|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
192.181.133.141
In Reply to: RE: A Superb Direct to Disc Recording posted by ecl876 on January 01, 2023 at 18:00:54
The description is rather confusing. The first sentence says it's a direct-to-disc, D2D, and the very next sentence says:
"The recording format is a series of hair-raising 15 or 20-minute sessions without edits; live to tape, with the recording cut directly into the master lacquer. No 'fixing it in the mix'."
That makes it sound like a direct-to-tape rather than a direct-to-disc recording.
Is it direct-to-disc or is it direct-to-tape? I wonder!
I've been recording my vinyl records to DSD128 for a number of years using a TASCAM DA-3000 DSD Recorder and I think my digital recordings sound identical to vinyl. Others who've heard them agree.
On a different note, Peter Ledermann of Soundsmith used to make direct-to-disc recordings on playable master lacquers. A friend owned one and it sounded absolutely stunning. It didn't last as long as an ordinary vinyl record, but it sounded much better during the first several plays. It was almost totally noise free and it sounded even more musical than a direct-to-disc vinyl record.
This got me thinking that it might be possible to make hi-res digital recordings that sounded even better than direct-to-disc vinyl by recording the playable master lacquers produced by Peter Ledermann. Unfortunately, Peter Ledermann no longer sells his direct-to-disc master lacquers and I never bought one, but the process would be simple and much less expensive than actually producing a direct-to-disc vinyl record. You wouldn't need to go through any of the work required to make a vinyl record because you could record the master lacquer directly thereby having an exquisite hi-res digital recording immediately following the recording session. I'm surprised that no record company ever thought of this.
Oh, well. Such is life!
John Elison
Follow Ups:
This company is sorting of doing what you were thinking of except they use the DSD master to cut a lacquer as form of "Direct to both formats" concept to satisfy both the digiphile and vinylphile.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
When it is cut from a tape, in this case a DSD tape.
Here we go again. All this is really besides the point. People can wonder all they want if it's truly direct to disc as it's narrowly defined. Is this what we really want to talk about? I couldn't care if the lacquer was made of horseshit (except for the smell)! If the recording sounds as fantastic as it does, WHY DOES IT MATTER?John E, even though he hasn't frequented this site in a while, never loses an opportunity to tell us how great his results have been recording to digital. That's fine but how many times do we have to hear it? I think what he misses is that many here love vinyl, not necessarily for the sound alone but all the things that go with it: the real pleasure of seeing old technology work so amazingly well, the physical act of placing a record on the turntable, the joy of large, often beautiful record covers with words you can actually see, going to record stores to hunt out new records. In short, having something palpable, something you can hold in your hand!
Edits: 01/02/23
It's called "truth in advertising" or marketing, but you get the idea.
Don't wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.
Mark Twain
I too am attached to my vinyl, though I also listen to a lot of digital these days. The technology is getting very, very good.
My point here is simply truth in advertising. That's all. "Direct to Disk" is a very well defined technique. That it sounds good does not make what they do Direct to Disk.
They should call what they do something else!
I see your point. The definition of D2D is: "the practice of recording directly to a vinyl-disc cutting lathe without first recording to magnet tape or digital storage." Clearly this does not fit the definition since they used tape, at least according to the review in Audiophila. They probably should make that clear. But I think the important thing is that it was a live performance with no "do overs", that was not altered in any way. The performers had one chance to get a given take right. Considering that so many recordings are edited, mixed and mastered these days, the technique here, though it doesn't conform to the strict definition, still has the advantage of hearing a spontaneous performance, flaws and all, without any fixing the mix.So I agree. Advertisers should be completely truthful and transparent about process. But also, both digital and analog have made such advances, recording techniques have so improved, that none of this should be really important. A great recording, no matter the source, is still a great recording and worthy of the attention of anyone who cares about sound.
Edits: 01/02/23
About the technique used: not exactly.First, a D2D recording is of a whole side of a disk at once. Here it was, at most, a movement. True DSD recordings are, generally, not edited. (Most SACDs, which carry DSD files, are not originally DSD recordings, merely PCM recordings edited and converted to DSD for the SACD.)
Second, when recording to tape if there is a mistake made by the musicians it is my guess that they stop and re-record. Absolutely no reason not to. The pressure is not the same as for a D2D, nor for a public performance.
For a true D2D the lathe (and likely more than one) keeps going and the "take" is really taken, and for the duration of the side. Otherwise thy have to throw out the whole side (all of lacquers) and start all over.
A whole different ball game!
Edits: 01/02/23
I must confess an error in conflating the article cited by Flood2 with the Korngold recording. The other fact contributing to this for me is the notion of a 25+ minute side on a true D2D recording, for cutting on a side for this many minutes generally involves a tremendous reduction in volume and/or dynamics if you are not using a second, earlier, signal to set the spacing between tracks. And that can only mean a tape. In the heyday of true D2D recordings done by engineers very experienced at this, nothing I think comes close to 25 minutes. I have several.A second fact contributing to this is that I tried to do a search on this recording and can come up with no material at all additional to that they call it Direct to Disk. No pictures nor discussions that I can find.
