Deja Vu: CD-R of the LP--the listening experience...

Well, I don't know what PT does in that regard - there's no setting for it.

I do know that within PT, audio is *not* affected unless you process it. For example, if you remove a click by hand, only that small area will be affected - the sound is not changed at all through the rest of the song. Same thing with an edit - if you make an edit, the sound on either side of the edit will not change at all. I believe this is the case in some programs, but not ProTools.

So, really, the only "processing" you are doing is on those tiny little clicks.

 

In my crazy experience of buying used records (thrift shops, dealers, etc.) I find that you really must go by the record itself (stamper info, etc.). A lot of records find their way into different sleeves or different covers from different eras of the same title (people have their own ways of collecting records/methods of madness/etc.). The only true ways to know if a used record, sleeve & cover were "actually" originally together (you know what I mean) is if it's sealed or you know & trust the first owner (from when it was new)...

Todd

 

Hey Luke, if a program is worth anything, it will usually dither any processiung you do at 16-bit, or at least give the user the option of enabling it or not. Of course, Pro Tools is a superior program, just as Cool Edit 1.2 and up, and Sound Forge 5.0 and up is for the PC.

 

Thanks!

Luke,

Thanks for the information that you posted earlier. That is very helpful.

Bob

 

It also helps to be very familliar with the little details of manufacturing and even the labels and outer-packaging, and the history of a label's manufacturing practices.

 

Grant, I agree with you but my point is that it's very difficult to be sure if the record and the outer packaging weren't mixed together at some future point. I just think that the record usually is the most reliable pressing source...

 

Re: Re: This Experiment

Originally posted by lukpac:
If you like the results you get with your stand-alone burner, this is how it would work:

1) record the album to CD-R as you've been doing it
2) copy the CD-R to your computer using a program like Exact Audio Copy
3) import that file into ProTools for declicking
4) export the file from ProTool
5) burn the "corrected" file to CD-R

Unless the PC version of PT is different (I use a Mac), this should get you results *exactly* like the original, just without the clicks.

My 2¢: For step 1, how about using a CD-RW instead? And saving yourself a CD-R?

 

Re: Re: Re: This Experiment

You could, but I personally don't trust the integrity of the data stored on a CD-RW based on past experiences. Besides, it's too much time wasted to reformat the thing to reuse it.

CD-R is cheap enough to use temporarily and then dispose of.

 

Re: Re: Re: This Experiment

Well, CD-R discs are really, really cheap, and you might want to keep your "original master" around for future use/reference.

 

There's no reason in why someone would want to use a CDRW. They're more expensive, take usually longer to write on average, lose integrity (Grant's right, totally) after 4-5 uses and uses a dye that is purposely low-reflective.

I'm really wondering why anyone would want to use a CDRW anymore. Back in the 'day' saving a CDR meant saving $5 on a burn, but that's just not the case anymore.

(Now realizing...)
Canadians on the other hand that suffer from "expensive blank CDR" because of the taxes implied on them, might find the CDRW a cost preventive measure. (???)

 

Originally posted by Grant:
You could, but I personally don't trust the integrity of the data stored on a CD-RW based on past experiences. Besides, it's too much time wasted to reformat the thing to reuse it.

CD-R is cheap enough to use temporarily and then dispose of.


I''m new to burning, both in stand-alone and on a pc. You mean to say after I use a CD-RW five times to record five vinyl LP's, erasing each time after transfer to the pc, that the integrity of future data on the CD-RW is suspect?

On the two vinyl LP's I've done so far the CD-RW was handy, in the first case because I raised the levels slightly for side B, in the second instance because I missed manually increasing the track number.

Also, I am using Mitsui Audio CD-R blanks, buying direct from Mitsui, 10-pack, $9 + shipping = $15.90, that's $1.60 per.

I can see I may need to rethink this.

I do see Luke's point about keeping the "original master" around for future use/reference.

 

Yeah, erasing and re-writing the CDRW after a few times totally knocks the wind out of reliablilty of a CDRW.

OTOH, CDRW's are also slower read. My SACD and CD deck in the car uses CDRW. They both play fine, but a CDRW takes a while to read the TOC in the machine (CDR, 4-6 seconds, CDRW, 8-12 seconds).

CDRW's work, but why would' ya? CDRs, done right, provide a more reliable master.

 

Luke and Scott are on target. I keep 32-bit masters of some projects around on CD-R for future use.

A CD-RW can lose data after just sitting around for a couple of days! I have had this happen. I have also recorded a brand new CD-RW and to this day I still can't erase the damn thing! I can't believe it when I see people buying these things! They always tell me that they think they can save money by reusing them. I understand that one major CD-R manufacturer was really hesitant about marketing CD-RW because they knew of the unreliablilty factor. But they sell them anyway because of the allmighty profit.

BTW, if you used a computer-based system you wouldn't have to worry about missing track starts!

 

Yeah, Joe's no stranger to NR.

And heck, I don't know what it is, but the US pressing of "Deja Vu" done in the late 80's (the one I mentioned earlier) has a certain something. It's STILL an Lp, and still easy to find, but it does not have such unplesant moments as other LP issues.

Again, not perfect, but still very very nice. That's why I had to say "huh??" when people were downing LP issues of "Deja Vu" including the MFSL sometimes. For some reason, that issue sounded great to me. I was just making sure I wasn't losing my hearing or my mind Even an audiophile has to wonder!

 

I have an original Japanese Lp of "Deja Vu" and it sounds terrible. Very bright and annoying. The US version is much more balanced.

 

I've heard the CDR of this and it sounds great to me. I have three or four LP issues of "DEJA VU" as well as all three officially released CDs (Original domestic, later domestic and "re-mastered domestic) and this beats them all hands down. Really. There must have been three different "versions" of this released on LP because two of mine are very different sounding from each other and this CDR has a bit more punch and greater detail than I can hear on my best copy.
It's a shame that a masterwork like this is only commonly available in its present "remastered" version. Whether or not the original master was actually used for this, it doesn't sound very good. The previous issue was better.

 

Sckott...

What is your "soaking" technique??? If I may ask.

Thanks
Bob

 

Repost from the olde forum:

Here's what I do when I get a nice "clean" used record that's a noisy bastard (no laughing!) You may follow at your daring, caring discression:

1. Clear and clean your sink out, and make sure nothing is interfearing with your space. No dishes, no pans, clean it. Your wife will love you.

2. Turn the foucet on, warm, but not hot (let the water run for a while and make sure no one's gonna flush, okay?).

3. Lay a terrycloth down, must be clean, and quickly cover it with paper towels, not the cheap stuff, enough so that the LP can sit flat on the counter, clean, edge-to-edge.

4. That's right. Soak it. Put it under the water at an angle so the water runs on the deadwax, and off the edge. Rotate the album while maintaining a slow speed until you've gone around one side. DO NOT get the label wet. If you want, you can run the water a low-flow, so you can control water droplets and how it runs more efficiantly off the record. If the vinyl is smooth and not worn, the water may have no luck sticking to the surface anyway. Don't freak if water is sticking to the record.

5. Do the other side too. Just be careful of the faucet and getting the label wet (unless the label isn't pourus paper, in which most smooth pressings you can soak completely).

6. Drop it on top the cloths nearby, with a gentle drop. Grab some more paper towels and toss one, maybe two on it, to cover the partially wet record. Real careful now: You're gonna pat the record dry without making any "anti-groovy" action. Don't scuff the LP by using pressure, or by wiping in ANY direction. PAT dry. Gently spread and lift the paper towel until the record is *almost* completely dry. Take the paper towel off, then on...etc..

You can also get picky and use a 'sliver' of paper towel to drag (using gravity only) to dry off the runoff groove area. This keeps the shiny, new appearence of the record clean. Not like you care much the the non-musical portion of the wax, it beats looking at the LP and seeing water spots.

7. Flip the record and pat that side too. No wiping motions, just pat and lift the paper until the record dries. The warm water will evaporate as it cools off.

8. Bring it over to the turntable and if it's still a touch wet, go over it GENTLY with a D4 brush - GENTLY so the felt absorbes the wetness a bit. Even if the record is still just a *TAD* wet...you...

9. Play. Quieter, huh?!?

This should give you an idea of how good wet/dry methods work. Try this only when you don't have a real wet cleaner, and you've bought this $3.99 used LP that looks mint, but sounds like ****. It's usually mould or residue, and this has gotten $2 LPs to sound like $20 - Really!! Hey, you bought the record, what's the sense if it sounds bad?

**Note** Use good paper towels, try to stay away from store bought to keep the lint down.....also you're gonna find that most used records that LOOK GREAT but play crappy will benefit from this meathod everytime. I've only done it once to records that misbehave. If you play your details right, barely anyone will see that Discwasher residue, or brush friction on the album, including you!

 

Thanks for the record cleaning tips Sckott...

I can't wait to try it out!!!

 

JJ3810,

Thanks for posting your response to the CD-R (I'm glad you liked it). The vinyl I made it from sounds a bit more 3-D and "real" (a tad) but the transfer to CD-R retained most of the tone/detail and still sounds analog/warm. My question is what the heck is going on with these commercial release CD's of 'Deja Vu'? Why does a vinyl transfer I made from a $1 thrift shop find to a 20-30 cent CD-R sound better than "big studio" remasters from (they say or said) the master tape (or was a safety used/it still shouldn't be like this)? This doesn't make much sense. Any comments?

Todd

 

I knnnnoooowww izzza massstriiiinnng buttttt wwwhhhhheeeerrree aarrree (okay, I'm getting dizzy). ...but where are they getting these cooks who are burning the stew? I mean it's just a shame...

Todd

P.S. You must be tired. I noticed you were on the forum at 9AM (6AM you're time)...

 

Todd,

Your CD-R may turn out to be a hot item on the collector's market. Perhaps, I should guard my copy with great care! I still pull it out to listen to Carry On, especially! I played it for my girlfriend, without telling her the source and I was shocked...she said, "was that recorded from a record?" She liked it as well, except for Woodstock, of course.

Bob

 

Thanks, Bob! A few months ago when I found this vinyl copy I was amazed at how much better it sounded than all my other ones. Steve of course is right, it's all in the mastering. That's why when I made the CD-R of it I wasn't tempted to really do anything with it but a straight transfer (the mastering on the vinyl is superb/why spoil the soup). Yes, it has a few clicks here and there but it is what it is (warts & all). Maybe a reason why the official CD's sound bad is because the mastering engineers were trying to turn 'Deja Vu' into something that it's not? I don't hear any of the charm and musicallity on my official CD. It's kind of sad.

Also, I've been suggesting to some people I've sent copies out to that if the groove distortion on 'Woodstock' is bothersome (some people are more sensitive to this/I'm yet to find a vinyl copy of 'Deja Vu' that doesn't have one problem or another with that song) then make make a new CD-R from the vinyl transfer CD and just edit in another source for the song. It's the majority of the other songs (track per track) that are incredible. Yes, funny to say but this CD-R does seem to be becoming a small collector's item. I've been getting a few requests for copies (no problem)...

Todd

P.S. Yes, it's all in the mastering...

 

Todd,

Someday, you will probably run into a Mint or Near Mint copy of the album. You are correct. The mastering on that LP was very well done. It fit the music very well and I believe that is the key....mastering to the music. Steve is super in doing so.

Thanks again for sharing your "find".

Bob