How to become a serious audiophile

[Purité Audio]

Not tiny, teeny tiny.
Keith

 

[Thomas savage]

I have no idea. One would have to know how many records in total in this world have been cut and how many different times they have been cut differently. There is no way for anyone to know this. And I don't see the value in knowing what that percentage is. What value would that information even have? Now it was asserted on these forums that the number was 0% because it was asserted that it was not possible to cut any record without processing. Don't you think it's a good thing to know that isn't true and that some records have been cut without processing? The King Super Analogue catalog of Decca LPs consists of about 400ish LPs. Isn't nice to know they exist? And by the way, they are not the only rercords like that. You have an entire series of classic jazz records by Analog Productions done that way too. When you start adding up the number of records that have been cut without adding compression or using a limiter it adds up to a pretty substantial catalog. I don't know what percentage of records in this world it happens to be but I do know that out of my 4,500+ collection it's a substantial percentage.



Not exactly. I have spent a load of time arguing over a known verified fact that some records have been cut without processing. Once that arguement was conceded then the goal posts were moved by the folks arguing that "no" such records exist to "hardly any" exist. And what exactly is that argument based on? What facts are being cited in support? The folks who are arguing that "hardly any" exist weren't even aware that"any" existed just a few months ago. So what factual information have they gathered since finding out the such records exist at all that they can base the argument "hardly any exist?" Again, if this is a science based forum shouldn't these arguments be based on verifiable facts? Also another point on moving goal posts. I have never NEVER asserted that a large percentage of records have been cut without processing. One of the unsupported assertions I have been arguing against is that only a tiny percentage of recordings **can be** cut without processing. My argument against that assertion is the existance of the King Super Analog records, the existance of other original classical and jazz audiophile recordings and the Analog Productions 100 top jazz series. These recordings are by and large very dynamic compared to most commercail recordings. They do not fit into the cataogy of a rare tiny minority of recordings that just happen to be particularly easy to cut to lacquer. So on the assertion that only a tiny percentage of recordings *can possibly be* cut without processing I think the verified existance of very dynamic recordings that *were* cut without processing is a very strong argument against that assertion. Now, where is the verifiable evidence that runs contrary?





I think you answered your own question. It is easier in many cases even if it is not necessary. But I prefer not to speculate on what motivated choices on how records were cut. where does such speculation get us?



Again, I am not a fan of speculating. I'd much rather talk about what is factual. We can not begin to discuss why certain records were cut the way they were cut without hearing it from the people involved in cutting them.




That may be the perception. But if you read my comments on the subject of how records are cut what you will see they are assertions of fact about specific records that clearly run contrary to blanket assertions of how they supposedly "have to be" cut. If stating facts that run contrary to audio myths make me an "adversary" then so be it. But I find my presenting facts on the subject being "adversarial" to be really odd for a science based forum.



Quite happy to avoid the subject of each other and stick to the subject of audio. So to further the discussion. Do you need any further verification of my assertion of fact that the records I have cited were in fact cut without processing? Do you have any arguments against my extrapolation that the existance of these records, many of which were cut from highly dynamic original recordings strongly suggest that the number of recordings that *can be* cut without any processing is likely not limited to a "tiny" percentage of the commercial recordings made over the history of audio?

No, I don’t need anything.. but all this to ascertain a few records ( likely from specialist producers ) are produced without ‘ pre processing ‘ rather than non and with no context or reasoning given to flesh out what’s going on. That’s ok of course , I’m pleased it got pick up on but fear the worthiness has been lost in the pages of distraction.

And..,

No speculating most likely would not be very worthwhile ( at least uneducated speculation is pointless, logical reasoning where applicable is great) , you don’t know and that’s fine.

Let’s try and not counter every line of dialogue, you’d do well to keep in mind though this is a form of communication between active participants in this case directly you and me but indirectly a few others, as a whole these pages are ment to serve As a ‘readable’ resource . There’s many more ‘ readers ‘ than there are contributors so keep that in mind. it’s the silent majority that your making your case to rather than just the guy you might be arguing with.

Less is more, now let’s move on. ( translation, don’t bullet quote this post for yet another round of analysis and explaining)

Really , let’s move on.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Dearest Scott-

I think we are completely and forever, once and for all, DONE with the recognition, repeated and repeated, that SOME small subset of records from one specific audiophile label under very limited conditions MAY have been cut without EQ, bass monoization, etc. You have WON, BIG TIME. Game over. You are a hero. Hip, hip....

So, let's, please, let you drink your champagne in victory and move on, back to the real world where there is absolutely overwhelming evidence that LPs since the beginning of time have flagrantly and consistently committed those ghastly sins over and over again by frequency EQ (independently of RIAA) and bass limiting and mono mixing.

Unfortunately, your HUUUGE win, as it pertains only to some few LPs from one particular specialty label, does not say anything about the widely known and reported practices of major LP producers for over a half century.

 

[Wombat]

It's not about BEING right or wrong. It's about GETTING THE FACTS right or wrong. And in defense of facts I am now the egomaniac. Would it have been better to just let the misinformation pass as fact without pointing it out? Is that what folks here want?

It is a no-brainer that an unequalised recording that did not exceed the limits of the cut vinyl medium/process could be made within the constraints that imposed on performance practicalities


Profferred as proof:

*One recordist claiming he used no equalisation on his masters - does not prove the process was used by King records or others.

*I searched intensively for information on the King Super Analogue process and only found one comment(not verified), in a sale post, that the particular LP was cut at half-speed.
It is a fact that half-speed mastering/cutting requires specific EQ for that process(possibly not relevant).
I did find a trademark renewal for the Super Analogue term but no copyright, unfortunately.

*What confirmable information was provided to validate the cover 'blurb' of the Super Analogue Recording. Not proved as yet.

*Claiming ownership of a quantity of such LPs without being able to independently verify the process in question is not proof.


So unless AS has more convincing information, he has not proven his original point about the Super Analogue process.

The fact that in a selective output limited performance this could be done was elucidated by others, me included.

Let's get back to scientific ways of establishing some credibility of claims.

Question: How would Super Analogue Recordings cope with the dynamic range of symphony orchestras, retaining the quieter moments above noise levels, without compression, equalisation or gain-riding?
I would think the high regard in which they are held indicates they are not lacking, in this regard.

 

[Thomas savage]

Question: How would Super Analogue Recordings cope with the dynamic range of symphony orchestras, retaining the quieter moments above noise levels, without compression, equalisation or gain-riding?

That’s a good question , it would be great if we could put some more meat on the bones on this but we need someone who knows more about their process.

If anyone can help please start a new thread on the subject so it’s not lost within this one.

If there’s no new information forthcoming then let’s not go over the same ground.

 

[Analog Scott]

It is a no-brainer that an unequalised recording that did not exceed the limits of the cut vinyl medium/process could be made within the constraints that imposed on performance practicalities


Profferred as proof:

*One recordist claiming he used no equalisation on his masters - does not prove the process was used by King records or others.

I never offered the claims of one recording engineer as evidnece for how the King records were cut. I offered a copy of the printed description of King Super Analogue's process printed on the liner notes of their Decca classical LPs and signed off by the producer, Motohiko Takawa. The liner notes say the following. "Direct connection: The head amplifier of the tape recorder used for reproduction is directly connected to the cutting power amplifier, with no extraneous equipment such as a graphic equalizer, pass filter or limiter. (The bypass circuit is shown in the block diagram.) This enables flat transmission of the master tape signal to the cutter head, substantially improving transient characteristics and virtually eliminating deterioration of the sound quality, for an extremely natural and fresh sound. As a result, the record may contain a little hiss, hum and background noise if they are on the master tape. The reasons for this are wide frequency range and the fact that no technical alterations are made to the master tape in the cutting process."

Motohiko Takawa, the producer of these fine LPs, the man who puts his name to these liner notes is either lying in print about how these LPs were made or they really were done as he descibes above. I'm going to go with option 2. I doubt very much that he would lie about this process in such detail or accidentally be mistaken. He says no processing about as clearly as it can be said.

