Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
It's pretty obvious, mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater loudness...
From a 2010 CD, but digitally enhanced, but no peak trimming or brick-walling, save that for the amateur Remasterers... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps.../keemosabe.mp3 Jack |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
JackA wrote:
It's pretty obvious, ** Famous last words from a fool .... mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. ** That IS fascinating. I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because there was no ****ing tape involved. Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them: https://vinyl-west.de/catalog/49865/...es-version.jpg You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater loudness... ** Only a know nothing fool would say that. Oh my god - look who just did... ..... Phil |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
JackA wrote:
It's pretty obvious, mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater loudness... I don't know where you got that idea from, moving iron cutterheads suffered from the opposite problem;: as the moving armature got closer to the pole pieces on peaks, the magnetic gap decreased and the sensitivity of the magnetic system increased. This meant that the gain effectively increased on the peaks of the waveform, so they were recorded with a greater amplitude with a consequent increase in odd-harmonic distortion and intermodulation ("blasting"). By 1932, the moving coil Blumlein cutterhead began supplanting the moving iron type (at least in the UK), it had no limitation on recording amplitude and was virtually distortion-free. Similarly the Voigt moving coil head (which later formed the basis for the the Decca FFRR system in the 1940s) was capable of recording a much greater undistorted amplitude than the grooves could accommodate. There were limitations on domestic recording and replay equipment due to cheap design and there were mechanical limits on the maximum modulation of the groove before intercutting occurred, but the capabilities of professional disc recording equipment were way beyond this. (By the way, vinyl records were not cut on vinyl, they were mastered on wax or cellulose nitrate lacquer, then copies were pressed in vinyl.) -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Phil Allison wrote: "expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because there was no ****ing tape involved. Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them: " A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER - provided there is nothing between the microphones and the CD recorder. You can thank Nyquist and the early CD developers for that. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 5:15:30 AM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
JackA wrote: It's pretty obvious, ** Famous last words from a fool .... mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. ** That IS fascinating. I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because there was no ****ing tape involved. True. (cheaper) Tape = Noise and removing it from the equation does improve dynamics. However, even Direct To Disc will never match the dynamics of Audio CD, in its crudest form. Thanks. Jack Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them: https://vinyl-west.de/catalog/49865/...es-version.jpg You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater loudness... ** Only a know nothing fool would say that. Oh my god - look who just did... .... Phil |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
John Williamson:
My thanks to Nyquist and the original developers of Redbook are sincere. And I understand about generations in the digital realm. My comment was with regards to "direct to disc" recordings, vinyl and CD. If you feed a live session to both a CD recorder and vinyl lacquer, there should be little difference between them in sound quality. If there is *significant* audible difference, then there is audio processing in one of those chains. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 5:15:30 AM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
JackA wrote: It's pretty obvious, ** Famous last words from a fool .... mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. ** That IS fascinating. I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because there was no ****ing tape involved. Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them: https://vinyl-west.de/catalog/49865/...es-version.jpg You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater loudness... ** Only a know nothing fool would say that. Oh my god - look who just did... .... Phil Phil, as you know, I enjoy hearing studio talk/chatter of popular songs. In the beginning, a lot of material was recorded "live". This yielded the optimum sound quality, since no later overdubbing was needed. HOWEVER, imagine the cost paying an entire orchestra to play the same song, sometimes over 20 Takes! Direct to Disc was even worse, since those had to be rehearsed and rehearsed, until an engineer was satisfied with crossed fingers. Take for example Nice 'n Easy, a Mr. Sinatra album, '61 I believe, Mobile Fidelity was quick to offer it (CD), since it was a live, studio recorded album. Heck, even outtakes sounded impressive! Jack |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 6:57:34 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Phil Allison wrote: "expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because there was no ****ing tape involved. Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them: " A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER - provided there is nothing between the microphones and the CD recorder. You can thank Nyquist and the early CD developers for that. I tired the opposite of Half Speed Mastering, and slowed a turntable and cassette recorder to 16-2/3 RPM and 15/16 IPS respectively. Actually, it did work, but since vinyl had to be equalized, since it wasn't an ideal audio media, that experiment sort of failed. Jack |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
JackA: Of course, RIAA emph-de-emphasis.
