On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:00:29 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:57:54 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:06:43 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
No need to be specific since it is pretty much everything you quoted.
I'm going to accept that as a retraction.
It's not a retraction. But you are certainly free to put any spin on it you want.
Here's another interesting quote from Bob Katz
Did you know that an analog and digital recording of the same source sound very
different in terms of loudness? Make an analog recording and a digital recording
of the same
music. Dub the analog recording to the digital domain, peaking at 0 dB. The
analog dub will
sound about 6 dB louder than the all-digital recording! That's a lot. This is
because the typical
peak-to-average ratio of an analog recording is about 14 dB, compared with as
much as 20 dB for
an uncompressed digital recording. Analog tape's built-in compressor is a means
of getting
recordings to sound louder (oops, did I just reveal a secret?). That's why pop
producers who
record digitally may have to compress or limit to compete with the loudness of
their analog
counterparts.
http://www.thesoundmanifesto.co.uk/D...es_BobKatz.pdf
An interesting take on analog and digital recordings. It has nothing to do with the subject of vinyl though.
How does the cutter filter clipped signals?
You left the all important HF. It's just a filter and indiscrimately filters
I was talking about clipped signals not HF signals. So all I left out was your attempt to change the issue of difficulty of cutting a clipped signal. It is an issue regardless of the frequency of the signal.
according to frequency. What remains the cutter should be able to cut. It has
no discriminating taste in sound quality.
It's not about sound quality. It's about the shape of the wave.
I'm going to have to defer to RTI's website.
Well let's see what they say.
"The phonograph record is a marvelous medium for storing and reproducing sound.
With frequency response from 7 Hz to 25kHz and over 75 dB dynamic range
possible, it is capable of startling realism. Its ability to convey a sense of
space, that is width and depth of sound stage, with a degree of openness and
airiness, is unrivaled by anything but the most esoteric digital systems."
No mention anywhere I could find about folding the bass to mono. And only some
basic advice of avoiding excessive treble boost "Watch excessive treble boost in
the 8 to 16 kHz range in mixing" Nowhere at the RTI website does it support any
of your assertions about how records have been cut.
Try reading past the introductory paragraph and you'll find this.
"The moral for engineers is: If you are looking for hot levels or long sides,
don't pan instruments like drums and percussion hard left and right. Keep the
bass and bass drum in the center, and keep everything in phase. An out of phase
snare or bass drum can wreak havoc. Use an oscilloscope if possible!"
And this has what to do with your assertion that it is common practice to roll the highs and lows and fold the bass to mono? I see nothing in that quote that supports your assertion that this is how the vast majority of records have been cut.