No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

[JackA]

It's pretty obvious, mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater loudness...

From a 2010 CD, but digitally enhanced, but no peak trimming or brick-walling, save that for the amateur Remasterers...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/keemosabe.mp3

Jack

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

JackA wrote:

> It's pretty obvious,
>

** Famous last words from a fool ....

> mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was
> not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio.
>

** That IS fascinating.

I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public.

The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because there was no ****ing tape involved.

Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them:

https://vinyl-west.de/catalog/49865/harry-james-his-big-band-the-king-james-version.jpg


> You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater
> loudness...
>


** Only a know nothing fool would say that.

Oh my god - look who just did...




..... Phil

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

JackA > wrote:

> It's pretty obvious, mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play"
>vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks
>of recorded audio. You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks
>resulting in greater loudness...

I don't know where you got that idea from, moving iron cutterheads
suffered from the opposite problem;: as the moving armature got closer
to the pole pieces on peaks, the magnetic gap decreased and the
sensitivity of the magnetic system increased. This meant that the gain
effectively increased on the peaks of the waveform, so they were
recorded with a greater amplitude with a consequent increase in
odd-harmonic distortion and intermodulation ("blasting").

By 1932, the moving coil Blumlein cutterhead began supplanting the
moving iron type (at least in the UK), it had no limitation on recording
amplitude and was virtually distortion-free. Similarly the Voigt moving
coil head (which later formed the basis for the the Decca FFRR system in
the 1940s) was capable of recording a much greater undistorted amplitude
than the grooves could accommodate.

There were limitations on domestic recording and replay equipment due to
cheap design and there were mechanical limits on the maximum modulation
of the groove before intercutting occurred, but the capabilities of
professional disc recording equipment were way beyond this.

(By the way, vinyl records were not cut on vinyl, they were mastered on
wax or cellulose nitrate lacquer, then copies were pressed in vinyl.)

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[[email protected]]

Phil Allison wrote: "expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality
recordings available to the public. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because
there was no ****ing tape involved. Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them: "


A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER -
provided there is nothing between the microphones and
the CD recorder. You can thank Nyquist and the early
CD developers for that.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 5:15:30 AM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
> JackA wrote:
>
> > It's pretty obvious,
> >
>
> ** Famous last words from a fool ....
>
> > mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was
> > not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio.
> >
>
> ** That IS fascinating.
>
> I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public.
>
> The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because there was no ****ing tape involved.

True. (cheaper) Tape = Noise and removing it from the equation does improve dynamics. However, even Direct To Disc will never match the dynamics of Audio CD, in its crudest form.

Thanks.

Jack

>
> Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them:
>
> https://vinyl-west.de/catalog/49865/harry-james-his-big-band-the-king-james-version.jpg
>
>
> > You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater
> > loudness...
> >
>
>
> ** Only a know nothing fool would say that.
>
> Oh my god - look who just did...
>
>
>
>
> .... Phil

[John Williamson]

On 08/02/2017 11:57, wrote:
>
> Phil Allison wrote: "expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality
> recordings available to the public. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because
> there was no ****ing tape involved. Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them: "
>
>
> A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER -
> provided there is nothing between the microphones and
> the CD recorder. You can thank Nyquist and the early
> CD developers for that.
>
Once it's been digitised, there need be no further generational losses
in the production process from microphone pre-amp to the speaker output,
especially given that in some cases now, the output amplifier, a
capacitor and the speaker effectively form the DAC at the output.

Given that, it makes no difference how many digital generations there
are between the input of the ADC and the output from the DAC. This is
not analogue, where every copy or extra processing stage introduces
inevitable losses.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson:


My thanks to Nyquist and the original developers
of Redbook are sincere. And I understand about
generations in the digital realm. My comment
was with regards to "direct to disc" recordings,
vinyl and CD. If you feed a live session to both a
CD recorder and vinyl lacquer, there should be
little difference between them in sound quality.


If there is *significant* audible difference, then
there is audio processing in one of those chains.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 5:15:30 AM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
> JackA wrote:
>
> > It's pretty obvious,
> >
>
> ** Famous last words from a fool ....
>
> > mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was
> > not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio.
> >
>
> ** That IS fascinating.
>
> I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public.
>
> The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because there was no ****ing tape involved.
>
> Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them:
>
> https://vinyl-west.de/catalog/49865/harry-james-his-big-band-the-king-james-version.jpg
>
>
> > You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater
> > loudness...
> >
>
>
> ** Only a know nothing fool would say that.
>
> Oh my god - look who just did...
>
>
>
>
> .... Phil

Phil, as you know, I enjoy hearing studio talk/chatter of popular songs. In the beginning, a lot of material was recorded "live". This yielded the optimum sound quality, since no later overdubbing was needed. HOWEVER, imagine the cost paying an entire orchestra to play the same song, sometimes over 20 Takes! Direct to Disc was even worse, since those had to be rehearsed and rehearsed, until an engineer was satisfied with crossed fingers.

Take for example Nice 'n Easy, a Mr. Sinatra album, '61 I believe, Mobile Fidelity was quick to offer it (CD), since it was a live, studio recorded album. Heck, even outtakes sounded impressive!

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 6:57:34 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Phil Allison wrote: "expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality
> recordings available to the public. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because
> there was no ****ing tape involved. Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them: "
>
>
> A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER -
> provided there is nothing between the microphones and
> the CD recorder. You can thank Nyquist and the early
> CD developers for that.

I tired the opposite of Half Speed Mastering, and slowed a turntable and cassette recorder to 16-2/3 RPM and 15/16 IPS respectively. Actually, it did work, but since vinyl had to be equalized, since it wasn't an ideal audio media, that experiment sort of failed.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA: Of course, RIAA emph-de-emphasis.
Cancels out if done right.

[John Williamson]

On 08/02/2017 14:04, wrote:
> John Williamson:
>
>
> My thanks to Nyquist and the original developers
> of Redbook are sincere. And I understand about
> generations in the digital realm. My comment
> was with regards to "direct to disc" recordings,
> vinyl and CD. If you feed a live session to both a
> CD recorder and vinyl lacquer, there should be
> little difference between them in sound quality.
>
>
> If there is *significant* audible difference, then
> there is audio processing in one of those chains.
>
Mechanical resonances and non-linearities in the analogue chain, for a
start. Cutting stylus assemblies may be pretty good, but then getting a
stylus to follow what's been carved is difficult, given the differences
iin shape between the readig and writing syliiespecially taking into
account the way the stylus is linked to the Earth's mass via the
tonearm, and the "give" in the mounting of the record. Processing can go
most of the way to eliminating the "natural" processing due to the laws
of physics. There is also the need for RIAA or equivalent equalisation,
made in order to get the best result from the record/ stylus interface
to take into account.

One the other side, using digital, linear, accurate, conversion to and
from analogue voltages up to video bandwidths and better is more or less
sorted now, with the latest generations of converters.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:57:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA: Of course, RIAA emph-de-emphasis.
> Cancels out if done right.

And why RIAA? Because, vinyl could not stand large excursions.
Same with Direct to Disc.

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:38:17 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 08/02/2017 14:04, wrote:
> > John Williamson:
> >
> >
> > My thanks to Nyquist and the original developers
> > of Redbook are sincere. And I understand about
> > generations in the digital realm. My comment
> > was with regards to "direct to disc" recordings,
> > vinyl and CD. If you feed a live session to both a
> > CD recorder and vinyl lacquer, there should be
> > little difference between them in sound quality.
> >
> >
> > If there is *significant* audible difference, then
> > there is audio processing in one of those chains.
> >
> Mechanical resonances and non-linearities in the analogue chain, for a
> start. Cutting stylus assemblies may be pretty good, but then getting a
> stylus to follow what's been carved is difficult, given the differences
> iin shape between the readig and writing syliiespecially taking into
> account the way the stylus is linked to the Earth's mass via the
> tonearm, and the "give" in the mounting of the record. Processing can go
> most of the way to eliminating the "natural" processing due to the laws
> of physics. There is also the need for RIAA or equivalent equalisation,
> made in order to get the best result from the record/ stylus interface
> to take into account.
>
> One the other side, using digital, linear, accurate, conversion to and
> from analogue voltages up to video bandwidths and better is more or less
> sorted now, with the latest generations of converters.
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

Convertors? They were bad in the beginning? Why? Was it the electronics or lack of knowledge on the difference between vinyl and audio CD? I say the latter.

Example: When MCA was issuing digital mastering on vinyl LP, I found one song, never heard before in stereo, it was like a blessing to hear!

But, then I buy the CD and asked, what the heck happened!!!?? It was so boring a sound. That's when I started fiddling with digital enhancements. The more I worked at it, the more it sounded like the vinyl LP I heard/remembered!

I look at waves-forms. I ask myself, what is holding this waveform e from being maximized in amplitude? I see a few peaks, they are the cause. Destroy them, and things sound way more interesting!

Actually, if you remember Audiophile vinyl LPs, they were typically lower volume than commercial LPs. I assume, they did that to preserve these peaks. Not that a few peaks did anything, but some believe you should not alter anything with analog recorded music. That is silly.

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 6:17:57 AM UTC-5, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
>
> > It's pretty obvious, mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play"
> >vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks
> >of recorded audio. You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks
> >resulting in greater loudness...
>
> I don't know where you got that idea from, moving iron cutterheads
> suffered from the opposite problem;: as the moving armature got closer
> to the pole pieces on peaks, the magnetic gap decreased and the
> sensitivity of the magnetic system increased. This meant that the gain
> effectively increased on the peaks of the waveform, so they were
> recorded with a greater amplitude with a consequent increase in
> odd-harmonic distortion and intermodulation ("blasting").
>
> By 1932, the moving coil Blumlein cutterhead began supplanting the
> moving iron type (at least in the UK), it had no limitation on recording
> amplitude and was virtually distortion-free. Similarly the Voigt moving
> coil head (which later formed the basis for the the Decca FFRR system in
> the 1940s) was capable of recording a much greater undistorted amplitude
> than the grooves could accommodate.
>
> There were limitations on domestic recording and replay equipment due to
> cheap design and there were mechanical limits on the maximum modulation
> of the groove before intercutting occurred, but the capabilities of
> professional disc recording equipment were way beyond this.
>
> (By the way, vinyl records were not cut on vinyl, they were mastered on
> wax or cellulose nitrate lacquer, then copies were pressed in vinyl.)

Think they were plated first, and that is was what created the so called stamper.

You know, I always tried to find mint promo copies of vinyl, figuring the stamper would remain healthy (little use)!

You know more about cutters than I!! :-)

Thanks.

Jack
>
> --
> ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
> (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
> www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[John Williamson]

On 08/02/2017 17:59, JackA wrote:
>
> Convertors? They were bad in the beginning? Why? Was it the electronics or lack of knowledge on the difference between vinyl and audio CD? I say the latter.
>
It was 90% or more the electronics. The early converters used a ladder
of resistors and voltage comparators to convert analogue to digital and
a different chain of resistors to convert it back. The tolerances of the
resistors meant the voltage response of the converters was non-linear.
They also had problems with clock jitter in the conversion process due
to the varying switching times of the comparators used, due to component
tolerances. This screwed up the phase response. There were also problems
with the designs of the brick wall frequency filters used to prevent
anti-aliasing of signal frequencies above those wanted in the output.
There were special problems with the phase response at the top end.

The later sigma/delta conversion process removed the root cause of the
linearity and phasing problems, by effectively using the same switching
circuitry for every voltage step.

There was initially also a lack of appreciation in some places of the
differences in mastering needed to get the best out of both formats. In
particular, minor "soft" clipping on analogue, as happens when tape is
slightly overmodulated, can be a pleasing effect, whereas clipping on
digital is a totally different sound, and is unpleasant, no matter how
minor it is.

> I look at waves-forms. I ask myself, what is holding this waveform e from being maximized in amplitude? I see a few peaks, they are the cause. Destroy them, and things sound way more interesting!
>
Wave forms or envelopes? You seem to be confused which is which and
which governs the loudness of the signal, and how, according to your
previous posts.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 9/02/2017 12:57 AM, wrote:
>
> Phil Allison wrote: "expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality
> recordings available to the public. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because
> there was no ****ing tape involved. Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them: "
>
>
> A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER -
> provided there is nothing between the microphones and
> the CD recorder. You can thank Nyquist and the early
> CD developers for that.
>


A 'direct cut CD' can be exactly the same quality as a CD cut from the
same recorded data on tape, HDD, floppy disks, memory stick, CD-ROM,
punch-tape, etc after 30 years, thousands of generations of transfer,
and 2000 circumnavigations of the world.

I think you mean CD made from totally unprocessed signal chain, apart
from mic preamps and AD converters. Unless yo use a digital mic ....

geoff

[geoff]

On 9/02/2017 3:04 AM, wrote:
> John Williamson:
>
>
> My thanks to Nyquist and the original developers
> of Redbook are sincere. And I understand about
> generations in the digital realm. My comment
> was with regards to "direct to disc" recordings,
> vinyl and CD. If you feed a live session to both a
> CD recorder and vinyl lacquer, there should be
> little difference between them in sound quality.
>
>
> If there is *significant* audible difference, then
> there is audio processing in one of those chains.
>


I think you mean *any*.

geoff

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

JackA > wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 6:17:57 AM UTC-5, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> > JackA > wrote:
[...]
> > (By the way, vinyl records were not cut on vinyl, they were mastered on
> > wax or cellulose nitrate lacquer, then copies were pressed in vinyl.)
>
> Think they were plated first, and that is was what created the so called
>stamper.

The early process simply plated the wax, then used the resulting metal
plate as the stamper, but the wax was destroyed in the process and the
stamper wore out after a few hundred pessings, so another wax had to be
recorded. The big improvement came when they found a way of separating
plated metal copies without damaging them, then they could make many
more stampers by a multi-stage process.

The master wax was plated and the resulting negative copy was called the
matrix. From that, a number of metal positives could be made, they were
known as "mothers". Each mother could be used to grow many stampers
before it wore out or got damaged, so a very large number of stampers
could be made from one original wax recording.

This is illustrated at:
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/lifebeforevinyl/P11.htm

....and the programme can be heard at:
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/lifebeforevinyl/MP3s/LBV11(1-11).mp3

When lacquer recording began in the 1940s, the matrix - mother - stamper
process could still be used, so by the time the vinyl L.P. arrived, most
of the mastering was done on nitrate, not wax.

> You know, I always tried to find mint promo copies of vinyl, figuring the
>stamper would remain healthy (little use)!

Possibly, but a lot of promo copies would have been made from one
stamper, so there was no guarantee of that. A promo copy would come
from the first stamper taken from the first mother, so it would only be
the matrix and the mother that could be guaranteed to be unworn.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

wrote:

>
>
>
> A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER -
> provided there is nothing between the microphones and
> the CD recorder.
>

** Do they even exist - I doubt it.

All digital recording renders the idea moot.

So a massive RED HERRING .


..... Phil

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

JackA wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 5:15:30 AM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
> > JackA wrote:
> >
> > > It's pretty obvious,
> > >
> >
> > ** Famous last words from a fool ....
> >
> > > mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was
> > > not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio.
> > >
> >
> > ** That IS fascinating.
> >
> > I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public.
> >
> > The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because there was no ****ing tape involved.
>
>
> True. (cheaper) Tape = Noise and removing it from the equation does improve dynamics.