*I searched intensively for information on the King Super Analogue process and only found one comment(not verified), in a sale post, that the particular LP was cut at half-speed.
It is a fact that half-speed mastering/cutting requires specific EQ for that process(possibly not relevant).

Do you have any support or proof of the assertion that half speed mastering/cutting requires specific EQ? Why would it need that? The King Super Analogue records are indeed 1/2 speed mastered according to the same liner notes. here is what those notes say on the subject "By reducing both the tape and cutting speed by half. groove cutting accuracy has been considerably enhanced, yielding a wider frequency range and maximum recording density. This technology requires especially high level of expertise. Specifically, groove width on the "Super Analogue Disc" is between 30 and 280 microns maximum. (Normally, the approximate width is btween 30 and 80 microns.) This attests to how high the maximum level really is."

*What confirmable information was provided to validate the cover 'blurb' of the Super Analogue Recording. Not proved as yet.

What are you looking for here? The liner notes are clear and quite specific.

*Claiming ownership of a quantity of such LPs without being able to independently verify the process in question is not proof.

How would one possibly independently verify the process?

So unless AS has more convincing information, he has not proven his original point about the Super Analogue process.

I think you are applying an unreasonable standard of proof. Unless you can show us some reason to think that King, the premier producers of high qaulity LPs in Japan for decades is a dishonest buch with a propensity to lie through their teeth in their liner notes I think the fair and reasonable position would be that they are being honest about such detailed descriptions of their processes. They really didn't need to do that at all much less go into such detail. But they did.

The fact that in a selective output limited performance this could be done was elucidated by others, me included.

Let's get back to scientific ways of establishing some credibility of claims.

It's quite convenient to demand such things when you probably know there is no possible way to do so without access to the master tapes and all the specific gear used by King to cut these records. One has to apply some basic reasonable level headed thought to this. If there is strong evidence that record producers at King have a history lying about their processes in their liner notes then please provide it. Without that then perhaps you could cite specific verifiable facts about the measured limitations of record cutting and make a direct comparison to the verified measurements of the original master tapes as played through King's gear and fed to the cutter head. It goes both ways. If you are going to assert that it couldn't be done then please provide the verifiable evidence in support of that.

Question: How would Super Analogue Recordings cope with the dynamic range of symphony orchestras, retaining the quieter moments above noise levels, without compression, equalisation or gain-riding?
I would think the high regard in which they are held indicates they are not lacking, in this regard.

I beleive that is answered in the notes I have provided for you. And I am of the opinion that sans any hard evidence to the contrary it is unreasonable to assume that they are lying about how they cut their records because you personally find it hard to believe. I think you would at least have to offer up some hard verifiable measurements of the limits of the cutting process and the signal one would get from any of the master tapes used in cutting the King Super Analogue records.

 

[Wombat]

AS, the burden of proof is upon you to support your claims. The problem here is what you consider to be verifiable proof/validation is not. You just don't understand what it is all about.

TS is correct that this can go nowhere, under the circumstances.

 

[Jakob1863]

Maybe it could help to calm down and going back to where this all started a couple of weeks ago:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ts-of-phono-cartridges.1939/page-5#post-56814

Everybody could reread what was asserted and if it might be that a lot of the back and forth is just based on slight (or not so slight) misunderstandings....

@Thomas savage ,

as you were talking about the sheriff, isn´t something like this https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-a-serious-audiophile.2135/page-8#post-60332
a bit too far on the road to "ad hominem" ?

 

[Thomas savage]

This tell us what we need to know..,

The King Super Analogue records are indeed 1/2 speed mastered according to the same liner notes. here is what those notes say on the subject "By reducing both the tape and cutting speed by half. groove cutting accuracy has been considerably enhanced, yielding a wider frequency range and maximum recording density. This technology requires especially high level of expertise. Specifically, groove width on the "Super Analogue Disc" is between 30 and 280 microns maximum. (Normally, the approximate width is btween 30 and 80 microns.) This attests to how high the maximum level really is."

