Analog vs. Digital LP mastering - a comparison LP project

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Pinknik, Jul 30, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member Thread Starter

    It's as close as they can get it without Kevin re-cutting the analog side. Different lacquers, different day, 1/2 dB difference in cutting level, I think the list could probably go on and on. Nothing exact about cutting records. Some folks are adamant that they can tell a digital cut despite all of the other variables. I'm most keen to see what those types say when they spin this LP.

    I'd like to hear a box set made under this sort of idea, including a real time cut, a half speed cut and a DMM cut. I feel like those differences would be easier to pick out than digital vs. analog cut.
     
    OcdMan likes this.
  2. OcdMan

    OcdMan Senior Member

    Location:
    Maryland
    So you think there's no chance there could be any audible differences whatsoever in, say, channel balance or azimuth with the "digital" mastering being done on a different day? I don't think the notion that there might be some minor audible differences between the feeds, even with Kevin Gray being as meticulous as possible, as being a way out there idea.

    The problem with a test like this is, IMO, if there are any discernible differences between one side of the LP and the other, the all-analog proponents will claim the only possible cause is the digital source. While the other camp will claim it's any number of other factors besides the digital source that caused the difference.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2015
    Dan C and Scott Wheeler like this.
  3. I'll probably see Kevin this Tuesday. I'll ask him. But really guys, you think he doesn't know his gear? He likely has the test pressing of the first go around to check against. I think a revealing system will show a bit of loss in detail with the digital transfer.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2015
    OcdMan likes this.
  4. OcdMan

    OcdMan Senior Member

    Location:
    Maryland
    I think if anybody can cut a perfect duplicate, Kevin can.
     
    Stone Turntable likes this.
  5. GreatTone

    GreatTone Forum Resident

    Location:
    Falls Church, VA
    I think this will be an interesting exercise. I do all my serious listening via LP, most AAA, but I have some really great-sounding albums that were almost certainly recorded digitally. The Avett Brothers "Emotionalism" comes to mind. Then again, the Capitol version of OK Computer (which I believe was cut from digital, sounds like CD or lower) sounds pretty bad next to the UK original, which is supposedly cut from the original analogue tapes. So it really depends. I'm not a purist about it--if the LP sounds great, it sounds great.
     
  6. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    Are you?
     
  7. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    Maybe, maybe not. Is all the equipment the same as when he cut it the first time? How can he be sure the tape heads will be exactly the same? It is a variable. It would be better if it were not.
     
  8. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    I am sure he knows his gear very well. Doesn't mean the analog feed will be indistinguishable from the first time he did the cut. But please do ask him.
     
  9. :agree:
     
  10. I will if I see him.
     
  11. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    So was I.
     
  12. Jim T

    Jim T Forum Resident

    Location:
    Mars
    I believe I read somewhere that the late Stan Ricker loved the half-speed process for his work as he felt he had more control over the cutter head being better able to track. He wanted to do the same thing with DSD to LP, but could not find a way to do DSD at half-speed. I belive I have this right.
     
  13. I'm glad that is past tense.
     
  14. He used that method as a workaround to deal with less than perfect situations like when the record company wouldn't let the master tape out of their sight for fear mishandeling or when he didn't want to be playing a master tape himself over and over to make master lacquers.
     
  15. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    any other tense would be weird since it was a post a made in the past.
     
  16. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    Huh? It was his signature method for the MoFi records he cut. Ya know, the one's cut from original master tapes.
     
  17. Go read about him doing the Elvis remaster. That is one example.
     
  18. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    Do you have a link?
     
  19. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
  20. OcdMan

    OcdMan Senior Member

    Location:
    Maryland
    I don't have anything cut by Stan Ricker that isn't half-speed mastered. Well, that is, if "SR/2" in the dead wax means half-speed mastered. Anybody know if "SR/2" always meant that? Now I'm getting way off-topic.
     
  21. Jim T

    Jim T Forum Resident

    Location:
    Mars
    -----------------------
    What I thought was the comments about 30ips tapes and THEIR issues in running faster over the tape head creating more noise. Their preferred method was 15ips with Dolby A. I guess everyone gets to pick their poison.
     
  22. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    Could you explain that a bit more? I don't follow
     
  23. Jim T

    Jim T Forum Resident

    Location:
    Mars
    ---------------------------
    If you follow my previous link to the Stereophile story, I understood Tony Faulkner to say that there is more noise generated as the tape goes over the head at 30ips than at 15ips and with Dolby A added he likes the sound of the 15ips recordings better. He is a fan of DSD there is no doubt.

    I can kind of get that as when I really think about more than 2 feet of tape going over the head every second that there might be some compromises. it all comes back to what sounded better to Mr. Faulkner over the years of his experience.
     
  24. JonP

    JonP Active Member

    I just read that link and hesitated when I read that he liked using Dolby A with classical music. 99% of my collection is classical music - most of it recorded pre-1966 so is either 15 or 30 ips with no Dolby. I have a number of post 1966 recordings that use Dolby A. I don't quite like them as much despite them having obviously lower noise floors with the associated advantages. To me the best recordings I have were made at 30 ips without Dolby. That said, I suppose if you are making a contemporary recording and playing it back more or less immediately on the same deck and encoder / decoder, you are likely to get the best result possible.

    I have tended to find that Dolby A, however, tends to thin out violin tones and make them a little bit more steely and less woody in the process. I've also found that the SACD recordings I have heard also don't really do violin sound many favours either - making them sound strangely softened and damped / squashed / dry in the extreme upper harmonics. So for me, when it comes to classical I am either a 30 ips no noise reduction kind of person or a simple 24/96 or 24/192 (with a fantastic word clock) sort of guy.

    PS: I should add that I am not really a fan of Tony's recordings, but my opinions above are unbiased and based on my experience as both a violinist and audiophile.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine