How to become a serious audiophile

[Jakob1863]

Sounds interesting. What are examples of these?

Think about the high frequency limit of the 44.1 kHz asmpling system and about the out of phase limitations in the bass reqion of the vinyl system as examples.

@Thomas savage,

Well your wrong but that’s ok I forgive you

Nothing as reassuring as a generous sheriff in town ....

 

[Thomas savage]

Think about the high frequency limit of the 44.1 kHz asmpling system and about the out of phase limitations in the bass reqion of the vinyl system as examples.

@Thomas savage,


Nothing as reassuring as a generous sheriff in town ....

Savage the merciful..

 

[Analog Scott]

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.

It seems that this issue really is 3 issues and I think it's worth using the proverbial crowbar and seperating them from here on out

1. Is it possible to cut a record without any processing and has it ever been done.

I think this one can be put to bed. The answer is yes.



2. With what percentage of actual commercial recordings is it actually *possible* to cut records without any additional processing.

I think if one looks at the nature of the recordings already cited, The Decca classical recordings on King Super Analogue, the Analog Productions top 100 Jazz series and James Boyk's high quality audiophile recordings of classical music on a concert grand piano the answer is a great deal of them. An exact percentage number is impossible to extrapolate but it is not impossible to extrapolate that a great many recordings are less dynamic than the ones already cited.

So at this point I may as well add to that list.
1. Reference Recordings Mastyercut reissue series of great symphonic classical recordings. From the back liner notes: "No equalization, gain riding or dynamic compression was used at any time."
2. Crystal Clear Records. Direct to disc recordings. "No transformers were used anywhere in the signal path to the lathes. Absolutely no equaliztion, artificial reverberation, compression or limiting employed"
I am checking with James Boyk on the Sheffield Lab recording he co engineered with Doug Sax of the L.A. Phil. I am betting the answer will be no additional processing but let's wait and see. That was also a direct to disc recording.
If one takes a careful look at the recordings by Crystal Clear, many of which are organ recordings and also look atht ese efforts from Reference recordings and Sgeffield Labs it ought to further reinforce the extraploation that it is *possible* to cut a great deal of the commercial recordings out there to record without any additional processing. Not a "teeny tiny percentage" as has been asserted by others.

And this leads us to issue #3


3. How many actual records have been cut without any processing?

I don't know. I'm pretty sure nobody here or anywhere for that matter does know. And really the same question can be asked about music on digital media as well. The presumption that such records are an extreme outlier is just that, a presumption. We lack the hard evidence to make any sort of estimate. We have two confirmed cutting engineers who *have* cut records without any additional processing with Doug Sax and Kevin Gray. and this is not a trivial point. They have both cut a lot more records than the ones so far specifically cited.

"Some guy" who cut the records for James Boyk without any additional processing and engineered most recordings for Sheffield Labs was Doug Sax. But to refer to him as "some guy" kind of undermines just who he really was. He and his brother opened the very first independent cutting lab in the world back in 1967. Doug Sax cut numerous records at The Mastering Lab for numerous labels over several decades.
https://www.discogs.com/artist/365860-Doug-Sax

And I think this quote from Doug Sax should tell you a lot about how he cut those records not just the records for Shefield Lab and Performance Recordings.

"Do you have a philosophy about mastering?
Doug Sax: Yes. If it needs nothing, don’t do anything. I think that you’re not doing a service by adding something it doesn’t need. I don’t make the stew, I season it. If the stew needs no seasoning, then that’s what you have to do, because if you add salt when it doesn’t need any, you’ve ruined it. I try to maintain what the engineer did. A lot of times they’re not really in the ballpark due to their monitoring, so I EQ for clarity more than anything."

This is from a guy who cut records of very dynamic music for Performance Recordings and Sheffield Labs without **any** additional processing. We can't say for sure that he did the same for the 1,000+ other records cut at The Mastering Lab over it's long existance. But we sure can't say that those two labels were THE sole exception given his stated philosophy on mastering.



