|
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 flood2 on January 02, 2023 at 00:59:57
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
Follow Ups:
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
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: