Beatles Remasters on Vinyl (part 9)

Sean, there are numerous studies from the AES that show people can discriminate between 24/96 and 16/44. There is also evidence that harmonic overtones occur in the audible range. Here is also one academic paper discussing life above 20khz:

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

 

I've got an iPhone, an iPad and a couple of MacBooks but much of what you said about Apple has more to do with p.r. than what they're actually doing, imo. In the last few years I've noticed that their creative edge has diminished, their tech support has become considerably less supportive (?) and they're failing more frequently to deliver the best possible product. This feels not all that unlike what the case is with the Beatles vinyl where perception and reputation seem to pass for sound business practice - in short, the amount of money the company (or band) generates is meant to convince the public that whatever that comes out with the brand on it will be top notch and automatically worthy of your money.

 

I thought the same thing with the reissue of Guns N Roses Use Your Illusion. They also used a different type of 'paper' for the cardboard sleeve. It really bothered me.

 

You are missing the point. I'm making a distinction between the digital marketplace reality of the customer being King and that those companies that understand this and market and create in that new reality are going to sell more (and be more financially successful including earnings for shareholders). As opposed to the music business legacy of "we own the masters and you don't and we will provide the product we think you want in a form that we decide under the artist conditions that exist."

It's a change of mindset and I think it is an important factor in why the music business is performing horribly now.

 

I cannot agree with this simply because their service is outstanding. I get a real knowledgeable person every time I call and every time I visit the store for support.

 

Sean hinted in an earlier post that working with tape would take time which is where I got that.

And again, I'm not saying Apple is perfect but that they are approaching the business differently.

P.S. The new adapter had to happen as the phones have gotten that thin so I think they deserve a pass on that. Tech quickly marches on, gets much better, but the old tech is getting obsolete faster. Not really Apple's fault as the consumer wants the better features.

 

I started backwards with my Amazon.ca box. Let It Be sounded fine. Abbey Road was a noisy pressing. Yellow Submarine sounded fine. The Beatles/White Album had noise in the right channel on Back In The USSR. I thought it was a dirty stylus, but I cleaned it and same results. It went away after Prudence. Same happened on the second side. Between that and Abbey Road being noisy I decided to pull the return trigger and send everything back to America's hat.

I hate to do this, but I may pass on this whole experience all together. $500 to get the set imported from the UK and here in the states we get the garbage.

It's seeming to not be worth it to me at this point and is pretty depressing.

 

I am not a native English speaker so with a little help from Internet....

Read this: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

CD4:
DOC file here: http://www.diamondcut.com/vforum/showthread.php/1807-CD-4-Quadradisc-Requirements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadraphonic_sound

A word about the half-speed mastering by Kevin Gray posted on a forum for cutting engineers:
-------------------------------------
"PS...Half speed is a bad joke. It was needed for cutting high level 45s when cutting amps were 50 to 60 watts, and then in the 70s for cutting a 30kHz subcarrier for CD4 quad.
You can cut levels with an SAL/SX 74 WAY higher than can be played back. The limitation is in playback, not cutting. If the groove curvature is greater than the radius of the playback stylus the record will mis-track. The only way to prevent this is to HF limit until the resulting curvature is reduced. Half speed does NOTHING to help, let alone, prevent this. And try to make a HF limiter work with half speed...it don't! And this is assuming that the cutterhead head and tape machine are as happy an octave lower. They ain't! The result is underdamped slop on the bottom and sibilants that will kill. But don't take my word for it, try it! I have."
and
"If the amps are underpowered, yes, 1/2 speed is an improvement. If the amps are clipping the problems are not improved by cutting half speed. The problems are in playback and cutting half speed does nothing to improve the problems because the geometry of the resulting groove is exactly the same."

CD4cutter's introductory posting on the same forum:
-------------------------------------
"Hmmm, I'm seeing a fair amount of guesswork, misinformation, and just plain old wives' tales being passed on here. So I'll try to fill in the blanks from what I know from my disc mastering experience at RCA Records during the time that I was employed at the manufacturing plant in Indianapolis, Indiana from 1973 until I turned the lights out way after we pressed the last records at the end of 1987. We were the tail end of the long legacy of Victor Talking Machine Company and RCA Records.

Among my engineering projects, I cut all the custom RCA test records which we manufactured for a number of clients during my years there. RCA maintained a large catalog of test records which nobody these days seems to know about. too bad I didn't "liberate" copies of more of these when we shut the plant down. They'd be useful to me now. I was also the developer of the RCA Quadulator which was the disc mastering signal encoder required to cut the only discrete 4-channel disc analog record ever manufactured, the CD-4 process. The Quadulator was about one tenth the size of the massive three-relay-rack system developed by JVC who invented the system. Toward that end, I did a LOT of disc mastering at 1/2.7 speed and 1/2 speed, both in my Indy lab and in our New York studios which were the only two CD-4 mastering locations maintained by RCA. My equipment in Indy consisted of a Neumann am32b lathe with SX-68 and SX-74 cutter heads and Neumann SA-66 (if I remember right) amp set, an old Scully lathe that I can't remember the model number of and several older vintages of Westrex and Western Electric cutting heads and amps.

