Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl (Read 11220 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Quote from: analog scott on
And of course many of these questions are just as relevant to a vast number of CDs out there. I highly recomend the Dennis Drake paper about the work that went into the mastering of the Mercury Living Presence CDs he mastered with Wilma Cozart back in the nineties.
Did they do this one...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tchaikovsky-Festiv...s/dp/B0000057MW
...because it's really clipped!

Cheers,
David.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #1 –
Quote from: analog scott on
And which particular masterings of which particular titles can we actually cite as having gone through this specific pathology? Can we name any specific titles? Recording engineers with first hand accounts of the eq and/or dynamics processing? First hand accounts of the creation of the cutting master? First hand accounts of the duplication of the cutting masters at a specific central production facility? Any first hand accounts of duplicate cutting masters being stocked and used to cut masters at pressing plants as needed? What about the equipment used? What specific equipment was used with any specific titles we can trace? These are the questions that need to be answered if we are going to say anything about how any particular LP was mastered. One can find a lot of info in the dead wax that will tell much of the story but even then we need a lot of info from the mouths of the proverbial horses to even begin to know what processes went into the mastering.

And of course many of these questions are just as relevant to a vast number of CDs out there. I highly recomend the Dennis Drake paper about the work that went into the mastering of the Mercury Living Presence CDs he mastered with Wilma Cozart back in the nineties.


Scott I just did a quick review of Dennis Drakes AES paper (preprint 3241)  about the work that went into the mastering of the Mercury Living Presence CDs he mastered with Wilma Cozart back in the nineties, and found that despite your enthusiastic kudos for it, it answered none, nada, nichts, zero of the questions that you asked above.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: analog scott on
And which particular masterings of which particular titles can we actually cite as having gone through this specific pathology? Can we name any specific titles? Recording engineers with first hand accounts of the eq and/or dynamics processing? First hand accounts of the creation of the cutting master? First hand accounts of the duplication of the cutting masters at a specific central production facility? Any first hand accounts of duplicate cutting masters being stocked and used to cut masters at pressing plants as needed? What about the equipment used? What specific equipment was used with any specific titles we can trace? These are the questions that need to be answered if we are going to say anything about how any particular LP was mastered. One can find a lot of info in the dead wax that will tell much of the story but even then we need a lot of info from the mouths of the proverbial horses to even begin to know what processes went into the mastering.

And of course many of these questions are just as relevant to a vast number of CDs out there. I highly recomend the Dennis Drake paper about the work that went into the mastering of the Mercury Living Presence CDs he mastered with Wilma Cozart back in the nineties.


Scott I just did a quick review of Dennis Drakes AES paper (preprint 3241)  about the work that went into the mastering of the Mercury Living Presence CDs he mastered with Wilma Cozart back in the nineties, and found that despite your enthusiastic kudos for it, it answered none, nada, nichts, zero of the questions that you asked above.



Sure it does. It explicitely details which tapes were used and how they were played back. It is pretty clear that no EQ or dynamic range processing was used at all so that question is clearly answered. It also details the ADC used and why. Of course being CDs there is no reason to talk about many of the things above since they simply don't apply to these CDs. Obviously any discussion of "cutting masters" does not apply.

Info on what tape is used as a source for any CD and what equipment was used to play the tape is pretty important IMO as well as what ADC was used. Dennis Drake addressed all that in detail. It would be nice if every CD out there had this level of meaningful info on the mastering that went into it.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #3 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: analog scott on
If one really wants to get "down and dirty" then one has to get specific and gather actual facts.

Do you have any reason to believe that the information provided to you by splice and Arnold (two people I believe are far more intimately associated with the music business than either you or I) is not actual fact?


What information would that be? What information has Arny provided that would tell me anything about the actual mastering of any given real world LP or CD?

Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: analog scott on
Now I can actually give you fact filled pathologies of the mastering of several hundred of my own LPs. For the most part there is a substantial disconnect between the actual pathologies of the mastering of those LPs and Arny's baseline path.

Then why not provide us with a typical example from your vast wealth of information to move the discussion along?


First of all why would you presume there is any such thing as "typical?" I have actually already discussed a few specific points in earlier posts. Why not start with those if you are really interested?

Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: analog scott on
At least we can get "down and dirty" with facts surrounding their mastering and maybe make some corolation between their sound and the mastering that went into them.

