At first, it seemed like it might be just a blip: amidst generally declining sales of physical music, down sharply from their 1990s boom, vinyl sales were trending up. The reversal started with a slight uptick in 2007 – already noticeable as the CD had begun its collapse. That slight uptick has turned into a small boom. From a tiny 300,000 units in US sales in 1993, the vinyl record is projected to do some 3.6 million units in sales. Source:

Vinyl Projected to Grow More Than 25 Percent In 2011…

Let’s put some of this in perspective. Even with explosive growth, vinyl remains at the margins, representing 1.6% of physical sales in the US. In fact, part of the fetish around vinyl is evidenced by the fact that people would make this headline news – fans of the vinyl record are understandably eager to hear their format of choice is doing well. As a point of comparison, in the last 30 days, just one independent band website, Bandcamp, has done US$640,513 in profit for its members. That’s profit, not revenue, and it’s often going directly to artists.

You can also, via Digital Music News, compare to vinyl’s years as the dominant format, which makes this all look very niche:
The Vinyl Comeback, In Historical Perspective…. (Thanks, JP in comments.) That graph doesn’t show per-unit cost, and anecdotally, artists seem closer to the record release process than they once were.

That said, vinyl’s significance in the new world order is arguably more about its cultural meaning than its numbers. (Getting away from numbers – cough, digital – is the point.) Cutting a vinyl record today is about making a physical artefact of a release. It carries with it prestige. Its scarcity is part of its value, with exclusive 12″ releases again returning to the days when DJs were judged by the obscure gems in their collection, not the disposable digital hits.

And I can see any number of benefits to vinyl’s reemergence:

• Bringing tactile back. Records as objects are a pleasure; I’m the last person to argue there. There’s a ritual to putting on a record that changes how you feel about the music, versus the seemingly-infinite, ephemeral digital jukebox.
• Keeping vinyl DJing alive. At this point, it seems more about preserving the record and mixing rather than scratching, but vinyl remains essential for people DJing with turntables. Notably, unlike faking it with digital control vinyl, using actual records is also more reliable – a slight flaw or vibration won’t bring the whole mix to a standstill. (Analog most definitely fails more gracefully than digital.) That makes the presence of vinyl releases doubly important to getting to hear traditional DJ technique.
• Keeping the cutters, and players, in business. The demand for vinyl records, whatever may motivate it, means everything from turntable repair to disk lathe shops remain healthy.
• The sound is unique. I’m leaving perhaps the most significant point for last. The sound of vinyl does remain unique, precisely because of some of its limitations, and I don’t think any amount of fetishization would please some of its consumers if it didn’t sound good.

When I spoke to Anika earlier this year, she brought up the economic point, too – that vinyl keeps things physical, and supports artists. Now, financially, it may be a tenuous point – look at those Bandcamp numbers – but “support” for artists is more than financials alone. And viewed in a larger effort to express the value of music in tangible form, vinyl makes sense.

Vinyl, incidentally, doesn’t have a monopoly on tangible music. Even digital has made various plays on the concept – one of the most unique being Ghostly International’s effort last year to produce “totems” for Matthew Dear, physical objects that represented the spirit of the intangible music.

Sound, above all, is cited as the primary rationalization for vinyl’s resurgence, but that’s where I feel a bit more conflicted:

• Mastering digital for vinyl isn’t the same as a “direct-to-analog” process. Here’s where things get weird. Remember in the early days of CDs, seeing the letters “DDD” and hearing about fully digital signal flow? Now, we have an oddly inverted situation. People are making music almost entirely inside computers, with software like Ableton Live, doing a digital master, and then printing the whole thing to … vinyl. There’s nothing to say that can’t work, but it seems to me a potential mismatch of source material and recording medium. (More on that in a moment.)
• Psuedo-science, go! Let’s face it: there’s plenty of voodoo around “digital,” and plenty of voodoo around “analog.” In the digital domain, the faux science tends to manifest itself as unsupported claims about the value of absurdly-high bit rates and sample rates, or, if you’re really unlucky, gold-plated digital interconnects. In analog, you’ll routinely hear people claim that analog captures “more” sound, because digital leaves “gaps” between samples, missing that both are constrained first and foremost by the transducers. Analog or digital, these are based on misunderstandings about fundamental characteristics of how sound is reproduced and heard from recording media. I think it’d be unfortunate if the genuine value of vinyl and the unique characteristics of its sound were obscured by claims about recording that simply aren’t true.