But the best setup was the Ortofon DSS-731 cutter and matching GO-741 200 watt cutting amps. The 731 cutter was specifically designed by Ortofon to cut CD-4 at half speed. It had the widest frequency response of any audio disc recorder ever designed and could easily cut up to 30kHz in real time. But that performance still wasn't good enough for real time cutting of CD-4 which required response up to 45kHz with minimal phase shift between the the two channels, so we used the 731 at half speed with wonderful results. The stylus and collet assembly was very small compared with the clunkier Neumann mounts which went a long way toward providing the wonderful high frequency performance, but changing the stylus was much more of a challenge."

CD4cutter guy again:
-------------------------------------
"one of the things that people experienced with digital recording don't realize is that doing things in analog is extremely difficult to speed up beyond real-time. Digital recording either by magnetic or optical means can pretty easily be done at many times faster than the real-time playback of audio or even video information. That's because the recording system does not have to manipulate any consequential mass. Moving a light beam is a pretty low-mass proposition, and light beam modulation technology is also pretty speedy. But when you are literally cutting a groove in a record, you are moving the mass of the recording stylus against the mechanical load of the recording blank and removing the mass of the chip (swarf) from the blank master. This already takes a pretty concentrated amount of power to do in real time. Cutter heads are just barely able to dissipate the amount of power required to do this without burning up. To speed up the process would require injecting much more power into the cutter to move the mass of the stylus faster. It's never been feasible to do this in the past. I doubt that anybody is willing to put the necessary engineering into the mechanical systems required to do this in the future. I have extensive experience cutting CD-4 records which required recording frequencies up to 45kHz in real time. No cutting head designed in the past was capable of doing this with the required amplitude of motion. Some experimental models from Neumann were developed, but I'm not aware of really successful results with them. So CD-4 records were all cut at either half speed or 1/2.7 speed in order to bring the signal bandwidth down into the audio range which could be cut with the cutters available."

"Yep, you can count me among the digital audio converts. I know chapter and verse about analog audio, I've designed plenty of analog audio products and circuits, I've cut analog records with professional equipment, and I know all the things that can go wrong with analog. And they routinely do go wrong. Analog records should not be considered a "premium product" by any technical means imaginable. They're noisy, they distort, and they wear out. Proper digital audio (by which I mean at least 16-bit linear PCM coding such as is used on CDs) is superior in every way to analog audio. It's higher fidelity, it's less distorted, it's less noisy, and it's WAY more robust with use - a CD doesn't wear out by playing it. I like analog records and I own tons of them, but I'm not laboring under any delusions that they are better than CDs."

 

I guess this brings in two possibilities:

1) You're just a lot luckier than those of us who live in New York City and deal with lower caliber in-store support personnel
2) Your level of knowledge about these devices isn't that extensive and you're more likely to believe you are being helped because someone in a blue t-shirt is speaking knowledgeably

No offense is intended by these suppositions but please know that Apple's phone and in-store customer support is not universally superior

 

Nah, short term profits are all that really matter. Make the money and move on.

 

Steve Jobs hated consumer focus groups. If it were up to Jobs the iPAD mini - a product that consumers actually want - would never exist. If he was running Apple Corp there would likely be no vinyl box set at all and if there was he wouldn't be concerned about all Analog transfers. Apple products are ummm not perfect either. There are plenty of design flaws with their products and they are extremely proprietary so they don't play nice with a lot of other gear. Apple computers is really about branding and building a very loyal consumer base. Apple corps seems to have very similar qualities. You want to connect an iPAD to your TV? You can't just buy a ten dollar HDMI cable like any other tablet... you need to buy Apple TV! You want to listen to the Beatles remastered in the best sound quality? Buy the CD box set. Then the USB with limited files. Then Buy the vinyl with unlimited files! And pick up Love if you want to go listen to the multi tracks. It's all the same thing. I could take or leave Apple computers. The Beatles on the other hand.......

 

How's the book?

 

You obviously haven't used iTunes Match. What a mess that is - they just had a big problem with renewals in the last 6 days (First year US customers had their one year anniversary on the 14th). I've had support calls with them for literally months, with no resolution. And they won't even talk to you anymore on the phone, unless you have Apple hardware within warranty. So if you're a Windows-only user, you're SOOL.

I'm not an Apple hater - I own a few iPods and a MBP. But they aren't a perfect company - no company is. More importantly, if they were running the show with the Beatles reissues I think many people here would be even more disappointed than they are already. The only plus is that they'd actually have a CS department to at least work with you for exchanges / returns....that's assuming they'd even take a return (iTunes Match, again using that as an example, had a "no refund" policy if it wasn't to your liking).

I think it's quite nice. Heavy, nice quality paper. Probably nothing outstanding for Beatles fans who know all the information already, but quite nice for a casual fan I would think.

 

You can do that right now. Buy the box. Sell the individual lp's on ebay. Keep the book.

 

havent gone in for the new box set yet but im pleased to report the new MMT shirts are excellent

Happy holidays everyone

 

Please link to one. Journal, not conference paper - the latter are not peer reviewed.

Harmonics or overtones? Both obviously occur in the audible range. You probably meant intermodulation distortion.

I don't think there's any person who believes musical instruments don't go over 20kHz. What's in doubt is the ability of any human ear to hear anything at all above about 25kHz, and anything at a reasonable level above 20kHz.


I don't have the new vinyl, but I've tried listening to the various samples on beatlesdrops. I find listening to Beatles recordings in a very audiophile/critical manner to be quite unrewarding. There is a lot wrong with the recordings, the mixes, the tapes etc before we even get to the mastering. I understand the desire to find the best of the best in terms of mastering, but when listening so carefully I find myself discovering faults in the original recording that I'd never noticed before, but then find on my own early 1970 UK LPs. I think I'll enjoy the music far more if I just listen to whatever I have to hand (2009 CDs or original vinyl) without trying to pick apart how it sounds. Otherwise the faults I newly find might spoil my enjoyment forever.

Cheers,
David.

 

I don't think he ever disputed that, but he's been talking about vinyl. Both Sean's and Jiri's comments (including Kevin Gray's quoted comments, someone who's regarded highly here) all point to it being practically impossible to cut frequencies above 24-25k to vinyl. I don't think any of them have said there's no benefit to 24/96 or difference between it and 16/44 on a digital system. Plus as Sean has explained, low-pass filtering occurred for the original pressings so prized by many, and the cutting heads in those days had even lower high-frequency limits.

Thus the notion that the perceived lack of "air" on the new reissues is due to the 24/44.1 sourcing doesn't seem to have any scientific or factual basis. It's perception and assumption. You don't need an AES study to figure that one out!

Don't forget too that there are individuals and companies with a vested interest in people believing that hires is advantageous. Of course in the vinyl business, the preference would be for analog sources, but if those are not available, there's a perception out there that 24/96 or even better 24/192 sources are preferable even if we now know that the higher frequencies can't be successfully cut to vinyl anyway!

Here's a simple test for you:

1. Take an 88k or higher recording and duplicate it.
2. Downsample the duplicate to 44.1.
3. Upsample it to its original frequency.
4. Place duplicate and the original file on two tracks of a multricak DAW
5. Reverse the polarity of one of the two tracks.
6. Render the result to a new file making sure the levels are exactly the same and there are no plugins or EQ, etc., affecting them.
7. Use appropriate tools to analyze what's left in the file.

I've done this with 88k needledrops and they nulled perfectly to over 20k. Above that were very low-level signals around -85 to -90dB. From what I've been reading here from Sean and Jiri seems to confirm that what was left was simply distortion artifacts from my playback.

 

I understand that point with regard to the mono records. But stereo? Who would have bought a stereo record to play on a bad kiddie phonograph?

 

Thanks - this is a WEALTH of extremely detailed and interesting information. You're with GZ... did you cut my fabulous Stones Box?

 

Maybe he had a little help from his friends?

 

I thought Sean said there was a reluctance to subjecting the aging analogue tapes to the wear and tear of tape machines? I don't think he meant it would take more time (if he did, I apologize ahead of time) in a time-constraining sort of way. Trying to think of an analogy between Apple Computers and Apple Corp. Remember, that EMI (a different company) owns the tapes and always does the mastering work, but only by permission from Apple Corp. In a way, it would be like Apple Computers needing to get permission from Microsoft to issue new products. Can you imagine how that would work out? It's a rather unique marriage between EMI and Apple Corp. Sometimes the end product is exceptional. Thinking the 2009 mono CDs, Love Soundtrack and most of the 2009 stereo CDs. Sometimes the overall product is just average... or worse (Live at The BBC, Let It be...Naked). I'm sure neither Jeff Jones... nor Paul and Ringo are checking sleeve design and other quality control issues. Perhaps they should, but I'm betting they trust that EMI will use care in choosing design and distribution companies. As for problems with distributors... poorly packed, warped records, etc... that is NOT the fault of EMI or Apple. It's a shame it happens, but it does. Ron

PS Regarding the new adapter on the Iphone. New and improved is fine, but to not include a free adapter so one could use old and recent charges was just wrong, or at best, misguided.

 

Monsieur Hoffman's comment is very flippant when you think about it.

Joe Meek ?? Made amazing sound 60's teeny bop records and as we now The Beatles pushed the bounds of recording and broke the rules of the studio and recording at EMI.

Pinch of salt.

 

the freq extreme for vinyl cutting and sample rate versus analog recording is confusing

digital is simply 1s and 0s. Tighter sampling like 24/192 samples the waveform more often and can be rolled off using a much higher frequency d/a filter.

analog is a continuous waveform - higher res approaches it as the samples get closer together, but the analog waveform has more detail. Whether you have to cut this off at a particular frequency due to cutting lathe issues - you still have a source that is continous and hence has all the realistic overtones, etc of music

an analog source would have been ideal, baring that a 24/192 would have made a much better source

 

Went to the listening party in San Francisco last night.

First let me say that I LOVE this set and think it is wonderful as the complete definitive stereo catalogue of the Beatles for 2012 and beyond (along with next years Mono box). It is wonderful to have this available for anyone who wants all of their recording on vinyl. It is NOT a replacement, better or worse, than the originals or some of the older pressings, but I am extremely happy with the sound. VERY HAPPY!!! But yes there are pressing problems.

Anyway, some observation of the listening last night. Capitol sent a representative who actually consulted with them on the project. He spoke of how these were made and why they were created the way they were. (that's been written countless times here so I won't repeat.). Then he played side one of SPLHCB. It was loud and most of the people loved what they heard. I wished they would have played a wider range of tracks from all the LPs, but it sounded really good. A couple of people who already had the box told me that they lived in apartments, so they had net heard it that loud and LOVED the playback (I have a house and have played these pretty loud already) . I Heard things that didn't hear at home. There were some younger kids who probably never heard these records on vinyl and were in AWE and saw a couple buy the box afterwards (getting a t shirt with it). I love that younger people just might be reintroduced to vinyl and the Beatles with these who probably could not afford a full collection of the originals.

I liked listing in this venue but was dissapointed that this high end shop used a set of bookshelf speakers on stands (at about $1500. a pair) rather than really high end floor speakers. Since they had a secondary room showcasing some turntables playing some of the other LPs, I thought this main room should have been using high end equipment for the playback, since i suspect half the audience are not audiphiles and should really hear what a top notch system sounds like.

I spoke to the Capitol rep and asked him about the pressing problems. Since he's not actually a Capitol employee and not on the retail side, he said he had not heard of the pressing problems. I believe this since its only been a week or so and I assume he's been busy with these listening events. I mentioned this and other sites where people have discussed issues and told him of my problems with a couple of discs. I even played him a short non fill recording on my iPhone of the beginning of my Abbey Road (which I am replacing). He seemed surprised and could really hear the horrible lead in ripping sounds. I told him that the Euro pressings seem to be better and then I asked about the Mono box and hinted that I hopped that they would revisit where they would be pressed. Not sure how much clout he has but he was involved in listening to all of the test pressings and sending them on to Abbey Road. He said they did at least a dozen test pressing rounds of each album. He also said they are doing tests of the mono records now and didn't know when they would exactly be released but probably next year.

I think the two important issues is that they have better QC with the Monos (maybe changing pressing plants if possible? And also better printing for some of the covers. The Back of Revolver and Beatles for Sale look like bootlegs. Inexcusable. Whomever proofed the printing of these should bee reamed. The Box of Vision printing was great so there is no excuse that some of these are not perfect.

 

You don't need closer spacing for the frequencies in the 20-20k region because the original analog wave along with all those overtones can be perfectly reconstructed down to -96dB with 16 bits and down to -120dB with 24 bits (actually in theory it could go to -144dB but good luck trying to find equipment that can actually reproduce it!).

The whole argument about analog being better because it's a "continuous waveform" is about as accurate as those stair-step diagrams some companies have used to market hires in the past. They complete ignore how digital audio really works. Yes, there are problems. There has been inadequate digital-analog conversion, filtering, jitter, etc. The analog world has its problems too: speed accuracy of turntable or tape player motors, the ability of cartridges, playback heads, etc., to properly convert the grooves in LPs or magnetic patterns on tape to electrical signals, the geometry of the tonearm, the alignment of tape shead, the distortion of the playback electronics, all of these factors affect analog every bit as much as filtering, jitter, etc., affect digital. But to get back to the main argument here, we've got comments from several world-class professionals in the field of cutting records to the effect that you cannot cut the frequencies contained in>48kHz sampled audio to vinyl (even if there is real musical information or overtones there in the first place on music recorded with microphones during the 60's). Either you accept these professional opinions or you don't.