Moreover, in the Audiophelia review the author writes, "The recording format is a series of hair-raising 15 or 20-minute sessions without edits; live to tape, with the recording cut directly into the master lacquer. No 'fixing it in the mix'." What is "live to tape?" What is the meaning of "15 or 20-minute sessions" when you are D2D cutting a 25 minute side? There are some mysteries floating about.
I would very much like to be proven wrong here. The better thay can make vinyl sound, the more options for everyone.
Edits: 01/02/23
25 minutes or not, it's a fabulous recording of a chamber group. I couldn't imagine a much better one. This post seems to be devolving into technical jargon beyond my interest or knowledge. But...-
Carry On!
There are probably a number of record companies that use DSD masters to produce their master lacquers. After all, digital is the most popular recording format nowadays.
What I'm talking about is making a digital recording that sounds as good or even better than direct-to-disc vinyl without expending the cost of plating the master lacquer, producing stampers and subsequently producing vinyl records. That's where all the work is and that's where all the cost lies in producing vinyl records. On the other hand, a digital recording can be duplicated with hardly any cost at all.
Therefore, what I'm talking about is simply making a direct-to-disc master lacquer that's playable. Then you play it once to make your digital recording, which can be duplicated very economically. They could be sold as downloads in DSD256 and they would sound identical to the master lacquer on whatever vinyl front-end was used for playback.
The method you suggest is just the normal method used these days for producing vinyl records. It doesn't have any similarity at all to my proposal.
Happy listening!
John Elison
Stock-fisch do (or at least DID) also offer (9 years ago) what you were suggesting - they call it DMM-CD. Watch the video.
I thought the service they offer (via the link I sent yesterday) makes more sense.
Personally I think the idea is a flawed concept. The DSD transfer is via their specific playback equipment and subject to every limitation associated with vinyl playback including cartridge quality, tonearm and cartridge alignment, RIAA accuracy plus all the limitations of their ADC chain too. I can't see any audiophile with high end equipment being satisfied with that approach.
What might make sense is for a DSD file to be made off a direct lacquer on their OWN playback equipment as a means of preserving the very first and only play of the lacquer which should be the very best that could ever be heard of that lacquer with that system. Then again, any consumer has access to an ADC to do this themselves.
What I am not clear on is whether you think DSD is superior to all recording formats as a representation of the mic feed or whether you think a DSD transfer of a direct cut lacquer results in a superior version of the mic feed?
Where does 30ips tape fit in your ranking?
I don't understand the value proposition or logic behind what you are proposing over a modified first version of what Stock-fisch offers. They were advocating a direct coding with a slightly delayed cutting step that really only created a direct digital file which provides a sustainable non-destructive (compared to a tape source) way of producing further lacquers.
The issue for the analogue purist is that the lacquer is cut from the DSD file (MoFI style!). If they just put two separate feeds to each converter/lathe then both digiphiles and vinylphiles will be satisfied by providing a Direct version of both formats simultaneously.
What you are proposing satisfies neither group.
If you think DSD is a superior archival solution than analogue tape, then why would one archive a generation down from the mic feed off a lacquer?
If you think lacquers are the ultimate, then why would you buy a DSD transfer of that?
How can a DSD file off the lacquer be closer to the original mic feed?
You can get audiophile direct cut lacquers from Supersense - you may recall last year or the year before, Mike Fremer and Mike Esposito went to war over the longevity of a lacquer that was subjected to repeated plays.
https://supersense.com/mastercut/
What you propose is nothing more than anyone can already do at home if they bought a Supersense lacquer and converted to DSD themselves as I mentioned earlier.
The really well-heeled could go to a cutting facility and ask for a one-off lacquer to be made off each file in their own collection, but the question of royalties and copyright comes into play.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I never said that one format is superior to another format. What I said was that my DSD128 recordings of vinyl records sound identical to vinyl records to me and others who've heard them. Therefore, if you like the sound of vinyl, you can have that same sound by simply recording a vinyl record with a hi-res digital recorder.
Another thing I said was that Peter Ledermann's playable master lacquers sounded even better to me than any vinyl I've heard. Therefore, if you want a digital recording that sounds as good or even better than vinyl, you can record a playable master lacquer to DSD128 or even DSD256 and you can thereby have the sound that you like from a hi-res digital recording.
As a result, I believe a record company could make hi-res digital recordings that sound just like vinyl and would therefore be more convenient than vinyl and cost less than vinyl. Furthermore, a record company could also afford to buy the very finest turntable, cartridge and phono stage, which should satisfy the most demanding vinyl enthusiast.
This is all I'm suggesting.
Happy Listening!
John Elison
"I never said that one format is superior to another format. "
I didn't say you did. I asked what you thought was best and how you rank 30ips tape, digital and lacquers.
You often tell us that your digital recordings are identical to the vinyl playback.
However, given that this is a vinyl enthusiasts forum, I am sure there will be many who would completely disagree or are sceptical.