** Tape has WAAAYYY more problems than just background noise.

And all of them compound horribly when transferring from multi-tracks to masters to sub copies sent to cutting rooms round the world.

Get a life you stupid damnb troll.


..... Phil

[[email protected]]

Phil Allison wrote: " All digital recording renders the idea moot. "


How so? Why do you feel that way?

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

JackA wrote:

(snip pile of crapology)



** What happened to the topic?

The Jackass has made it vanish.


..... Phil

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

wrote:
>
> Phil Allison wrote: " All digital recording renders the idea moot. "
>
>
> How so? Why do you feel that way?
>
>

** **** off, you stupid damn troll.



...... Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

Adrian Tuddenham > wrote:
>Possibly, but a lot of promo copies would have been made from one
>stamper, so there was no guarantee of that. A promo copy would come
>from the first stamper taken from the first mother, so it would only be
>the matrix and the mother that could be guaranteed to be unworn.

Sometimes we'd run special short runs for promos, and they would invariably
be noisier as is common for short runs. Sometimes the A&R guys would just
pull out of the normal run and put a rubber stamp on them.

If you're only running a thousand or so you can dispense with the mother
and use 1-step process to make the stamper right off the acetate. Usually
tracking distortion is a little lower that way.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Phil Allison wrote: "** **** off, you stupid damn troll. "

That's not the answer I was looking for.

[John Williamson]

On 08/02/2017 19:09, geoff wrote:
> On 9/02/2017 3:04 AM, wrote:
>> John Williamson:
>>
>>
>> My thanks to Nyquist and the original developers
>> of Redbook are sincere. And I understand about
>> generations in the digital realm. My comment
>> was with regards to "direct to disc" recordings,
>> vinyl and CD. If you feed a live session to both a
>> CD recorder and vinyl lacquer, there should be
>> little difference between them in sound quality.
>>
>>
>> If there is *significant* audible difference, then
>> there is audio processing in one of those chains.
>>
>
>
> I think you mean *any*.
>
Are you including RIAA equalisation as processing? Because if you don't
apply the RIAA curve or something similar to the vinyl recording and
playback, your results will be 'orrible, with a much reduced signal to
noise ratio due to the way the playback works.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 09/02/2017 00:01, Phil Allison wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER -
>> provided there is nothing between the microphones and
>> the CD recorder.
>>
>
> ** Do they even exist - I doubt it.
>
> All digital recording renders the idea moot.
>
> So a massive RED HERRING .
>
I've done it for things like open mic or karaoke nights, so the
performer can take a CD home with them. Usually now, the performer gets
a USB stick with the original files on it, and a quick and dirty mix to
play back at home on their portable player.

Then the real CD (If one's wanted for distribution) gets produced from a
decent mix done in the control room.

Though there was a series a while back in the UK advertised as being
"direct to CD", presumably using the master CD-R to make a glass master
for pressing.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 09/02/2017 01:58, wrote:
> Phil Allison wrote: "** **** off, you stupid damn troll. "
>
> That's not the answer I was looking for.
>
Maybe not, but it's an answer you're likely to get when you diss the
thoughts of someone who had great experience in the field, and also has
very little tolerance for wilful ignorance.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 7:08:29 PM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
> JackA wrote:
>
> (snip pile of crapology)
>
>
>
> ** What happened to the topic?
>
> The Jackass has made it vanish.

Sorry, blame on Google.

See, here is the problem. There no one here that was involved in mastering for CD in the "early" days, so I can never get a clear answer to mastering problems, people just guess.

Sadly, I found a site where someone told part of the mastering problems for CD, but while his site still stands, I can't contact him.

Thanks.

Jack
>
>
> .... Phil

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:08:50 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 9/02/2017 12:57 AM, wrote:
> >
> > Phil Allison wrote: "expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality
> > recordings available to the public. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible and sound quality a revelation - mainly because
> > there was no ****ing tape involved. Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them: "
> >
> >
> > A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER -
> > provided there is nothing between the microphones and
> > the CD recorder. You can thank Nyquist and the early
> > CD developers for that.
> >
>
>
> A 'direct cut CD' can be exactly the same quality as a CD cut from the
> same recorded data on tape, HDD, floppy disks, memory stick, CD-ROM,
> punch-tape, etc after 30 years, thousands of generations of transfer,
> and 2000 circumnavigations of the world.
>
> I think you mean CD made from totally unprocessed signal chain, apart
> from mic preamps and AD converters. Unless yo use a digital mic ....
>
> Geoff

One of the worst factors in recorded music is human. Some have the knowledge what sounds impressive, other don't. I'm sure 35mm film audio rivals direct to disc. But since so few actually appreciated, nor did they care paying extra cost, both died quickly.

Jack

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

JackA wrote:


>
> One of the worst factors in recorded music is human. Some have the knowledge what sounds impressive, other don't. I'm sure 35mm film audio rivals direct to disc. But since so few actually appreciated, nor did they care paying extra cost, both died quickly.
>
>

** Direct to Disc recordings cost less to make than ones using tape machines - and they cost no more to produce copies of.

Wot a crock of ****.


..... Phil

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "Are you including RIAA equalisation as processing? Because if you don't
apply the RIAA curve or something similar to the vinyl recording and
playback, your results will be 'orrible, with a much reduced signal to
noise ratio due to the way the playback works. "

No.

I'm talking about additinal processing in the
mastering chain that would definitely cause
an audible difference in a direct-cut Vinyl to
direct-cut CD shoot-out.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "Then the real CD (If one's wanted for distribution) gets produced from a
decent mix done in the control room. "

That CD obviously cannot be compared to a direct-to-
disc vinyl cut. We need to compare direct-to-disc Vinyl
(post RIAA of course) with direct-to-disc CD of the same
session.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "it's an answer you're likely to get when you diss the
thoughts of someone who had great experience in the field, and also has
very little tolerance for wilful ignorance. "


How did I diss Phil Allison? All I was suggesting
was setting up a recording session where the musicians
played and it was recorded directly to both a CD and
to a vinyl lacquer. I'm assuming the RIAA curve is
applied to the feed going to the lacquer side, so that
vinyl copies of that can be made for playback comparison
to the CD of that session.

It was PHIL who claims this can't be done.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/9/2017 6:17 AM, wrote:
> I'm talking about additinal processing in the
> mastering chain that would definitely cause
> an audible difference in a direct-cut Vinyl to
> direct-cut CD shoot-out.

Do you want to conduct an experiment, or do you want to make a record?

Back in the heyday of Direct-to-Disk LP recordings (Eck Robertson and
Uncle Dave Macon _always_ recorded direct-to-disk), recording the
acetate master directly from the performance was a bit of a novelty. But
it was always backed up by anything that would record - analog tape,
digital tape, another disk cutting lathe. But this was before the days
of the CD, so that wasn't likely to have been a direct backup. And,
today, the A/D converters in my $300 USB interface sound better than the
PCM-to-videotape, DAT, or DASH machines that they had back in the day
anyway. Better, even, than the converters in my CD recorder that I got
in the 1990s for the same reason as John mentioned - so when running the
PA for a show, I could hand a performer a CD when he got off stage.

The thing about D-2-D projects is that there wasn't much music that
could be played straight through by the whole band or orchestra without
any edits, overdubs, re-takes, or alternate takes. Players and listeners
expected closer to perfection.

You could certainly do an experiment today if you had the facilities,
and a CD and phonograph disk playback would certainly sound different,
but which one sounds best would be subjective.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "
You could certainly do an experiment today if you had the facilities,
and a CD and phonograph disk playback would certainly sound different,
but which one sounds best would be subjective. "

They would sound different if the chain to
either the lacquer or the CD contained
superfluous processing, such as an EQ,
compressor, etc. RIAA curve on the
vinyl side does not count as superfluous.

My point is, processing applied, during
the mix and/or mastering stages, makes
more of an audible difference than differences
between playback formats.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
John Williamson > wrote:
>On 08/02/2017 19:09, geoff wrote:
>> On 9/02/2017 3:04 AM, wrote:
>>> John Williamson:
>>>
>>> My thanks to Nyquist and the original developers
>>> of Redbook are sincere. And I understand about
>>> generations in the digital realm. My comment
>>> was with regards to "direct to disc" recordings,
>>> vinyl and CD. If you feed a live session to both a
>>> CD recorder and vinyl lacquer, there should be
>>> little difference between them in sound quality.
>>>
>>> If there is *significant* audible difference, then
>>> there is audio processing in one of those chains.
>>
>> I think you mean *any*.
>>
>Are you including RIAA equalisation as processing? Because if you don't
>apply the RIAA curve or something similar to the vinyl recording and
>playback, your results will be 'orrible, with a much reduced signal to
>noise ratio due to the way the playback works.

It's not included as processing because it's symmetric. If it works properly,
the frequency and phase responses cancel out and the system is perfectly flat.

Note that if you wanted to, you could build the emphasis and de-emphasis
mechanically into the cutting head and phono cartridge. It would have all
manner of mechanical issues because physical materials are imperfect, but
folks did it back in the early days.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson > wrote:
>>
>I've done it for things like open mic or karaoke nights, so the
>performer can take a CD home with them. Usually now, the performer gets
>a USB stick with the original files on it, and a quick and dirty mix to
>play back at home on their portable player.

Yeah, I do it all the time on classical gigs where there is going to be a
lot of editing. I run an HHB CDR800 in parallel with my recorders, so I
can hand the thing off to the producer or conductor to work out how they
want to do the editing at home on their own time.

>Though there was a series a while back in the UK advertised as being
>"direct to CD", presumably using the master CD-R to make a glass master
>for pressing.

That's difficult to do because you can't stop the recorder at all and you
have to smoothly transition to the finalizing process otherwise you wind up
with a discontinuity on the disk and an E32 that will make the plant kick
it back.

There was a time when I was actually mastering CDs to a Studer CD-R recorder in
realtime off an A/B mastering console instead of fighting with the PCM 1630.
It was expensive and unreliable and took a lot of fighting to figure out how
to get that last E32 out, but it's possible to do.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
>John Williamson wrote: "it's an answer you're likely to get when you diss the
>thoughts of someone who had great experience in the field, and also has
>very little tolerance for wilful ignorance. "
>
>
>How did I diss Phil Allison? All I was suggesting
>was setting up a recording session where the musicians
>played and it was recorded directly to both a CD and
>to a vinyl lacquer. I'm assuming the RIAA curve is
>applied to the feed going to the lacquer side, so that
>vinyl copies of that can be made for playback comparison
>to the CD of that session.
>
>It was PHIL who claims this can't be done.


No, I believe that Phil is just claiming that this would be a stupid idea and
no more useful as a test than any other direct-to-disc vs. digital recording
comparison. And there are plenty of those.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "No, I believe that Phil is just claiming that this would be a
stupid idea and no more useful as a test than any other direct-to-disc vs. digital recording
comparison. And there are plenty of those."


Thanks Scott for that cogent, detailed answer. :)

Much more polite and professional than "****
off, Troll!"

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/9/2017 9:28 AM, wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote: "
> You could certainly do an experiment today if you had the facilities,
> and a CD and phonograph disk playback would certainly sound different,
> but which one sounds best would be subjective. "
>
> They would sound different if the chain to
> either the lacquer or the CD contained
> superfluous processing, such as an EQ,
> compressor, etc. RIAA curve on the
> vinyl side does not count as superfluous.

The use of EQ, compression, etc. are "conscious" processing. You don't
have to use them. If you wanted to conduct the experiment, you could
feed the same signal to the inputs of the CD recorder and the disk
cutting amplifier. But because both of those hardware devices have a
signal path that isn't identical, the signal would be changed in
different ways before reaching the final medium that you're testing.

The CD recorder has a D/A converter that may have some non-linearity.
The disk cutting system has all sorts of stuff to get in the way. Some
you can turn off, like a limiter, if you leave enough headroom so one
groove won't cut into the next one. You can used fixed pitch and
eliminate what's involved in the variable pitch converter - like, for
example, the input signal drives the variable pitch smarts and the
signal that goes to the cutter head actually (these days) goes through a
digital delay to delay it by one revolution of the disk.

So you can't just compare the CD with the lacquer without considering
what's between the source and the delivered media and its effect on the
sound. And we're talking about the raw, first generation recording here.
If you add in anomalies caused by the vinyl pressing and CD molding
processes, that's something else.

You can compare the sound resulting from each one of the recording
_processes_ and decide which one you think is best. If you're a warm,
fuzzy, analog kind of a guy you might like the lacquer better than the
CD. And if you're a "I don't care that it sounds so clean and sterile, I
just want to hear everything" kind of a guy, you'd likely prefer the CD.

> My point is, processing applied, during
> the mix and/or mastering stages, makes
> more of an audible difference than differences
> between playback formats.

Well, sheeeeyuttttt! Mix and process a recording so it will sound like
people expect a CD to sound and mix and process it again so that it will
sound like people expect a phonograph record to sound and of course
they'll be different. But it's not because of the medium, it's because
of the people getting paid to make the best product they can ("best" is
of course subjective) for the medium that they're working with.





--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "
Well, sheeeeyuttttt! Mix and process a recording so it will sound like
people expect a CD to sound and mix and process it again so that it will
sound like people expect a phonograph record to sound and of course
they'll be different. But it's not because of the medium, it's because
of the people getting paid to make the best product they can ("best" is
of course subjective) for the medium that they're working with. "


Exactly the point I was trying to make. It's not
the medium.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/9/2017 10:51 AM, wrote:
> Exactly the point I was trying to make. It's not
> the medium.

This has been bashed around so much that I can no longer tell who was
trying to make what point. I'm just trying to point out the facts.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 10/02/2017 12:21 AM, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "Then the real CD (If one's wanted for distribution) gets produced from a
> decent mix done in the control room. "
>
> That CD obviously cannot be compared to a direct-to-
> disc vinyl cut. We need to compare direct-to-disc Vinyl
> (post RIAA of course) with direct-to-disc CD of the same
> session.
>


Can you drop the 'Direct-To-Disc CD' thingh you've imagined up and just
call it an unprocessed digital recording. That is apart from whatever
processing is in the signal chain for the vinyl version, presumably
minimal if we are talking purists.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "Can you drop the 'Direct-To-Disc CD' thingh you've imagined up and
just call it an unprocessed digital recording. That is apart from whatever
processing is in the signal chain for the vinyl version, presumably
minimal if we are talking purists. "

What issues do you have with unprocessed
recordings, analog or digital?

[geoff]

On 9/02/2017 5:24 p.m., John Williamson wrote:
> On 08/02/2017 19:09, geoff wrote:
>> On 9/02/2017 3:04 AM, wrote:
>>> John Williamson:
>>>
>>>
>>> My thanks to Nyquist and the original developers
>>> of Redbook are sincere. And I understand about
>>> generations in the digital realm. My comment
>>> was with regards to "direct to disc" recordings,
>>> vinyl and CD. If you feed a live session to both a
>>> CD recorder and vinyl lacquer, there should be
>>> little difference between them in sound quality.
>>>
>>>
>>> If there is *significant* audible difference, then
>>> there is audio processing in one of those chains.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think you mean *any*.
>>
> Are you including RIAA equalisation as processing? Because if you
> don't apply the RIAA curve or something similar to the vinyl recording
> and playback, your results will be 'orrible, with a much reduced
> signal to noise ratio due to the way the playback works.
>
Don't be silly.

geoff

[geoff]

On 10/02/2017 9:10 a.m., wrote:
> geoff wrote: "Can you drop the 'Direct-To-Disc CD' thingh you've imagined up and
> just call it an unprocessed digital recording. That is apart from whatever
> processing is in the signal chain for the vinyl version, presumably
> minimal if we are talking purists. "
>
> What issues do you have with unprocessed
> recordings, analog or digital?

None - other than your current misnamed 'Direct-to-disc CD' hobby-horse,
trying to equate the process with the process for Direct-To-Disc 'vinyl' .

geoff

[geoff]

On 10/02/2017 10:42 a.m., geoff wrote:
> On 10/02/2017 9:10 a.m., wrote:
>> geoff wrote: "Can you drop the 'Direct-To-Disc CD' thingh you've
>> imagined up and
>> just call it an unprocessed digital recording. That is apart from
>> whatever
>> processing is in the signal chain for the vinyl version, presumably
>> minimal if we are talking purists. "
>>
>> What issues do you have with unprocessed
>> recordings, analog or digital?
>
> None - other than your current misnamed 'Direct-to-disc CD'
> hobby-horse, trying to equate the process with the process for
> Direct-To-Disc 'vinyl' .
>
> geoff
>
FWIW I have an Direct Cut LP 'Blues Had A Baby' by Kevin Borich and
Dutch Tilders. A great album. I transcribed it to CD and I cannot
discern any difference between the two media versions (level-matching
and all that).

Prior to my final transcription (this time with no live speakers
playing) I perceived a slight lack of 'solidity' in the bass despite my
very solid turntable cabinet being totally isolated from the floor by
separate piles through the lounge floor into the ground. But that might
have been my imagination....

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/9/2017 4:52 PM, geoff wrote:
> FWIW I have an Direct Cut LP 'Blues Had A Baby' by Kevin Borich and
> Dutch Tilders. A great album. I transcribed it to CD and I cannot
> discern any difference between the two media versions (level-matching
> and all that).

Welcome to the world of digital audio. If your hardware is bad enough,
you'll be able to hear a slight difference between playing the record
and playing the CD made by recording that record.

Of course the CD will never be better than your turntable/preamp is
capable of playing the record - there's no such thing as "ripping" a
phonograph record. But even the audio hardware built into most newer
computers is remarkably good for the purpose of digitizing a record as
long as you're careful that you don't have any clipping in the transfer
process.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

On 8/02/2017 9:15 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> JackA wrote:
>> It's pretty obvious,
>
> ** Famous last words from a fool ....
>
>> mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records
>> was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of
>> recorded audio.
>
> ** That IS fascinating.

Only in that he seems to neglect the limitations of the then audio
recorders were even greater.

>
> I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and
> early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings
> available to the public.

At that time. Of course many developments in audio over the previous
century could make similar claims.


> The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible

If only! But certainly less than many other LP's of course.


> and sound quality a revelation - mainly because there was no ****ing
tape
> involved.
> Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit
> for them:
>
https://vinyl-west.de/catalog/49865/harry-james-his-big-band-the-king-james-version.jpg
>

Yep, mainly because every audiophile and HiFi shop bought one just to
prove record quality could be better than most of the crap available at
the time. Still have a few Sheffield Labs LP's, plus a few direct cut
and/or virgin vinyl, metal mastered, 45RPM, 12" disks. One of which was
actually recorded digitally and was used by many HiFi shops for demo's
before CD's were available. Would be considered *WELL below* state of
the art these days though :-) Just as the most expensive
turntable/cartridge combinations available would be, other than by
nostalgia freaks of course! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 9/02/2017 3:31 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 09/02/2017 00:01, Phil Allison wrote:
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER -
>>> provided there is nothing between the microphones and
>>> the CD recorder.
>>>
>>
>> ** Do they even exist - I doubt it.
>>
>> All digital recording renders the idea moot.
>>
>> So a massive RED HERRING .
>>
> I've done it for things like open mic or karaoke nights, so the
> performer can take a CD home with them. Usually now, the performer gets
> a USB stick with the original files on it, and a quick and dirty mix to
> play back at home on their portable player.


So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital
file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than
thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital
age! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 10/02/2017 1:50 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Note that if you wanted to, you could build the emphasis and
> de-emphasis mechanically into the cutting head and phono cartridge.
> It would have all manner of mechanical issues because physical
> materials are imperfect, but folks did it back in the early days.

Of course, the RIAA curve was designed to approximate the natural slope
of crystal/ceramic cartridges, using simple EQ networks. As often
happens, things are chosen as much for compatibility reasons than for
ultimate performance.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 10/02/2017 6:07 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 10/02/2017 12:21 AM, wrote:
>> That CD obviously cannot be compared to a direct-to-
>> disc vinyl cut. We need to compare direct-to-disc Vinyl
>> (post RIAA of course) with direct-to-disc CD of the same
>> session.
>
> Can you drop the 'Direct-To-Disc CD' thingh you've imagined up and just
> call it an unprocessed digital recording. That is apart from whatever
> processing is in the signal chain for the vinyl version, presumably
> minimal if we are talking purists.

"Minimal" in the vinyl manufacturing chain is still *FAR* more than
required for CD manufacture. Vinyl buffs simply choose to ignore it.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/9/2017 10:32 PM, Trevor wrote:
> So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital
> file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than
> thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital
> age! :-)

Actually, I think that he may have been describing a CD made with a
stand-alone CD writer, not a recording to a computer disk drive and then
burned to a CD - though really there should be no difference. Before
people started toting laptop computers to live shows, we used to use a
CD recorder with analog inputs that were fed from the PA console. I
don't think it's unfair to call that "direct to CD." It's about as
direct as "direct to disk" for lacquer.

Here's one, still available from TASCAM:

http://tascam.com/product/cd-rw901mkii/



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

On 10/02/2017 8:52 AM, geoff wrote:
> FWIW I have an Direct Cut LP 'Blues Had A Baby' by Kevin Borich and
> Dutch Tilders. A great album. I transcribed it to CD and I cannot
> discern any difference between the two media versions (level-matching
> and all that).

Have been demo'ing that for decades by simply switching between any
chosen turntable/disk output and the output of it fed to an A/D-D/A
converter. None of those who claimed vinyl superiority were able to
reliably tell the difference even when I was using converters not as
good as those available today.

>
> Prior to my final transcription (this time with no live speakers
> playing) I perceived a slight lack of 'solidity' in the bass despite my
> very solid turntable cabinet being totally isolated from the floor by
> separate piles through the lounge floor into the ground. But that might
> have been my imagination....

Possibly, but I've always used headphones for vinyl transcription, I
can't see why you'd even want to take the risk with having speakers
playing at the same time?

Trevor.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:

>
> > I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and
> > early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings
> > available to the public.
>
> At that time.
>

** Redundant comment.


> Of course many developments in audio over the previous
> century could make similar claims.
>

** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the arrival of CDs.


>
> > The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible
>
> If only!


** Smartarse comment.

Wot a ****wit TROLL.


..... Phil

[Trevor]

On 10/02/2017 4:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> Trevor wrote:
>> > I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and
>> > early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings
>> > available to the public.
>>
>> At that time.
>>
>
> ** Redundant comment.
>
>
>> Of course many developments in audio over the previous
>> century could make similar claims.
>>
>
> ** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the arrival of CDs.

Redundant comment!


>>
>>> The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible
>>
>> If only!
>
>
> ** Smartarse comment.
>
> Wot a ****wit TROLL.

Off your meds again then Phil?

Trevor.

[PStamler]

Actually, there was at least one commercial "direct to disc" CD issued, in the late 1980s or early 1990s. They got around the problem of the musician(s) having to play perfectly for 74 or so minutes by using a Yamaha MIDI Grand piano. They miked it simply, used very little processing, and converted to digital onsite; they then sent the digital signal via a digital connection to the CD manufacturing plant, which cut a glass master from it. The theory behind all this was that a recording cut that way would contain less jitter than a conventionally recorded CD. Which is horsefeathers, but someone spent a lot of money and time doing this. I have no idea what the music was or how the disc sounded.

Peace,
The Other Paul (Stamler)

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
>
>
> >> > I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and
> >> > early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings
> >> > available to the public.
> >>
> >> At that time.
> >>
> >
> > ** Redundant comment.
> >
> >
> >> Of course many developments in audio over the previous
> >> century could make similar claims.
> >>
> >
> > ** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the arrival of CDs.
>
> Redundant comment!
>

** ******** - you flatly contradicts your crapology.


> >>
> >>> The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible
> >>
> >> If only!
> >
> >
> > ** Smartarse comment.
> >
> > Wot a ****wit TROLL.
>
> Off your meds again then Phil?
>

** Usual ****wit troll reply.

Yawwnnnnnnnnnnn.................


The "Trevor" austistic retard has been making a ASS of himself all over usenet and the PLANET for as long as the bull****ting prick has been alive.

Lets all pray for his imminent, painful death.




..... Phil

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 07-02-2017 19:03, JackA wrote:

> It's pretty obvious, mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater loudness...

Does not relate to the topic in the topic header. But I did a lot of
research on that issue in 1999 and posted it on the usenet.

> Jack

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[John Williamson]

On 10/02/2017 03:32, Trevor wrote:
> On 9/02/2017 3:31 PM, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 09/02/2017 00:01, Phil Allison wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER -
>>>> provided there is nothing between the microphones and
>>>> the CD recorder.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** Do they even exist - I doubt it.
>>>
>>> All digital recording renders the idea moot.
>>>
>>> So a massive RED HERRING .
>>>
>> I've done it for things like open mic or karaoke nights, so the
>> performer can take a CD home with them. Usually now, the performer gets
>> a USB stick with the original files on it, and a quick and dirty mix to
>> play back at home on their portable player.
>
>
> So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital
> file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than
> thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital
> age! :-)
>
The CD they took home was burned to CD-R on the CD drive in the computer
in real time during the performance, using the FOH feed as a source. I
suppose if you want to be pedantic, it's not made using a CD recorder
and a pair of microphones near the front row, but that's the only way
it could get to be more direct.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 10/02/2017 4:54 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/9/2017 10:32 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital
>> file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than
>> thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital
>> age! :-)
>
> Actually, I think that he may have been describing a CD made with a
> stand-alone CD writer, not a recording to a computer disk drive and then
> burned to a CD - though really there should be no difference. Before
> people started toting laptop computers to live shows, we used to use a
> CD recorder with analog inputs that were fed from the PA console. I
> don't think it's unfair to call that "direct to CD." It's about as
> direct as "direct to disk" for lacquer.
>
> Here's one, still available from TASCAM:
>
> http://tascam.com/product/cd-rw901mkii/
>
>
>

A stand-alone CD recorder surely has some degree of internal buffering
involved, so is actually not different to any other unprocessed digital
recording however many generations old, stored, moved, delayed,
uploaded, downloaded, whatever, where the data remains 100% identical.

Maybe he meant the process of playing live a whole CD-worth of music in
one take ? But that is a musical performance issue, rather than an
achievable sound-quality issue.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/10/2017 4:25 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> The CD they took home was burned to CD-R on the CD drive in the computer
> in real time during the performance, using the FOH feed as a source.

I'd never trust a computer to do that reliably, but then I have nothing
but old and cranky computers. I like dedicated hardware for recording,
and I still much prefer using my Mackie hard disk recorder for sessions
than using a computer. It's a computer at heart, of course, but it
doesn't get "upgrades" that make it crash, and it has big buttons on it
so I don't have to find a little button with a mouse in order to arm a
track or start rolling.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "
Actually, I think that he may have been describing a CD made with a
stand-alone CD writer, not a recording to a computer disk drive and then
burned to a CD - though really there should be no difference. Before
people started toting laptop computers to live shows, we used to use a
CD recorder with analog inputs that were fed from the PA console. I
don't think it's unfair to call that "direct to CD." It's about as
direct as "direct to disk" for lacquer"


THANK YOU! Finally! Not all that difficult to understand.
That is what I do every Sunday in church: Yamaha outs
to a Tascam CD recorder. As long as proper gain
principles are applied through the board, and keep an
eye on the Tascam meters, one can capture a good
recording of worship and sermons.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "Have been demo'ing that for decades by simply switching between any
chosen turntable/disk output and the output of it fed to an A/D-D/A
converter. None of those who claimed vinyl superiority were able to
reliably tell the difference even when I was using converters not as
good as those available today. "


Hmmmm...

You, geoff, and I agree on a lot more than
we may think! Only if we could impart what
you said in simple terms to the ignorant "VINYL
SOUNDS BETTER THAN CD" public! When the CD
version gets the heavy over-processing, squashed
to death, of course the vinyl version sound better
than THAT! sheez..

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/10/2017 7:49 AM, wrote:
> Only if we could impart what
> you said in simple terms to the ignorant "VINYL
> SOUNDS BETTER THAN CD" public! When the CD
> version gets the heavy over-processing, squashed
> to death, of course the vinyl version sound better
> than THAT!

But . . . but . . . but . . This isn't a difference between CD and
vinyl technology. It's a difference between decisions, other than the
choice of the medium of publication, that are made by people, not
electrons or light beams.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 10/02/2017 1:50 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Note that if you wanted to, you could build the emphasis and
>> de-emphasis mechanically into the cutting head and phono cartridge.
>> It would have all manner of mechanical issues because physical
>> materials are imperfect, but folks did it back in the early days.
>
>Of course, the RIAA curve was designed to approximate the natural slope
>of crystal/ceramic cartridges, using simple EQ networks. As often
>happens, things are chosen as much for compatibility reasons than for
>ultimate performance.

Sort of, but not exactly. The idea is that you want constant displacement
(like with a piezo element) at low frequencies but you want constant velocity
(like with an electromagnetic transducer) at high frequencies.

On playback, you can deal with this using a constant displacement piezo
transducer, combined with high frequency rolloff from an RC network.
It's not _just_ the natural slope of the cartridge, although that's one
big part of it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 2/10/2017 7:49 AM, wrote:
>> Only if we could impart what
>> you said in simple terms to the ignorant "VINYL
>> SOUNDS BETTER THAN CD" public! When the CD
>> version gets the heavy over-processing, squashed
>> to death, of course the vinyl version sound better
>> than THAT!
>
>But . . . but . . . but . . This isn't a difference between CD and
>vinyl technology. It's a difference between decisions, other than the
>choice of the medium of publication, that are made by people, not
>electrons or light beams.

Yes, but unfortunately it's the only thing thekmanrocks can talk about,
so every thread he gets involved with eventually comes back to it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "But . . . but . . . but . . This isn't a difference between CD and
vinyl technology. It's a difference between decisions, other than the
choice of the medium of publication, that are made by people, not
electrons or light beams"

I keep repeating myself: I KNOW THAT. 90% of
the general music-consuming public doesn't!
That's been my point since about 15-20 replies
ago.

[JackA]

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:33:59 AM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
> JackA wrote:
>
>
> >
> > One of the worst factors in recorded music is human. Some have the knowledge what sounds impressive, other don't. I'm sure 35mm film audio rivals direct to disc. But since so few actually appreciated, nor did they care paying extra cost, both died quickly.
> >
> >
>
> ** Direct to Disc recordings cost less to make than ones using tape machines - and they cost no more to produce copies of.
>
> Wot a crock of ****.


I see, YOU people claim better sound quality (disc), I claim people don't really care for HQ sound, yet you claim it's less expensive to produce direct to disc. But, you have absolutely little control what is recorded, such as a sneeze that can be removed from tape, but the ENTIRE session has to be rerecorded with disc. How much do session musicians make per hour? How about that entire orchestra?
Come on Phil.

Jack
>
>
> .... Phil

[JackA]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:49:03 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Trevor wrote: "Have been demo'ing that for decades by simply switching between any
> chosen turntable/disk output and the output of it fed to an A/D-D/A
> converter. None of those who claimed vinyl superiority were able to
> reliably tell the difference even when I was using converters not as
> good as those available today. "
>
>
> Hmmmm...
>
> You, geoff, and I agree on a lot more than
> we may think! Only if we could impart what
> you said in simple terms to the ignorant "VINYL
> SOUNDS BETTER THAN CD" public! When the CD
> version gets the heavy over-processing, squashed
> to death, of course the vinyl version sound better
> than THAT! sheez..

It DEPENDS on the era of music. Later material, say year 2000+, may be heavily processed. But, I have yet to hear Frank Sinatra heavily processed. See, listen, there is no "proper" way to master music, so you get what you get.

Jack

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 1:03:15 PM UTC-5, JackA wrote:
> It's pretty obvious, mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater loudness...
>
> From a 2010 CD, but digitally enhanced, but no peak trimming or brick-walling, save that for the amateur Remasterers...
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/keemosabe.mp3
>
> Jack

I'd like to add, look at these studios where people master, tons of electronic gadgets to "enhance" sound.

Jack

[Tatonik]

PStamler > wrote:

> Actually, there was at least one commercial "direct to disc" CD issued, in
> the late 1980s or early 1990s. They got around the problem of the
> musician(s) having to play perfectly for 74 or so minutes by using a
> Yamaha MIDI Grand piano. They miked it simply, used very little
> processing, and converted to digital onsite; they then sent the digital
> signal via a digital connection to the CD manufacturing plant, which cut a
> glass master from it. The theory behind all this was that a recording cut
> that way would contain less jitter than a conventionally recorded CD.
> Which is horsefeathers, but someone spent a lot of money and time doing
> this. I have no idea what the music was or how the disc sounded.
>
> Peace,
> The Other Paul (Stamler)

I think I have an album that was done that way: Dick Hyman Plays Fats
Waller on Reference Recordings. It was made on a Bosendorfer
Reproducing Piano. The sound is good, though I doubt it has anything to
do with the unusual way in which the album was made. The sound might be
even better if I could just download a copy of the MIDI file and wedge
that 9-foot Bosendorfer into my living room.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

JackAss wrote:

> > >
> > > I'm sure 35mm film audio rivals direct to disc. But since so few
> > >< actually appreciated, nor did they care paying extra cost,
> > > both died quickly.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ** Direct to Disc recordings cost less to make than ones using
> > tape machines - and they cost no more to produce copies of.
> >
> > Wot a crock of ****.
>
>
> I see, YOU people claim better sound quality (disc), I claim people don't
> really care for HQ sound,
>

** They are two entirely separate matters.

Rest of your schizoid crapology best forgotten.


..... Phil

[JackA]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:42:59 PM UTC-5, Tatonik wrote:
> PStamler > wrote:
>
> > Actually, there was at least one commercial "direct to disc" CD issued, in
> > the late 1980s or early 1990s. They got around the problem of the
> > musician(s) having to play perfectly for 74 or so minutes by using a
> > Yamaha MIDI Grand piano. They miked it simply, used very little
> > processing, and converted to digital onsite; they then sent the digital
> > signal via a digital connection to the CD manufacturing plant, which cut a
> > glass master from it. The theory behind all this was that a recording cut
> > that way would contain less jitter than a conventionally recorded CD.
> > Which is horsefeathers, but someone spent a lot of money and time doing
> > this. I have no idea what the music was or how the disc sounded.
> >
> > Peace,
> > The Other Paul (Stamler)
>
> I think I have an album that was done that way: Dick Hyman Plays Fats
> Waller on Reference Recordings. It was made on a Bosendorfer
> Reproducing Piano. The sound is good, though I doubt it has anything to
> do with the unusual way in which the album was made. The sound might be
> even better if I could just download a copy of the MIDI file and wedge
> that 9-foot Bosendorfer into my living room.

Wiki:

Interesting:

"According to Robert Auld of the Audio Engineering Society: "It was a notoriously difficult way to record (ed: Direct to Disc); the musicians and all concerned had to record a complete LP side without any serious musical or technical mistakes".

Jack

[JackA]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 5:40:31 PM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
> JackAss wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure 35mm film audio rivals direct to disc. But since so few
> > > >< actually appreciated, nor did they care paying extra cost,
> > > > both died quickly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ** Direct to Disc recordings cost less to make than ones using
> > > tape machines - and they cost no more to produce copies of.
> > >
> > > Wot a crock of ****.
> >
> >
> > I see, YOU people claim better sound quality (disc), I claim people don't
> > really care for HQ sound,
> >
>
> ** They are two entirely separate matters.
>
> Rest of your schizoid crapology best forgotten.
>
>
> .... Phil

Phil, you are just Pushin' Too Hard!!

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/pushin2hard-1.mp3

Jack

[geoff]

On 11/02/2017 1:42 AM, wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote: "
> Actually, I think that he may have been describing a CD made with a
> stand-alone CD writer, not a recording to a computer disk drive and then
> burned to a CD - though really there should be no difference. Before
> people started toting laptop computers to live shows, we used to use a
> CD recorder with analog inputs that were fed from the PA console. I
> don't think it's unfair to call that "direct to CD." It's about as
> direct as "direct to disk" for lacquer"
>
>
> THANK YOU! Finally! Not all that difficult to understand.
> That is what I do every Sunday in church: Yamaha outs
> to a Tascam CD recorder. As long as proper gain
> principles are applied through the board, and keep an
> eye on the Tascam meters, one can capture a good
> recording of worship and sermons.
>


Insha Allah .....

geoff

[Trevor]

On 10/02/2017 7:19 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> Trevor wrote:
>>>>> I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s
>>>>> and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality
>>>>> recordings available to the public.
>>>>
>>>> At that time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** Redundant comment.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Of course many developments in audio over the previous century
>>>> could make similar claims.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the
>>> arrival of CDs.
>>
>> Redundant comment!
>>
>
> ** ******** - you flatly contradicts your crapology.

Oh the ironing! :-)

>
>>>>
>>>>> The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible
>>>>
>>>> If only!
>>>
>>>
>>> ** Smartarse comment.
>>>
>>> Wot a ****wit TROLL.
>>
>> Off your meds again then Phil?
>>
>
> ** Usual ****wit troll reply.
>
> Yawwnnnnnnnnnnn.................
>
>
> The "Trevor" austistic retard has been making a ASS of himself all
> over usenet and the PLANET for as long as the bull****ting prick has
> been alive.

You have ALWAYS proven who is the biggest ASS on usenet Phil. Just too
stupid to realise it is you.


>
> Lets all pray for his imminent, painful death.
>

And being off your meds again seem to have forgotten there are now laws
against making threats on the internet in Aus.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 10/02/2017 8:25 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 10/02/2017 03:32, Trevor wrote:
>> On 9/02/2017 3:31 PM, John Williamson wrote:
>>> I've done it for things like open mic or karaoke nights, so the
>>> performer can take a CD home with them. Usually now, the performer gets
>>> a USB stick with the original files on it, and a quick and dirty mix to
>>> play back at home on their portable player.
>>
>>
>> So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital
>> file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than
>> thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital
>> age! :-)
>>
> The CD they took home was burned to CD-R on the CD drive in the computer
> in real time during the performance, using the FOH feed as a source. I
> suppose if you want to be pedantic, it's not made using a CD recorder
> and a pair of microphones near the front row, but that's the only way
> it could get to be more direct.

OK, thought you burned to a normal CDR drive after the show like I used
to do. No benefit in burning real time to a CDR drive, likely to cause
more problems with buffer under-run glitches than burning the file
later. And no benefit at all that I can see.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 10/02/2017 11:08 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/10/2017 4:25 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>> The CD they took home was burned to CD-R on the CD drive in the computer
>> in real time during the performance, using the FOH feed as a source.
>
> I'd never trust a computer to do that reliably, but then I have nothing
> but old and cranky computers. I like dedicated hardware for recording,
> and I still much prefer using my Mackie hard disk recorder for sessions
> than using a computer. It's a computer at heart, of course, but it
> doesn't get "upgrades" that make it crash, and it has big buttons on it
> so I don't have to find a little button with a mouse in order to arm a
> track or start rolling.

Each to their own. I've used a laptop and 2 cascaded USB interfaces to
record 16 tracks at over 200 gigs with only one mishap. Entirely user
error in that I forgot to hit record for the second set. :-(
Outcome would have been no different whatever hardware I had.
One day the computer will fail of course, but so can ANY hardware! You
simply need two redundant systems for mission critical work.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 11/02/2017 1:22 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 10/02/2017 1:50 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Note that if you wanted to, you could build the emphasis and
>>> de-emphasis mechanically into the cutting head and phono cartridge.
>>> It would have all manner of mechanical issues because physical
>>> materials are imperfect, but folks did it back in the early days.
>>
>> Of course, the RIAA curve was designed to approximate the natural slope
>> of crystal/ceramic cartridges, using simple EQ networks. As often
>> happens, things are chosen as much for compatibility reasons than for
>> ultimate performance.
>
> Sort of, but not exactly. The idea is that you want constant displacement
> (like with a piezo element) at low frequencies but you want constant velocity
> (like with an electromagnetic transducer) at high frequencies.

That was my point, it was not necessarily what would necessarily be most
ideal, but what is easiest to achieve at minimal cost while maintaining
compatibility.

>
> On playback, you can deal with this using a constant displacement piezo
> transducer, combined with high frequency rolloff from an RC network.
> It's not _just_ the natural slope of the cartridge, although that's one
> big part of it.

Right, I was simplifying. Lets not even mention later changes to the low
end boost. :-)

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>
>OK, thought you burned to a normal CDR drive after the show like I used
>to do. No benefit in burning real time to a CDR drive, likely to cause
>more problems with buffer under-run glitches than burning the file
>later. And no benefit at all that I can see.

Much more convenient and provides a recording system that is totally
independent of the primary recorders just in case everything goes wrong.

Also can be started and stopped independently so that what makes it to
CD-R is different than what makes it to the primary recording.

It's all about getting a rough as fast as possible with as little effort
as possible.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 12/02/2017 1:28 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> OK, thought you burned to a normal CDR drive after the show like I used
>> to do. No benefit in burning real time to a CDR drive, likely to cause
>> more problems with buffer under-run glitches than burning the file
>> later. And no benefit at all that I can see.
>
> Much more convenient and provides a recording system that is totally
> independent of the primary recorders just in case everything goes wrong.

Yes a redundant system is always good. I usually use a Zoom for that.

>
> Also can be started and stopped independently so that what makes it to
> CD-R is different than what makes it to the primary recording.

Hardly relevant when you can simply edit out anything later.

>
> It's all about getting a rough as fast as possible with as little effort
> as possible.

Fair enough. The few seconds it takes to initiate the burn of a CD has
never justified me buying a stand alone CD recorder, but I can see it
might for others. I don't routinely give a CD on the night though, only
if asked, so that makes a difference for me.

Trevor.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:


** The "Trevor" autistic retard has been making a ASS of himself all
over usenet and the PLANET for as long as the bull****ting prick has
been alive.

Lets all hope he drops dead soon.


..... Phil

[Trevor]

On 12/02/2017 7:50 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> ** The "Trevor" autistic retard has been making a ASS of himself all
> over usenet and the PLANET for as long as the bull****ting prick has
> been alive.
>
> Lets all hope he drops dead soon.

So off your meds you forgot you posted this already I see. Sad that you
have no-one to help you remember to take your meds.
And you must get sick of finding a new account every time people
complain and you get dropped. I only saw these because you keep getting
past my blocked sender list every time you get a new account. :-(

Trevor.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:

>
> > ** The "Trevor" autistic retard has been making a ASS of himself all
> > over usenet and the PLANET for as long as the bull****ting prick has
> > been alive.
> >
> > Lets all hope he drops dead soon.
>
>
> And you must get sick of finding a new account every time people
> complain and you get dropped.
>


** Wot utter bull****.

I had been using the same news server (individual.net) for about the last 10 years, then changed to using Google Groups after buying a new PC since Windows 7 does not support Outlook Express.

I use Thunderbird for email for the same reason.

Thanks for another superfluous PROOF what a complete prick you are.



..... Phil

[geoff]

On 12/02/2017 10:10 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

>
> I had been using the same news server (individual.net) for about the
> last 10 years, then changed to using Google Groups after buying a new
> PC since Windows 7 does not support Outlook Express.
>
> I use Thunderbird for email for the same reason.


Why don't you use Thunderbird for newsgroups ? Way better than OE ever was !

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 12/02/2017 09:55, geoff wrote:
> On 12/02/2017 10:10 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>
>>
>> I had been using the same news server (individual.net) for about the
>> last 10 years, then changed to using Google Groups after buying a new
>> PC since Windows 7 does not support Outlook Express.
>>
>> I use Thunderbird for email for the same reason.
>
>
> Why don't you use Thunderbird for newsgroups ? Way better than OE ever
> was !
>
Not to mention being better than Google Groups will ever be, apart from
the archive.

Although, Pan is available for Windows as well as Linux, and is better
than Thunderbird in some people's opinion.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

geoff wrote:

>On
> > I had been using the same news server (individual.net) for about the
> > last 10 years, then changed to using Google Groups after buying a new
> > PC since Windows 7 does not support Outlook Express.
> >
> > I use Thunderbird for email for the same reason.
>
>
> Why don't you use Thunderbird for newsgroups ?
>


** It refused to access "individual.net" for me.


> Way better than OE ever was !
>

** OE was fine.

Way better than GG for sure.



..... Phil

[John Williamson]

On 12/02/2017 11:28, Phil Allison wrote:
> geoff wrote:

>> Why don't you use Thunderbird for newsgroups ?
>
> ** It refused to access "individual.net" for me.
>
Probably a local configuration (Firewall or login details?) or ISP
problem, I've been using it on news.individual.net via BT Internet and
various mobile services on port 119 since before it stopped being free.

Have you tried Pan?

http://pan.rebelbase.com/

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 13/02/2017 3:10 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 12/02/2017 11:28, Phil Allison wrote:
>> geoff wrote:
>
>>> Why don't you use Thunderbird for newsgroups ?
>>
>> ** It refused to access "individual.net" for me.
>>
> Probably a local configuration (Firewall or login details?) or ISP
> problem, I've been using it on news.individual.net via BT Internet and
> various mobile services on port 119 since before it stopped being free.
>
> Have you tried Pan?
>
> http://pan.rebelbase.com/
>

Or sorting what your Thunderbird.v.individual.net issue was (presumably
a server port setting or something ....).

geoff

[JackA]

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:50:08 AM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
> Trevor wrote:
>
>
> ** The "Trevor" autistic retard has been making a ASS of himself all
> over usenet and the PLANET for as long as the bull****ting prick has
> been alive.
>
> Lets all hope he drops dead soon.

*PLUNK!*

Jack :)
>
>
> .... Phil