Cancels out if done right. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:57:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA: Of course, RIAA emph-de-emphasis. Cancels out if done right. And why RIAA? Because, vinyl could not stand large excursions. Same with Direct to Disc. Jack |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 6:17:57 AM UTC-5, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
JackA wrote: It's pretty obvious, mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater loudness... I don't know where you got that idea from, moving iron cutterheads suffered from the opposite problem;: as the moving armature got closer to the pole pieces on peaks, the magnetic gap decreased and the sensitivity of the magnetic system increased. This meant that the gain effectively increased on the peaks of the waveform, so they were recorded with a greater amplitude with a consequent increase in odd-harmonic distortion and intermodulation ("blasting"). By 1932, the moving coil Blumlein cutterhead began supplanting the moving iron type (at least in the UK), it had no limitation on recording amplitude and was virtually distortion-free. Similarly the Voigt moving coil head (which later formed the basis for the the Decca FFRR system in the 1940s) was capable of recording a much greater undistorted amplitude than the grooves could accommodate. There were limitations on domestic recording and replay equipment due to cheap design and there were mechanical limits on the maximum modulation of the groove before intercutting occurred, but the capabilities of professional disc recording equipment were way beyond this. (By the way, vinyl records were not cut on vinyl, they were mastered on wax or cellulose nitrate lacquer, then copies were pressed in vinyl.) Think they were plated first, and that is was what created the so called stamper. You know, I always tried to find mint promo copies of vinyl, figuring the stamper would remain healthy (little use)! You know more about cutters than I!! :-) Thanks. Jack -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 08/02/2017 17:59, JackA wrote:
Convertors? They were bad in the beginning? Why? Was it the electronics or lack of knowledge on the difference between vinyl and audio CD? I say the latter. It was 90% or more the electronics. The early converters used a ladder of resistors and voltage comparators to convert analogue to digital and a different chain of resistors to convert it back. The tolerances of the resistors meant the voltage response of the converters was non-linear. They also had problems with clock jitter in the conversion process due to the varying switching times of the comparators used, due to component tolerances. This screwed up the phase response. There were also problems with the designs of the brick wall frequency filters used to prevent anti-aliasing of signal frequencies above those wanted in the output. There were special problems with the phase response at the top end. The later sigma/delta conversion process removed the root cause of the linearity and phasing problems, by effectively using the same switching circuitry for every voltage step. There was initially also a lack of appreciation in some places of the differences in mastering needed to get the best out of both formats. In particular, minor "soft" clipping on analogue, as happens when tape is slightly overmodulated, can be a pleasing effect, whereas clipping on digital is a totally different sound, and is unpleasant, no matter how minor it is. I look at waves-forms. I ask myself, what is holding this waveform e from being maximized in amplitude? I see a few peaks, they are the cause. Destroy them, and things sound way more interesting! Wave forms or envelopes? You seem to be confused which is which and which governs the loudness of the signal, and how, according to your previous posts. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 6:17:57 AM UTC-5, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: JackA wrote: [...] (By the way, vinyl records were not cut on vinyl, they were mastered on wax or cellulose nitrate lacquer, then copies were pressed in vinyl.) Think they were plated first, and that is was what created the so called stamper. The early process simply plated the wax, then used the resulting metal plate as the stamper, but the wax was destroyed in the process and the stamper wore out after a few hundred pessings, so another wax had to be recorded. The big improvement came when they found a way of separating plated metal copies without damaging them, then they could make many more stampers by a multi-stage process. The master wax was plated and the resulting negative copy was called the matrix. From that, a number of metal positives could be made, they were known as "mothers". Each mother could be used to grow many stampers before it wore out or got damaged, so a very large number of stampers could be made from one original wax recording. This is illustrated at: http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/lifebeforevinyl/P11.htm ....and the programme can be heard at: http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/lifebe...BV11(1-11).mp3 When lacquer recording began in the 1940s, the matrix - mother - stamper process could still be used, so by the time the vinyl L.P. arrived, most of the mastering was done on nitrate, not wax. You know, I always tried to find mint promo copies of vinyl, figuring the stamper would remain healthy (little use)! Possibly, but a lot of promo copies would have been made from one stamper, so there was no guarantee of that. A promo copy would come from the first stamper taken from the first mother, so it would only be the matrix and the mother that could be guaranteed to be unworn. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
wrote:
A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER - provided there is nothing between the microphones and the CD recorder. ** Do they even exist - I doubt it. All digital recording renders the idea moot. So a massive RED HERRING . ..... Phil |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 5:15:30 AM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote: JackA wrote: It's pretty obvious, ** Famous last words from a fool .... mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. ** That IS fascinating. I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because there was no ****ing tape involved. True. (cheaper) Tape = Noise and removing it from the equation does improve dynamics. ** Tape has WAAAYYY more problems than just background noise. And all of them compound horribly when transferring from multi-tracks to masters to sub copies sent to cutting rooms round the world. Get a life you stupid damnb troll. ..... Phil |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Phil Allison wrote: " All digital recording renders the idea moot. "