It would therefore be interesting to hear the views of the others on the Stockfisch DMM-CD process given in the link.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
> I asked what you thought was best and how you rank 30ips tape, digital and lacquers.
Well, it depends on how you define best . If you define "best" in terms of accuracy, I think hi-res DSD is the most accurate format because, based on my experience, it seems to make transparent copies of the other two formats.
On the other hand, if you're asking me which format sounds best to me when making a live recording, I'd have to pick either 30ips tape or a master lacquer. At any rate, I like the sound of 30ips tape and lacquer better than digital when we're talking about using it to make the original recording of a live performance. Both tape and lacquer seem to have a more musical sound quality when used to make the original recording.
However, because of the accuracy of DSD, it seems to capture the musical sound quality of both tape and lacquer when used for recording those other two formats. At any rate, it fools my ears and others who've heard my DSD recordings of vinyl. This is why I believe we could have DSD recordings that sound identical to vinyl by first recording a performance to a playable master lacquer and then using a DSD recorder to copy the master lacquer.
With respect to Stockfisch recordings, I own one of them in DSD64 format and I think it sounds very good. I own several DMM LPs from other manufacturers and I like them, too. In fact, I've always though DMM vinyl sounds better than vinyl made from master lacquers. On the other hand, I thought that Peter Ledermann's playable master lacquer sounded better than any vinyl record I'd ever heard.
Happy New Year!
John Elison
Happy New Year to you too John!
You make an important point distinction between what is accurate versus euphonically preferable that forms the basis of the oft debated analogue/digital merits.
I haven't had the luxury of hearing 30ips tape or a lacquer. Nor have I sat in on a live mic feed to compare the difference between a digital feed vs analogue feed so I don't know what I am missing. Therefore, my opinions are limited to the grade of equipment I use, but I agree that the quality of DAC/ADCs today is such that "essentially transparent" performance is available to the average consumer for relatively modest outlay and that anyone can make high resolution transfers of vinyl from their own collection.
Even amongst well-respected recording engineers there is disagreement regarding what they define as the "best" medium to work with. Bob Ludwig prefers working digitally and believes that he has greater control with less destruction of the sound (added distortion) compared to analog systems.
Rob Watts (Chord) has stated in an interview (in which he responded to some negative comments made in a review of the M Scalar on ASR regarding surprisingly "high" levels of jitter) where he said that contrary to what people believe about digital recordings being harsh, he feels that the opposite occurs even with very high sample rate conversion. When monitoring a mic feed he believes that digital conversion softens the sound from reality. His digital designs (and digital filter designs) focus on transient response and he is prepared to sacrifice jitter performance to achieve what he believes to be a better sound.
Whilst I would never suggest to anyone on this particular forum to listen to a digital recording of their vinyl rather than playing the record each time they wanted to listen to it, I would encourage them to consider it as a tool for preserving the very FIRST play of a new record in order to create a reference "document" to refer back to if anything were to happen to the record...one at least has that as a reference to go back to and enables a more reliable comparison between pressings and remasters and hearing the effects of equipment changes. That's what I like to do anyway.
At the end of the day, everyone can enjoy whatever they want.
All the best for 2023!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
> Whilst I would never suggest to anyone on this particular forum to listen to a digital recording of their vinyl rather than playing the record
If you're concerned about accurate reproduction, you might find it beneficial to listen to a digital copy of a record versus the record itself. This is because most, if not all turntables, are affected to some degree by acoustic feedback. Records with loud, deep bass normally respond the most to acoustic feedback. If you have a high quality digital recorder like the TASCAM DA-3000 DSD recorder, you might find you get a more accurate performance from the digital copy than the vinyl record. You can test this very easily.
With your speakers turned off, make a digital copy of the vinyl record. Next, synchronize the record with the digital copy so you can make an A/B comparison as you listen at a loud volume level. Depending upon the degree to which your turntable is affected by acoustic feedback, you might hear a noticeable difference. I've done this comparison and find that with some records the difference is quite noticeable. The bass is very tight and well defined on the digital copy whereas it seems to linger and reverberate more from the vinyl record. It doesn't necessarily sound bad on the vinyl record, but the difference is sometimes quite noticeable. Consequently, if you want to hear the bass response the way it was intended to sound, it might be beneficial to listen to the digital copy instead of the vinyl record.
You should try this sometime and see what you think, assuming you have an accurate digital recorder to copy your vinyl.
Happy listening!
John Elison
We thought you deserted the premises. Nice to see you back!
Well, I don't buy or play records anymore. I've copied all my favorite records to PCM digital and DSD, so I just listen to my digital copies on my FiiO digital audio player. However, I'm still here. I guess I do more posting in the digital forums nowadays.
Happy New Year!
John Elison
I am back to vinyl after a very long break. I am scrolling through John Elisons vinyl postings, soo much to learn from them. I still have the CDs with Johns vinylrecordings , from almost 20 years ago.
Many Thanks to John for all the knowledge shared , I still hope to see post from John on vinyl stuff
Best regards
Sleiven/BalleClorin1/Erik
Edits: 04/05/23
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: