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
128x128atmasphere

Showing 15 responses by rauliruegas

of course!: quality of the tape recorder and kind of tape they choosed.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
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.
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.


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.





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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.