Sheffield Lab Albums - yay or nay?

[egellings]

The bell at the end of Peace Train breaks up on the initial transient. Did Sheffield come out with a reissue to remedy that?

 

[DonH56]

Years ago there were some articles (and I even got to talk with Doug and Lincoln at some show back then) where they mentioned a few spots on some recordings where mics or heads overloaded. They were doing direct-to-disc and decided to not retake. Apparently it was a source of some angst, but retakes meant doing the entire side of the album again, in one sitting (one take), and they elected to stick with what they had. IIRC, and this is a long-ago faded memory, Doug was more sanguine about it than Lincoln, who was still somethat "vexed" (if you've ever met Lincoln you'll know what that means ).

 

[watchnerd]

Years ago there were some articles (and I even got to talk with Doug and Lincoln at some show back then) where they mentioned a few spots on some recordings where mics or heads overloaded. They were doing direct-to-disc and decided to not retake. Apparently it was a source of some angst, but retakes meant doing the entire side of the album again, in one sitting (one take), and they elected to stick with what they had. IIRC, and this is a long-ago faded memory, Doug was more sanguine about it than Lincoln, who was still somethat "vexed" (if you've ever met Lincoln you'll know what that means ).

Sounds to me like direct to disk had far more downsides than upsides.

 

[Robin L]

Worked at Ray Avery's Rare Records in Glendale California when those LPs first came out, 1977/1978. We had them all, we also had those first Telarc LPs, sourced from Digital. Got the two Sheffield Labs titles with the LA Philharmonic, Leinsdorf and company sounding tentative in a scoring stage. Close sound, kinda claustrophobic. Lots of detail, but really nothing like a good Decca/London title of the time. The only d to d disc that struck me as musically worth the effort was "For Duke", forgot the specifics. The whole episode made me grateful for Bing Crosby investing in Ampex.

 

[watchnerd]

Worked at Ray Avery's Rare Records in Glendale California when those LPs first came out, 1977/1978. Got the two with the LA Philharmonic, Leinsdorf and company sounding tentative in a scoring stage. Close sound, kinda claustrophobic. The only d to d disc that struck me as musically worth the effort was "For Duke", forgot the specifics. The whole episode made me grateful for Bing Crosby investing in Ampex.

Perhaps D to D was a marketing gimmick, more than a genuine sonic improvement.

High speed tape is a superior medium to LP, anyway.

I can't see any rational reason to claim it is better for recording when it's not even better for playback.

 

[Robin L]

Sounds like D to D was a marketing gimmick, more than anything.

This was the time just before digital became commercially viable. One rare title I had was an Arthur Fiedler/Boston Pops d to d on white vinyl. Naturally I found it, unblemished, in a $1 bin at a thrift store. By 2005, piles of classical vinyl were consigned to such places, record stores running out of room for such stuff. John Curl had some involvement with the mixer used on the Fiedler recording, his named buried in the lower third of the credits. Big dynamics, some sound lost in the lower depths of the uncompressed dynamics. The two orchestral capriccios, the Spanish and Italian. Nothing special in the performances. If it's wide dynamics you want, stick to CDs.

 

[watchnerd]

This was the time just before digital became commercially viable. One rare title I had was an Arthur Fiedler/Boston Pops d to d on white vinyl. Naturally I found it, unblemished, in a $1 bin at a thrift store. By 2005, piles of classical vinyl were consigned to such places, record stores running out of room for such stuff. John Curl had some involvement with the mixer used on the Fiedler recording, his named buried in the lower third of the credits. Big dynamics, some sound lost in the lower depths of the uncompressed dynamics. The two orchestral capriccios, the Spanish and Italian. Nothing special in the performances. If it's wide dynamics you want, stick to CDs.

I'm not following....what does digital have to do with D to D?

Lots of awesome recordings were made on tape, issued on LPs, without D to D...

 

[Robin L]

I'm not following....what does digital have to do with it?

Lots of awesome recordings were made on tape, issued on LPs...