Also this topic really isn't just as simple as "cut with no additional processing" or not. Not all additional processing is done because it is necessary to allow the record to be cut. A lot of additional processing is simply doen to make the master tape sound better. Over and above the records cut without *any* additional processing there is a vast number of records that are clearly claimed by the producers to have no compression. And I think this is the real issue here. EQ and other similar tweeks are optional. Compression is the big question. Do records need compression? How many and what records have been cut without any added compression? This broader catagory of records is not some obscure subset of records in general. The list of audiophile reissue and original issue labels that I have direct knowledge of producing such records is very long. And ya know what, I'm going to offer up a list of labels I know to have claimed to cut records without the use of compression.

Altus

Analog Productions

Analogphonic

Athena

Audite

Belle Ame

Cisco

Classic Records

Clear Audio

Coup d' Archet

DCC

Electric Recording Company

Impex

King Super Analogue

Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab

ORG

Pure Pleasure Records

Speaker's Corner

Berlin Classics

Chasing the Dragon records

Crystal Clear

Fone

Performance Recordings

Reference Recordings

There are other labels that I strongly suspect have done the same but I have not seen confirmation of it. If you look at the catalogs from Analog Productions and Mobile Fidelity alone you will see that this is not some small outlier phenomenon. The reissue labels above have taken on a great deal of the most note worthy recordings in the history of recorded music. Most of these labels do not just exclusively do vinyl either. These labels and a few others are the oasis of excellent sound when it comes to the great heritage of recorded music. What they do is not just as simple as either mastering with no additioanl processing or not mastering with no additional processing. What they do is master with the utmost care for sound quality for the various media. And they all have their own specific approaches and philosophies. But they are the oasis. they deserve acknowledgement for what they have accomplished in licencing and producing high qaulity records, CDs SACDs etc and they warrent the attention of anyone who is actually interested in better sound quality.

I get the feeling a lot of folks here aren't giving this issue or these labels the attention they ought to be giving them. If you work so hard and spend so much time and money on the home audio system souldn't you be paying as much time and money on the source material?

 

[Analog Scott]

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......

Kevin Gray claims 76 db DR possible with records

 

[Analog Scott]

Well your wrong but that’s ok I forgive you

I don't think he was refering to you.

 

[Cosmik]

As I alluded to earlier, the agenda is to imply that vinyl is just another digital-quality medium that can record anything you throw at it; people only 'dis' vinyl because they are bitter and twisted philistines. In the last few posts we have been told that CD's dynamic range is 55-60dB, and vinyl's is 76dB. CD's upper frequency limit is 22 kHz and vinyl's is infinite. This is how it goes...

 

[Analog Scott]

As I alluded to earlier, the agenda is to imply that vinyl is just another digital-quality medium that can record anything you throw at it; people only 'dis' vinyl because they are bitter and twisted philistines. In the last few posts we have been told that CD's dynamic range is 55-60dB, and vinyl's is 76dB. CD's upper frequency limit is 22 kHz and vinyl's is infinite. This is how it goes...

*My* agenda on this subject was to get the facts right. Nothing more nothing less.

Do you think Kevin Gray, one the world's most respected cutting engineers is getting it wrong when he claims 76 db DR?

Post script thought. I most certainly am not trying to imply thst vinyl is a "digital quality medium." Given my preference for vinyl sound that should be quite obvious.

 

[Analog Scott]

Kevin Gray's direct quote.

"The phonograph record is a marvelous medium for storing and reproducing sound. With frequency response from 7 Hz to 25kHz and over 75 dB dynamic range possible, it is capable of startling realism."

I suppose I took some liberty in saying 76 db. I will revise it to >75 db

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

You know, I think, but I am not sure, I heard a rumor that Thomas Edison once claimed his wax cylinders had an SN of > 80dB. I might have that vague myth wrong, though. But, like Kevin Gray, he never actually published those measurements together with his measurement methodology, and no one else was ever able to reproduce those results from the beginning grooves all the way to the innermost grooves. But, hey, if the very renowned Kevin Gray, you know, just says so, it must be true, right?

But, come to think of it, if we can hear tape hiss on LPs - that's one bonus "feature" of older LPs, in between the ticks and pops, that is - it must mean the LP has much dynamic range to offer. Funny, though, I never got the impression the S/N or dynamic range of LPs was all that terrific, even on my many, many Sheffield direct to discs.

 

[RayDunzl]

You know, I think, but I am not sure, I heard a rumor that Thomas Edison once claimed his wax cylinders had an SN of > 80dB

I wonder what he would have used to measure it?

Hmmm... http://proaudioencyclopedia.com/the-history-of-audio-and-sound-measurement/

Late model cyclinder (with sample): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_cylinder#Hard_plastic_cylinders

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I wonder what he would have used to measure it?

Hmmm... http://proaudioencyclopedia.com/the-history-of-audio-and-sound-measurement/

As I said, I could be wrong. I also wonder what the illustrious Kevin Gray used to support his assertion, repeated here by heresay, to once again advance the undisputed advantages of vinyl.

 

[RayDunzl]

As I said, I could be wrong.

I'm not arguing, just curious.

I get to be wrong a lot too.

 

[fas42]

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.

Of course, digital is theoretically far superior, but typical implementations of the playback chain were sloppy - "the accuracy of digital will fix everything!!" - ummm, no ...

Which is why CD had terrible early decades, I was amazed at how awful systems usually sounded - "Can't the people making this gear hear how poor the sound is, in certain areas?!" ... probably too busy "listening" to their measuring gear, instead .

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I'm not arguing, just curious.

I get to be wrong a lot too.

So could we all.

 

[fas42]

Kevin Gray's direct quote.

"The phonograph record is a marvelous medium for storing and reproducing sound. With frequency response from 7 Hz to 25kHz and over 75 dB dynamic range possible, it is capable of startling realism."

I suppose I took some liberty in saying 76 db. I will revise it to >75 db

Subjectively, vinyl has all the dynamics one could need - real world digital playback quite often does this poorly, which is one of the valid criticisms of the medium. The 'deadness' of much CD replay has caused it to take far too long to be fully accepted by the fussier - a classic instance where numbers tossed around mean almost nothing ...

 

[Sal1950]

I'm not arguing, just curious.

I get to be wrong a lot too.

The Central Scrutinizer is held to a higher standard.

 

[Wombat]

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.

Because it says so on the packet?

Contained within that somewhat subjective 'blurb' are statements that attract the interest of enquiring minds, e.g.

* groove width that is up to 350% wider than specified by the Standard for microgroove LPs. Why? How does this affect cartridges designed for discs with standardised grooves" This was pertinent in the thread Objective Measurements Of Phono Cartridges in which it first appeared. A max. groove width of 280 microns gives a depth of 140(not 280 as stated) micron for a standardised groove included angle of 90 degrees.

* no equalisation - raises questions about reproducing on the record the dynamic range of the orchestras on the SAR discs.

* special vacuum tubes developed by our technical staff.


This discussion started at about post 101 here: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...-measurements-of-phono-cartridges.1939/page-6

From what I can see the support for the particular LP jacket claims is hearsay or not relevant.

 

[tomelex]

The scientific way to check on this process other than through advertising would be to purchase the below and compare what you could by digitizing the vinyl at 24/96. However, given the playback of an individuals cartridge is never the same twice, that cartridge FR is poor, etc, it would be hard to compare results.

However, in general, one could determine if there was monoing of the bass easily enough, and other things would become apparent, distortion would be more on the vinyl, more non linear distortions and IMD due to the huge feedback needed for the cutter head, noise more on the vinyl, stereo separation could be less, and the vinyl because of its euphonic distortions subjectively could sound better too.

To me, the argument is done, there has been presented documentary evidence that they did not do any EQ from the tape player output to the lacquer besides RIAA. If I had bet money on it, I would certainly be comparing these particular CD and LP and finding out if Doug Sax did some playing with the signal from the master tape. That would be science.

But surely at this point who cares enough to reveal that if you keep your FR narrow enough and your EQ to the master what a record needs, then certainly you can do just as he did. Its pretty much a mute point for me, as I do appreciate that the vinyl playback can sound better than the cd, while the CD should sound pretty much like the master tape.

I agree that some of the stuff on the back of that SAD in above post beggers belief, like they created their own tube...geeez. But, when you feel that your vinyl sales are dropping (in 1992 when this SAD was made CD was surely seriously challenging the vinyl industry so they needed to somehow standout from the other records i suppose) and super audio disc was a good phrase to use IMO.

A piano recording could be considered not very challenging when compared to a full symphony for darn sure. What kind of stereo recording was it, or mostly mono, who knows....but i don't care as i said above.

http://shop.performancerecordings.com/product.sc?productId=5

 

[Wombat]

The scientific way to check on this process other than through advertising would be to purchase the below and compare what you could by digitizing the vinyl at 24/96. However, given the playback of an individuals cartridge is never the same twice, that cartridge FR is poor, etc, it would be hard to compare results.

However, in general, one could determine if there was monoing of the bass easily enough, and other things would become apparent, distortion would be more on the vinyl, more non linear distortions and IMD due to the huge feedback needed for the cutter head, noise more on the vinyl, stereo separation could be less, and the vinyl because of its euphonic distortions subjectively could sound better too.

To me, the argument is done, there has been presented documentary evidence that they did not do any EQ from the tape player output to the lacquer besides RIAA. If I had bet money on it, I would certainly be comparing these particular CD and LP and finding out if Doug Sax did some playing with the signal from the master tape. That would be science.

But surely at this point who cares enough to reveal that if you keep your FR narrow enough and your EQ to the master what a record needs, then certainly you can do just as he did. Its pretty much a mute point for me, as I do appreciate that the vinyl playback can sound better than the cd, while the CD should sound pretty much like the master tape.

I agree that some of the stuff on the back of that SAD in above post beggers belief, like they created their own tube...geeez. But, when you feel that your vinyl sales are dropping (in 1992 when this SAD was made CD was surely seriously challenging the vinyl industry so they needed to somehow standout from the other records i suppose) and super audio disc was a good phrase to use IMO.

A piano recording could be considered not very challenging when compared to a full symphony for darn sure. What kind of stereo recording was it, or mostly mono, who knows....but i don't care as i said above.

http://shop.performancerecordings.com/product.sc?productId=5

Would you please point out the documentary evidence that they did not do any EQ ...............? I can only see the anecdotal claims on the LP reverse cover, I didn't see any other document that was proffered verifying the SAD sessions' lack of EQ.

I would say no tangible proof has been put forward to date.

Was the process as described in the cover notes? Who knows but the cover notes do raise questions that are so far unanswered, here?

 

[Analog Scott]

You know, I think, but I am not sure, I heard a rumor that Thomas Edison once claimed his wax cylinders had an SN of > 80dB. I might have that vague myth wrong, though. But, like Kevin Gray, he never actually published those measurements together with his measurement methodology, and no one else was ever able to reproduce those results from the beginning grooves all the way to the innermost grooves. But, hey, if the very renowned Kevin Gray, you know, just says so, it must be true, right?

But, come to think of it, if we can hear tape hiss on LPs - that's one bonus "feature" of older LPs, in between the ticks and pops, that is - it must mean the LP has much dynamic range to offer. Funny, though, I never got the impression the S/N or dynamic range of LPs was all that terrific, even on my many, many Sheffield direct to discs.

Why would Kevin Gray publish the measurements?