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
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. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
|
#5
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. |
#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
|
#8
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 |
#9
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. |
#10
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 |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
|
#13
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 |
#14
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 |
#15
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? |
#16
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 |
#17
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. |
#18
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. |
#19
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." |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 9/02/2017 3:31 PM, John Williamson wrote:
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. So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital age! :-) Trevor. |
#21
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 |
#22
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 |
#23
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 |
#24
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 |
#25
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 |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 8/02/2017 9:15 PM, 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. Only in that he seems to neglect the limitations of the then audio recorders were even greater. 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. At that time. Of course many developments in audio over the previous century could make similar claims. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible If only! But certainly less than many other LP's of course. 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 Yep, mainly because every audiophile and HiFi shop bought one just to prove record quality could be better than most of the crap available at the time. Still have a few Sheffield Labs LP's, plus a few direct cut and/or virgin vinyl, metal mastered, 45RPM, 12" disks. One of which was actually recorded digitally and was used by many HiFi shops for demo's before CD's were available. Would be considered *WELL below* state of the art these days though :-) Just as the most expensive turntable/cartridge combinations available would be, other than by nostalgia freaks of course! :-) Trevor. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Trevor wrote:
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. At that time. ** Redundant comment. Of course many developments in audio over the previous century could make similar claims. ** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the arrival of CDs. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible If only! ** Smartarse comment. Wot a ****wit TROLL. ..... Phil |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 10/02/2017 4:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Trevor wrote: 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. At that time. ** Redundant comment. Of course many developments in audio over the previous century could make similar claims. ** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the arrival of CDs. Redundant comment! The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible If only! ** Smartarse comment. Wot a ****wit TROLL. Off your meds again then Phil? Trevor. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Trevor wrote:
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. At that time. ** Redundant comment. Of course many developments in audio over the previous century could make similar claims. ** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the arrival of CDs. Redundant comment! ** ******** - you flatly contradicts your crapology. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible If only! ** Smartarse comment. Wot a ****wit TROLL. Off your meds again then Phil? ** Usual ****wit troll reply. Yawwnnnnnnnnnnn................. The "Trevor" austistic retard has been making a ASS of himself all over usenet and the PLANET for as long as the bull****ting prick has been alive. Lets all pray for his imminent, painful death. ..... Phil |
#30
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 |
#31
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 |
#32
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 |
#33
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." |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Actually, there was at least one commercial "direct to disc" CD issued, in the late 1980s or early 1990s. They got around the problem of the musician(s) having to play perfectly for 74 or so minutes by using a Yamaha MIDI Grand piano. They miked it simply, used very little processing, and converted to digital onsite; they then sent the digital signal via a digital connection to the CD manufacturing plant, which cut a glass master from it. The theory behind all this was that a recording cut that way would contain less jitter than a conventionally recorded CD. Which is horsefeathers, but someone spent a lot of money and time doing this. I have no idea what the music was or how the disc sounded.
Peace, The Other Paul (Stamler) |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
PStamler wrote:
Actually, there was at least one commercial "direct to disc" CD issued, in the late 1980s or early 1990s. They got around the problem of the musician(s) having to play perfectly for 74 or so minutes by using a Yamaha MIDI Grand piano. They miked it simply, used very little processing, and converted to digital onsite; they then sent the digital signal via a digital connection to the CD manufacturing plant, which cut a glass master from it. The theory behind all this was that a recording cut that way would contain less jitter than a conventionally recorded CD. Which is horsefeathers, but someone spent a lot of money and time doing this. I have no idea what the music was or how the disc sounded. Peace, The Other Paul (Stamler) I think I have an album that was done that way: Dick Hyman Plays Fats Waller on Reference Recordings. It was made on a Bosendorfer Reproducing Piano. The sound is good, though I doubt it has anything to do with the unusual way in which the album was made. The sound might be even better if I could just download a copy of the MIDI file and wedge that 9-foot Bosendorfer into my living room. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:42:59 PM UTC-5, Tatonik wrote:
PStamler wrote: Actually, there was at least one commercial "direct to disc" CD issued, in the late 1980s or early 1990s. They got around the problem of the musician(s) having to play perfectly for 74 or so minutes by using a Yamaha MIDI Grand piano. They miked it simply, used very little processing, and converted to digital onsite; they then sent the digital signal via a digital connection to the CD manufacturing plant, which cut a glass master from it. The theory behind all this was that a recording cut that way would contain less jitter than a conventionally recorded CD. Which is horsefeathers, but someone spent a lot of money and time doing this. I have no idea what the music was or how the disc sounded. Peace, The Other Paul (Stamler) I think I have an album that was done that way: Dick Hyman Plays Fats Waller on Reference Recordings. It was made on a Bosendorfer Reproducing Piano. The sound is good, though I doubt it has anything to do with the unusual way in which the album was made. The sound might be even better if I could just download a copy of the MIDI file and wedge that 9-foot Bosendorfer into my living room. Wiki: Interesting: "According to Robert Auld of the Audio Engineering Society: "It was a notoriously difficult way to record (ed: Direct to Disc); the musicians and all concerned had to record a complete LP side without any serious musical or technical mistakes". Jack |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 07-02-2017 19:03, 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... Does not relate to the topic in the topic header. But I did a lot of research on that issue in 1999 and posted it on the usenet. Jack Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 1:03:15 PM UTC-5, 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... 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 I'd like to add, look at these studios where people master, tons of electronic gadgets to "enhance" sound. Jack |
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 |