So what is keeping you?


Maybe you missed the part where I warned Axon that what he was seeking to do was something better suited for a book than an article. If this is of interest to you then I can steer you towards the highly detailed accounts of the two Blue Note resissue series produced by Music Matters and Analog Productions and mastered by Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray at Acoustech. One can compare and contrast their equipment chain and methodologies to that of say Bernie Grundman who has mastered several of the same titles for Classics on his own custom cutting system with the same master tapes.
Of course there are "trade secrets" that neither will disclose but beyond that we can and have gathered a great deal of very specific info on how these LPs were mastered. If you want another example I would point to King Super Analog which on all of their inserts actually describes in detail the entire mastering chain complete with diagrams. you can also find similar info on the processes used at Opus 3. That is just a brief description of the tip of the iceberg. How much space do you want me to fill on the subject here?

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #4 –
Presenting this notion that generalities cannot be drawn about the process of creating vinyl and how it has evolved over time is quite silly if not disingenuous.  I see very little reason (if any) to insist that this discussion be so bogged down with such minutia.

Perhaps my expectations of you are too high and you simply do not possess the proper communication skills.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #5 –
Quote from: greynol on
Presenting this notion that generalities cannot be drawn about the process of creating vinyl and how it has evolved over time is quite silly if not disingenuous.


What is the point of such generalities?  After having done some blind comparisons between the John Coltrane Blue Train reissues by Classics and Analog Porductions I can say that there are substantial differences in the results but no differences in their baseline pathologies as they relate to the baseline outlined by Arny.



Quote from: greynol on
I see very little reason (if any) to insist that this discussion be so bogged down with such minutia.


Perhaps you should take that up with Axon since it is his article in question and his desire to get "down and dirty."

Quote from: greynol on
Perhaps my expectations of you are too high and you simply do not possess the proper communication skills.


When all else fails good ole ad hominem....so predictable
Isn't this where you stop me from any further posting?

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #6 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: arnold b. krueger link=msg=0 date=

Scott I just did a quick review of Dennis Drakes AES paper (preprint 3241)  about the work that went into the mastering of the Mercury Living Presence CDs he mastered with Wilma Cozart back in the nineties, and found that despite your enthusiastic kudos for it, it answered none, nada, nichts, zero of the questions that you asked above.


Sure it does. It explicitely details which tapes were used and how they were played back.


Your questions related to my points which were about the production of LPs from live performances. Dennis Drake's AES paper was about making CDs from legacy analog master tapes. Two completely different processes. They start with two different things and they end with two different things. Therefore Drake's paper really has little or nothing to say about what I wrote.

Quote
It is pretty clear that no EQ or dynamic range processing was used at all so that question is clearly answered.


Both EQ and dynamic range processing were used in the production process described by Dennis Drake's AES paper even though it seems like he tried to make it look like there was none. You see Scott, EQ changes and dynamic range modification are inherent consequences of analog tape recording. It may be unintentional, but it still happens, and often to a highly audible degree. 

Unlike good digital, there are no known instances where analog tape has been found to be sonically transparent. The departures from sonic transparency take 5 general forms - addition of noise, relatively large amounds of phase shift, audible nonlinear distortion of several kinds, dynamic range modifcation (frequency-dependent compression), and significant and audible frequency response variations AKA changes in equalization. 

Analog tape is generally not as inherently sonically disruptive as LP recording and playback, but it is unfortunately not a sonically transparent medium. Only digital has good possibility of being sonically transparent. And, if you don't exercise exceptional care when using the LP format or analog tape, the sonic disruptions can be really quite nasty sounding . 

Unlike the LP format, a few of the common forms of audible distoration inherent in analog tape can be what most people would call euphoinc. There are people who find LP distortion to be euphonic but they are a tiny noisy minority. There's a reason why just about everybody avoids listening to LPs whenever they can - its the bad sound quality that is so common with them. 

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: arnold b. krueger link=msg=0 date=

Scott I just did a quick review of Dennis Drakes AES paper (preprint 3241)  about the work that went into the mastering of the Mercury Living Presence CDs he mastered with Wilma Cozart back in the nineties, and found that despite your enthusiastic kudos for it, it answered none, nada, nichts, zero of the questions that you asked above.


Sure it does. It explicitely details which tapes were used and how they were played back.


Your questions related to my points which were about the production of LPs from live performances. Dennis Drake's AES paper was about making CDs from legacy analog master tapes. Two completely different processes. They start with two different things and they end with two different things. Therefore Drake's paper really has little or nothing to say about what I wrote.

Quote
It is pretty clear that no EQ or dynamic range processing was used at all so that question is clearly answered.


Both EQ and dynamic range processing were used in the production process described by Dennis Drake's AES paper even though it seems like he tried to make it look like there was none. You see Scott, EQ changes and dynamic range modification are inherent consequences of analog tape recording. It may be unintentional, but it still happens, and often to a highly audible degree. 

Unlike good digital, there are no known instances where analog tape has been found to be sonically transparent. The departures from sonic transparency take 5 general forms - addition of noise, relatively large amounds of phase shift, audible nonlinear distortion of several kinds, dynamic range modifcation (frequency-dependent compression), and significant and audible frequency response variations AKA changes in equalization. 

Analog tape is generally not as inherently sonically disruptive as LP recording and playback, but it is unfortunately not a sonically transparent medium. Only digital has good possibility of being sonically transparent. And, if you don't exercise exceptional care when using the LP format or analog tape, the sonic disruptions can be really quite nasty sounding . 

Unlike the LP format, a few of the common forms of audible distoration inherent in analog tape can be what most people would call euphoinc. There are people who find LP distortion to be euphonic but they are a tiny noisy minority. There's a reason why just about everybody avoids listening to LPs whenever they can - its the bad sound quality that is so common with them.



It is really unfortunate that you would in effect post eroneous information about the work Dennis Drake did in mastering the Mercury Living Presence CDs. You do the thread a big disservice by doing so. All for what? To make some convoluted argument against analog in a lame attempt to turn the thread into an analog v. digital argument. The fact is Dennis Drake did not use any EQ or compression or any dynamic expander in mastering the CDs from the Mercury catalog. He did go to great lengths to restore the original tape deck and console so as to play back the tapes with the greatest accuracy possible. It is nice that we have such a detailed account of the efforts made and the journey taken in his endevour to capture as accurately as possible on CD the content of the master tapes.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #8 –
It is really unfortunate that you would in effect post eroneous information about the work Dennis Drake did in mastering the Mercury Living Presence CDs.
[/quote]

It is just the relevant facts, Scott.

Quote
To make some convoluted argument against analog in a lame attempt to turn the thread into an analog v. digital argument.


There's no convolution Scott. Analog media perform exactly like I said - they, particularly analog tape have the inherent properties of equalization and dynamic range compression.

Quote
The fact is Dennis Drake did not use any EQ or compression or any dynamic expander in mastering the CDs from the Mercury catalog.


As I said, he didn't do it using boxes labelled "equalizer" or "compressor" It happened because of the well-known inherent properties of a certain kind of analog media which includes inherent equalization and dynamics range compression.

It appears to me Scott that you have no appreciation for the degree to which analog tape alters frequency response and/or dynamics. So now, you are using your ignorance to make me look like the bad guy.

Meanwhile Scott, you are throwing a smoke screen over the major error you made when you said that Dennis Drake's AES paper superceded my comments about LP production. You have not addressed the fact that transcribing analog tapes to digital and producing a recording from live performances using only analog media are two vastly different processes. It is simply wrong to use a dicussion of one against the other like you did.  Therefore your criticism of my comments was again based on your lack of understanding of the topic being discussed.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
"It is really unfortunate that you would in effect post eroneous information about the work Dennis Drake did in mastering the Mercury Living Presence CDs."


It is just the relevant facts, Scott.


No Arny it was blatent misinformation and a lame attempt to turn this thread about mastering into a dumb ass debate about something completely unrelated.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
"To make some convoluted argument against analog in a lame attempt to turn the thread into an analog v. digital argument."

There's no convolution Scott. Analog media perform exactly like I said - they, particularly analog tape have the inherent properties of equalization and dynamic range compression.


It was pure convolution Arny. When there is a discussion of mastering and someone makes a claim about EQ and processing of dynamic range it has specific meaning in that context given that actual EQ and processing of dynamic range is actually often but not always done in mastering. Again all in some lame attempt to start a totally stupid debate.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
"The fact is Dennis Drake did not use any EQ or compression or any dynamic expander in mastering the CDs from the Mercury catalog."

As I said, he didn't do it using boxes labelled "equalizer" or "compressor" It happened because of the well-known inherent properties of a certain kind of analog media which includes inherent equalization and dynamics range compression.


That isn't what you said Arny. This is what you said. "Both EQ and dynamic range processing were used in the production process described by Dennis Drake's AES paper even though it seems like he tried to make it look like there was none." Kind of paints a completely eroneous picture of what went on Arny and infers some degree of incompetence and/or dishonesty on the part of Dennis Drake. "He tried to make it look like there was none?" jeez! I imagine you will say that the following makes it all OK "You see Scott, EQ changes and dynamic range modification are inherent consequences of analog tape recording. It may be unintentional, but it still happens, and often to a highly audible degree." Which is both a lame ass attempt at starting a debate and completely irrelevant and actually misleading in regards to what Dennis Drake did in his efforts. Where did Dennis Drake make any analog copies that audibly colored the sound of the original tapes?



Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
It appears to me Scott that you have no appreciation for the degree to which analog tape alters frequency response and/or dynamics. So now, you are using your ignorance to make me look like the bad guy.



No Arny, you are the bad guy for posting misinformation in an attempt to bait a debate that has no place on this thread. It is just plain irresponsible to represent that Dennis Drake used EQ and dynamic processing in mastering the Mercury CDs. He used the most accurate signal he could get off the original tapes and did a flat transfer to digital. In an arena such as mastering where mastering engineers regularly use actual EQ and dynamic processing it is just plain irresponsible to make any such claims in regards to mastering that clearly had no such processing.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Meanwhile Scott, you are throwing a smoke screen over the major error you made when you said that Dennis Drake's AES paper superceded my comments about LP production. You have not addressed the fact that transcribing analog tapes to digital and producing a recording from live performances using only analog media are two vastly different processes. It is simply wrong to use a dicussion of one against the other like you did.  Therefore your criticism of my comments was again based on your lack of understanding of the topic being discussed.



Where did I say Dennis Drake's paper superceded your comments on LP production? Please quote me in context and show I said any such thing. You are just piling more B.S. on top of your B.S. Here is what I actually said about the Dennis Drake paper "And of course many of these questions are just as relevant to a vast number of CDs out there. I highly recomend the Dennis Drake paper about the work that went into the mastering of the Mercury Living Presence CDs he mastered with Wilma Cozart back in the nineties. " I made absolutely no claims that the Drake paper superceded your comments. I was simply pointing out that the pathology of mastering CDs is also something that demands close examination and was recomending that paper as an example of a well documented detailed description of the mastering process that went into a significant series of actual real world CDs.

Despite your claim to the contrary the paper does actually address "many" of the questions I was asking you in my attempt to have some connection between your general comments about the pathology of recording and mastering LPs and real world LPs.  Here are the questions I asked of you Arny "And which particular masterings of which particular titles can we actually cite as having gone through this specific pathology? Can we name any specific titles? Recording engineers with first hand accounts of the eq and/or dynamics processing? First hand accounts of the creation of the cutting master? First hand accounts of the duplication of the cutting masters at a specific central production facility? Any first hand accounts of duplicate cutting masters being stocked and used to cut masters at pressing plants as needed? What about the equipment used?" The only question that is not answered in his paper are in regards to the making of the original recording which we can not expect Dennis Drake to answer since he was not there. we can find the answer to every other question I posed to you in his paper. That is why I cited it as a fine example of excellent documentation of real world mastering of real world CDs. The paper tells us which titles, the 1993 remasters of the Mercury catalog remastered by by Dennis Drake. It tells us which tapes were used and what equipment was used to play back the tapes. It tells us what ADC was used and why and it tells us of the care that went into selecting the cutting equipment made to cut the CD masters. It outlines the objectives of the project and tells of their success in meeting those objectives. We should be so lucky as to have such a detailed thourough accounting of the mastering process for every CD and LP out there.

The paper gets down and dirty. Axon should find the paper quite useful and I hope he and everybody else actually reads the paper if for no other reason just to clear the air about what it actually says.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #10 –
Quote from: googlebot on
Quote from: analog scott on
I also have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that those other things have "tainted" the experience.
...
But one can still to a large degree seperate the sound form the overall event. The cool factor certainly plays big time at a rock concert but it doesn't "fool" me into thinking that it sounds good.
...
etc.


Nobody forced you to admit that your knowledge of human perception is at pre-school level.



Wow, outstanding execution of ad hominem if I do say so myself (subjectively speaking). This coming from the guy who basically told (indirectly of course) Sean Olive the one guy on this thread doing scientific research on human perception that he suffers from "a narrow understanding of the word accurate."


Quote from: googlebot on
I had the impression for a while, but I would call your last post a pretty authoritative statement.


Call it what you want. Call me what you want. Looks like you get to do so if it is pointed at the right person, me.      I noticed you took a very different tone with Mr. Olive than you did with me when we took exactly the same position on the issue of accuracy of studio recordings.


Quote from: googlebot on
What's next?



Probably more ad hominem tossed my way followed by threats of being banned. 

So lets get back to the subject matter of the thread and no one talk about their experiences or perceptions of live music when talking about "Why Live-vs-Recorded Listening Tests Don't Work"

I will not speak of enjoying live music anymore no matter how relevant it may be to the subject matter. I promise.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #11 –
Quote from: analog scott on
The paper gets down and dirty. Axon should find the paper quite useful and I hope he and everybody else actually reads the paper if for no other reason just to clear the air about what it actually says.
Did I miss the link?

Cheers,
David.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #12 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: analog scott on
The paper gets down and dirty. Axon should find the paper quite useful and I hope he and everybody else actually reads the paper if for no other reason just to clear the air about what it actually says.
Did I miss the link?

Cheers,
David.


Nope.
http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf
http://www.themusiclab.net/mercury.pdf

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #13 –
Thanks. I remember reading that a decade ago.

The clunky digital editing (or avoidance of it because "it changed the sound"), which sounds laughable now, wasn't that rare at the time. It's trivial to do it perfectly, and check it's done perfectly, on any PC these days. People didn't have that luxury at the time, and were paranoid about cumulative 16-bit processing.

Anyway, apart from choosing to use valve (tube) electronics (which would match how the recordings were originally recorded and replayed), there's no indication that the sound of the old recordings was changed in any way during mastering.

Give up with Arny - IME he never admits when he's made a mistake. He'll argue that black is rather close to dark grey, which is almost mid-grey, which sometimes looks quite light, and therefore not too far from white, so really it is white - rather than just saying "yes, that was wrong - must have been thinking of something else".

Cheers,
David.
 

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #14 –
[Give up with Arny - IME he never admits when he's made a mistake. He'll argue that black is rather close to dark grey, which is almost mid-grey, which sometimes looks quite light, and therefore not too far from white, so really it is white - rather than just saying "yes, that was wrong - must have been thinking of something else".
[/quote]

That unecessarily personal comment might make some sense if you actually had a mistake to point to. :-(

As far as the two PDFs that we now have  links to, neither is about how LPs were mastered back in the day. They are both about the far simpler and different process of transcribing a high speed analog tape to digital.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #15 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Give up with Arny - IME he never admits when he's made a mistake. He'll argue that black is rather close to dark grey, which is almost mid-grey, which sometimes looks quite light, and therefore not too far from white, so really it is white - rather than just saying "yes, that was wrong - must have been thinking of something else".

I'm trying hard to keep the SNR up in this discussion.  This isn't helping.  Try a PM next time.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #16 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
As far as the two PDFs that we now have  links to, neither is about how LPs were mastered back in the day.

Somehow this essential point was overlooked.

Don't take this as support for your extremely weak and completely unnecessary off-topic contortion act over EQ and compression, however.


No contortions at all. You're just telling me what you don't know about how analog tape was used for exactly the purposes I mentioned, back in the day.

I suspect that if you ever saw how the frequency response and gain of analog tape varies with level, and how it can be manipulated using the bias and eq controls that greced any professional recorder, you'd sing a different song.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
As far as the two PDFs that we now have  links to, neither is about how LPs were mastered back in the day. They are both about the far simpler and different process of transcribing a high speed analog tape to digital.
EXACTLY!!!! No EQ. No Compression. No recording to tape (it was already on the tape!!!).

Quote from: greynol on
Somehow this essential point was overlooked.
Not by me!