There’s some specialist guy making esoteric vinyl records, clearly not representative of the vast majority of vinyl production.

I’m genuinely bemused as to why such a big deal has been made of this, it’s frankly dumbfounding.

 

[Jakob1863]

Seems to happen quite often in forums; the reason might be in neglecting of the old advice trying to see each others posting in the best possible way.....

Admittedly the topic imo wasn´t about the "vast majority of vinyl productions" but more along the line that "no vinyl production could be without" (i.e. without limiting, monoing bass etc. ) .
Of course we can question if the original statement of Blumlein88 was meant in that way, but Analogscott did offer reasonable corrobation for his assertion, so that should be admitted/appreciated.

And all the other information coming along during the discussion is appreciated as well; the question remains if it wouldn´t be more fun to retrieve/collect such information without the "fighting" habits......

Edit: ...did offer reasonable corrobation for _his_ assertion .....

 

[Cosmik]

Seems to happen quite often in forums; the reason might be in neglecting of the old advice trying to see each others posting in the best possible way.....

Admittedly the topic imo wasn´t about the "vast majority of vinyl productions" but more along the line that "no vinyl production could be without" (i.e. without limiting, monoing bass etc. ) .
Of course we can question if the original statement of Blumlein88 was meant in that way, but Analogscott did offer reasonable corrobation for this assertion, so that should be admitted/appreciated.

And all the other information coming along during the discussion is appreciated as well; the question remains if it wouldn´t be more fun to retrieve/collect such information without the "fighting" habits......

It's like someone saying "All CDs are dithered so there's no distortion even at the lowest levels" and someone else deciding to find some that definitely aren't, not only to 'win' but to imply that CDs are fundamentally flawed.

Instead of all that, the discussion could be about how digital audio works; who were the driving forces behind its early development and why it was needed, how it eliminates distortion, reduces noise below audibility, gives huge dynamic range, provides perfect frequency and phase response, places no special restrictions on signal content. And how this differs from 'legacy' technologies.

 

[Thomas savage]

Seems to happen quite often in forums; the reason might be in neglecting of the old advice trying to see each others posting in the best possible way.....

Admittedly the topic imo wasn´t about the "vast majority of vinyl productions" but more along the line that "no vinyl production could be without" (i.e. without limiting, monoing bass etc. ) .
Of course we can question if the original statement of Blumlein88 was meant in that way, but Analogscott did offer reasonable corrobation for this assertion, so that should be admitted/appreciated.

And all the other information coming along during the discussion is appreciated as well; the question remains if it wouldn´t be more fun to retrieve/collect such information without the "fighting" habits......

It would of been a intresting thing to explore but non of us has the required knowledge of this exceptionally demarnding process. As it is this is how the discussion should of played out...

Guy 1

“ there’s no vinyl produced that’s not been subjected to pre processing aimed at mitigating the inherent limitations of the medium “

Guy 2

“ yes there is actually, Iv got a number of recording from a specialist producer, they’ve managed to develop a away round those typical limitations , il dig out the details but tbh I’m no expert on this process “

Guy 1

“ Iv never heard of such a thing , are you sure?”

Guy 2

“ yes , here’s some info from the people doing it “

Guy 1

“ wow ok, well obviously they’ve developed a way but it’s probably not that practical on a large scale but intresting niche market thanks for the info. It goes against what I understand so I’m still a little sceptical it would be helpful to know more about this specialist cutting technique “

Guy 2

“ yea , I understand it’s unusual unfortunately I’m not familiar with the technical details “

Guy 1

“ ok “

If only humans were as happy to admit what they don’t know as they seem to be with what they do know ( or think they know), then there’s the waving their arms about trying to hide what they don’t know with the long posts writing around that lack of knowledge.

Like you say , it’s forum life I guess.

 

[DonH56]

All that is old becomes new again... From an old post:

People like to help each other, and do not like it when their help is questioned. Beliefs enter into it, people get riled, conversation degenerates.

Example:

A: I just added a new Pet Rock to my system, the imaging is better, a veil was lifted, bass is better, you have to get one of these!
B. I do not see how a pet rock can do any of that. Have you measured the system?
A: Why would I care about measurements? I can hear it!
B. There's no way a pet rock can do that. Without measurements, you have no proof.
A: What do you mean "no proof"? Didn't I just say I can hear a difference?
B: That is not proof. You need to run a controlled test, have somebody place and remove the pet rock several times and see if you can tell when it is there.
A: I don't need some test, I can tell it works! And I just had my friend over and he heard it too so there!
B: That's ridiculous you are both nuts. I'm just trying to save you money.
A: OK, I found an article by the Pet Rock Sound chief engineer. I don't understand it, but he says it aligns the molecular flow of the universe inside my room and that's why it works.
B: Sounds like marketing. What measurements did they take?
A: There's a graph, it shows ripples in the force without the Pet Rock that are gone when it is added. Happy now?
B: No, that is meaningless. You are all mad.
A: Well, prove it! Measure the molecular flow with and without a Pet Rock and see the difference! Then you can see and show us all why it works.
B: That is nuts and I don't have anything like that kind of equipment.
A: Then you can't prove it doesn't work! You're a geek with no ears!
B: You have so much expectation bias it is running out of your ears. No wonder you think you hear something.
A; Snooty objectivist scumbag.
B: Ignorant gullible subjectivist.
<Thread closed>

THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE! No relation to any actual people, audio systems, or Pet Rocks is implied. No Pet Rocks were harmed in the making of this post.

 

[Cosmik]

Guy 1

“ there’s no vinyl produced that’s not been subjected to pre processing aimed at mitigating the inherent limitations of the medium “

Guy 2

“ yes there is actually, Iv got a number of recording from a specialist producer, they’ve managed to develop a away round those typical limitations , il dig out the details but tbh I’m no expert on this process “

Guy 1

"Do you mean electronic pre-processing, or do you mean special recording techniques for vinyl (limitations on mic placement, levels, gain-riding, limited playing time, no stereo bass, that sort of thing)?

Guy 2

"Of course they have to use special recording techniques! Vinyl has limited dynamic range and restrictions on signal content. "

Guy 1

"Ah, I see. So it's just a question of semantics then. By 'pre-processing' you meant specific electronic measures, but the term could be used generically to mean special recording techniques that give similar results?"

Guy 2

"Yes."

 

[Jakob1863]

@Thomas savage,

i am under the impression that your description is slightly biased to favour one side, which therefore imo doesn´t correctly reflect the unhappy unfolding of this discussion ....

 

[Sal1950]

THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE! No relation to any actual people, audio systems, or Pet Rocks is implied. No Pet Rocks were harmed in the making of this post.

That's good to hear, I was a bit nervous my Nodust Synergenetic Developers Pet Rock was about to be denigrated here by these science-nuts.
Can't begin to list the improvements brought not only to the audio but also the video side of my rig.

 

[Jakob1863]

Seriously calculated the difference between a 16 bit/44.1 kHz System and good old vinyl isn´t as large as one could suspect.
If one tries to avoid any overload in a digital system and likes to be above some environmental noise ground, then the system dynamic range will be around 55 - 60 dB, which is something that surprisingly is roughly achievable too with halfspeed mastering or direct to disc as well.

And, surprisingly again, both systems are capable to contain content that is impossible to get for the respectively other system.
And of course a lot of technical limitations overall are much bigger in the vinyl compartment than in the 16 bit/44.1 kHz system, but if that translates per se into better perceived sound quality is one of the interesting questions......

 

[Cosmik]

And, surprisingly again, both systems are capable to contain content that is impossible to get for the respectively other system.

Sounds interesting. What are examples of these?

 

[Thomas savage]

@Thomas savage,

i am under the impression that your description is slightly biased to favour one side, which therefore imo doesn´t correctly reflect the unhappy unfolding of this discussion ....

Well your wrong but that’s ok I forgive you

 

[blackmetalboon]

It turns out that the Pet Rock has many uses!