[JackA]

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

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[[email protected]]

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.

[JackA]

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

[John Williamson]

On 08/02/2017 11:57, 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.

Once it's been digitised, there need be no further generational losses
in the production process from microphone pre-amp to the speaker output,
especially given that in some cases now, the output amplifier, a
capacitor and the speaker effectively form the DAC at the output.

Given that, it makes no difference how many digital generations there
are between the input of the ADC and the output from the DAC. This is
not analogue, where every copy or extra processing stage introduces
inevitable losses.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

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.

[JackA]

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

[JackA]

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

[[email protected]]

JackA: Of course, RIAA emph-de-emphasis.
Cancels out if done right.

[John Williamson]

On 08/02/2017 14:04, 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.

Mechanical resonances and non-linearities in the analogue chain, for a
start. Cutting stylus assemblies may be pretty good, but then getting a
stylus to follow what's been carved is difficult, given the differences
iin shape between the readig and writing syliiespecially taking into
account the way the stylus is linked to the Earth's mass via the
tonearm, and the "give" in the mounting of the record. Processing can go
most of the way to eliminating the "natural" processing due to the laws
of physics. There is also the need for RIAA or equivalent equalisation,
made in order to get the best result from the record/ stylus interface
to take into account.

One the other side, using digital, linear, accurate, conversion to and
from analogue voltages up to video bandwidths and better is more or less
sorted now, with the latest generations of converters.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:38:17 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 08/02/2017 14:04, 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.

Mechanical resonances and non-linearities in the analogue chain, for a
start. Cutting stylus assemblies may be pretty good, but then getting a
stylus to follow what's been carved is difficult, given the differences
iin shape between the readig and writing syliiespecially taking into
account the way the stylus is linked to the Earth's mass via the
tonearm, and the "give" in the mounting of the record. Processing can go
most of the way to eliminating the "natural" processing due to the laws
of physics. There is also the need for RIAA or equivalent equalisation,
made in order to get the best result from the record/ stylus interface
to take into account.

One the other side, using digital, linear, accurate, conversion to and
from analogue voltages up to video bandwidths and better is more or less
sorted now, with the latest generations of converters.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

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.

Example: When MCA was issuing digital mastering on vinyl LP, I found one song, never heard before in stereo, it was like a blessing to hear!

But, then I buy the CD and asked, what the heck happened!!!?? It was so boring a sound. That's when I started fiddling with digital enhancements. The more I worked at it, the more it sounded like the vinyl LP I heard/remembered!

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!

Actually, if you remember Audiophile vinyl LPs, they were typically lower volume than commercial LPs. I assume, they did that to preserve these peaks. Not that a few peaks did anything, but some believe you should not alter anything with analog recorded music. That is silly.

Jack

[JackA]

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

[John Williamson]

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.

[geoff]

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

[geoff]

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*.

geoff

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

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

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

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

[[email protected]]

Phil Allison wrote: " All digital recording renders the idea moot. "


How so? Why do you feel that way?

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

JackA wrote:

(snip pile of crapology)



** What happened to the topic?

The Jackass has made it vanish.


..... Phil

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[[email protected]]

Phil Allison wrote: "** **** off, you stupid damn troll. "

That's not the answer I was looking for.

[John Williamson]

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.

[John Williamson]

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.

[John Williamson]

On 09/02/2017 01:58, wrote:
Phil Allison wrote: "** **** off, you stupid damn troll. "

That's not the answer I was looking for.

Maybe not, but 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.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

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

[JackA]

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

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

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

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[[email protected]]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[[email protected]]

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!"