doesn't mean it's a HiFi format. At least no in today's standards.

motorbike guy wrote:eliya wrote: If you look at the criteria of what is hifi. Objective criteria that you can measure, then vinyl is LoFi. High noise floor, dynamic range that diminishes as the record progresses, distortion, wow. This just is not true. Just because people fuck it up, doesn't mean that records don't sound good, it just means that a lot of people don't care enough to get it right. It has disadvantages, of course, all formats do. Noting is perfect. But a well made record sounds more like music than any other commercially available format. (not counting 1/4 inch 2 track analog tape, which was briefly a commercial format but has not been for 40 years).What are you talking about? At the very least vinyl has surface noise. And I don't know when was the last time I saw a record that didn't wow, if at all. Can people work around these limitations to diminish them? Sure, but there's also a limit to how much you can improve them.Does vinyl sound good? Yeah, but it's not a high fidelity format. It's not output=input. Lossless digital is closer to output=input.

Me Again wrote:The record I released earlier this year sounds great on the ol' hi-fi, by the way. Better than the 24-bit digital version. Hearing is believing.What you hear from a vinyl is a distorted rendering of the source. You might like it, and that's the crux of the whole digital vs. analog debate - that analog sounds better or feels more organic, but at the end of the day it's not a clear image of the source.And also yeah, there are a lot of bad pressings out there.

It isn't "lighting one's money on fire" and inherently "narcissistic" to release a high quality version of one's music. That's like telling a photographer who just took a cool photograph and has the chance to make a lithograph of it that he should just save his money and copy it with his scanner and post it on Facebook, since that's how most people will see it anyway and no more than two people would buy a print. Honestly, do you guys go around telling little leaguers that they should hang their bats and gloves up since they'll never be as talented and well paid as Darryl Strawberry?I find most rock music these days to be derivative and not terribly interesting, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna tell "small fry" bands to stop trying because only thirty people would buy their records. Whatever keeps people going, keeps them going. If I'm not into it, it doesn't matter, someone else probably would be. Yeah, pressing 10,000 copies of a recording made by a band with a social circle of only 300 people would be dumb and unrealistic, but if someone believes in his own music, and he has the means, why shouldn't he put it out on the format of his choice if that format happens to be wax?You guys are forgetting all of the frivolous -- or at the very least "unnecessary" --- shit people blow money on. Pressing up 300 or 500 or 1000 records isn't cheap, but it's not undignified. If that's what someone wants to do, then more power to 'em.The record I released earlier this year sounds great on the ol' hi-fi, by the way. Better than the 24-bit digital version. Hearing is believing.

It is important not to harbor delusions of grandeur, yes. One shouldn't think the entire world (including people who don't care about independent music) oughta be lining up at his door to get a copy of his new record. For me that's been an annoying byproduct of liking indie/punk/underground/"outsider"/experimental art--seeing that so many people don't understand how all of these things that are "larger than life" to them actually occupy a pretty small place in the world. Same thing goes for most of the movies I like--most people don't know and don't care.And yeah, the turnaround time for vinyl is a drawback. It can stretch one's patience and I don't envy bands who need to get x number of copies of their record pressed and assembled before a quickly approaching tour.

eliya wrote: If you look at the criteria of what is hifi. Objective criteria that you can measure, then vinyl is LoFi. High noise floor, dynamic range that diminishes as the record progresses, distortion, wow. This just is not true. Just because people fuck it up, doesn't mean that records don't sound good, it just means that a lot of people don't care enough to get it right. It has disadvantages, of course, all formats do. Noting is perfect. But a well made record sounds more like music than any other commercially available format. (not counting 1/4 inch 2 track analog tape, which was briefly a commercial format but has not been for 40 years).

There's lots more I want to comment on later, but I have never seen a painter sell their work for less than the cost of materials. Even dodgy amateurs rate themselves higher than that.I'm not against the idea of people doing loss-making pressings. But I like to look at these things in an unromantic way.One thing hopefully everybody can agree on is that boxes of unsold records sitting in basements are pointless, so whatever you do, you should try not to end up with that. How does everybody feel about paying people to take your record?

There is no way of knowing music that's only been made available as a download will be accessible ten or fifteen years from now.I've been trying to rescue stuff I made available online in the early 00's (mp3.com and IUMA) and I've been largely unsuccessful. No one will ever find that stuff, it's pretty much gone for good.I guess that's a fitting destiny for shit you don't care about.

I was thinking about this the other day. I think it's a mistake at this point to automatically think about a record as commerce first. If you were to go to a painter's art opening, you might not think, "Okay, how much was all of this oil paint. Yeah, plus frames and canvases.... okay brush costs? That's a big total, how many did you sell? So it was a financial loss? Did you have fun?"Clearly with some poking, this analogy breaks down (mass duplication, versus a single work etc), but I find recording music is more rewarding when I just think about how I want people who choose to participate to interact with it, and then negotiate between that and budget constraints. If you drop the idea of profitability then the criteria for success becomes more interesting. What then are you looking for? Most of my answers are more satisfying to me than cost per unit.There are some obvious problems with this when you think about it in terms of non-compostable materials, bourgeois vanity projects and costly hobbies- I understand some people are actual working musicians, but I don't think any of them have beef with my little community's perspective on this either. Records without much of a record business can be pretty cool even if they are fiscally indulgent.

losthighway wrote:The newest one we cut down to 200, and didn't think too hard about the incredibly low profit margin we get per unit with the unavoidable expenses of mastering, plating, setup costs etc.I like this model and push for it myself, but always get talked into the 'but for only so much more..' thing. Lardo's first album sold in the 200s, but 500 of the damn discs were pressed (the art is hand screened and made in smaller batches.) I'd rather lose a little money, end up with less waste, and make up for it with BC, merch, and Spotify (hah) money. (It is also a case, ie. "only 100-200 made", where one might consider charging 5 bucks more for something 'exclusive'.)