"David" wrote in message
...
David,

For some reason my reply to the thread isn't posting so I'll try a new
thread :

http://www.metropolis-group.co.uk/services.php?m=1&p=11


Of course direct-to-disc was the only method of recording for the first 60
years or so of the recording industry, and we all know how great all those
early recordings sound ;-)

I can remember when direct-to-disc recordings had a brief resurgence in the
1970s. I didn't buy any because they were expensive and because the music on
them wasn't the sort of music I was interested in. They reviewed well, but
the point was made that cutting an LP side in one take is effectively a live
performance with no opportunity to do any subsequent editing. That puts
pressure on the musicians to give it their all for as long as it took, and
many reviewers felt that to be rather more significant in making the "sound"
of the disc than anything to do with the technical issue of missing out the
tape generation.

I was, I have to say, amused by this quote from the web-page for which you
posted the link.

quote
"I don't know why this ancient technology of wavy grooves and a disc works
so well, but it catches the sound of a room and a performance in a way that
tape and digital can't, even at super high resolution. I mean," says Miles
Showell, pioneer of our live cutting service.
unquote

As Mandy Rice-Davies once said, "he would say that, wouldn't he?"

David.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
quote "I don't know why this ancient technology of wavy grooves and a
disc works so well, but it catches the sound of a room and a
performance in a way that tape and digital can't, even at super high
resolution. I mean," says Miles Showell, pioneer of our live cutting
service. unquote

Some pioneer given the direct to disc resurgence (long after tape arrived)
was before digital recording. When that arrived it more or less died out.
Apart, obviously, with the looney fringe.

--
*When blondes have more fun, do they know it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"David" wrote in message
...
David,

For some reason my reply to the thread isn't posting so I'll try a new
thread :

http://www.metropolis-group.co.uk/services.php?m=1&p=11


Of course direct-to-disc was the only method of recording for the first
60 years or so of the recording industry, and we all know how great all
those early recordings sound ;-)

An (ex)colleague of mine was quite certain of that. He has/had thousands of
'pre electric' discs. Not seen him for some years but he used to play them
through a home-made equaliser and a variable speed TT. Used ESL63s.

Maybe he wouldn't be interested in the 1970s/80s 'direct to disc' LPs.
After all, they aren't *really* 'direct', they were 'electric'. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Well, listening to a Sheffield Lab recording, it does indeed sound good, but
I have a theory about vinyl.
Firstly, there is always some undulation in the plastic, this can cause
some dc drift, or rumble or whatever, second, the mechanical sound does not
all transfer to the stylus, the disc deforms, and also carries the sound at
a low level and delays and echoes it back to both channels, which of course
are only isolated by phase in the first place.
Then there are effects in the pick up as well, relaxation of the plastic as
it cools, which is why the audio has to be boosted at hf for a vinyl
master.
All these things do change the sound and can, in some instances fool the
ear that there is far more depth to the sound.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"David" wrote in message
...
David,

For some reason my reply to the thread isn't posting so I'll try a new
thread :

http://www.metropolis-group.co.uk/services.php?m=1&p=11


Of course direct-to-disc was the only method of recording for the first 60
years or so of the recording industry, and we all know how great all those
early recordings sound ;-)

I can remember when direct-to-disc recordings had a brief resurgence in
the 1970s. I didn't buy any because they were expensive and because the
music on them wasn't the sort of music I was interested in. They reviewed
well, but the point was made that cutting an LP side in one take is
effectively a live performance with no opportunity to do any subsequent
editing. That puts pressure on the musicians to give it their all for as
long as it took, and many reviewers felt that to be rather more
significant in making the "sound" of the disc than anything to do with the
technical issue of missing out the tape generation.

I was, I have to say, amused by this quote from the web-page for which you
posted the link.

quote
"I don't know why this ancient technology of wavy grooves and a disc works
so well, but it catches the sound of a room and a performance in a way
that tape and digital can't, even at super high resolution. I mean," says
Miles Showell, pioneer of our live cutting service.
unquote

As Mandy Rice-Davies once said, "he would say that, wouldn't he?"

David.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Well, listening to a Sheffield Lab recording, it does indeed sound good,
but I have a theory about vinyl.
Firstly, there is always some undulation in the plastic, this can cause
some dc drift, or rumble or whatever, second, the mechanical sound does
not all transfer to the stylus, the disc deforms, and also carries the
sound at a low level and delays and echoes it back to both channels, which
of course are only isolated by phase in the first place.
Then there are effects in the pick up as well, relaxation of the plastic
as it cools, which is why the audio has to be boosted at hf for a vinyl
master.
All these things do change the sound and can, in some instances fool the
ear that there is far more depth to the sound.


I played a record last night (Vangelis 'The City') with different
amplifiers, one after the other in the same system. The difference in
'depth' between the sound from my SET and the same tracks on my PP valve
amps was quite surprising!

The point is, the whole system is built to 'fool the ear' (into believing
you are 'there,' if nowt else) so I say if it works, then so much the
better.

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I played a record last night (Vangelis 'The City') with different
amplifiers, one after the other in the same system. The difference in
'depth' between the sound from my SET and the same tracks on my PP valve
amps was quite surprising!

The point is, the whole system is built to 'fool the ear' (into
believing you are 'there,' if nowt else) so I say if it works, then so
much the better.

Well, if you could isolate what's causing this apparently pleasant effect,
I'd say there would be a great deal of money to be made from it.

--
*One nice thing about egotists: they don't talk about other people.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I played a record last night (Vangelis 'The City') with different
amplifiers, one after the other in the same system. The difference in
'depth' between the sound from my SET and the same tracks on my PP valve
amps was quite surprising!

The point is, the whole system is built to 'fool the ear' (into
believing you are 'there,' if nowt else) so I say if it works, then so
much the better.

Well, if you could isolate what's causing this apparently pleasant effect,
I'd say there would be a great deal of money to be made from it.


Ex poster Pinkerton used to claim it was internal reverb. caused by the
Miller Effect or somesuch:

From the Wiki: "The Miller effect was named after John Milton Miller.[1]
When Miller published his work in 1920, he was working on vacuum tube
triodes, however the same theory applies to more modern devices such as
bipolar and MOS transistors."

Me? No idea - I think it's some sort of *triode magic*....

;-)

"Keith G" wrote

Ex poster Pinkerton used to claim it was internal reverb. caused by the
Miller Effect or somesuch:

The "Miller effect" is the limitation of the slew-rate of anode
current caused by the grid-to-anode capacitance of the valve. Whilst it is
significant at RF frequencies, at audio frequencies it's effect is
negligable. No way does it cause "internal reverb".

David.

"Keith G" wrote

The point is, the whole system is built to 'fool the ear' (into believing
you are 'there,' if nowt else)

How do you establish what "there" sounds like so that you know whether your
system actually sounds anything like it?

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote

The point is, the whole system is built to 'fool the ear' (into believing
you are 'there,' if nowt else)

How do you establish what "there" sounds like so that you know whether
your system actually sounds anything like it?


Exactly. My argument to all the 'accurists' who bang on about 'faithful to
the original' when they weren't even there.

As I said here recently: my only experience of Frank Sinatra (and a million
others) is of *recorded only* - I have no idea what his voice sounds like
*live*.