Objective measurements of phono cartridges

[tomelex]

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.

Yes, if someone said that I would agree that they said that and agree that you have it documented that someone said that. Saying it is the only thing you can find. I would not ask for proof of someone examining the record or what circuits were turned on at the actual lathe. Really, it will give us all some relief.

No need to delve into the actual cutting process, as the words on that back page of the album you show are translations and I do not think are correct like: "no technical alterations are made to the master tape in the cutting process" well, the master tape is the source, it can be modified so the cutter works better, but they say they just ran with the master, Masters are made to play back over the tape machine. They can be modified to playback over vinyl better and are. Who knows what the master was set out to be in the first place, lots of ambiguous stuff on that back record jacket IMO.

 

[Analog Scott]

Yes, if someone said that I would agree that they said that and agree that you have it documented that someone said that. Saying it is the only thing you can find. I would not ask for proof of someone examining the record or what circuits were turned on at the actual lathe. Really, it will give us all some relief.

No need to delve into the actual cutting process, as the words on that back page of the album you show are translations and I do not think are correct like: "no technical alterations are made to the master tape in the cutting process" well, the master tape is the source, it can be modified so the cutter works better, but they say they just ran with the master, Masters are made to play back over the tape machine. They can be modified to playback over vinyl better and are. Who knows what the master was set out to be in the first place, lots of ambiguous stuff on that back record jacket IMO.

• James Boyk <[email protected]>
  
• Today at 3:16 PM

To

• Scott Wheeler

Message body
On 12/3/17 3:10 PM, Scott Wheeler wrote:
> Dear Mr. Boyk,
>
> I hope all is well with you and i am sorry to bother you with this
> question.

No problem.




In the mastering of the Pictures at an Exhibition LP was
> there any use of compression, a limiter or summing the bass to mono?


No compression, no limiting, no summing the bass.

It's refreshing to be asked.

jb

 

[watchnerd]

Taking a step back for a second, what's the principle being debated here?

Analog Scott seems to agree that dynamic range can cause problems on LPs, and that sometimes bass need to be 'monofied' (everything from summed to mono to dual mono L + R channels). And that high dynamic demands can challenge the spacing of grooves -- hence the 45 RPM 12" LPs.

So it seems like everyone admits there are engineering challenges in the creation of LPs that are different from digital.

Are we just debating where, when, and how which specific LPs used which specific compromises?

Because that discussion spans the entire duration of LP history, including up to the present day.

 

[Wombat]

In the cutting process??

 

[Analog Scott]

Taking a step back for a second, what's the principle being debated here?

Analog Scott seems to agree that dynamic range can cause problems on LPs, and that sometimes bass need to be 'monofied' (everything from summed to mono to dual mono L + R channels). And that high dynamic demands can challenge the spacing of grooves -- hence the 45 RPM 12" LPs.

So it seems like everyone admits there are engineering challenges in the creation of LPs that are different from digital.

Are we just debating where, when, and how which specific LPs used which specific compromises?

Because that discussion spans the entire duration of LP history, including up to the present day.

This is what I have been debating.

Blumlein 88: Yes of course it is. And we know for a certain fact, that you had to use different masters for LP than for CD or tape. That is not due to some preference in sound, it was a necessity for pressing LPs that would work on TTs.

Analog Scott: That is true for only a few recordings like the Telarc 1812 overture and a few other unusual and notable exceptions. The fact is a good many very very dynamic recordings have been mastered to vinyl with zero compression, limiting or EQ and no summing of the bass to mono. So unless you were using recordings such as the Telarc 1812 overture and/or others like it the LPs did not necessarily have to be mastered differently. Since I have no idea what specific recordings you used it's really hard for me to say how the LPs were mastered or how they needed to be mastered. Maybe you can share with us which recordings you used in those comparisons?

 

[watchnerd]

This is what I have been debating.

Blumlein 88: Yes of course it is. And we know for a certain fact, that you had to use different masters for LP than for CD or tape. That is not due to some preference in sound, it was a necessity for pressing LPs that would work on TTs.

Analog Scott: That is true for only a few recordings like the Telarc 1812 overture and a few other unusual and notable exceptions. The fact is a good many very very dynamic recordings have been mastered to vinyl with zero compression, limiting or EQ and no summing of the bass to mono. So unless you were using recordings such as the Telarc 1812 overture and/or others like it the LPs did not necessarily have to be mastered differently. Since I have no idea what specific recordings you used it's really hard for me to say how the LPs were mastered or how they needed to be mastered. Maybe you can share with us which recordings you used in those comparisons?