Vinyl itself is surely not to blame here; it should just raise some questions. Presumably, not all digitally-produced music really fits vinyl as a medium. And the right way to make that fit work is to really listen and apply some scientific understanding of the process.

Vinyl is that it is a unique medium, one with imperfect recording characteristics. That means whatever the source, you do need to mix differently, which makes a recent piece in Electronic Musician very admirable, indeed. (Disclosure: I have never mixed and mastered for vinyl, so I can only look upon this as an enthusiastic listener and interested observer. I welcome feedback from those out there who are more qualified to investigate the questions I’m asking.)

Learn Mixing | Tips for Mixing for Vinyl [Electronic Musician]

Gino Robair, one of my favorite EM writers over the years, goes through some detail about preparing mixes for vinyl as the delivery medium. Part of what you’ll find is a reminder of why engineers were excited about digital in the first place: there’s a greater ability in digital recordings to capture certain details of the high and low end that would distort in an analog recording. So long as you go into the reality of these limitations with your eyes (or make that ears) open, it can be a good experience as a producer, and for your listeners.

This raises still more scientific and perceptual questions, though. I’m not entirely convinced – I haven’t seen evidence in either direction – that it’s in any way necessary to use a 24-bit, 96kHz master for a vinyl release. (Gino points to the example of Arcade Fire using that as the master.) It certainly can’t hurt, especially in the era of cheap storage. But as in direct-digital delivery, the question is whether you really gain from the higher-resolution file. The only way to know for sure would be to do lab-style experimentation and find out, and as readers have lamented on this site before, there’s not a whole lot of that going on.

Vinyl’s good; vinyl’s unique. (So, too, are cassette tapes and other media with which music producers have been re-discovering of late.) It just means that any claims about vinyl’s resurgence should be scaled against the growth of other distribution outlets, and that we should ask honest questions about sound, not just accept either digital or analog claims of “quality” without evaluation.

So, I purposely raise the points above more as a question than a statement. I’m curious to hear from people who are producing and consuming vinyl records, in terms of what they’ve found satisfying and what they’ve found disappointing. (I mean that, in particular, in regards to certain releases – I’m sure some are better than others.)

And I also wonder whether it’s possible to begin to appreciate digital recording with foresight as much as it is vinyl with hindsight. How can we make the most of the format we have today? How can we understand it, in virtual form, as physical object?

At the end of the day, “analog” is not real. (Hence the name.) A recording is an artificial and imperfect snapshot of an event that occurred in the past, frozen in time in an impossible way. It’s what is beautiful about recording, and what terrified, or at least confused, some of those who first heard it. It is a technology conceived as a precursor to email, as a kind of business memo. It has become to many what music is, rather than the reflection of musical performance. It has had a devastating impact on many forms of live performance, emptying bandstands and causing live players their livelihood before anyone became concerned about whether the record industry that was left would lose its financial well-being.

The “record,” whether it’s a cassette tape or a FLAC download, is strange and unnatural, with the ability to bring to life dead musicians and performances that never existed in one place.

And yes, we do really love it.

While Mac blog TUAW calls on Apple to kill optical drives (does Apple need that kind of encouragement?), the shiny digital compact disc and the album in general still have their devotees. Sure, album sales are down. Sure, digital downloads are in. But look beyond business or practicality for a moment at these exotic hand-constructed musical objects, and what you see is sheer love. A hand-constructed CD or vinyl album is a gesture of making music for someone, not for the ether.

I raised the issue early last month, and readers responded with lots of examples of handmade records, which I round up here. (And yes, practical, it’s not – a number of you complained that hand-construction is a lot of work. It’s clearly best kept to small runs, but then, I think that’s part of the point.)

Also, last month at NYC’s wonderful Culturefix, a handful of us got together and constructed some handmade discs. It’s definitely something you could do at an album swap meet with other artists and DJs in an afternoon or evening, and it makes the swap feel more meaningful. Pics at top; I hope we do more of these.

If this is the way the CD goes out, I think it’ll go out with style. And whatever the trends in the larger world, who’s to deny you your tangible album, really?

(About the end of the CD – I can tell you that demos, album reviews, music bought at shows, and the like are still very much tangible. Until flash memory is cheaper than CDs, I expect that’ll remain the case.)

First off, a vinyl album – but the process of hand-making these vinyl jackets is already lovely. moni writes:

We hand sprayed album covers for Ruoho Ruotsi’s Hmmm … album (De’fchild Productions release 003) Different colors were used to make each one a little bit different. Hard work, but rewarding. These came out nicely!

The electro-pop band Miaoux Miaoux did a custom run of 100 hand-knitted CDs to benefit Cancer Research and Maggie’s, available for a donation. They also included full-color artwork:

http://miaouxmiaoux.com/album/knitted

My favorite of the round-up is the work of Atlanta-based artist magicicada, who makes handmade boxes full of “surprises” – exquisite photography and unspecified collections of nine songs, packaged in a box made of mud. He also performs music live. (Thanks for the tip, tender vittles!) More images on his site:

http://magicicada.com/

Mugison makes his own CDs, as viewed in this lovely timelapse. (Thanks, Derrida! I assume not that Derrida, but…)

Hey, they’re flat, they’re round, they’re absurdly cheap, they store a good hour of lossless audio, and you can actually hand them to someone. There’s something to be said for that. Now I hope someone takes on the idea of using generative algorithms to make one-of-a-kind album covers en masse.

Previously: Reclaim the Album’s Soul: Tips for Handmade CD Artwork, Make One Sunday

The Bridge, the software resulting from collaboration between Ableton and Serato we first saw in January, is available today. The integration is free, provided you have the right software: you need both a copy of a full version of Ableton Live or Live Suite 8.2 or above and Serato Scratch Live 2.1.1. (Live LE, for instance, is not compatible.) You need the Serato Scratch Live hardware in order to run Scratch Live, for those of you unfamiliar with the Serato side.

Check out our past coverage for more details of what The Bridge is about:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/tag/the-bridge/

At top, Ableton has released a video that shows off what may be The Bridge’s most popular feature: for people who have Live and Serato, the software makes it ridiculously easy to use Live to fine-tune mixes you’ve made live in Serato. (Yeah, Percussion Lab should be all over this feature, as big Live and Serato fans who regularly make mixes with Serato that they stream live on the Internet and later release… you get the idea. Ditto anyone else in the same boat.)

Thanks, GearJunkies, for spotting the vid.

The basic features:

• Transport control syncs up Live and Scratch Live, so that a turntable or CDJ can pitch, nudge, and loop Live. (“It’s like having Ableton Live on one of your decks,” explains Ableton PR.) Beatgrid syncs beats, too.
• View your Ableton Session View from inside a window in Scratch Live, with control over clips, scenes, instruments, devices, and mixing.
• Record Serato performances as Live Sets, then tweak them, as in in the video above.

Ableton has high hopes; Gerhard Behles says in the press release, “The Bridge encourages DJs to become producers and producers to become DJs.” That may be, but my guess is that Live has already done that to some extent. What’s been missing is that the people who, um, “bridge” those two roles have wound up with somewhat split personalities, working in Serato and Live but without any workflow between them. Initially, I’d imagine it’s that crowd – the people who already own the two products – who will give this a try. If it works well for them, that means a still-larger army of Ableton advocates who tell their Serato-using friends to try the other tool, and visa versa, but that may be down the road. (Conclude arbitrary speculation; check back with me in about a year and see if I was right.) I’m not sure Live users will be rushing out to buy Scratch Live hardware, but eventually this could make Serato users more comfortable getting their feet wet on the production side.

Official site:
http://www.ableton.com/thebridge

Barcelona-based, Los Angeles-edited PublicSpacesLab is an example of what a netlabel can be. Instead of just another dumping ground for sounds, it feels like a well-curated cafe, pairing regular but thoughtful releases with reflections on music making. Everything is Creative Commons-licensed, free music, from a variety of artists spanning geographies and genres.

If you’re in the mood for reading, recent thought pieces from the editor cover a range of topics:
Expansion, the lesser known dynamics tool (Amen, brother)
The demise of an indie radio station in LA (with some harsh words for the town – sorry, Los Angeles)

For listening, there’s a bit of something for everyone there in their near-20 releases, including ambient soundscapes and a crackling compilation that sounds like your radio waves have achieved sentience and begun singing maths. Ambient and noise are typically the order of the day. But the latest and apparently most popular of their releases is decidedly at the warmer end of the spectrum.

Paul Croker’s medium is sampled vinyl, but to me it’s just as interesting that some of the perceived organic, warm and fuzzy quality comes from the low-fidelity digital samples, too. Paul’s apparent workflow: sample vinyl to MPC, use the MPC for the “vibe,” arrange on DAW (apparently Ableton). The specifics are less important to me, however: it’s the combined crunch of the turntable with the digital sample that works here, true to the traditions of hip hop.

The Creative Commons license covering Paul’s two releases for PublicSpacesLab is sadly problematic. Because of the current interpretation of US Copyright Law, the fact that the samples themselves aren’t cleared means you probably aren’t free to do what you like with this. You are free to listen, however – and, as I said, if this isn’t your cup of tea PSL has plenty else to explore.

PublicSpacesLab official site

PublicSpacesLab @ Soundcloud (with links to other free music groups)

[PS019] Dustmotes | The Containment Sessions by PublicSpacesLab

And because the release was disseminated via Twitter, Twitter becomes a forum for feedback. (Oddly, Twitter commenters are often more positive and enthusiastic than the troll-leaning web commenters, I find – perhaps because they reserve their time for the stuff they like.) Thus, Kieron James replies via Twitter:

“Primitive, raw and beautifully crafted. A collage – components collected and mounted with complete respect for their musical heritage on a cave wall (solid, dependable rhythms chipped, cracked and twisted into something new). More pretentious feedback you won’t have read for some time, but I want to convey something of what your music speaks (to me)!”

Bonus listening – here’s Paul’s earlier release for PSL:

PS012 – dustmotes – Beats for the Subverted by PublicSpacesLab

So, folks, what are your favorite netlabel resources? Who do you most closely follow on a service like SoundCloud?

More software is speaking timecode, opening up control of digital sound to real, physical vinyl on turntables. The latest addition: Time TunnelXL is a pair of externals that decodes Native Instruments’ Traktor Scratch vinyl and scratches not only sound, but visuals or anything you can make in the open development environment Max.

Right now, it supports Max/MSP (and thus Max for Live) on the Mac, but support for Linux and Windows and the open-source Pure Data as well as Max are planned.

I’m actually hopeful a lot of these efforts can support Pd, too. Pd does some things more effectively than Max, just as Max does some things more effectively than Pd, and by supporting Linux, you can have a flexible computer rig running on an OS you can optimize and tune. It brings virtual vinyl full circle, too: the first commercial product ran on BeOS and Linux before Windows or Mac.

Of course, Max support and Max for Live can help DJs and turntablists invent their own live performance rigs in the Ableton environment, too.

