On Monday, February 3, 2014 10:12:47 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
Then one final reference which I'm sure you will reject with all the othe=
rs.
Scott, please, it's bad enough that you are misrepresenting the meaning of =
your references. Please don't misrepresent my actions. I have not *rejected=
* any of your references. I have merely pointed out their complete lack of =
relevance to the argument about how real records were actually cut.=20
=20
Though I do begin to wonder why I'm the only one providing evidence
=20
to support my position.
But you aren't providing evidence to support *your* position. I wonder why =
I am the only one who bothers to get relevant information from actual exper=
ts on the subject? Do you really want to know how records are and have been=
actually made or do you just want to argue in favor of your prejudices? If=
you really want to know then do yourself a favor, stop arguing with me abo=
ut it and ask the real experts. I have given you all the contact info you n=
eed to do so.=20
=20
=20
=20
http://productionadvice.co.uk/vinyl-mastering/
=20
=20
=20
It directly supports my comment that highly compressed sources (which inc=
ludes=20
=20
brickwalled material) are easily cut as the avg level is easily set withi=
n=20
=20
range.
Well no...it doesn't really. Here are the key elements you need to pay atte=
ntion to.=20
"A great master for CD can be a great master for vinyl, too." I don't mean =
to speak for Ian on the subject but i am pretty sure he will tell you that =
a "great master" is not one that is brick walled.=20
Now he does go on to say this...
"I often read people saying that you can't cut super-hot "loudness war" aud=
io to vinyl, for fear of the needle skipping and jumping off the record.
But that's wrong. In fact, the exact opposite is true !
There's no technical reason that you can't put "loudness war" style music o=
n vinyl - to use a well-known example, the vinyl and CD releases of Metalli=
ca's "Death Magnetic" sound very similar indeed."
Which is an opinion he offers that does support your specific position that=
"loud" source material can in fact easily be cut to vinyl. However Ian goe=
s on to say this...
""If your CD master has what I consider optimal dynamics - DR8 or more over=
all - then it's perfectly suitable for a flat transfer to vinyl."
Seems to me those two statements by the same guy are at odds with each othe=
r. OR he simply thinks dynamic range simply isn't an issue either way. Eith=
er way what you have managed to do is give us references that offer conflic=
ting opinions about the ill effects on brickwalling a signal before cutting=
it to a lacquer. Well hey, maybe Ian is right about it. Maybe I am not giv=
ing the medium due credit for it's ability to deal with extreme compression=
and digital clipping. I suppose it's not something of major interest to me=
since I try to stay away from anything that is brickwalled be it on CD or =
vinyl.=20
Lastly NONE of this supports your assertions that the vast majority of LPs =
were cut with rolled highs and rolled lows and bass folded to mono. This is=
my major point of contention. This is an urban myth and you have offered n=
othing to support it.=20
=20
=20
=20
It also clearly states that if mastering engineers don't take steps to co=
ntrol=20
=20
HF content content, sybilance, or out of phase bass....then the cutting e=
ngineer=20
=20
will to produce a playable result.
It's a far too overly broad claim to have much meaning. The fact still rema=
ins that I personally have a massive body of LPs of some of the best soundi=
ng recordings in the history of recorded music that have been cut without t=
he use of limiters, without rolling the highs or lows for the sake of the c=
ut and without folding the bass to mono. So clearly the *need* to tweak the=
source material in order to get it to cut properly is something that has t=
o be decided on a case by case basis. And one can not make any assumptions =
about how any given record was cut based on these very broad rules of thumb=
..=20
=20
=20
=20
"At least, assuming you don't have any wild sibilance, hugely out-of-phas=
e=20
=20
content, or all the bass panned to one channel !
=20
And even if you do, the cutting engineer will take account of that as a m=
atter=20
=20
of course during the cut - it doesn't require a separate mastering sessio=
n."
Ian is again making some pretty broad generalizations here and he really ca=
n't speak for all the other mastering engineers out there. I'd love to see =
him discuss this with guys like Kevin Gray or Bernie Grundman who have in f=
act cut hundreds of LPs without the use of limiters and without rolling the=
highs or lows or folding the bass to mono for the purpose of making the cu=
t work properly.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
"The most cost-effective way to get a great-sounding release on vinyl is =
simply=20
=20
to send the hi-res master files directly to the cutting engineer. They wi=
ll=20
=20
choose the best settings to get good results from the vinyl format based =
on the=20
=20
sound of your material, as part of the normal price. For a well-mastered =
album,=20
=20
it's simply a case of choosing the correct level and perhaps a few minor=
=20
=20
tweaks - no extra mastering is required."
It may be "cost effective" but hardly a formula for excellent sound. If one=
were to take this assertion seriously one would expect excellent sound fro=
m labels such as 4MWBs. Have you ever heard any of their releases? Ian is w=
ay way off base here.=20
=20
=20
=20
These tweeks are accepted as normal processing and consultation with the=
=20
=20
mastering engineer often only occurrs if they are determined to affect th=
e final=20
=20
sound. What probably leaves you in denial is the that these changes can =
seem to=20
=20
be dramatic yet they do not change the percieved sound of the final resul=
t.