"vlad" wrote in message
...
On Sep 27, 7:35=A0am, Scott wrote:
Scott is copying here an article of Steve Hoffman about comparison
between master tape, acetate lacquer and digitized copy:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...d.php?t=133328
We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.
Why do they need mastering moves? I guess, because final LP sounds
different from original master tape. So they introduce distortion in a
sound of master tape expecting these distortions to be compensated by
specific distortions of LP.
This is exactly right. In a high volume environment, tapes were produced
that incorporated these compensating distortions. They were called "cutting
masters".
They digitized tape "with mastering moves". So I would expect that
digital copy and LP should sound different. And what copy would have
more "pleasing" sound? You guessed it - analog LP.
Was the listening evaluation unbiased?
Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I
noticed:
The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
SME arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
so many pictures posted here of AcousTech)."
I seriously doubt that an ABX of this same comparison would have failed. The
listeners wouldn't be reduced to random guessing.
So, their statement is that master tape "with moves" sounded
identical to acetate lacquer. Why then "moves" were needed at all?
The mastering moves are well-known and are required to obtain the most
accurate-sounding LP.