Project site:
Time Tunnel XL @ komika.org

Ms. Pinky Revised from Mastah Lee on Vimeo.

What should DJing in Ableton Live look like? How could conventional vinyl cueing and scratching be integrated with the Live environment? Serato and Ableton gave us one possible answer to that question last week with The Bridge. Their solution: use your Serato DJ set normally, and simply sync the transport of Ableton Live when the two run simultaneously.

That solution could be ideal for some users, but it falls short of what many expected, which was the ability to scratch audio elements from Live as though they were on vinyl. Scratching Live clips would seem to be the best of both worlds: you get all the live sequencing features of Live, but you can still manipulate sound as you would on a turntable.

Enter Ms. Pinky. The vinyl control system has long been a highly-precise, solid-performing alternative to better-known names. Its ace in the hole has long been open control from your own custom patches, via an external object for the graphical programming language Max/MSP. The results have ranged from custom visual performance to a vibrating chaise lounge controlled by a turntable. With Max patches now able to interact more deeply with Live through Max for Live, that opens up the chance to build your own DJ-Ableton integration.

Ms. Pinky and Max for Live user Lee Goodrich has just done that. We saw an early version of the patch last month, but a new version irons vastly expands on the integration with Live, making this a truly complete solution for digital DJing.
Post on the patch with download
Information on the update

Some of the tasty features you get:

• Set Ms. Pinky to any track and use clips in that track
• Trigger a clip as you would normally, and it cues right into Ms. Pinky for scratching (see Lee in comments for more, but do note that the catch is that Ms Pinky actually loads the original file, because clips in Live don’t yet provide access to their playhead)
• Trigger different sequences of audio clips using a pattern contained in a MIDI clip (essentially automated cueing)
• Record clips using Live’s recording facility
• Scratch away with control vinyl

In relative mode, you can proceed directly to the beginning of the next clip without back-cueing.

The net result of all of this: Ms. Pinky acts like a scratch-anything device you can drop right into your existing Live set. With clever use of sampling and re-sampling, that opens up integration with any synths or external audio sources, not just audio clips.

Ironically, this is much closer to what I had predicted the Serato – Ableton collaboration would resemble.

Lee shares some comments about his experience:

I understand the concern people have about the one big caveat of Max For Live programming (You gotta pay to play, and no free runtime limits potential casual users), but honestly I think Max for Live is a slick enough product to overcome this. Making Max For Live patches has been the most fun programming I’ve ever had, and it is amazing how much you can do and how easy it is to do it. If other programmers are having as much fun as I am, then the bevy of awesome patches that come out of this product will end up being worth paying $300 at the door.

Perhaps the only other thing I’d like to say is that I’m not actually affiliated with Ms. Pinky at all, just another customer who wanted some functionality and due to the versatility of the software was able to extend it. So big thanks to Down Low Pinkstah and whoever else has worked on Ms. Pinky to make it so easily extensible.

Thanks, Lee! It’ll be interesting to see where else this may lead.

If you start using this in your sets, let us know – and get some photos / videos / mixes / whatever.

Oh, yeah, and I want to see a vibrating chaise lounge interface inside Ableton, too.

http://www.mspinky.com/

Live maker Ableton and DJ and virtual vinyl developer Serato today announced the results of their partnership. First off, this isn’t what many of us originally speculated: it’s not a DJ deck inside Live. Instead, the collaboration seeks to bridge (ahem) the gap between the way DJs perform and the way Live users perform. The result focuses on the way a performance set is assembled in the two paradigms, an attempt to guide the flow of music between the two programs. Here’s how it works.

Bring Serato “mixtapes” into Ableton Live: Save a DJ mix – called a “mix tape” – in a Serato product, and export it to Live, and what you get is all of your edits in a form that can be further manipulated in Live. Waveforms and automation data from your DJ session, however they’re manipulated and transcribed by the Serato software, appear in Live.

Put the Ableton Live Session View “inside” Serato: Here’s where things get in interesting. Rather than put Serato inside Live, we’re getting Live inside Serato – after a fashion. Ableton Live runs in the background. Integrated into the Serato interface (as seen at the screenshot at top) are all your Session View clips from your Live Set. Serato’s control – via audio input from vinyl or CDJs, or an ITCH control surface – manipulates the entire transport of the Live set.

Unknown: Turntablists are probably wondering, can they scratch Live? How much are those Live clips able to do? Do they behave as they do in Live? (As far as I know, yes – Live is, after all, running in the background and appears to have its normal capabilities.) I’ll work on these questions with Ableton and have an update by tomorrow.

ITCH: Yes, you can use controllers that support Serato’s ITCH, not just vinyl or CDJs, in order to control the transport of your imported Live set.

Pricing: Free. Own Serato Live/ITCH and Ableton Live (full version or Suite)? The Bridge costs you nothing. (Yes, this seems to be a departure from the arrangement from Max for Live.)

Availability: “No release date has been set yet.”

Naturally, all of this begs the question: do you really want to do this? And I expect that question is about to get turned over and inside out all over comments here on CDM and around the Web. It’ll naturally depend a lot on who you are.

Taking Serato sets into Live is clearly great for Serato users. It means you can get a head start on assembling an arrangement just by DJing, or alternatively, that you have the ability to use Live as a way of editing your Serato set. (Now, again, this appears to be a proprietary format – but that raises an interesting point. Ableton now uses an open XML format, meaning you could also presumably deconstruct this new Serato export and enable it to be used somewhere else, whether intended or not. But I digress.)

It’s the more ambitious reverse direction that’s both the most interesting and the most potentially controversial. After all, if you’re using Session View inside of Serato, why not just use Session View? Will it be more useful to put Live inside the virtual vinyl environment than the virtual vinyl inside Live? (If it turns out you favor the latter, you have other options – not least the recent evolution of Max for Live patches for Ms. Pinky. More on that in coming days.)

Side note: check out the VIDEO-SL integration. That makes this all even more interesting as an a/v, virtual vinyl environment; see our ongoing coverage of VIDEO-SL and other vinyl visualism for Create Digital Motion.

I’m not a turntablist, though, so I think the real question is what their take on this is. And kudos to Serato and Ableton for taking the gutsy route here as far as combining these products. We’ll get a closer look soon, and I’m curious to hear the reactions – however impassioned they may be. (On your mark … set … comment. Oh, boy.)

http://www.ableton.com/thebridge
http://www.serato.com/thebridge

It had to happen sooner or later: the computer has supplanted the turntable, so why not a mixer intended for two computers?

That’s the idea behind the just-announced Rane SIXTY-EIGHT. It’s intended for use with two computers via two independent USB ports, plus controller support (intended primarily for Serato’s tools, but presumably adaptable to other software) for up to four virtual decks.

Now, as a way to manage four decks, it seems like absurd overkill – hasn’t Traktor done four decks for years? But if this solution is indeed software-agnostic, it could be a boon to advanced computer musicians wanting to use computers, or DJs wanting to mix Ableton Live on one machine and a DJ app on another. Of course, you could simply do that with normal audio outputs, or even digital outputs that aren’t USB – in fact, many of the Apple machines (among others) come with digital outs.

Where the SIXTY-EIGHT starts to get very interesting – beyond just for Serato users – is its effects buses, which allow you to sub-mix up to six channels into a bus, insert analog effects or even computer effects (via USB), and use beat-synced internal effects on the box. And I’ve been impressed with the quality of Rane’s mixers in the past, too. It’s not its prime audience, but I can imagine the SIXTY-EIGHT being used by someone, somewhere, doing live computer performance and using the Rane as a powerful mixer/effects for two computer sources.

But ultimately, I have to admire the SIXTY-EIGHT not so much for what it does, but what it means: it means DJ mixers are entering the computer age.

It just happens that what some of us really long for is easier, HD-res video mixing — audio’s easy. We’re working on that, too. Full specs from Rane:

• Two independent USB 2.0 High Speed ports, each supporting twenty-two, 32-bit floating-point audio channels at 48 kHz.
• Real-time support for two computers.
• Support for 2, 3 or 4 Virtual Decks on one or two computers.
• Direct control of over 30 Scratch Live Library, Cue and Loop functions.
• Unique FlexFx bus:
Process a sub-mix of up to six audio channels.
Six internal effects with seamless on-beat switching between effects.
External analog insert support for legacy hardware effects.
USB insert support for computer-based effects.
• Four full-featured input channels:
Four stereo Phono/CD inputs of Line, Phono or S/PDIF.
Four stereo auxiliary inputs.
Four stereo USB playback options.
• Two mic inputs: one with phantom power and one with line-level.
• 3-band full-cut EQ, plus new High-pass / Low-pass Filter.
• Flexible USB recording options, record from any PGM or output.
• Internal universal switching power supply (100-230 VAC)
• Unit size: 14.3″H x 12″W x 4″D (36.4 cm x 30.5 cm x 10.2 cm)
• Weight: 11.3 lb (5.2 kg)
• Shipping Size: 7.75″H x 12.75″W x 19.25″D (19.7 cm x 32.5 cm x 49 cm)
• Weight: 12 lb (5.5 kg)

http://rane.com/sixtyeight.html

It’s something we take for granted now, but not so long ago, the only way to scratch and cue records was with analog vinyl. Now, of course, simulating those behaviors using digital records on turntables connected to computers is commonplace. But that hasn’t stopped the question of who owns the technology from spawning legal disputes. Most recently, a suit brought by patent claimants N2IT against M-Audio was dismissed. You can read the history from the time N2IT, a two-person company, launched their first commercial digital DJing (for BeOS, no less) back in the late 90s.

In patents, “first” is everything. And while N2IT had the first commercial product, it seems that broadly speaking the concept of how to make digital DJing work was not exclusively theirs. Chris Bauer writes CDM to share documentation of his own working prototype in 1998, before N2IT shipped their product. Nor is he alone. N2IT hasn’t yet brought suit against digital DJ maker Serato, and Serato’s Steve West publicly demonstrated research at the University of Aukland which leads back to 1996, well ahead of N2IT’s own demos.

It’s well worth reading the whole article for the timeline, but the basic concept is this:

the system created the illusion that the music being heard was actually on the record. and any piece of digitised music could be ‘played’ using this one special record and the spacedeck prototype. the system was fairly crude, but was certainly a working proof-of-concept. you could also perform needle-drops, and very rudimentary scratches. both of these techniques are essential for djing with vinyl, as this is how djs cue and beat-match the records they play.
the main steps of development were as follows:
1. research timecode. it soon became evident that SMPTE timecode would probably be the easiest to work with.
2. burn CDR with SMPTE and write code to ‘listen’ to it and get the speed, direction and position of the code.
3. research and write code to manipulate the speed, direction and position of digital audio files. i used quicktime.
4. write code to playback an audio file according to the incoming timecode data
5. get acetate record (dubplate) with SMPTE timecode on it, test with the system and and fine-tune timecode reading routines
surprisingly, there were no major problems in development. this is probably due to the concept being very simple.

And while N2IT indisputably had the first commercially-available product, this could call their patent claim into question:

the granting of N2ITs patent/s is extremely contentious, as they failed to mention various pieces of ‘prior art’ in their original application, including my project/MA thesis, which they were aware of as early as 2001. patent applicants are obliged to disclose this type of information if they are aware of it.

