Why is hip hop on vinyl considered bad?

>>72423481
Cuz them DJs scratched them upp

File: tumblr_lpm6ugJIfV1qgqj2zo1_500.gif (439KB, 452x404px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 452x404px

>>72423543
allthisscratchingismakingmeitch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIK3hisl6BQ

>>72423481
Because it's recorded, mixed, and mastered digitally (and super loudly) so you're literally just getting CD files pressed onto vinyl and paying like 3x the price; not worth it desu

Because hip hop is bad regardless of format.

>>72423565
Is that the same for all hip hop?
Like i understand bangers and shit, vinyl isn't really the most suitable format

What about hip hop like old Kanye and DOOM?
Still just like a more expensive cd or?

>>72423565
Are there other genres to stay away from?
New Pop/RnB like Frank Ocean?
Electronic like The Avalanches?

Faggy affectations don't belong in rap.

>>72423612

i own some DOOM records and aside from Madvillainy they all sound terrible

>>72423565
I remember the GKMC vinyl sounding actually nice, I think that one had a separate mixdown and mastering.

>>72423565
any rappers today still recording analog?

>>72423481
because hiphop sucks

Any album recorded digitally then pressed to record is a waste of money.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying records though. There's a lot of good 90's hip hop that you'll only find rips of online.

>>72423968
>>72424202
I picked up MM.. FOOD, GKMC, and MBDTF yesterday just because there some favorites and if they sound shitty oh well because i like them and think it's cool to have the bigger album art.
I'm new to vinyl and have heard bad things about hip hop on vinyl so i was planning on just grabbing favorites until i learned more about what's good vs bad on vinyl.

>>72424260
How do i know when it's recorded digitally then pressed? Isn't that just all modern music? Or is there something specific to be looking for?

>>72424260

>Any album recorded digitally then pressed to record is a waste of money.

Not always. A DD recording in vinyl can sound just as good, even better if they're in higher-fidelity.

>>72424374

>How do i know when it's recorded digitally then pressed?

You don't, most of the time at least. The thing is, most modern vinyl reissues from older albums may sound inferior to the originals, due to shitty tape transfers, lazy mastering, and even the aging of the tape itself.

>>72424374
>I picked up MM.. FOOD, GKMC, and MBDTF yesterday just because there some favorites and if they sound shitty oh well because i like them and think it's cool to have the bigger album art.

Some people like music for the sounds, some people like it for the artwork

>>72424374
Most people can't even tell the difference between vinyl and CD on a good stereo. Vinyl is probably going to sound even worse than CDs on your stereo due to having a crappy turntable.

>>72424374
>How do i know when it's recorded digitally then pressed?

99.999% of music now is recorded digitally. If something is recorded using analog tape, it's usually hyped as fuck as having been recorded on tape.

>>72424374
The problem isn't the music being recorded digitally. Digital is NOT your enemy, there was a good reason for digital replacing analog, the problem is that for some reason retarded engineers and producers decided to not make use of the INCREDIBLE dynamic range potential and signal to noise ratio of CD audio (because believe it or not, vinyl cannot be more dynamic than the mist dynamic CD) and just smash everything in the final mix and mastering.
Some albums get a different treatment for vinyl than CD because vinyl is very particular about groove size, if you peak too hard, it's damaging to the disc during playback, and if you don't have enough range, the grooves are too thin and it sounds shitty and distorted as all hell.

Basically check the dynamic range database and cross reference the numbers for CD and vinyl, but be warned that some people cheat numbers as a pop on vinyl will add several points to the DR score.

Thankfully, the trend of loud ass CD and digital releases has been in a downturn since the 2010s started, hopefully everyone stops that shit soon.

>>72424489
It's because of the incredible dynamic range that digital has that 24 bit audio files always sound superior.

>>72424510
Exactly, although personally diminished returns and the limits of my hearing (i can hear up to around 19kHz), there's not too much in the way of benefits for high resolution 24 bit audio, so CD's are my go-to Hi Fi source (unless the vinyl is mastered far far better, which isn't always the case).
It's a shame that they didn't create a true successor to the format, SACD used DSD which was semi pointless, and DVD audio relied too much on gimmick bonus material and surround sound (although I'm always intrigued by it, and gave thought about putting a DVD player into my audio setup to try it out.

>>72424433
>A DD recording in vinyl can sound just as good
subjective
subjective
>even better
still subjective
>if they're in higher-fidelity
oooh ok you're retarded

>>72424578
CDs are good enough and are widely available. The problem with SACD and DVD audio is that they're just not as popular so you usually need another piece of hardware or decoder to play them.

An album mixed in surround is pretty cool and hyper immersive. It's a pretty awesome experience but requires a very specific set up. And if the set up sucks, then you're not getting the most out of it.

>>72424510
>People actually believe this

>>72424634

Not arguments

>>72423481
Because hip hop is digital

>>72424638
That's what i thought.
I always keep an eye out for SACD players and appropriately equipped DVD players at Goodwill locations, but of course every single one i find is broken haha
>>72424634
>>72424661
>>72424748
You're the kind of dumb asses that make me hate the entire vinyl fandom.

>>72424696
yours are neither. you just stated your opinions as though they were facts.

>>72424792

So tell me the facts.

>>72424800
Tape has a poor signal to noise ratio, decays rapidly, and has a narrow frequency band.
Digital audio does not have those issues especially anymore.

>>72424848

So what info there contradicts my "opinions"?

>>72424848
not me

>>72424800
printing on vinyl changes the frequency distribution, introduces subtle nonlinearities, and introduces (subtle) noise. Qualitative changes mean that whether you like vinyl more than CD is subjective.

As to why you're retarded for the "higher fidelity" bit, the fact is that:
1) if something is recorded and stored in the digital domain, it meas that you can't get more high fidelity than that itself, because no process can create additional information without somehow "inventing" it
2) even if you somehow recorded your record *directly* onto vinyl, without ever passing through neither digital nor analog storage, the printing process can't be perfect and introduces measurable errors in the signal (however small they might be), making it less precise than the digital representation

>>72424791
m8, even at 16bit as long as it's dithered the noise floor is irrelevant until you push up to deafening volumes.

The whole 24bit obsession with consumer audio is nothing but MUH LARGER NUMBER bullshit.

>>72424862
The fact that on a measurable and objective fucking level tape is worse than digital, and then vinyl (which is also objectively and measurably worse at reproduction than digital) is worse than studio tape so you're getting two analog generations AT LEAST of degradation to exacerbate the sound issues on top of listening to a plastic disc that is constantly self destructing ad you play it.

>>72424892
I don't disagree with you, but the point stands that there is a measurable advantages to high resolution digital audio regardless of HOW MUCH of an advantage it is.

>>72424891
>>72424906

It's not like you notice them. We're not robots

File: 1493039224567.jpg (15KB, 336x365px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 336x365px

>>72424957
and how does vinyl being not noticeably different than digital... somehow make vinyl better than digital?

>>72424957
I barely do at all. You're not wrong. I'd be fine with vinyl enthusiasts saying that vinyl sounds "pretty much the same as CD" or tape sounding "pretty much the same as digital" but they don't. They try to act like a slightly interior volatile format is perfection and better than everything else. Cassette collectors don't even act this deluded.

>>72424980

>anime pic

Every argument you had so far has been invalidated, I'll no longer discuss with you.

>>72425011
>Every argument you had so far has been invalidated
It hasn't, as much as you'd like to pretend it did :^)
that's what you can come up with?

>>72423826
Dont buy anything recorded after around 1978 if you want vinyls for the purpose of better sound quality. If youre just a fucking hipster go ahead

>>72424220
Kendrick for sure. Blackstar recorded their record analog. Mick Jenkins' The Water[s] sounds super nice but I'm not completely convinced it's analog. Tribe Called Quest does, and I'm pretty positive Run The Jewels does too.

>>72424748
>>72424791
It wasn't a negative response. Engineers can't mix layered samples very well so the db's are all over the place. I'm talking about the original style of making the music before 808's became popular.

>>72423481
Because hip-hop rose to prominence mostly after vinyls were out, and even the ones made at the right time were likely on tape. This means they weren't originally mixed for vinyl, defeating the value of a vinyl (with the exception of a collector's item, obviously).

>>72425158
Sorry, I get your point, and it makes sense.

>>72424980
It sounds way warmer and nicer especially for rock and roll. Which is subjective. Stop being autistic

>>72423481
Because hip hop is supposed to come from datpiff.com and not some grandpa shit

>>72425241
finally, the correct answer