|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
141.157.229.43
In Reply to: RE: A Superb Direct to Disc Recording posted by flood2 on January 02, 2023 at 00:59:57
When it is cut from a tape, in this case a DSD tape.
Follow Ups:
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!
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: