On 22 Jul 2003 13:05:13 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

Excerpt - Lynn Olsen

snip

If it were, why do stereo LP’s made 40 years ago, amplified with 65-year-old
direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today’s digital sound played
through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos?

Two points he

* this is a highly subjective statement ("sound much better" is
entirely in the perception of the listener - some may agree with this,
others disagree)

* the LPs of 40 years ago were made on using technology that can only
be considered crude by today's standards, and they were made to be
played using equipment that, in most cases, would be put to shame by a
contemporary no-name mini system (I still recall my father's delight
at having his Decca record player retrofitted w/ a stereo cartridge,
one channel of which went through the original amp and (built-in)
speaker, the other to a matching box w/ a second amp and speaker). If
40 year old recordings sound poor on modern equipment, maybe that's
because the latter does all too good a job of revealing the
inadequacies of the former.

The differences between mass-fi and
true high fidelity are as plain as day to an (open-minded) listener.

We are in the odd position of discovering that as speakers get better and
better, the true merits of vacuum-tube circuits become more and more evident.
After all, even J. Gordon Holt gave the Crown DC-300 transistor amplifier a
Class "A" rating in 1971. At the time, the modestly-priced Dyna Stereo 70
received a lower rating - yet with modern speakers, the DC-300 is unlistenable,
and the Dyna just keeps sounding better. The entry-level EL84 amps of the early
Sixties (Scott 299, Eico, and Dyna SCA-35) sound remarkably natural and
realistic with today’s more efficient, and much more transparent, speakers.

Given that the components referred to above are US in origin, and US
"mass-fi" equipment has been historically a very poor cousin of UK
equivalents, I'm not sure how valid this comparison is.

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jul 2003 13:05:13 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

snip snip

* the LPs of 40 years ago were made on using technology that can only
be considered crude by today's standards, and they were made to be
played using equipment that, in most cases, would be put to shame by a
contemporary no-name mini system (I still recall my father's delight
at having his Decca record player retrofitted w/ a stereo cartridge,
one channel of which went through the original amp and (built-in)
speaker, the other to a matching box w/ a second amp and speaker). If
40 year old recordings sound poor on modern equipment, maybe that's
because the latter does all too good a job of revealing the
inadequacies of the former.
Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an
original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not
forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and
LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the
quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They
must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.

Don't know about all the valve stuff I'm afraid. Don't understand the
technical bits and never had the opportunity to listen. But if nothing else
it's made me think that there might be something in it after all given the
'passion' here ;-)

Rob

A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an
original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not
forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and
LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the
quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They
must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.

No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded
masters. Unfortunately a lot of CDs use those original cutting master
tapes, and they reveal this compression well. This is not the fault of
CD, it is caused by poor quality source material.

Some of the vinyl enthusiasts on this group will tell you that vinyl
sounds just fine even after it has been digitally recorded. This
suggests several things, (1) CD/digital can record source material
sufficiently well to be almost completely transparent; (2) to repeat (1)
in a different way - the act of recording the vinyl onto CD doesn't
remove the so-called "warmth"; and (3) the "warmth" that people refer to
is a characteristic of vinyl, caused mostly by distortion, compression
and other imperfections.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an
original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not
forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and
LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the
quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They
must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.

No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded
masters...

Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not
all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd. Second, some eq is
meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the
medium. In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be
considered 'broken', as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.

You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good
sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed).

Stephen

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I
think) and an original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well
as the music let's not forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles
stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and LP). I bought a few remastered
Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the quality compared to the
record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They must have got
something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.

No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original
recorded masters...

Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not
all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd.

The compression is a variable, the equalization is pretty much a given.

Second, some eq is
meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the
medium. In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be
considered 'broken', as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.

The problem with this wild-add theory is that the natural frequency response
of the LP medium varies tremendously from playback system to playback
system.

You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good
sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed).

Since no reliable independent standard has been cited for "good sounding",
you're talking out the back of your neck.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I
think) and an original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well
as the music let's not forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles
stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and LP). I bought a few remastered
Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the quality compared to the
record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They must have got
something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.

No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original
recorded masters...

Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not
all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd.

The compression is a variable, the equalization is pretty much a given.

Second, some eq is
meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the
medium. In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be
considered 'broken', as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.

The problem with this wild-add theory is that the natural frequency response
of the LP medium varies tremendously from playback system to playback
system.

You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good
sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed).

Since no reliable independent standard has been cited for "good sounding",
you're talking out the back of your neck.

What an odd thing to say. The standard for "good sounding" is the
opinion of RJH. Too bad about the American Hendrix pressings or I'd have
an opinion, too.

Stephen

A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded
masters...

Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not
all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd.

Pick an LP at random in a music shop, it probably is. A tiny fraction of
LPs manufactured in the early-mid 80s are less so. I'll wager at least
90% of LPs out there are heavily doctored.

Second, some eq is
meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the
medium.

Complete and total hogwash! The final recorded work as the artist
intends is on the final master tape (that is why it is called the
"master"), and all mixing and EQing to extract the correct sound will
have been done during the production of that master. From that point
forth, mass production is singularly concerned with reproducing that
master tape as closely as possible.

It is possible to further alter it as required for the target audience,
and this is often done for pop music, but it is incorrect to say that
this is "necessary" and it is bunkum to talk about it being
"complimentary" to anything. Digital's natural frequency response, when
properly aligned and set up, is ruler flat so no EQ is necessary. It
will reproduce the recorded work *exactly* if it is required to do so,
as is frequently the case with classical recordings and on any music
intended to be listened to by serious musophiles.

EQ and compression *are* necessary on vinyl, as the various
imperfections of the medium would ghost much of the sound, and for
practical reasons due to the inherently mechanical nature of the cutting
and playback processes. If you told the engineer this silly
"complimentary" theory of yours, he'd laugh in your face. Engineers used
as little EQ and compression as they could get away with. Unfortunately
that was still a lot.

In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be
considered 'broken',

It certainly would be broken - without extensive EQ and compression the
resulting LP would be unplayable, and the cutting lathe could be
seriously damaged (notwithstanding technological developments in the 80s
which enhanced this situation - albeit too late). These are PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS, and are absolutely nothing to do with making the music
more enjoyable. They are necessary for the music to be playable in the
first place. It's that simple.

as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.

Another nasty idiosyncrasy, completely unnecessary with the advent of
digital.

You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good
sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed).

As we all know, the process of playing back vinyl is what adds all the
warmth (read : distortion). The CD will be a fairly authentic
reproduction of the LP cutting master - ie flat and crap. That's what is
going onto your vinyl, baby.

To get the best out of the CD you need to go back to the master tape and
do a direct cut, straight over to the digital. Then you'll be in a
position to hear all the bits that they had to remove from the LP.


--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded
masters...

Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not
all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd.

Pick an LP at random in a music shop, it probably is. A tiny fraction of
LPs manufactured in the early-mid 80s are less so. I'll wager at least
90% of LPs out there are heavily doctored.

Sounds comparable to the percentage of cds that are heavily doctored.
The only difference is a non-destructible mastering stage instead of a
lp production mastertape.

Second, some eq is
meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the
medium.

Complete and total hogwash! The final recorded work as the artist
intends is on the final master tape (that is why it is called the
"master"), and all mixing and EQing to extract the correct sound will
have been done during the production of that master.

You're arguing by definition. I do not accept your definition. End of
argument.

From that point
forth, mass production is singularly concerned with reproducing that
master tape as closely as possible.

No, it isn't. It's all about extracting coins from pockets or have you
forgotten about cassette tapes? DAB? If Flexi-discs made the most money,
that's all we'd see in the shops.

It is possible to further alter it as required for the target audience,
and this is often done for pop music, but it is incorrect to say that
this is "necessary" and it is bunkum to talk about it being
"complimentary" to anything.

I'll bet you refused to use your cassette Dolby switch.

Digital's natural frequency response, when
properly aligned and set up, is ruler flat so no EQ is necessary. It
will reproduce the recorded work *exactly* if it is required to do so,
as is frequently the case with classical recordings and on any music
intended to be listened to by serious musophiles.

EQ and compression *are* necessary on vinyl, as the various
imperfections of the medium would ghost much of the sound, and for
practical reasons due to the inherently mechanical nature of the cutting
and playback processes.

That's what makes mastering an art. Surprising how good the result can
be.

If you told the engineer this silly
"complimentary" theory of yours, he'd laugh in your face. Engineers used
as little EQ and compression as they could get away with. Unfortunately
that was still a lot.

You mean a mastering engineer would never increase the treble knowing of
vinyl's attenuation? I think he would laugh in your face it you said he
wouldn't.

It doesn't matter if the amount of eq is a little or a lot, it should be
the exact right amount for the purpose.

And it's "complement".

In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be
considered 'broken',

It certainly would be broken - without extensive EQ and compression the
resulting LP would be unplayable, and the cutting lathe could be
seriously damaged (notwithstanding technological developments in the 80s
which enhanced this situation - albeit too late). These are PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS, and are absolutely nothing to do with making the music
more enjoyable. They are necessary for the music to be playable in the
first place. It's that simple.

Omelettes, eggs.

as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.

Another nasty idiosyncrasy, completely unnecessary with the advent of
digital.

But sonically transparent. How about the "nasty idiosyncrasies" of
digital, all those nasty high frequency artifacts that have to be
filtered out?

You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good
sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed).

As we all know, the process of playing back vinyl is what adds all the
warmth (read : distortion). The CD will be a fairly authentic
reproduction of the LP cutting master - ie flat and crap. That's what is
going onto your vinyl, baby.

That's what I want: the cutting master is meant to get the most out of
the lp. Without the compensations of vinyl, of course it will sound
strange. However, this is a record company problem, not a fault of the
medium.

To get the best out of the CD you need to go back to the master tape and
do a direct cut, straight over to the digital. Then you'll be in a
position to hear all the bits that they had to remove from the LP.

Removed from the lp? Better lock the doors before they take any more
away...

Stephen

A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Pick an LP at random in a music shop, it probably is. A tiny fraction of
LPs manufactured in the early-mid 80s are less so. I'll wager at least
90% of LPs out there are heavily doctored.

Sounds comparable to the percentage of cds that are heavily doctored.

Anything that's non-pop music will be pretty much a duplicate of the
master tape. Most of the CDs I have (not pop) have been mastered
directly from the actual master. Why do further doctoring on an already
completed work ?

In an imaginary world, if LP also had ruler-flat characteristics and no
unusual mechanical traits then no post-mastering stage would be
necessary there either.

The only difference is a non-destructible mastering stage instead of a
lp production mastertape.

"non destructible mastering stage" what on earth are you talking about ?
When preparing for digital distribution, the entire post-mastering stage
is dropped as it is unnecessary (excepting pop music of course). Non
destructible editing is a feature of a digital audio workstation, but
it's absolutely nothing to do with mastering. You have your terminology
badly mixed up.

Complete and total hogwash! The final recorded work as the artist
intends is on the final master tape (that is why it is called the
"master"), and all mixing and EQing to extract the correct sound will
have been done during the production of that master.

You're arguing by definition. I do not accept your definition. End of
argument.

It's not my definition, it's the one used by recording engineers. Feel
free not to accept what the rest of the profession does, but
unfortunately you are not at liberty to make up your own definitions for
things, at least not if you want to be understood by the sane world.

From that point
forth, mass production is singularly concerned with reproducing that
master tape as closely as possible.

No, it isn't. It's all about extracting coins from pockets

Indeed it is, and it has been shown. People will pay for a remastered CD
that has been freshly cut from the original master, with no weird
doctoring or other side effects at all.

EQ and compression *are* necessary on vinyl, as the various
imperfections of the medium would ghost much of the sound, and for
practical reasons due to the inherently mechanical nature of the cutting
and playback processes.

That's what makes mastering an art.

Agreed.

Surprising how good the result can
be.

And it's a damn shame hearing what gets done to a master tape in order
to squeeze it uncomfortably onto an LP.

If you told the engineer this silly
"complimentary" theory of yours, he'd laugh in your face. Engineers used
as little EQ and compression as they could get away with. Unfortunately
that was still a lot.

You mean a mastering engineer would never increase the treble knowing of
vinyl's attenuation?

I am talking about CD.

as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.

Another nasty idiosyncrasy, completely unnecessary with the advent of
digital.

But sonically transparent.

It's not sonically transparent - no attenuation/amplication process is.
Once you cut a bit out of a sound, you can't magically amplify it back
again. It's lost.

How about the "nasty idiosyncrasies" of
digital, all those nasty high frequency artifacts that have to be
filtered out?

Tell me about these "high frequency artifacts" and what process is used
to filter them during mastering.

As we all know, the process of playing back vinyl is what adds all the
warmth (read : distortion). The CD will be a fairly authentic
reproduction of the LP cutting master - ie flat and crap. That's what is
going onto your vinyl, baby.

That's what I want: the cutting master is meant to get the most out of
the lp.

Saying that producing a cutting master is about getting the most out of
(or "compliments") an LP is like saying that wearing a corset
compliments a fat person's physique. On face value this is correct, but
it is misleading. A corset would not be necessary if the fat person
simply lost weight, and he'd feel a lot better at the same time.

Likewise, the LP cutting master is necessary because of the practical
problems associated with the medium. It is meant to cut down the music
so that it can be *put* on LP, as this would otherwise be impossible. It
is not a question of "getting the most out of" the LP. It is a question
of getting something listenable out of the LP, whilst trying to preserve
as much of the original sound as possible (60% is about the best, on a
good day). That is the only compromise which comes into the equation,
and almost all musicians and engineers will tell you that it is a
terrible one and they're glad to be shot of it.

Without the compensations of vinyl, of course it will sound
strange.

Do you think all those EQd and compressed bits of sound magically spring
out of the vinyl somehow ?

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:
as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.

Don't think it would be a good idea to use the RIAA curve on a tape...

--
*There's no place like www.home.com *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn