interesting phenomena in the cutting room


We've (my friend Bob and myself) been working on an LP cutting lathe for some years. Its been a while refurbishing the lathe itself, finding parts and solving problems/puzzles, rebuilding the electronics, etc.

The lathe itself is a Scully, the cutterhead a Westerex 3D and the electronics the 1700 series built for the cutterhead by Westerex.

About 6 weeks ago we finally hit upon the magic combination of stylus temperature, vacuum, depth of cut, etc. It works beautifully! So we have been playing with parameters, including different amplifiers. The stock amplifiers were built about 1972 and are solid state.

Now those of you that know me know that I am all about tubes. But the stock amps worked quite well! As we gained familiarity with the system, we found out why: the Westerex cutting system is a high efficiency cutterhead- it does not take a lot of power to make the head work. It can easily cut grooves that no cartridge could ever keep up with, and do so without breaking a sweat. So the amps, which can make 125 watts, are loafing through the most difficult passages.

I had a Dyna ST-70 that I had rebuilt so for fun we swapped that amplifier in and it did quite well. Our next step is to use a set of our M-60s, as the cutterhead is an easy load relative to most loudspeakers.

What is interesting about this is that we can make cuts that literally demonstrate the audible differences between amplifiers, something that can be demonstrated on any playback system.

Its also apparent that the cutting process is relatively unlimited as a media compared to any other recording system. The dynamic range is well beyond that of analog tape or any digital system- like I said, it can cut grooves with such range that no cartridge could possibly keep up, yet is dead silent (if the lacquer is OK, that is). The real limitation in LP recording is the playback apparatus, not the cutters.

There is a fun little forum website for more information called 'Secrets of the Lathe Trolls'. Here's a post on that side made by my friend Bob (Bob has run a recording studio for some 20 years and was a roommate of mine in college):

http://lathetrolls.phpbbweb.com/viewtopic.php?p=19435&mforum=lathetrolls#19435
Convert?fit=crop&h=128&policy=eyjlehbpcnkioje0ota4nju4njgsimnhbgwiolsicmvhzcisimnvbnzlcnqixx0%3d&rotate=exif&signature=9990b4b2890598a38410dda9b7ebd3cddf02da5d0dadc0772950be442c4c23f4&w=128atmasphere
Ralphmasphere,

Your comment
What is interesting about this is that we can make cuts that literally demonstrate the audible differences between amplifiers, something that can be demonstrated on any playback system.

Does not surprise me. I often wonder if the Music Matters Jazz and Classic Records Jazz releases don't owe some of their personality to exactly that.

I know the amps were not only different but vastly different power rating. I think both were tube in those cases, I would have to research to be more specific.

I'm betting the M60 will be awesome and your larger amps may be even better. I hope you do that kind of test and report back.
Ralph...

Is the plan to actually start pressing vinyl from this lathe or was it just for fun?

I agree with Albert, that with your amps, could be a killer cutting system. Will we ever get to hear anything from it???
Very cool. All makes a lot of sense.

Of course what value is there in arecord that can't be tracked?

Reminds me of the challenges i recall getting most vinyl players of the day to track the original telarc digital recordings without clearly audible mistracking and distortion. Those seemed to push the limits of what was practical back then but clearly it would be possible to do more at the expense of playback time.
Ralph - what cutting angle are you setting the machine to ? So we can get that pesky "RTA" set correctly :-)

All in good fun

Peter

PS For explanation of "RTA" see previous post about the USB Microscope
Hi Peter, what we have found about that pesky RTA is its not really a standard. The problem is variance in the cutting stylus. Under the scope they all look a little different, and to get them to behave you have to adjust the head up and down a little. But for the most part the stylus temperature seems to play a bigger role. We did shoot for about 2 degrees negative but you can't count on that to work with every single lacquer. Plus the stylus is only good for about 10 hours and during that time you have to compensate for its wear. So RTA is more of a thing to try for as long as everything *else* is working :)

Mofi, the intent is for sure to release projects. I expect that most of them will be local initially, in fact we already have several lined up. But the plan has been all along to have the first transformerless vacuum tube LP mastering setup. Its nice to say we are finally there...