So to clarify, are you saying that CDs and LPs:

1. Usually use the same master
2. Sometimes do, sometime don't use the same master -- depends on the recording
3. Usually don't use the same master, although there are rare exceptions

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

So to clarify, are you saying that CDs and LPs:

1. Usually use the same master
2. Sometimes do, sometime don't use the same master -- depends on the recording
3. Usually don't use the same master, although there are rare exceptions

Why are you asking? He is clueless or just making it up.

 

[watchnerd]

Why are you asking? He is clueless or just making it up.

I'm curious about his perspective.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

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.

Ah, the "ad hominem" card. Scott, I am not attacking you personally. I am simply not finding anything but BS in your posts, your attempts to deflect, deny and go hyperdefensive. It is your expressed opinions that do not add up. If I criticize or reveal their faults, I am deeply sorry that you take that personally. But, you are unraveling, my friend, and the credibility of your opinions is in the toilet.

You presented the one block diagram, asserting it proved your point. It does not. So, now, I am in some ad hominem attack because I cited your very same block diagram and showed it does not prove your point?

Where did this new information cited above in your post come from? The statement "no technical alterations are made to the master tape" is patently and overtly not true, since RIAA EQ had to be applied. Even so, if you believe this is some sort of proof of your position, it is full of holes.

Nothing personal, man. As I said before, knock yourself out. But, you are wasting our time and shooting blanks here.

BTW, if you really want to hear how the Mercury recordings were supposed to sound, get up to date, man. Listen to the SACD remasters in 3-channel, as they were recorded. That is how I listen to them.

 

[tomelex]

• James Boyk <[email protected]>
  
• Today at 3:16 PM

To

• Scott Wheeler

Message body
On 12/3/17 3:10 PM, Scott Wheeler wrote:
> Dear Mr. Boyk,
>
> I hope all is well with you and i am sorry to bother you with this
> question.

No problem.




In the mastering of the Pictures at an Exhibition LP was
> there any use of compression, a limiter or summing the bass to mono?


No compression, no limiting, no summing the bass.

It's refreshing to be asked.

jb

To not continue on in this loop, I agree with the statement above, however, I have no idea what happened at the cutting lathe. Only an examination of the record could provide that information, assuming a good cartridge to pull off information below about 70hz. I like reference recordings and I use pictures at an exhibition to qualify some properties of amplifiers and speaker systems when comparing. But, its a CD, not a LP that I use.

I don't think anyone has the album and will want to run it through some daw station software or whatever and it is not really important, as the question asking about mastering, is as Wombat asked critical, for example, there is a well known master engineer on WBF, but he does not have a cutter, and he masters for vinyl as well, but he does not cut.

But I am happy to leave Scott to his task, and it was nice to hear from 'jb". I appreciate Scott contacting him. It does answer his point, which is mastering and not necessarily cutting. Two different things. But I will leave that question there. I doubt he did the cutting in any case, but I am sure he did the mastering.

 

[tomelex]

In the cutting process??

we will never know. Analog Scott point to be very strict, is about mastering, and it is not by definintion including what happened at the lathe, as we all know, mastering is done to reduce issues at the lathe, but the lathe as several circuits and feedforward, filters, agc, etc, and things are done there, and he only critically specifies mastering, it was us, who know there is a next step that began asking the questions, which took us away from his original point, ONLY mastering.

I am moving on as I think we can all accept mastering and cutting are two different things and in reality can certainly be two different processes, one is mastering, and I don't know what the process at the cutter is called, it is just done as necessary.

 

[Blumlein 88]

BTW, if you really want to hear how the Mercury recordings were supposed to sound, get up to date, man. Listen to the SACD remasters in 3-channel, as they were recorded. That is how I listen to them.

I at one time owned most of the very early mono Mercury recordings. Managed to find them that had either not been played or sparingly. They were more dynamic sounding than later stereo recordings in general. Taking note of course different recordings of different venues in 3 channel vs 1 channel recordings. I suppose this doesn't mean much just thought I would mention it.

 

[watchnerd]

Yeah, circular arguments sans empirical data get boring quickly.

So back to the original topic:

I currently have a Nagaoka MP-500. It's a damn fresh cart, and I have a spare stylus.

Should I use them both till they die, and then upgrade to a MC, upgrade to an MC now, or screw MCs altogether?

 

[Analog Scott]

So to clarify, are you saying that CDs and LPs:

1. Usually use the same master
2. Sometimes do, sometime don't use the same master -- depends on the recording
3. Usually don't use the same master, although there are rare exceptions

What is used to master LPs and Digital media is all over the place. Not to mention what choices made by mastering engineers is also all over the place. I try not to generalize and take each recording on a case by case basis.

 

[Analog Scott]

To not continue on in this loop, I agree with the statement above, however, I have no idea what happened at the cutting lathe. Only an examination of the record could provide that information, assuming a good cartridge to pull off information below about 70hz. I like reference recordings and I use pictures at an exhibition to qualify some properties of amplifiers and speaker systems when comparing. But, its a CD, not a LP that I use.

I don't think anyone has the album and will want to run it through some daw station software or whatever and it is not really important, as the question asking about mastering, is as Wombat asked critical, for example, there is a well known master engineer on WBF, but he does not have a cutter, and he masters for vinyl as well, but he does not cut.

But I am happy to leave Scott to his task, and it was nice to hear from 'jb". I appreciate Scott contacting him. It does answer his point, which is mastering and not necessarily cutting. Two different things. But I will leave that question there. I doubt he did the cutting in any case, but I am sure he did the mastering.

I am not making any claims about what happened at the cutting lathe in any particular case. Only what was fed to the cutting lathe. I think there is little question that cutting lathes and cutting amps have their own sonic signatures. As does the medium itself. I have never ever claimed audible transparency on this subject.

 

[tomelex]

Understood Scott.

 

[Analog Scott]

Ah, the "ad hominem" card. Scott, I am not attacking you personally. I am simply not finding anything but BS in your posts, your attempts to deflect, deny and go hyperdefensive. It is your expressed opinions that do not add up. If I criticize or reveal their faults, I am deeply sorry that you take that personally. But, you are unraveling, my friend, and the credibility of your opinions is in the toilet.

You presented the one block diagram, asserting it proved your point. It does not. So, now, I am in some ad hominem attack because I cited your very same block diagram and showed it does not prove your point?

Where did this new information cited above in your post come from? The statement "no technical alterations are made to the master tape" is patently and overtly not true, since RIAA EQ had to be applied. Even so, if you believe this is some sort of proof of your position, it is full of holes.

Nothing personal, man. As I said before, knock yourself out. But, you are wasting our time and shooting blanks here.

BTW, if you really want to hear how the Mercury recordings were supposed to sound, get up to date, man. Listen to the SACD remasters in 3-channel, as they were recorded. That is how I listen to them.

dude, calling someone clueless is pure ad hominem. Period. Accusing me of just making this up is even worse ad hominem.

I did not present the one block diagram. I presented the entire page with two block diagrams and written descriptions of the process. Saying otherwise is clueless.

But so what? Now that I have an email from James Boyk clearly and specifically stating what I have been asserting all along I see most all the nay sayers stepping back now on this issue. So in this case it should be pretty apparent that the guy you called clueless and accuse of making things up was the only one who actually brought specific facts about actual real world records and how they were actually mastered to the argument. But anyway....

 

[Arnold Krueger]

https://imgur.com/gallery/VTBqq

The documentation may contradict itself. The Dolby processor is based on dynamic range compression and more-or-compensating expansion. It is known to be less than perfect in terms of mirroring the process especially if slightly misadjusted.

The power amp is tubed, and tubed gear is well known for soft limiting.

 

[Arnold Krueger]

How would that show no limiting, no added compression and no EQ used in cutting a record?

You need access to the original master recording. Limiting, compression and eq can be calculated if you have the input signal and the output signal, and some standard analytical software. Matlab programming may be required, but some of the programming is already on the web.

 

[Jakob1863]

@Fitzcaraldo215,

i have some problems to accept that you can state simultaneously "that you´ll find only BS " in someones posts and that it isn´t meant personally (or ad hominem)?

Furthermore - not only directed to you - i miss increasingly the approach to interpret other people´s posts in the best possible manner instead of searching for something to attack.

In general while it is known that large level signals with random phase alignment in the bass region creates problems during vinyl cutting it and that a lot of processing obviously take place in the cutting lathe/system, it seems to be possible to avoid the usual "brute force" summing approach, but it apparently needs special care and sometimes compromises (you can´t get everything at the same time; running time has often to be reduced as already mentioned).

I remember that Stan Ricker mentioned in an interview from 2005 with a german small circle magazine:
"The DMM system is to restricted to cut low frequency content with random phase alignment and large levels.
Imagine for example a Rudy van Gelder recording where the piano is at center position the bas in the left and the drums in the right channel.
Due to the signal processing of the DMM system all low frequency content would be summed up at center and the according result wouldn´t reflect the original recording and the musical "sensibilty" would be destroyed."
(quick translation by me, so don´t blame another one)

Means imo in reverse that - although special care is needed - that "bass summing" isn´t unavoidable in every case.