Objective measurements of phono cartridges

[Thomas savage]

Oh something like...?

I found that one but thought the word ‘ manipulative ‘ might be incendiary...

 

[watchnerd]

IF there was any summing the bass to mono on these LPs it happened in the mastering console that preceded the cutting amp.

Right. Exactly. That was the whole point of mastering. To take the original tape and modify it as needed to make a master pressing for the mass manufacture of LPs.

If this mastering process wasn't necessary, they wouldn't have done it. It takes extra time and money.

Note that I said "vinyl master". I didn't say master tape.

 

[watchnerd]

"In the old days, if there was a problem with hard-panned low end a mastering engineer "might" have to do the following:
Double the stereo track, sum one double to mono, high pass the stereo track, low pass the mono one, re-sum the two back together.. There were vinyl mastering consoles with this built in".

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/ele...nyl-pressing-just-general-bass-centering.html

 

[Analog Scott]

Right. Exactly. That was the whole point of mastering. To take the original tape and modify it as needed to make a master pressing for the mass manufacture of LPs.

If this mastering process wasn't necessary, they wouldn't have done it. It takes extra time and money.

Note that I said "vinyl master". I didn't say master tape.

The tapes were not modified in the case of the Mercury Living Presence recordings. The LPs were cut directly from the mixing console using the original three track analogue master tapes. Since these were three track masters it was necessary to mix them down to two channels in the console regardless of what other "modifications" may have been made on the fly in the mixing console. Same thing was true when they did the whole Mercury Living Presence CD series back in the early 90s. All of the original gear inculding the mixing console was refurbished and used for that series. Those CD also had to be mixed down form the three channel master tapes. IOW mastered for CD. So it was necessary for both the LPs and the CDs.

There was no "vinyl master" for the Mercury Living Presence LPs. They were cut directly from the "master tape."

 

[Analog Scott]

"In the old days, if there was a problem with hard-panned low end a mastering engineer "might" have to do the following:
Double the stereo track, sum one double to mono, high pass the stereo track, low pass the mono one, re-sum the two back together.. There were vinyl mastering consoles with this built in".

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/ele...nyl-pressing-just-general-bass-centering.html

There is no hard panning on either the Decca or Mercury classical recordings. There was no mastering console whatsoever in the King Super Analogue LPs

 

[watchnerd]

The tapes were not modified in the case of the Mercury Living Presence recordings. The LPs were cut directly from the mixing console using the original three track analogue master tapes. Since these were three track masters it was necessary to mix them down to two channels in the console regardless of what other "modifications" may have been made on the fly in the mixing console. Same thing was true when they did the whole Mercury Living Presence CD series back in the early 90s. All of the original gear inculding the mixing console were refurbished and used for that series. Those CD also had to be mixed down form the three channel master tapes. IOW mastered for CD. So it was necessary for both the LPs and the CDs.

There was no "vinyl master" for the Mercury Living Presence LPs. They were cut directly from the "master tape."

There is no hard panning on either the Decca or Mercury classical recordings. There was no mastering console whatsoever in the King Super Analogue LPs

Okay, let's go back to first principles. Do you acknowledge the following to be true:

1. Deep bass with a high dynamic range can cause serious tracking problems with LPs

2. #1, when coupled with severe phase differences between channels, makes not only tracking hard, but the actual cutting of the record difficult due to grooves running into each other

If you don't believe #1 and #2 to be actual limits in the physics of vinyl reproduction, then we need to backtrack completely.

 

[tomelex]

sEarlier on Analog Scott said he did not need to know how a cutter worked (and obviously did not at the time...some searching on the internet might have taken place since then though, but it is not in favor of his comments though ), and that these recordings did not have Eq, etc, or mooned base. There is no proof presented so far, just an advertising back cover of a record, which shows block diagrams, with the lower one so full of little block boxes to show how much simpler their "signal path" is, and yet, again, no proof whatsoever of his statements can be found. And, alarmingly, they claim on that back cover to have developed a new tube for their cutter and other things that I think are messed up in translation from what, Japanese?