Anyway, apologies for my previous remarks to you Arny - I was talking about the tape > CD process, you were talking about the performance > tape > CD process. Of course the latter changes the sound, though at least some engineers at the time were working to minimise that change.

More to the point, I'd be amazed if the entire Mercury catalogue was committed to tape without any manual gain riding - which is obviously a form of compression.

Cheers,
David.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #18 –
Quote from: analog scott on
This web page has an amazing wealth of information on the Mercury recordings and mastering of the original LPs
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html
OT, but it would be nice to have some discrete three channel releases of this material. There's no need to mix the three channels down to two before releasing it to the public these days.

FWIW I've heard original 1960s three channel recordings, and compared discrete 3-channel vs 2-channel mix down. IMO it's certainly worth preserving that extra channel. Apart from the obvious advantages of a real rather than phantom centre (solid location, correct HRTFs etc), electrically combining three channels to two creates some phase cancellation when the three channels were originally captured at different locations in the same real space; by preserving the three channels, you move that cancellation into the listening room, where it's less destructive.

Cheers,
David.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #19 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: analog scott on
This web page has an amazing wealth of information on the Mercury recordings and mastering of the original LPs
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html
OT, but it would be nice to have some discrete three channel releases of this material. There's no need to mix the three channels down to two before releasing it to the public these days.

FWIW I've heard original 1960s three channel recordings, and compared discrete 3-channel vs 2-channel mix down. IMO it's certainly worth preserving that extra channel. Apart from the obvious advantages of a real rather than phantom centre (solid location, correct HRTFs etc), electrically combining three channels to two creates some phase cancellation when the three channels were originally captured at different locations in the same real space; by preserving the three channels, you move that cancellation into the listening room, where it's less destructive.

Cheers,
David.


I believe they are available on SACD. I would discuss the "phantom" v. "real" center but I fear we have a few issues there. No DBTs and off topic. So maybe another thread on another forum.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #20 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
As far as the two PDFs that we now have  links to, neither is about how LPs were mastered back in the day. They are both about the far simpler and different process of transcribing a high speed analog tape to digital.
EXACTLY!!!! No EQ. No Compression. No recording to tape (it was already on the tape!!!).

Quote from: greynol on
Somehow this essential point was overlooked.
Not by me!

Anyway, apologies for my previous remarks to you Arny - I was talking about the tape > CD process, you were talking about the performance > tape > CD process. Of course the latter changes the sound, though at least some engineers at the time were working to minimise that change.


Sorry to beat a dead horse but If Arny were talking about the performance > tape  part of the process when asserting EQ and dynamic range processing was being used via the tape machine I'm not sure why he would say that *Dennis Drake, the mastering engineer* was using EQ and dynamic range processing. Dennis Drake was not involved in the recording.

Quote from: 2Bdecided on
More to the point, I'd be amazed if the entire Mercury catalogue was committed to tape without any manual gain riding - which is obviously a form of compression.

Cheers,
David.


Not so sure. This doesn't directly say no gain riding but it seems to me to indirectly say it.

"The loudest passage in the music was indicative for the maximum recording level. After everything was found in order, nothing would be altered. No use of supporting microphones was made, nor were limiters or filters applied."
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #21 –
Quote from: analog scott on
I believe they are available on SACD.
So they are! Wow, if only I had an SACD player. Except, why would I buy one? I suppose it would make a nice toy for a few classic multi-channel recordings. But it looks like a dead-end street to me. New physical media (which I can't even rip properly) in 2010?! Madness.

Quote
I would discuss the "phantom" v. "real" center but I fear we have a few issues there. No DBTs and off topic. So maybe another thread on another forum.
Ah, go on! You tell me I need to ABX 2-channel vs 3-channel when the speakers are 20ft apart and I'm listening off centre!

Cheers,
David.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #22 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Not so sure. This doesn't directly say no gain riding but it seems to me to indirectly say it.

"The loudest passage in the music was indicative for the maximum recording level. After everything was found in order, nothing would be altered. No use of supporting microphones was made, nor were limiters or filters applied."
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html
It doesn't say they didn't turn up the quietest passages - but I suspect (I don't know - I admit I'm just making an educated guess) that anyone involved in the recording industry at that time would simply assume that, at least for some repertoire, the gain of the quietest passages would be increased before being committed to tape (or 35mm magnetic film!).

I think, back in the day, the idea that you wouldn't do that would seem quite silly. What's the real dynamic range of a symphony orchestra? What's the dynamic range of vintage electronics, or tape, or even vinyl?

People don't always put the full concert dynamic range even on CDs - the customer's listening room and equipment won't accommodate it (including that of many audiophiles who mistakenly believe theirs does!). Audiophiles often forget how VERY loud real musical instruments can be.

Cheers,
David.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #23 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: analog scott on
I believe they are available on SACD.
So they are! Wow, if only I had an SACD player. Except, why would I buy one? I suppose it would make a nice toy for a few classic multi-channel recordings. But it looks like a dead-end street to me. New physical media (which I can't even rip properly) in 2010?! Madness.

Quote
I would discuss the "phantom" v. "real" center but I fear we have a few issues there. No DBTs and off topic. So maybe another thread on another forum.
Ah, go on! You tell me I need to ABX 2-channel vs 3-channel when the speakers are 20ft apart and I'm listening off centre!

Cheers,
David.


God no, *I* wouldn't tell you that. Just trying to respect the forum rules.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: Mastering Vinyl

Reply #24 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: analog scott on
Not so sure. This doesn't directly say no gain riding but it seems to me to indirectly say it.

"The loudest passage in the music was indicative for the maximum recording level. After everything was found in order, nothing would be altered. No use of supporting microphones was made, nor were limiters or filters applied."
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html
It doesn't say they didn't turn up the quietest passages - but I suspect (I don't know - I admit I'm just making an educated guess) that anyone involved in the recording industry at that time would simply assume that, at least for some repertoire, the gain of the quietest passages would be increased before being committed to tape (or 35mm magnetic film!).


It does say "nothing would be altered." In the context of the quote (it mentions no use of limiters and talks about setting recording levels) I would think gain riding would be seen as altering things. Can't be sure but that would be my interpretation.

Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I think, back in the day, the idea that you wouldn't do that would seem quite silly.



I suspect that the use of just three microphones might have seemed silly to. Bob Fine was doin it his way. There is really nothing conventional about how he recorded.


Quote from: 2Bdecided on
What's the real dynamic range of a symphony orchestra?



I think you are getting maximum spls at around mid to high 90s. from the closest listener position (not the ideal position IMO) Noise floor in the concert hall? 40 db? Real world dynamic range.... somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-60 db???

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/sound/dba2.html

"This leads to an overall dynamicrange of about 60 dB for a symphonic orchestra. ..."
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=7007

"The intensities of scales played on nonpercussive orchestral instruments at various dynamic markings and the resulting dynamic ranges are reported. We are able to deduce the size of quanta corresponding to one step in a dynamic marking and the numer of quanta in the dynamic range of a musical instrument using deviations from smoothed curves. The average dynamic range of the nonpercussive orchestral instruments is about 11 db between the dynamic markings of pianissimo and fortissimo; the average intensity level at 10 meters is about 59 db re 0.0002 dynes/cm/2."
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=1209

Quote from: 2Bdecided on
What's the dynamic range of vintage electronics, or tape, or even vinyl?




I think somewhere above 60 db. With the vinyl I'm sure it was close. But they did use a SOTA lathe and cutter head with a custom amp. It's not all that hard to believe that the signal may have exceded the dynamic range of the vinyl and that some low level info was lost. This is apparent in one of my direct blind comparisons between an original Mercury LP and a Classics reissue.

Quote from: 2Bdecided on
People don't always put the full concert dynamic range even on CDs - the customer's listening room and equipment won't accommodate it (including that of many audiophiles who mistakenly believe theirs does!). Audiophiles often forget how VERY loud real musical instruments can be.

Cheers,
David.



Well, sometimes the performers won't put the full dynamic range into the performance either for the sake of the recording. Orchestras don't get all that loud unless you get pretty close to them. Based on the photos of the mic configurations used for the Mercuries I would doubt that peak levels exceded 95-96 db. I haven't found any mention anywhere else on gain riding for the Mercuries. I understand why you would assume it was used. But given the nature of these recordings and the approach they took to making them I would not feel confident in assuming that it was actually used. The only thing I have found so far was the quote above which certainly certainly points toward no gain riding.