SH Spotlight What sounds just like the analog master tape: CD, Vinyl, SACD or a 1:1 analog Reel tape copy?

First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs; I have a bunch of all three formats. Nothing that I discovered below changed that one bit.

I did these comparisons a few years ago. Since I spilled the beans to an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted about this subject. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this thread. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own with a tiny monitor and no spell check.... There could be a (gasp) typo or two...

A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual historic analog master tape to the playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.

FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS PCM CAPTURE.

We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I noticed:

The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the practically the same. We honestly couldn't tell one from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in so many pictures posted here of AcousTech).

The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD, just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly.

Please note that an actual record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music remains intact for the most part. A remarkable thing since records have been basically made the same way for over 100 years.


SECOND COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DSD MASTER (SACD MASTER).

So, using the same master tape of WALTZ FOR DEBBY, we compared the before mentioned acetate that we cut on the AcousTech lathe (manufactured in 1967 and modded by Kevin Gray) with a DSD playback of the same tape with the same mastering and levels.

Result? The DSD/SACD version sounded even MORE different than the compact disc digital playback compared to the analog master. More not-like the sound of the actual master tape. The resolution was fine and we could hear the notes decay, etc. just like analog but the TONALITY was a bit off. It was not telling the truth when compared to the master tape or the acetate record.

THIRD COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE RECORD with OPEN REEL TAPE COPY AT 15 ips:

We made a dub of the tune WALTZ FOR DEBBY to an Ampex ATR-100 at 15 ips non-Dolby, +3 level and played it back with the actual master tape and the acetate record. Both of us thought the open reel tape copy sounded inferior to the acetate record when compared to the master tape; weaker transients, a more "blurred" sound that would never be noticeable unless played back with the actual master tape to compare it to.

So, what does this mean to you? Probably nothing. What did it mean to me? I found it interesting. The CD playback had more accurate tonality than the DSD/SACD playback. The DSD playback had more front to back resolution than the CD playback. The tape copy sounded slightly lackluster. The acetate record playback beat them all in terms of resolution, tonal accuracy and everything else when compared directly with the analog master in playback. This is not wonderful news in a certain sense; vinyl playback is sometimes a pain in the butt and knowing that CD's are not capturing everything in perfect resolution drives me bonkers.

Regarding the lowly phonograph record:

We know that records have their problems (could be noisy, warped, bad cutting, etc.) as well but for the most part they will be a damn miraculous representation of the actual master recording for not much money.

Your comments are welcome.

Please remember, the above is just my OPINION but I found it interesting. I love my compact discs but I realize they are not the last word in resolution; they are damn fine though and when listening for pleasure I play CDs and records, with CDs getting the most play. My Sony and Living Stereo SACDs are never far away from me either. If you disagree with me, that's cool. It's all fun, or should be.

Sorry again for some awkward English in this; my proofing time was limited (but not compressed).

2019 UPDATE:

Please note, our DSD transfer back then used a machine that I did not care for. We changed machines right before the Nat King Cole Analogue Productions projects and that DSD capture was spot on. It would have been up there with the acetate record capture most likely. The PCM capture might be improved slightly with a more modern A/D but still not as wonderful as the DSD.

 

No, why? I master the same regardless of the medium. Always do.

 

Let me rephrase. If you listened to a blank cut lacquer and a blank cut TP made from the lacquer you would NOT hear much more noise. It's amazing but true (considering the plating process was perfected in 1903) and I've done the test hundreds of times as have those of you who have visited Record Tech/AcousTech Mastering in one of our many field trips.

However, that being said, the purity of the vinyl comes in to this equation as well as the type of stylus used in playback, preamp noise, etc.

If a test pressing had 20 db higher noise floor than a lacquer, records would really suck.

 

44.1, yes. I don't give a darn about 192/24 unless a compact disc can reproduce it..

Reverb trails are not essential to good listening but once one is made aware of the problem, it's pretty easy to spot on a CD, especially when comparing to the higher resolution DSD layer. Just an annoyance, not the end of the world.

 

Are you sure you want to know how to spot a reverb trail? Might ruin it for you.

I've used this example many of times.

The SACD/CD of Creedence WILLY & THE POOR BOYS that I did with Kevin a few years ago for Acoustic Sounds/Analogue Productions has a great example that you can try at home.

If one put on FORTUNATE SON in the SACD/DSD layer and just listen to the intro of the song, concentrating on the echo trail after each drum thwack you will hear how far "back" into the mix the echo of each distinct drum hit goes. Memorize that sound. If you don't trust the resolving power of your speakers, use your headphones...

Now, switch to the CD layer, cut by Kevin and I on the same day with the same mastering. Listen to FORTUNATE SON again, concentrating on the each drum thwack in the intro. Notice how the reverb vanishes much faster and is not as intense? Loss of resolution.

I once told this to a guy and he thought I was totally full of ****. He actually went out and bought the disk. He listened and said that I purposely ADDED echo on the SACD layer to make this so (like Kevin and I dug an echo chamber at RTI that matched Wally Heider Studio just to do this..)

Really, resolution loss is true. Not much we can do about it!

 

Forthcoming? Nah, most people out there wouldn't notice any difference between any of the formats if I a/b'd 'em for them. That's fine with me. It's just interesting to me that these discrepancies exist. Nothing we can really do about it. Most people wouldn't even want to know or care, since all of these formats are essentially "dead" to 99% of the population anyway.

 

In a dream world situation, get Kevin Gray to cut you a blank groove on a lacquer ref. 'Bout 100 bucks I guess would pay for it. Take it home with you. Get one of the many "test" LP's that have some blank grooves on them for set up. Make sure it's a virgin vinyl one.

Now, drag out your old cassette deck from 1980. Put the lacquer acetate on your turntable and adjust your cassette VU meter to -10 for the noise. You'll have to crank it. Got it? Now, put the test LP on (a pressed record) and see how much louder your meters go without readjusting. Maybe 2-5 db if it's a nice, quiet pressing?

It's really quite remarkable considering the LACQUER/MASTER/MOTHER/STAMPER/VINYL stages the thing has to go through to be pressed. It never seems like it would work (see below "tour" of record pressing at RTI) but it does, just like it did in 1960 or 1930.

http://www.recordtech.com/Tour.htm