Any way, I say it has been a fail as far as real evidence to assert his no mono claims. We did see a few nice notes about objective measurments of phono cartridges though vs the thread title.

Lack of evidence asserting what he said is lack of evidence, and until we see evidence its just WBF talk. WBF, why believe facts

The lack of understanding of the vinyl cutting process and limitations is at the very essense of believing the marketing hype or in the case of the back cover he cited, believing the "block diagrams" which leave plenty of information out. When he finds the actual words that parrot what he said about no monoing the base, then we have something to work on, and I believe he said there are atleast three labels that this applies to, so Analog Scott, you need to dig deeper to prove your claim, must be out there somewhere.....however, this would be information at the back end, the guy operating the cutter, and I doubt in the case of his labels cited those guys are ever talked to by the marketing department.

Just FYI, monoing is done at the cutter as well as a whole lot of other possibilities to EQ the signal. Cutters can do a lot, vinyl can do a lot, the limitation is the consumer playback cartridges, they just can only handle so much, and there is the "technical limitation" of vinyl, other than noise, which will never be as good as digital, but you can cut some large grooves and swings and get dynamics but your playing time will be in seconds or a few minutes per side...not good for selling music.

And cutters use HUGE amounts of feedback, that should make the WBF brigade cringe! check out the how audible is distortion thread for some science and tests you can listen to on your system or headphones or computer monitors etc, for some real fun.

 

[watchnerd]

but you can cut some large grooves and swings and get dynamics but your playing time will be in seconds or a few minutes per side...not good for selling music.

The exception being those 2 x 12" 45 RPM audiophile releases of material originally released on 1 x 12" 33 RPM, which, ironically, is direct evidence of the compromises in question.

 

[tomelex]

True, Watchnerd, here is something pretty cool to look at to

http://www.piratespress.com/products/direct-metal-mastering/

I would say according to the last two paragraphs they are trying to take away as many of the vinyl "pleasing artifacts" as possible, might not be the best way to go with the WBF brigade.

 

[watchnerd]

Watchnerd, here is something pretty cool to look at to

http://www.piratespress.com/products/direct-metal-mastering/

I would say according to the last two paragraphs they are trying to take away as many of the vinyl "pleasing artifacts" as possible, might not be the best way to go with the WBF brigade.

I actually have a few DMM-made LPs.

 

[Analog Scott]

sEarlier on Analog Scott said he did not need to know how a cutter worked .

That is complete B.S. Quote in context please. If you can't make an honest argument then there is no need for any further discussion.

 

[Analog Scott]

Okay, let's go back to first principles. Do you acknowledge the following to be true:

1. Deep bass with a high dynamic range can cause serious tracking problems with LPs

2. #1, when coupled with severe phase differences between channels, makes not only tracking hard, but the actual cutting of the record difficult due to grooves running into each other

If you don't believe #1 and #2 to be actual limits in the physics of vinyl reproduction, then we need to backtrack completely.

1. Yes, deep bass with high dynamic range can cause serious tracking problems particuarly if the bass is panned to the far left or right. Yes, there are recordings that contain such bass content that require modifications to be cut and played back on a vinyl record.

 

[Analog Scott]

The exception being those 2 x 12" 45 RPM audiophile releases of material originally released on 1 x 12" 33 RPM, which, ironically, is direct evidence of the compromises in question.

Yeah, and an obvious working solution to avoid those compromises. The Analog Productions Top 100 Fantasy Jazz series that I cited were cut at 45 rpm with very short sides. Recordings that were originally released on single albums were all released in this series on double LPs.

 

[watchnerd]

Yeah, and an obvious working solution to avoid those compromises. The Analog Productions Top 100 Fantasy Jazz series that I cited were cut at 45 rpm with very short sides. Recordings that were originally released on single albums were all released in this series on double LPs.

Yes, I would agree that they ameliorate some of the previously mentioned issues, although not a panacea.

FWIW, I don't buy them because I feel like those extra flips change the listening experience from the original album.

 

[tomelex]

That is complete B.S. Quote in context please. If you can't make an honest argument then there is no need for any further discussion.

I can cite well over 500 records off the top of my head that have no limiting, no compression, no EQ and no summing of the bass to mono pretty easily. I don't need to read up on cutting lathes to know these specifics about actual records that were cut this way

There is no need for further discussion with me until you provide proof for your assertion and yes I reject a "block diagram" that does not back up your claim in my book.

Cutters cut records and lack of knowledge of how they work can lead folks to parrot what the back of record sleeves say, like most things, there is the rest of the storty.

Thousands of others perhaps agree with you, but I have not seen one post agreeing with you here yet!

I am sure there are plenty of things we can agree on but not this one.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

No. The Mercury recordings do not have the bass summed to mono. The master recordings are three track recordings and the original LPs were cut directly from the three track analog masters. IF there was any summing the bass to mono on these LPs it happened in the mastering console that preceded the cutting amp. The recordings themselves do not have the bass summed to mono.

"RAB: I admire so much that you have mixed the three tracks manually towards two channels during the cutting of the record. I myself made audiovisuals and had to mix the tape with speech and the tape with music manually and synchronize it with the images. I had to start a fade-in at the right moment and finish the transition to the following image on preselected moments in the music, sometimes slowly and at times very quickly. If I made a mistake I had to start the whole program of 20 minutes all over again. I can imagine how intense your work must have been.

WCF: Yes, we never mixed the channels to a master tape, but always directly to the cutting lathe. A tape would introduce extra hiss and we did not want that."

The Mercury team used a Scully variable-pitch recording lathe designed by John J. Scully
and his son Lawrence J. Scully.

http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html

Scott - you argue and argue as if you actually knew what you were talking about. But, presenting this as proof of your precious point about no mono bass on the LP blows your cover. If you think this proves your point, the rest of us are in head slap mode, because this schematic offers many opportunities to sum the bass to mono - mixing console, audio amplifiers, electronics, etc.

Where does his schematic say RIAA equalization is applied? Answer: it does not. Does that mean the Mercuries did not use the RIAA curve? No, of course not. But, that is what you are trying to tell us about mono bass - it is not on the diagram, so it must not be taking place.

And, by the way, no amount of stereo bass, even if it were there on LP, will solve all the miserable problems of LP mastering and playback. So, who cares anyway?

 

[Analog Scott]

I can cite well over 500 records off the top of my head that have no limiting, no compression, no EQ and no summing of the bass to mono pretty easily. I don't need to read up on cutting lathes to know these specifics about actual records that were cut this way

There is no need for further discussion with me until you provide proof for your assertion and yes I reject a "block diagram" that does not back up your claim in my book.

Cutters cut records and lack of knowledge of how they work can lead folks to parrot what the back of record sleeves say, like most things, there is the rest of the storty.

Thousands of others perhaps agree with you, but I have not seen one post agreeing with you here yet!

I am sure there are plenty of things we can agree on but not this one.

OK so maybe this is a reading comprehension issue and not just plain dishonesty. Maybe you don't fully grasp the difference between "sEarlier on Analog Scott said he did not need to know how a cutter worked ." and what I actually said "I can cite well over 500 records off the top of my head that have no limiting, no compression, no EQ and no summing of the bass to mono pretty easily. I don't need to read up on cutting lathes to know these specifics about actual records that were cut this way" If you don't understand the huge difference between what I actually said and what you claimed I said then indeed, we should not discuss anything anymore from here on out.

And by the way, posts agreeing with me on this forum is hardly an indicator of the reality of how these records were actually cut. Reality is not decided by a vote on internert forums.

 

[tomelex]

Reading comprehension aside, your only proof is the back of one record sleeve, and it is a simplified block diagram and not the statement you posted. It does not do it for me, it leaves out way too many details.

If you are saying that you read the back of record cover(s) and they say that" have no limiting, no compression, no EQ and no summing of the bass to mono", since you are very clever about the clarity of ones reading a comment, then yes, I agree with you, you just need to find me that comment on a record cover somewhere and we can agree.

Find it!

, and we can agree it was written on the back of a record cover or wherever it was written. Is that clear enough? If not let me know and we will wordsmith this down to whatever exactly you are going to prove or want to prove and have it correlated somewhere other than a statement you have made.

Or, you could just say I can not find anywhere to agree with my statement and then we can talk about something else, like measurements of phono cartridges, like I think the most expensive tech das one that rolls of at like 10KHz if my memory is correct. Now that's less than FM radio capability.

 

[Analog Scott]

Scott - you argue and argue as if you actually knew what you were talking about. But, presenting this as proof of your precious point about no mono bass on the LP blows your cover. If you think this proves your point, the rest of us are in head slap mode, because this schematic offers many opportunities to sum the bass to mono - mixing console, audio amplifiers, electronics, etc.

Where does his schematic say RIAA equalization is applied? Answer: it does not. Does that mean the Mercuries did not use the RIAA curve? No, of course not. But, that is what you are trying to tell us about mono bass - it is not on the diagram, so it must not be taking place.

And, by the way, no amount of stereo bass, even if it were there on LP, will solve all the miserable problems of LP mastering and playback. So, who cares anyway?

So you had to with some ad hominem. That's nice. There's one logical fallacy in your argument. The next of course is your cherry picking. You cite the one block diagram but exclude the other block diagram and exclude all the written descriptions as well. So you have two obvious logical fallacies in your argument. This business about But let's look at what you excluded in your argument and see how it relates to the issue.



"No extranious 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" "no technical alterations are made to the master tape in the cutting process"
How would one reconcile the bass being summed to mono with the claims of no technical alterations are made to the master tape and flat transmission of the tape signal to the cutter head?

But as you say, you don't care anyway. So why even argue about something you don't care about? I asked early on if this was an issue. Clearly I was right to ask even though I didn't get an answer...until now.

 

[Analog Scott]

Reading comprehension aside, your only proof is the back of one record sleeve, and it is a simplified block diagram and not the statement you posted. It does not do it for me, it leaves out way too many details.

If you are saying that you read the back of record cover(s) and they say that" have no limiting, no compression, no EQ and no summing of the bass to mono", since you are very clever about the clarity of ones reading a comment, then yes, I agree with you, you just need to find me that comment on a record cover somewhere and we can agree.

Find it!

, and we can agree it was written on the back of a record cover or wherever it was written. Is that clear enough? If not let me know and we will wordsmith this down to whatever exactly you are going to prove or want to prove and have it correlated somewhere other than a statement you have made.

Or, you could just say I can not find anywhere to agree with my statement and then we can talk about something else, like measurements of phono cartridges, like I think the most expensive tech das one that rolls of at like 10KHz if my memory is correct. Now that's less than FM radio capability.

I figured some folks would be looking for unreasonable over the top kinds of proof. Like "affidavits." If you actually read what was written along with the both block diagrams it is very clear that there is no EQ or use of compression or limiters. So the only thing you can contend in the summing of the bass to mono. While that may not be as explicitely addressed as EQ, compression and use of limiters I am of the opinion that it is addressed. You are not. Oh well. But again, I think whatever proof I bring you will find it inadequate.

Would an explicit claim by a mastering engineer of no use of EQ, limiters, compression and no summing the bass to mono in cutting records suffice as proof? Or would you write any and all such claims off, no matter how explicit as pure advertising fodder and a lie by the mastering engineer?

There is a phono cartridge that rolls off completley by 10KHz? Yeah, that would be something to talk about too.