How so? Why do you feel that way? |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
JackA wrote:
(snip pile of crapology) ** What happened to the topic? The Jackass has made it vanish. ..... Phil |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
wrote:
Phil Allison wrote: " All digital recording renders the idea moot. " How so? Why do you feel that way? ** **** off, you stupid damn troll. ...... Phil |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Possibly, but a lot of promo copies would have been made from one stamper, so there was no guarantee of that. A promo copy would come from the first stamper taken from the first mother, so it would only be the matrix and the mother that could be guaranteed to be unworn. Sometimes we'd run special short runs for promos, and they would invariably be noisier as is common for short runs. Sometimes the A&R guys would just pull out of the normal run and put a rubber stamp on them. If you're only running a thousand or so you can dispense with the mother and use 1-step process to make the stamper right off the acetate. Usually tracking distortion is a little lower that way. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Phil Allison wrote: "** **** off, you stupid damn troll. "
That's not the answer I was looking for. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 08/02/2017 19:09, geoff wrote:
On 9/02/2017 3:04 AM, wrote: John Williamson: My thanks to Nyquist and the original developers of Redbook are sincere. And I understand about generations in the digital realm. My comment was with regards to "direct to disc" recordings, vinyl and CD. If you feed a live session to both a CD recorder and vinyl lacquer, there should be little difference between them in sound quality. If there is *significant* audible difference, then there is audio processing in one of those chains. I think you mean *any*. Are you including RIAA equalisation as processing? Because if you don't apply the RIAA curve or something similar to the vinyl recording and playback, your results will be 'orrible, with a much reduced signal to noise ratio due to the way the playback works. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 09/02/2017 00:01, Phil Allison wrote:
wrote: A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER - provided there is nothing between the microphones and the CD recorder. ** Do they even exist - I doubt it. All digital recording renders the idea moot. So a massive RED HERRING . I've done it for things like open mic or karaoke nights, so the performer can take a CD home with them. Usually now, the performer gets a USB stick with the original files on it, and a quick and dirty mix to play back at home on their portable player. Then the real CD (If one's wanted for distribution) gets produced from a decent mix done in the control room. Though there was a series a while back in the UK advertised as being "direct to CD", presumably using the master CD-R to make a glass master for pressing. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 7:08:29 PM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
JackA wrote: (snip pile of crapology) ** What happened to the topic? The Jackass has made it vanish. Sorry, blame on Google. See, here is the problem. There no one here that was involved in mastering for CD in the "early" days, so I can never get a clear answer to mastering problems, people just guess. Sadly, I found a site where someone told part of the mastering problems for CD, but while his site still stands, I can't contact him. Thanks. Jack .... Phil |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:08:50 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 9/02/2017 12:57 AM, wrote: Phil Allison wrote: "expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because there was no ****ing tape involved. Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them: " A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER - provided there is nothing between the microphones and the CD recorder. You can thank Nyquist and the early CD developers for that. A 'direct cut CD' can be exactly the same quality as a CD cut from the same recorded data on tape, HDD, floppy disks, memory stick, CD-ROM, punch-tape, etc after 30 years, thousands of generations of transfer, and 2000 circumnavigations of the world. I think you mean CD made from totally unprocessed signal chain, apart from mic preamps and AD converters. Unless yo use a digital mic .... Geoff One of the worst factors in recorded music is human. Some have the knowledge what sounds impressive, other don't. I'm sure 35mm film audio rivals direct to disc. But since so few actually appreciated, nor did they care paying extra cost, both died quickly. Jack |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
JackA wrote:
One of the worst factors in recorded music is human. Some have the knowledge what sounds impressive, other don't. I'm sure 35mm film audio rivals direct to disc. But since so few actually appreciated, nor did they care paying extra cost, both died quickly. ** Direct to Disc recordings cost less to make than ones using tape machines - and they cost no more to produce copies of. Wot a crock of ****. ..... Phil |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
John Williamson wrote: "Are you including RIAA equalisation as processing? Because if you don't
apply the RIAA curve or something similar to the vinyl recording and playback, your results will be 'orrible, with a much reduced signal to noise ratio due to the way the playback works. " No. I'm talking about additinal processing in the mastering chain that would definitely cause an audible difference in a direct-cut Vinyl to direct-cut CD shoot-out. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
John Williamson wrote: "Then the real CD (If one's wanted for distribution) gets produced from a
decent mix done in the control room. " That CD obviously cannot be compared to a direct-to- disc vinyl cut. We need to compare direct-to-disc Vinyl (post RIAA of course) with direct-to-disc CD of the same session. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
John Williamson wrote: "it's an answer you're likely to get when you diss the
thoughts of someone who had great experience in the field, and also has very little tolerance for wilful ignorance. " How did I diss Phil Allison? All I was suggesting was setting up a recording session where the musicians played and it was recorded directly to both a CD and to a vinyl lacquer. I'm assuming the RIAA curve is applied to the feed going to the lacquer side, so that vinyl copies of that can be made for playback comparison to the CD of that session. It was PHIL who claims this can't be done. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 2/9/2017 6:17 AM, wrote:
I'm talking about additinal processing in the mastering chain that would definitely cause an audible difference in a direct-cut Vinyl to direct-cut CD shoot-out. Do you want to conduct an experiment, or do you want to make a record? Back in the heyday of Direct-to-Disk LP recordings (Eck Robertson and Uncle Dave Macon _always_ recorded direct-to-disk), recording the acetate master directly from the performance was a bit of a novelty. But it was always backed up by anything that would record - analog tape, digital tape, another disk cutting lathe. But this was before the days of the CD, so that wasn't likely to have been a direct backup. And, today, the A/D converters in my $300 USB interface sound better than the PCM-to-videotape, DAT, or DASH machines that they had back in the day anyway. Better, even, than the converters in my CD recorder that I got in the 1990s for the same reason as John mentioned - so when running the PA for a show, I could hand a performer a CD when he got off stage. The thing about D-2-D projects is that there wasn't much music that could be played straight through by the whole band or orchestra without any edits, overdubs, re-takes, or alternate takes. Players and listeners expected closer to perfection. You could certainly do an experiment today if you had the facilities, and a CD and phonograph disk playback would certainly sound different, but which one sounds best would be subjective. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Mike Rivers wrote: "
You could certainly do an experiment today if you had the facilities, and a CD and phonograph disk playback would certainly sound different, but which one sounds best would be subjective. " They would sound different if the chain to either the lacquer or the CD contained superfluous processing, such as an EQ, compressor, etc. RIAA curve on the vinyl side does not count as superfluous. My point is, processing applied, during the mix and/or mastering stages, makes more of an audible difference than differences between playback formats. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
In article ,
John Williamson wrote: On 08/02/2017 19:09, geoff wrote: On 9/02/2017 3:04 AM, wrote: John Williamson: My thanks to Nyquist and the original developers of Redbook are sincere. And I understand about generations in the digital realm. My comment was with regards to "direct to disc" recordings, vinyl and CD. If you feed a live session to both a CD recorder and vinyl lacquer, there should be little difference between them in sound quality. If there is *significant* audible difference, then there is audio processing in one of those chains. I think you mean *any*. Are you including RIAA equalisation as processing? Because if you don't apply the RIAA curve or something similar to the vinyl recording and playback, your results will be 'orrible, with a much reduced signal to noise ratio due to the way the playback works. It's not included as processing because it's symmetric. If it works properly, the frequency and phase responses cancel out and the system is perfectly flat. Note that if you wanted to, you could build the emphasis and de-emphasis mechanically into the cutting head and phono cartridge. It would have all manner of mechanical issues because physical materials are imperfect, but folks did it back in the early days. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
John Williamson wrote:
I've done it for things like open mic or karaoke nights, so the performer can take a CD home with them. Usually now, the performer gets a USB stick with the original files on it, and a quick and dirty mix to play back at home on their portable player. Yeah, I do it all the time on classical gigs where there is going to be a lot of editing. I run an HHB CDR800 in parallel with my recorders, so I can hand the thing off to the producer or conductor to work out how they want to do the editing at home on their own time. Though there was a series a while back in the UK advertised as being "direct to CD", presumably using the master CD-R to make a glass master for pressing. That's difficult to do because you can't stop the recorder at all and you have to smoothly transition to the finalizing process otherwise you wind up with a discontinuity on the disk and an E32 that will make the plant kick it back. There was a time when I was actually mastering CDs to a Studer CD-R recorder in realtime off an A/B mastering console instead of fighting with the PCM 1630. It was expensive and unreliable and took a lot of fighting to figure out how to get that last E32 out, but it's possible to do. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
In article ,
wrote: John Williamson wrote: "it's an answer you're likely to get when you diss the thoughts of someone who had great experience in the field, and also has very little tolerance for wilful ignorance. " How did I diss Phil Allison? All I was suggesting was setting up a recording session where the musicians played and it was recorded directly to both a CD and to a vinyl lacquer. I'm assuming the RIAA curve is applied to the feed going to the lacquer side, so that vinyl copies of that can be made for playback comparison to the CD of that session. It was PHIL who claims this can't be done. No, I believe that Phil is just claiming that this would be a stupid idea and no more useful as a test than any other direct-to-disc vs. digital recording comparison. And there are plenty of those. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Scott Dorsey wrote: "No, I believe that Phil is just claiming that this would be a
stupid idea and no more useful as a test than any other direct-to-disc vs. digital recording comparison. And there are plenty of those." Thanks Scott for that cogent, detailed answer. Much more polite and professional than "**** off, Troll!" |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Updated Vinyl Catalog-30,555 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
Canadian Vinyl Store-29,930 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
29,157 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
27,738 Vinyl Records FS | Pro Audio | |||
Digitizing vinyl records | Tech |