To that end we modified a set of M-60s to operate entirely without feedback. The system itself provides 30 db, which is needed to kill resonance in the head, and without it you can't get channel separation! This has to do with how the mechanism is suspended. Anyway, the stock amps employ feedback but in any servo design, nested feedback loops are usually a recipe for stability issues. But so far we've not run into any of that, once we started dialing in the trackball height, stylus depth, temperature and the like, its actually been pretty well behaved.
Very interesting thread!
I also think this is a very interesting thread.
Ralph, I hope you will continue with this discussion and your findings. It would also be nice if and when you actually have a product to sell, that you provide us with a web address or phone number to order!
Regards,
We master LPs for other labels. Most of our work has been for Nero's Neptune, which is a local label in Minnesota. We've also done a number of independent projects. Most of them have not been what I would call audiophile, for example we mastered a reissue of a Spider John Koerner LP called 'Folk Songs Like they Used to'... The label was happy because we got it sounding better than the original. Fortunately in that case we had the master tapes which were in excellent condition.

That does not always happen. We did a project for a punk band that was recorded in mono on an old Ampex 300 tape machine, which should have turned out spectacular, but I don't think the mics used in the recording were all that good. We also figured out that the tape machine must of had a microphonic tube as we could see an intermittent signal in the grooves that was at about 16KHz.

So we've been pretty happy about the results- but so much depends on the master tape or master file!
As a recording engineer I have some very interesting and audiophile recordings that might be of some interest to you. I would love to discuss this with you. Feel free to pm me.

Ray
Do you have one you want mastered to LP?

For some reason I can't do a PM to you via your moniker.
I would love to hear how this project of transformer-less vacuum tube cutter system is progressing Ralph. 

PS. I could not be more pleased with my Mk.3 updates! Thanks. 
Dear atmasphere: "  The real limitation in LP recording is the playback apparatus, not the cutters. " 

That I remember in this forum I never read a post where some one saids that cutters were the problem with the LP recordings/playback.

The normal recording process has several characterisitcs that in one way or the other puts its own limitations to the LP playback.

I'm not and expert on this subject and don't know for sure the whole recording process till the LP is for sale.

With out importance level in that process and with out know almost nothing about I list some limitations on that normal process ( not " audiophile " but normal. ):

- quality level of microphone.
- microphones place during recording.
- use of limiters, equalizers, reververation or other electronics artefacts.
- quality level of monitoring system.
- bias of the recording engineers or recording producer to some kind of sounds.
- edition work.
-dubbing.
-mastering and platting.
-quality level of all the electronics surrounded the recordings: microphone amps, cables, connectors, amps and preamps, overall recording consoles, etc, etc.
-quality of pressing.
-and many other " characteristics " where you can put some light to ignorants as me trying to learn.

and yes, the LP playback whole process is surrounded with faults any where.

So, IMHO both process are far away to be " perfect " or that permits that the LP be the best medium to listen music at home.
of course!: quality of the tape recorder and kind of tape they choosed.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
With out importance level in that process and with out know almost nothing about I list some limitations on that normal process ( not " audiophile " but normal. ):

- quality level of microphone.
- microphones place during recording.
- use of limiters, equalizers, reververation or other electronics artefacts.
- quality level of monitoring system.
- bias of the recording engineers or recording producer to some kind of sounds.
- edition work.
-dubbing.
-mastering and platting.
-quality level of all the electronics surrounded the recordings: microphone amps, cables, connectors, amps and preamps, overall recording consoles, etc, etc.
-quality of pressing.
-and many other " characteristics " where you can put some light to ignorants as me trying to learn.
Of the things listed most have nothing to do with the LP except the mastering, plating and the resulting quality of the pressings. IME the quality of mastering means a lot more about the pressing quality than the work of the actual plant.

We did one job where the customer was doing the pressing at United, which is not known for pressing quality. I knew some people that got a project done there and the finished LP seemed kind of .... compressed. But in our case when we got the finished pressings back they sounded fine. We didn't add any compression to the recording- usually with LP there's no point to it.
Dear Atmasphere:  "  Of the things listed most have nothing to do with the LP except the mastering, plating and the resulting quality of the pressings. "  

WOW!, I'm totally an ignorant because my thought is ( ? ) that different icrophones have different quality level performance and that it's not the same to make the recording of the 1812 with only three micros than with 8 or 25.

Please let me know, because according with your statement I'm totally wrong, if the audio signal that goes throught the micros, cables/connectors of those micros and micro amps is the audio signal used throught all recording process that at each single link of that process the original audio signal was and is modified/degraded  or it's that at each single link on the recording process only is used the audio signal coming from the micros in original status?  and how is that the quality level on the open reel tape deck used for the " masters " has nothing to do with the LPs?
So from where came the audio signal that we are listening during LP's playback?

Yes, could be that I'm stupid but I don't get it your answer to my question.

Can you help me?, appreciated and than's in advance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R
Dear Atmasphere: You was whom started the thread and as I posted I'm just one more ignorant ( down there ) about the overall recording process and that's why I ask to the expert that in this case is you but you don't gave any explanation about and only said: "  the things listed most have nothing to do with the LP except the mastering, plating and the resulting quality of the pressings. "

IMHO I think that an explanation is in order to why the other " subjects/recording characteristics " have nothing to do with the LP because I can read in several LP's " histories " how the recording was made where talks on many those recording links that you say " have nothing to do with LP ". Examples:

- in the Rega recording of Cristine Collister LP Roy Gandy ( that I think is not an ignorant as me. ) write in the " historty " of this recording: " After trying many new and vintage microphonesCristine choose the amazing Pearl C22.... to avoid the increase of sibilance.... we built a new mixing console......all the voices and instruments were recorded directly  into the tape machine ( Studer A80 ) via a Rega designed mic preamp.....to mix the final 8-tracks onto two-track 1/4 inch Rega designed  a purpose built fully discrete 8-channel mixer based on the Rega pre-amplifier. Monitoring on various Rega speakers... "

- Sheffield was and is famous because their D2D great recording where they by-pass ( between other things ) the tape recorder used nonmally in all LP recordings and where exist always a degradation of the original audio signal.
Sheffield made other non D2D very good recordings: " live to two-tracK ".

- Music Labs has its own K2 recording technology.

- The Super Analogue Disc were famous recordings because they explain and by pass more than 4 normal recording process links.

- VTL not only builded his mics mixer/amp but build in purpose the microphone that was used during the VTL recordings.

-Three Blind Mice ( Misty ) made this recording ( and others. ) using 3 mics on the piano, 3 mics in the bass and 8 mics in the drums ( almost all different mics ). So, 14 mics for three instruments.

- other label recordings use only 3 mics and other labels 20-40 as deutchs gramaphone.

- on those recording LP examples the producers and enginners were different and all those LP sampels sounds way different with different quality level.

Why all those recording labels took so many care and choices and even build own electronics to make better recordings where we can hear the differences?  if almost all what I listed " have nothing to do with the LP " from where comes the differences on each recording?

Could you make a wide explanation that put some light in what I posted here and elsewhere in this your thread?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.


Dear friends: Like you I'm a guest in this Atmasphere thread. Because he decided to stay " dead silence " against my posts where I ask for a wide explanation I have to ask to a today expert recording engineer trying to learn and understand not only what for me was a no-sense answer from Atmasphere but if what I posting here was totally wrong and this is what he email me:


""""  Mics and preamps, as well as microphone placement is one of the most important parts of the recording processes. You can never correct for this, if done wrong. You can always remix and remaster.....as well as recut. So, IMO, anyone who says otherwise has not consider just how important this is...... """"""

by coincidence in my non-expert list I posted that.

Not only for the answer of this recording engineer but for what I posted in my first post this thread (    " The real limitation in LP recording is the playback apparatus, not the cutters. "

That I remember in this forum I never read a post where some one saids that cutters were the problem with the LP recordings/playback. )
was only part of the Atmasphere's agenda to promote what he do because at the end he is a seller. Nothing wrong with that, this is a free world.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.


Perhaps Ralph understands that all the points you raise about the recording processes are common to both digital and analogue and have nothing to do with the 'cutting' processes of the LP....?

Very good info here guys. I have enjoyed reading about the recording process.
Hello Raul, I didn't know there were new posts to this thread. I'm still trying to sort out this new format Audiogon is using and one of the things that is frustrating is it does not use a good 'new post' system!

Regarding your comments, they were in fact addressed quite well in halcro's response just above. Most of what you commented about is a commonality with all good recordings- you want the recording to be as good as possible regardless of the format.

We've resorted to building our own equipment for the recording process as well. Its not to accommodate anything to do with the LP so much as it is to know that we are giving the signal from the mics the best chance that we can give it!

Overall otherwise I've found the LP format to be pretty accommodating
It has wider dynamic range than tape, and effectively has wider range than CD as well, despite the CD having greater dynamic range on paper. As is often seen in this sport, what is practical and what is on paper are often two very different things!

Y'all have a Happy New Year!
Dear atmasphere: I don't want to disturb you more because you are a busy man especially with the proximity of the CES in January.

I understand what Halcro posted but I'm not talking of the cutting process but the whole recording process, this is what we can read in my first post:


"""  The normal recording process has several characterisitcs that in one way or the other puts its own limitations to the LP playback. """

cutting is only part of the recording process. and what I listed ( one way or the other ) affects the quality level of what we are listening on each LP.

Every recording engineer and LP producer makes things in " similar " way but way different according what each one of them want to " hear " and several times ( the majority times. ) what they " want " is not what we audiophiles want it or like to hear during each one LP listening sessions.

IMHO it's unfortunate that normally the people involved during the recording process been no audiophiles or even music lovers and if they are not audiophiles then unknow  the audiophile community needs.

The Telarc recordings where the producers/engineer were not exactly audiophiles took extremely care in all the recording process and even that are digital recording and vintage ones are ( IMHO ) almost all its recordings really good.
 I posted some examples of very good recordings where its quality is " great " one and there are many other examples of great recordings that even that been not made by audiophiles are very very good. Comes to my mind the Delos label digital recordings that are exemplary, where any one can note the overall care that those people took down there. Wilson recordings or the ones made with K.Alexander involved or the ones by Scottfish label and many many more speaks that the whole recording process can be improved.
     
Now, all of you, imagine what we can listen if all ( or part/some of them . ) the people involved in a specific LP recording process be not only a music lover but an audiophile with the deep knowledge level of what to do to achieve our specific needs. 

I remember the first Stereophile LP recordings where they take care on each link of the recording process even at the pressing process where they decided to press the recording sessions only in one side of each LP.
They made the normal two sides recording and the single side version and I own both and yes the single side has a higher quality level. Stereophile was not the first LP manufacturer that choosed the one side premium LP recording, I have other recordings made it in the same way and explain the why's about.

Certainly I'm not a recording engineer but a plain ignorant in that process but I think I know what to do at each recording process to be nearer to what we listeners want to.

In the otehr side what I would like to see some time in the near future is that some one change/invent a new recording process where all those recording limitations can disappears or at least goes at minimum and I'm not speaking of D2D but D2D could be a very good point to start in that all new recording process.

Who take the challenge? because time goes on and on and the recording technics stay almost the same!!

Till today I never found out a recording engineer/producer that be a TEA not even you.
 You need no presentation, your success as designer/manufacturer speaks for you and you have a very high knowledge technical level that you showed through many posts in this and other forums but ( IMHO and with all respect ) for what ever reasons I can't remember any single post from you where you speak as a TEA.

Anyway, this is what I want share with all of you.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.





Hello Raul, The acronym 'TEA' returns 67 different hits on Google, none of which make any sense in your post.

But I can say with a great degree of confidence that you are talking about recording challenges and not anything that is specific to the LP.

FWIW we have been experimenting with the direct-to-disc process. We have also been using our OTL amps in the mastering process (still refining that).




Ralph, 
How difficult in terms of budget, contract etc to re-issue let's say Hank Mobley "Soul Station" or Oliver Nelson "Nocturne" from original tapes? Did you try any of a kind?
Dear atmasphere:  """"  I can say with a great degree of confidence that you are talking about recording challenges and not anything that is specific to the LP.  """

I agree that I'm talking of some recordings challenges that ( IMHO ) if we can achieve it can reduce all the recording today limitations that one way or the other has  a direct influence in the quality sound performance in any LP.

What we audiophiles want ( at least me. ) is to improve by wide margin the quality level of what we receive in the LP when the cartridge touchs its grooves. I know ( the samples I posted here and many more tell me that. ) that it can do it using the same recording process and even with out use the D2D technique.

What is out of my mind is why the LP manufacturers did not do it yet. We have ( example ) people as Acoustic Sounds where we pay very high LP price and these gentlemans ( with all respect. ) are so " good-for-nothing " that not even can build and sold dead flat ( at micro and macro levels. ) LP's and dead centered LP's ( with no single eccentricity margin. ). So, what they give us?: more of the same, taking each one " big money " for a product that does not justfy that hig price and all of them take advantage that we have no other choice that following buying those severely " damaged " LP's.

What's all about?, any one of you have the " fix " and useful answer? because if yes then please share with all of us.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
The quality of the recording has more to do with the producer than anything else. We've done some projects where the recording was clearly not up to snuff but that is what the band or label wanted, and its client/vendor relationship. We've tried to to the best job we can, and so far not had to use any processing on any of the projects we've seen (which has meant that in some cases it took several tries).

Most labels don't want to spend the extra time it takes with a project to do that so the result if often some sort of limitation in the recording.

FWIW, we've done some projects through QRP (Acoustic Sounds' pressing plant) and the results have been spectacular. The groove noise is nearly non-existent compared to other pressing plants- the sound literally erupts from silence, much like playing a lacquer for the first time. But my experience in general sounds like it is very different from yours- I've yet to buy a defective LP from Acoustic Sounds- is it possible you have simply had a run of bad luck??


How difficult in terms of budget, contract etc to re-issue let's say Hank Mobley "Soul Station" or Oliver Nelson "Nocturne" from original tapes? Did you try any of a kind?
To do this you have to gain permission to do the project (usually with some sort of financial consideration); once done then its fairly nuts and bolts.

We did a release of a Michael Rother project about 18 years ago that went fairly well. On small projects the mastering is the major cost and the pressings a smaller but significant percentage. So there's no good answer until you know how many LPs are to be made; experience says that you should have a really good means of selling them set up before you embark on the process!
Dear atmasphere: No, I don't think I have bad luck with AS because I bought almost everything they manufacturer. Maybe my standards for " accuracy " are a little different from yours and other Agoner's but at the end I think that you can have a clear idea of what I'm asking for.

Btw, the TEA acronym means: True Expert Audiophile.


Regards and enjoy he music,
R.
What's a True Expert Audiophile??

Regarding 'accuracy': a big problem in knowing accuracy is your reference. I use an LP that I recorded myself, and having the master tapes know how its supposed to sound. So the LP is very useful in that regard- in playing it I can instantly tell how well a system is playing in a number of regards. I am however convinced that one needs such an LP in order to understand what accuracy is all about. So you must have some similar reference that you made. Is it available?
Regarding 'accuracy': a big problem in knowing accuracy is your reference. I use an LP that I recorded myself, and having the master tapes know how its supposed to sound. So the LP is very useful in that regard- in playing it I can instantly tell how well a system is playing in a number of regards. I am however convinced that one
needs such an LP in order to understand what accuracy is all about
I couldn't agree more and dearly wish I had such a tape and disc...😢
Wouldn't it be great to have the same recording available on all three formats---analog reel-to-reel, LP, and CD/SACD, produced with the care necessary to insure they sound as much alike as possible? One could then compare, for instance, the sound of a recording from it's master tape to the sound of that recording as reproduced by a given phono cartridge/phono amp/digital player under review.
Dear atmasphere:  """  The quality of the recording has more to do with the producer than anything else.... """""

now/finally we are in the same " channel "".  Producer was in my posted list:

- bias of the recording engineers or recording producer to some kind of sounds ... "

maybe " accuracy " is not the best term/word, but you know what I mean.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear bdp24: You are right, we need different evaluation formats. In my evaluation process I have the same tracks ( I use many and always the same ones for different sound characteristics evaluation. ) in LP and CD and hard training ( even today ) in live music ( every kind ). If you have not live music training you can't evaluate nothing.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

There is an excellent documentary film entitled Tom Dowd & The Language of Music. Tom, recording engineer at Atlantic, Stax, and other labels, would go into the studio, walk around the room, stand in front of each instrument, then go back into the control room and attempt to replicate the live sound he had just heard via his recording equipment. He recorded a lot of the greats---Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, Derek & The Dominoes, lots of Jazz.

Doug Sax of Sheffield Records and The Mastering Lab evaluated a piece of recording equipment by passing a mic feed through it and then into the monitor system in his control room, then by-passing the piece, listening for any change in sound, referenced to the sound of the live mic feed (from a source in the studio itself). Doug was looking for transparency.  

Dear atmasphere:  """  What's a True Expert Audiophile?? """"

For months I was and am tempt to start a TEA thread but I'm not sure yet if we Agoner's are really prepared  to the answer or answer on that TEA question.

In the otehr side I need time for do that. Sooner or later I will do it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul, IMO/IME as soon as someone tries to set themselves up as an expert in this field, they run the risk of Audiophile Guru Syndrome (AGS), wherein if the knowledge does not emit from their mouths then it must be some form of blasphemy. I think we have all seen this at one point or another. IMO true mastery is the understanding of how little one actually knows.


atmasphere, so true. If there was true mastery and understanding of vinyl playback there would be one design for all tonearms, turntables, cartridges, and phono stages. But the range of designs and materials is even more diverse than ever. So as you stated, we're still learning.

As to the quality of vinyl, it's the attention to details that matter, but in then end compromises have to be made in order to produce a commercially viable release. How those compromises are balanced out over the entire process is not clear, but I'm glad to see that the search for the best approach continues on.

Regards,

Tom

BDP24 writes: Wouldn’t it be great to have the same recording available on all three formats---analog reel-to-reel, LP, and CD/SACD, produced with the care necessary to insure they sound as much alike as possible? One could then compare, for instance, the sound of a recording from it’s master tape to the sound of that recording as reproduced by a given phono cartridge/phono amp/digital player under review.

That already exists. You have RR’s Arnold Overtures, Bill Evans Waltz for Debby, Oscar Peterson on MPS, Garcia-Grisman, Lee Morgan Sidewinder, etc. currently available in all three formats. I’ve done the comparisons and hands down winner is still 15 ips tape.

The real problem however is finding out about the chain of custody. Do they use the same tape, equipment, etc. to make each release? One also needs to do the comparison with the best playback gear too so as to make the comparisons relevant.
Right Myles, the comparison would be of not only the formats themselves, but of the playback gear as well. It was in the latter sense I was suggesting a recording be made available in the three formats. I believe it possible to produce them all in such a way as to insure equivalency amongst them. One could then compare the sound of a recording on, say, two different CD players, and the one producing sound most like that of the tape the CD was sourced from would then be judged the more accurate, at least in one way or another. Of course, if neither player is perfect, each might be better than the other in different ways.
bdp24 writes:

Right Myles, the comparison would be of not only the formats themselves, but of the playback gear as well. It was in the latter sense I was suggesting a recording be made available in the three formats. I believe it possible to produce them all in such a way as to insure equivalency amongst them. One could then compare the sound of a recording on, say, two different CD players, and the one producing sound most like that of the tape the CD was sourced from would then be judged the more accurate, at least in one way or another. Of course, if neither player is perfect, each might be better than the other in different ways.
Probably the best "test" available would be from Yarlung records where Bob records in parallel 15-ips tape on Arian Jansen's modded deck and also Quad DSD. The DSD is available as a file and you can either buy the 15 ips tape or in 33 or 45 rpm LP. 
To really get that right though the LP should be recorded Direct to Disc so that the limitations of the other formats aren't built into the recording.

We did our Canto General recording on both LP and CD, both made from the master tapes. Which means that at best, they sound pretty close to the master tapes, which sound great. But take away the tape hiss and bandwidth limitations and it could have been better. But the magic of tape is that you can re-record if you don't like it the first time through...
Dear friends: IMHO D2D must be the only way to make LP recordings but this is more easy to tell than to do it for any LP manufacturer.

I own several/many D2D recordings coming from diferent LP labels, including " modern " ones by Acoustic Sounds. ) and till today no one of those labels are near of almost all the Sheffield Labs D2D quality level " performance ".

The D2D recording process is really a continuous " over stress " for all the people involved with because the recording is live with out the facilities that gives the tape to edit the recording in any way and I suppose that not all  recording engineers have not only the knowledge level but skills like SL.

Tape decks ( any ) is always a limitation in the recording process. I own all the D2D SL and own too the samples made it from the tape deck/master tapes and even that are very good can't compare in any way to its " brother " D2D sample.

As I posted in the thread there are many limitations in the overall recording process, the tape deck is one of those limitations.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear bdp24: This is what M.Lavigne posted last november:

"""  similar project now happening is the Debussy solo piano recording by Ilyn Iten from Wave Kinetics Music. this was recorded last May in upstate New York from the same mic feed in 30ips 1/2" tape and Quad dsd. there will be analog tape offered along with 45rpm pressings, and Quad dsd along with 2xdsd, regular dsd, and all manner of PCM too. not sure there will be a PCM based vinyl pressing, but this recording will certainly demonstrate the best of analog verses the best of digital. right now I have a few cuts from the recording in Quad dsd and it is an outstanding recording. """

That project is really interesting and more interesting will be to listen that recording in those diferent formats.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul writes:Dear friends: IMHO D2D must be the only way to make LP recordings but this is more easy to tell than to do it for any LP manufacturer.

I own several/many D2D recordings coming from diferent LP labels, including " modern " ones by Acoustic Sounds. ) and till today no one of those labels are near of almost all the Sheffield Labs D2D quality level " performance ".

The D2D recording process is really a continuous " over stress " for all the people involved with because the recording is live with out the facilities that gives the tape to edit the recording in any way and I suppose that not all recording engineers have not only the knowledge level but skills like SL.

Tape decks ( any ) is always a limitation in the recording process. I own all the D2D SL and own too the samples made it from the tape deck/master tapes and even that are very good can’t compare in any way to its " brother " D2D sample.

As I posted in the thread there are many limitations in the overall recording process, the tape deck is one of those limitations.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

And I think the Sheffields D2D are about as overrated a label as they come. Sheffields have some real significant sonic issues. CC or M&K D2D leave the Sheffields in the dust. Perhaps the best sounding D2D released is George Cardas’ Kip Dobler recording. I also have some never released Ken Kreisel M&K LPs pre-D2D that would blow your mind.

Also pray tell what tape deck you used in your system and what 15 ips tapes you used in your comparison? There’s a big difference between theory and reality.

Dear miles_b_astor: There is nothing perfect in audio and D2D recordings certainly are not perfect.

Now, you said:

"""  I think the Sheffields D2D are about as overrated a label as they come. Sheffields have some real significant sonic issues. """

as mine that's your opinion that I don't agree on that: " overrated ". I want to ask: against what?

In the other side I would like to know ( I love to learn each day. ) and be appreciated that you can tell us what:

""  some real significant sonic issues ""

are those with examples of 3-4 tracks and in which SL LP's?

Could be that I'm missing something and the only way to learn is try to listen through those example explanations.

Btw, I own too all the M&K realeased recordings.

I will wait for you to listen again my SL copies.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear myles_b_astor: I still waiting for you and perhaps not only me but several other gentlemans.

I don't know but seems to me that you just talk with out real foundation and in reality you have nothing on hand on those great SL D2D LPs. Yes, I can be wrong but you need to show it.

Btw, I own some CC recordings an unfortunately no single of my samples are good to deserv a mention.

Anyway, I think is better that I use my time to listen my SL recordings.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.