On Oct 31, 7:51*am, wrote:
On Oct 30, 4:44 pm, Richard Tollerton
wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:16 am, wrote:
I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.
There is also a real hands on craft involved in the act of cutting and
not all cutting engineers are equally skilled.
Understood, but my understanding is that besides the extremely hands-
on matter of maintaining the cutting head assembly and managing the
pitch, it's quite possible to cut a record that is a direct transfer
of the master material - as long as specific thresholds aren't
exceeded. eg, don't have enough stereo bass to compromise tracking,
don't incur so much acceleration that the coils fry, etc. Steve
Hoffman, at least, advertised that some of the vinyl work he's done (I
want to say Tres Hombres in particular) was cut flat from the master
tapes. But then again, he doesn't do the vinyl mastering, KG does.
Sure. But when you are dealing with source material with a dynamic
range that is close to the thresholds of the medium you have this sort
of gambit that the cutting engineer has to play. The engineer has to
figure how high a level can be used to cut without breaking the groove
or running out of room on the laquer. If one playes it safe and
doesn't push the boundaries of the upper limits and they choose not to
use compression or a limiter then that cutting engneer will drive the
lower level information further into the noise floor. For the most
dynamic material KG and SH have been pushing the normal limitations by
cutting at 45 rpm and cutting shorter sides. You just cant get push
the groove as far if you are trying to cram more time per side. Now
with most pop/rock material the dynamic range is not wide enough to
have to resort to this sort of solution. It is less of a challenge to
cut something like Tres Hombres without using compression. What
Hoffman brings to the formula are his personal tweaks to improve the
sound of the master. Kevin does the dirty work on the lathe.
In other words... they *do* just press play. What you're describing
seems to prove my point.
Obviously a lot of care and planning goes into the recording
configuration before the cutting head hits the laquer/copper. Those
are the decisions you mention. But after that, it's strictly a hands-
off affair. Cutting at 45rpm and cutting shorter sides certainly
affect the dynamic range but those decisions are still sort of "just
push play" - because the signal chain is simply not affected in the
slightest by it. Kevin can't edit the groove after it's cut, and he's
certainly not gainriding (that would of course be dynamic range
compression). Besides that... what else do the mastering engineers do?
If they're not compressing anything and they're not applying EQ
distortions or noise reduction or whatever, what else can they
possibly do? It's not rocket science. They don't do things our mortal
minds don't comprehend.
What I'm saying here is that if the mastering engineer is not applying
EQ, and not compressing the dynamic range, and not "sweetening" the
signal by running it through tube amps or no-noising it or distorting
it or whatever, then all the mastering decisions available for
audiophile mastering simply do not affect the signal chain. That's
what I mean by "direct transfer". And so far I haven't seen anything
the mastering engineer can do inside the signal chain in an audiophile-
quality pressing that would change any of that. (And cable swapping
doesn't count.)
At one extreme I could argue that because test records are a clear
example of something where the records are not "mastered" in the
audible sense. Also, don't direct-to-disc releases rely on very little
input from the mastering engineer?
They rely heavily on the cutting engineer to get the maximum peak
levels cut without screwing up the adjacent grooves and without
running out of room. It is a highly skilled hands on job. The gambit
I thought that was fully automated? Pitch computers are standard
virtually everywhere.
That said, even if the groove pitch was controlled by hand, calling
that a "hands-on" affair that truly affects the dynamic range of the
recording is really thin. The mastering engineer could just set the
computer for maximum pitch and walk away, and get the same dynamic
range on the recording. The purpose of pitch riding is to INCREASE
PLAYING TIME - not to increase dynamic range.
I do find myself buying them along with audiophile CDs. It does not
matter to me what the neighbors are doing. It seems to me that if one
is really interested in getting the best sound from the music they
love that they will put together the best playback system they can and
collect the best sounding LPs and CDs of the music they wish to listen
to. Getting a better mastered LP or CD of a title one enjoys
listening to is one of the least expensive and most effective upgrades
an audiophile can make. I can't understand why anyone would shut off
all the opportunities to get their favorite music at it's best over
some idealogoical objection to either format. That strikes me as a
classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
I disagree, but more because I've made a conscious effort to distance
my emotional reaction to the music from the sound quality (or the
price). I prefer to choose more based on price nowadays, and with a
lot of reportory vinyl in the $1-$3 range nowadays, screw good
masterings! I've bought tons of CBS Masterworks vinyl (not the most
highly rated) and have been more or less pleased with all of it.
That is a choice to ignore better sound. That choice does not negate
my assertion.
True - but your statement never negated my assertion, either (that
audiophile pressings form a very small fraction of the market).
Ultimately what I'm getting at (and this may be less of an attack on
you than an attack on pro-vinyl arguments in general) is that while
the advantages of high-quality vinyl are highly touted, in terms of
what people actually *mean* when they refer to vinyl, they don't
always mean that. I've heard all sorts of people tout vinyl's
"improved dynamics", "extended range", etc. when listing to very
mainstream, non-audiophile vinyl - rock LPs, new or used, the
occasional Decca 60s pressing, etc. Stuff that in my experience has
none of these attributes,
It is all relative. Lets take another recent Gray/Hoffman mastering.
Joni Mitchell's Blue. For the first time this title was cut from the
actual original master rather than the EQed 2;1 compressed copy master
that had been the source for evey other version of this title
including the CDs. If someone raves about the better dynamics of this
over the CD they are simply telling the truth. Just because the source
material isn't state of the art doesn't mean that the differences in
mastering don't make a big difference. They usually do. In this day
and age when so many CDs are being compressed to 5dB dynamic range in
these crazy loudness wars it should be no surprise when people rave
about the improvements heard with audiophile LPs of the same material.
These are the real world choices audiophiles have to make. I don't see
why the enthusiasm of vinyl enthusiasts should in any way obscure or
negate these truisms for any audiophile interested in just getting the
best sound they can with their favorite music. To dismiss vinyl
because one is put off by the hyperbole of rabid vinyl enthusiasts
really is an act of cutting off one's nose.
Of course I agree with what you're saying. I've been sorely tempted to
buy some of said uncompressed pressings. But that's not what I was
talking about. I'm referring, *specifically*, to the attributes of the
format itself, rather than the attributes of the signal recorded onto
the format - and how most people confuse one with the other, or even
use obviously incorrect examples as supporting evidence of a
particular format's attribute. That you are already conflating the two
by shifting the conversation over to the superiority of certain vinyl
masters to certain other masters (vinyl or CD) speaks volumes about
how difficult it is to converse logically about all of this to most
people.
On the contrary, there's absolutely nothing about this which is
relative. Certainly, the emotional impact of the recording, and the
sounds it evokes, are fundamentally relative. But as soon as one
starts talking dynamics and dynamic ranges one is entering very
observable, absolute territory.
Of course I'm exaggerating, but not by much. If one touts audiophile-
grade vinyl as the true example of the medium's potential, and lesser-
grade stuff as not, you're essentially saying that all of people who
love the sound of vinyl who haven't listened to said systems simply do
not know what they are talking about, because the criticisms stick to
them, and not to the audiophile stuff.
Not at all. Again, case by case. In many cases IME that scratchy old
original really does have the prefered sound. Sometimes that is due in
no small part to the effects of euphonic colorations found in some of
those old cutting consoles. If someone has not come along and mastered
a better CD or LP, that old euphonically colored original LP often is
the prime cut.
You do have a point in terms of preference. But I'm trying to keep
this conversation specifically about dynamic range and observable
differences.
Certainly one can prefer any pressing they want based
on their preferred, and be entitled to that opinion, but they're not
entitled to actually convince anybody else of it.
That seems to
undercut your previous argument about very dynamic sources requiring
that sort of thing.
As mentioned above, I more or less agree with you here, but then that
challenges your claim about highly dynamic works needing massaging
even further.
More navigating than massaging. Here is another analogy. Think of it
as a Formula One car and track. You need the most skilled driver to
turn in the best time. Likewise you need the most skilled cutting
engineer to capture the widest dynamics without screwing the pooch.
AND when the boss says push the envelope regardless of what it takes
that frees you up to push the envelope. When the boss says faster
cheaper you have to play it safe.
Screw analogies.
Again.... I remain unconvinced that the mastering engineer has as much
control over this as you think they do. You've gotta show me WHERE the
signal chain gets modified to facilitate a highly dynamic signal
getting cut. Speeding up the lathe/adjusting the pitch isn't in the
signal path. Changing the vinyl formulation or using better laquers
isn't in the signal path. All of those are extremely important
parameters of the cutting process, but they fundamentally don't
*change* the signal itself as it's being cut.
I have under controlled listening tests heard some pretty profound
differences in various rig's ability to portray low level information.
I base this on what I hear not on any bench tests. We are talking
about a transducer when we talk about vinyl playback. Even the biggest
tech heads usually concede that the final proof of performance is in
the listening not on the test bench with transducers.
That may be true, but if I'm completely unable to figure it out on the
bench, I am highly inclined to say that what I listened to was
placebo. The human mind is a somewhat deceptive device. Obviously it
can see things that a test environment can't see, but that doesn't
mean it can see things that *no* test environment can't see. And the
power of analysis tools to tease stuff like this out nowadays is
staggering.
No doubt. But if one is using blind protocols....
Well, sure, if you scored like p0.05, tell us more.