SH Spotlight NEW! Your questions answered: How to properly master an audiophile vinyl record..

...was there a good reason Blue never got released? It seems a tradition (ie., Joni Mitchell - Blue )

 

Feel free to shut down the rest of the site and just make this a Q&A with you, I'm good with that.

 

I also posed another question above, which you haven't made it to yet.


How do you see modern mono vs stereo tape remasters?
"Most" Everyone just lumps them together onto their regular stereo cart table and never cares to experiment.

 

Well that I would think no one cares how someone else enjoys listening to music, anyway they do it is just fine.

I'm old enough to think of mono as just that, one channel, one amp, one speaker.
If someone just uses a mono switch in their stereo system or sums a cartridge, is it really mono listening through two speakers?

 

Mono recording playback on the average stereo turntable setup. Phasing issues, groove modulation pick up, etc..

Whats the audiophile playback for a mono recording in today's turntable world?

 

I find it helpful and fascinating even if it is a struggle for me to truly understand all of it

Thanks for sharing.

 

Oh. I bet thats why some newer singles I have about throw the arm off the record. I do enjoy knowing the technical side of things too. Thanks!

 

Something I've been thinking about- is the craft of mastering audiophile vinyl becoming a lost art? Are there engineers coming up who want to learn the techniques and processes involved in making a great sounding record?

When I got my bachelors degree in audio engineering in the early 90's, although the recording process we learned was still to 2 inch analog tape, there was only emphasis on digital mastering and we didn't learn anything about cutting vinyl.

Are the programs now taking time to teach mastering to vinyl? I really don't know the answer.

 

#1. How can I continue to train my hearing for this line of work?
#2. How do I know I'm getting accustomed to the "correct" sound in my listening?

These are the types of questions that fascinate me the most, probably more than the technical side. 'Cause what's all this EQ'ing and tubing good for, if one doesn't have the ear for this stuff?

#3. I also recall Steve saying there's only a select number of people whose ears he trusts. How do you test this?

 

#1 + #2

Listen to live music. Then you have the best reference point.

Going farther, a lot depends from personal taste. Some find transparency and detail the most important, others naturalness, coherence, punch. Some like pronounced highs or bass or both, some don’t. Some like compression, some don’t.

 

CD, never vinyl.

 

I would guess most of the great studio engineers learned through professional apprenticeships or just by doing and experimenting rather than through formal education, so I wouldn't worry too much about what's being taught in schools.

 

When I read an article that I find interesting I save it for future use and about the recordings mono and related achievements on vinyl I found this:
"the disc is true mono when from the beginning of production it's all mono:
those mastered at ERC or Bernie Grundman Mastering [the engineers are Chris Bellman and / or Bernie Grundman]) are true mono. (Like those of the 50/60 years)
Both ERC and Bernie Grundman Mastering use the True All Tube system which works with real mono lathes.
Mono vinyls mastered with a stereo system and a stereo lathe, which are most of the current mono reissues are another matter.
For example, Kevin Gray at Cohearent Audio has made many mono titles (but with stereo system and lathe) such as BLP 1533, Introducing Johnny Griffin (which was recorded only in mono, but recently remastered and cut by Kevin Gray on his stereo system for the series of outputs BN80).
It is a mono version cut from a stereo lathe, it sounds good during playback using a stereo head.
So the real mono (lathe mono) will probably sound better with a true mono head (with the same analog front end compared to a stereo), the mono lathe stereo, which are the majority of the current reissues will play well with both heads, obviously at more or less equal analog front end levels.
All mono AP titles, Music Matters, Tone Poet, BN 80 th are mock mono ...
the Classic Records mono BN of the early 2000s are true mono."
Unfortunately I don't have a mono cartridge and so I play mono discs with the stereo cartridge so I can't hear the differences. I put only in mono my pre.

 

Newer mono cut on a stereo cutting head, one coil of the cutter head is wired out of phase so that it creates only horizontal modulation when fed mono signal.

Has been this way since 1965 with the introduction of stereo with the Westrex 3A cutterhead. (KG has confirmed this)

 

TBH I'm not a fan of SH masterings. I almost always prefer another source that has similar dynamic range.

Steve fiddles too much with the sound of the source adding his own preference. Like the Audio Fidelity CSN S/T. It sounds different than any other version of the album.

His DCC masterings sound analogue but lack clarity and the bass is boomed and overly round.

He has his own secret layers of tubes that he adds to the music that just muffles the sound.

 

I have two questions for Steve.

1) you don't do half-speed mastering. Do you think it's just a marketing gimmick that adds no value?

2) flat transfers. Would you say most tapes need some EQ to make them sound good so doing flat transfers is not really a good idea?

 

Other than having very little taste, you are obviously tone deaf.

 

I guess, given the current mode of "the master stays in the vault, it is too valuable" you don't get to go hunting through the archives (which themselves may be in a vault, or kept with an archivist at the label). My question is, in the old days, was there provenance research you did to track down the true master?

I had the impression, especially when labels and associated physical materials were sold, stuff wasn't always in the best order, that what was on the box wasn't what the tape actually was, etc.

This is prompted by my recent interest in archival studies. In combing through a well known archive here, re film, I found some amazing back story to some Hitchcock movies, even "Hitch," the score composer, the (famous) actors were referred to on a first name basis. Less a technical question and more a historic research driven one. I'm not sure, apart from mastering notes, what other information would be "tells"-- the brand of tape used, other notations or records from the studio sessions, if those existed?

This may be outside the mastering process itself, but I find the "stories" to be fascinating and seem to remember that you, Steve, had to figure out what the "true" master was in the past. TIA.