Chris’ full article:
the spacedeck project 2009

The legal wrangling over patents and who owns digital vinyl technology continues. The latest development: the court has dismissed N2IT’s claim against M-Audio, as covered by djtechtools. Before you strike this as a victory in the M-Audio column, it’s possible the parties settled out of court. Based on my limited legal background, I tend to agree with Ean Golden at djtechtools: this does seem to diminish the likelihood of N2IT successfully pursuing a new case against Serato. (In the Netherlands, it’s not possible to buy Serato, because there is would violate Dutch patent law, in the country in which N2IT is based.)

Previously, background on the story:
NI Ends Legal Dispute Over Traktor Scratch; Digital Vinyl’s Twisty, Turny History

Note that NI did acknowledge N2IT’s claims as valid. That would seem to set some precedent for future legal action by N2IT unless were to M-Audio win a countersuit against N2IT, which apparently has not happened.

It is interesting to hear djtechtools readers defending the N2IT patent. That may well have merit, but the basic technique of using an audio signal for control is something fundamental that well predates any notion of digital vinyl.

Technics 1200 Series: Discontinued (or not)?

Updated to reflect conflicting reports.

As digital vinyl presses on, reports are circulating in press and online communities that the the great emblem of the vinyl era is no more. Parent company Panasonic is reportedly discontinuing all remaining Technics 1200-series turntables (including the 1210).

Technics is dead [inthemix.com.au]

Updated: Sources for statements from Panasonic appear to be unconfirmed and/or conflicting. inthemix is where I had read this story; some CDM readers are describing these as unsubstantiated rumors.

It’s certainly possible that this isn’t the common “wild Internet rumors” phenomenon, but the equally common “large global company representatives aren’t on the same page” phenomenon.

The inthemix story, however, should be regarded as incorrect. As reported in the Australian cnet, the Panasonic Australia source has denied saying quotes attributed to him. There’s perhaps a more interesting (if not at all surprising) story here, which is that analog turntable demand is sagging — but apparently that will not result in the immediate end to 1200 sales.

Analog in ‘decline’ but Technics not dead [cnet AU]

Scratchworx tracks various, conflicting statements from different parts of Panasonic. There hasn’t been a formal press release, but then companies usually send press releases when they’re introducing products, not when they’re discontinuing them, so I wouldn’t read too much into that. One possible explanation could be that circulating rumors about the demise of the 1200 may have increased demand. It isn’t hard to imagine Panasonic responding to their reseller channel if lots of vinyl-heads began demanding turntables.

It’s also possible the rumors were incorrect. It’s easy for such a rumor to start, as vendors often don’t instruct resellers (or sometimes even their own global arms) about the status of products. I’ve often had conversations with press representatives of major music tech makers who weren’t entirely sure of the status of a particular product. And with store inventories low during a credit crunch, it would be easy enough for low stock to be misinterpreted as a discontinued product.

Scratchworx also notes that supposedly officially-discontinued models have remained in the channel.

Bringing some sanity to the Technics rumour [scratchworx]

Let me be absolutely clear: I think that vinyl deserves occasional attention from CDM, but I’m not a vinyl expert, and for that I rely on Scratchworx in particular.

If the Technics were discontinued — or, realistically, hen that day finally comes — what might it mean?

“It’s the end of an era” is the general response of the DJ community, but vinyl isn’t really going anywhere. The 1200 will always be remembered as the iconic scratch turntable, and there’s no question these ultra-reliable devices will continue to flourish, played and repaired by loyal DJs. (In fact, the quality of the gear may be partly to blame, in contrast to the planned obsolescence of a lot of newer equipment.) The 1200′s heydey, meanwhile, is long-since past. I personally think that’s healthy.

The golden age of scratch came about only because artists were irreverent and experimental, misusing and abusing equipment in a way that transformed music. It was not a musical movement born of pure nostalgia, and without a certain experimental drive, we’d be robbed of new experiments in the future. Today, abusing circuits and code have supplanted vinyl, a fitting medium for noisemaking, and one likely to last many more years. The Technics will survive, too. The really sad thing that our gear today is unlikely to last nearly as long as the Technics 1200.