I'm pointing to market forces that were in effect in the late 1970s. Those Telarc LPs were competing directly with the Sheffield Labs LPs. Both were going for the previously unheard of price of $18 a pop. It happened to be a time when playback gear was making tape hiss more audible, Dolby A had already kicked in, the first commercial Digital recordings were happening at the same time as well. I'd go to audio shops in Pasadena back then, the D to D discs were getting a lot of play at those shops, but the Telarc LPs got more play. That bass drum in the Firebird LP was blowing out speakers and amps left and right.

 

[watchnerd]

I'm pointing to market forces that were in effect in the late 1970s. Those Telarc LPs were competing directly with the Sheffield Labs LPs. Both were going for the previously unheard of price of $18 a pop. It happened to be a time when playback gear was making tape hiss more audible, Dolby A had already kicked in, the first commercial Digital recordings were happening at the same time as well. I'd go to audio shops in Pasadena back then, the D to D discs were getting a lot of play at those shops, but the Telarc LPs got more play. That bass drum in the Firebird LP was blowing out speakers and amps left and right.

So D to D was primarily a marketing gimmick to compete with digitally recorded LPs?

I can't imagine a reason to prefer them today given how many LP reissues now come from digital files.

 

[Robin L]

So D to D was primarily a marketing gimmick to compete with digitally recorded LPs?

I can't imagine a reason to prefer them today given how many LP reissues now come from digital files.

It was a small-scale cottage industry with connections to the "High-End" of the time. They got thorough coverage in Absolute Sound, Stereophile, Grammophon had coverage of the classical titles. This was the time when interconnect and speaker cable started being a thing. I'm pretty sure the Classical titles are not so collectible, the Thelma Houston title might be. There was a Carlos Montoya d to d title that had the back-up tape used for a $6.98 CD reissue. That's pretty nice. Of course, solo guitar isn't any kind of a recording challenge, but the music on that disc was pretty nice.

 

[watchnerd]

It was a small-scale cottage industry with connections to the "High-End" of the time. They got thorough coverage in Absolute Sound, Stereophile, Grammophon had coverage of the classical titles. This was the time when interconnect and speaker cable started being a thing. I'm pretty sure the Classical titles are not so collectible, the Thelma Houston title might be. There was a Carlos Montoya d to d title that had the back-up tape used for a $6.98 CD reissue. That's pretty nice. Of course, solo guitar isn't any kind of a recording challenge, but the music on that disc was pretty nice.

Like a lot of audiophile-label recordings, I've never been that impressed with most Sheffield releases and they strike me as product from a particular time and place that haven't aged that well.

While I have the opposite opinion of things like Mercury Living Presence, Living Stereo, some Decca, Riverside, Verve, Blue Note, and Columbia.

 

[Robin L]

Like a lot of audiophile-label recordings, I've never been that impressed with most Sheffield releases and they strike me as product from a particular time and place that haven't aged that well.

While I have the opposite opinion of things like Mercury Living Presence, Living Stereo, some Decca, Riverside, Verve, Blue Note, and Columbia.

Mid-seventies Warner Brothers productions tend to be underrated. What all these labels have going on is great A & R. Sheffield Labs were more about the technology. Telarc managed to split it down the middle. Maybe not as great as Mercury's or RCA's peak years, but their batting average improved over time.

 

[JoachimStrobel]

I'm pointing to market forces that were in effect in the late 1970s. Those Telarc LPs were competing directly with the Sheffield Labs LPs. Both were going for the previously unheard of price of $18 a pop. It happened to be a time when playback gear was making tape hiss more audible, Dolby A had already kicked in, the first commercial Digital recordings were happening at the same time as well. I'd go to audio shops in Pasadena back then, the D to D discs were getting a lot of play at those shops, but the Telarc LPs got more play. That bass drum in the Firebird LP was blowing out speakers and amps left and right.

I remember Telarc vs DD. There was a lot of movement in the industry then. High speed mastering tape was another one, 45Rpm vinyl, special vinyl material, DD with tube preamps... . It was enjoyable as one could hear the differences between the approaches. Telarc had the advantage of not having to cut 15 minutes in one piece. My understanding was, that it was a bit of a „I can do thing“ too were musicians prided themself performing flawless for 15 minutes. The (Jazz) bands that lived from live gigs had no problem with DD, peace of cake. One bandleader claimed that the brakes between titles on DD were longer than playing on stage. Phil Woods recorded great DD titles. Others, like Sheffield, were not so lucky, Harry James being an exception. You could sort musicians and band according to their DD performance. Are they holding back, afraid of a mistakes, or do they go full out. Good times then. Lately I fed my turntable through the same digital Dirac chain as my digital sound and re-listened to my DDs. Still great, sure, digital simply has better specs with much less effort, but the impression listening to musicians performing live in your living room comes only from DDs.

 

[mSpot]

Perhaps D to D was a marketing gimmick

The intentions were genuine. There was a conviction that eliminating processing steps will capture the original sound more faithfully.

Sounds to me like direct to disk had far more downsides than upsides.

I agree with this. Recording a single take with no editing is a severe constraint. There have also been direct to tape and direct to CD releases, really the same concept but they never caught on either.

 

[egellings]

I think that the whole D to D thing was premised on the idea that the fewer links in the chain to the final sound, the better, and with D. to D. the tape recorder was eliminated in order to better implement that idea.

 

[watchnerd]

I think that the whole D to D thing was premised on the idea that the fewer links in the chain to the final sound, the better, and with D. to D. the tape recorder was eliminated in order to better implement that idea.

I understand the premise.

But even with perfect takes, is it actually true?

The implication is that the generation loss that happens from copying a master tape to a production master (sent to an LP factory), making a lacquer, etc is high enough that D to D will be higher fidelity.

But is it, really?

On the surface, I'm not so sure. A cutting lathe has physical limitations that a 15 IPS tape doesn't have.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I understand the premise.

But even with perfect takes, is it actually true?

The implication is that the generation loss that happens from copying a master tape to a production master (sent to an LP factory), making a lacquer, etc is high enough that D to D will be higher fidelity.

But is it, really?

On the surface, I'm not so sure. A cutting lathe has physical limitations that a 15 IPS tape doesn't have.

At least some cutting lathe's might not have the saturation effect and soft treble with sort of built in compression that tape has.

I'd agree however, record to quality tape and playback from quality tape is higher fidelity than going via the LP route even direct-to-disc.

 

[typericey]

I knew I made the right decision of creating this thread. Soaking in the insider/historical info as well as opinions. Apologies I couldn't contribute much. I'm also not into classical, so the Sheffield albums that I like are the Jazz and Funk ones.

37 posts in and no one has mentioned the newer albums such as Clair Marlo, Michael Ruff, Michael Allen Harrison, Pat Coil, etc. Are they that forgettable? Haha.

 

[JeffS7444]

37 posts in and no one has mentioned the newer albums such as Clair Marlo, Michael Ruff, Michael Allen Harrison, Pat Coil, etc. Are they that forgettable? Haha.

I am not familiar with those albums, and by the late 1980s, I was not spending much time in hifi shops anymore. In any event, good quality vinyl pressings became more mainstream from the likes of Mobile Fidelity, Nautilus and CBS Mastersound, and you could buy audiophile pressings of Meatloaf's "Bat out of Hell" which was kind of awesome.

 

[JoachimStrobel]

I understand the premise.

But even with perfect takes, is it actually true?

The implication is that the generation loss that happens from copying a master tape to a production master (sent to an LP factory), making a lacquer, etc is high enough that D to D will be higher fidelity.

But is it, really?

On the surface, I'm not so sure. A cutting lathe has physical limitations that a 15 IPS tape doesn't have.

There was one known case where a US company send a master tape to a German vinyl factory, asking them to label the resulting disc “direct to disc”. I think it is the second side of Woody Herman’s Chick, Donald Walter and Woodrow and you can hear it. There were 30IPS mastering tapes run to prove your point, but still, one can hear the difference, related to the live atmosphere. It was obvious for Drums as the impulse was better preserved, that is why the DD industry drowned itself in endless solo drum discs.