Implications of Amanda Ghassaei's Experiments/Software

[renegadescrew]

Hi All,

I am new here so apologies in advance for any pie in the sky or dreamlike thinking.

I am particularly interested in the possible implications of the software Amanda Ghassaei used to create a 3d image of a vinyl record from a WAV, file and just wish to run some ideas/questions by some of you who have much better knowledge than I do.

Basically, could you not use the same software to create a 3d image (essentially a CAD design) of the vinyl record for a plastics/metal manufacturer to make for you? (i don't mean a 3d printer or laser cutter)

It seems to me that you could feasibly invert the 3d image and a high precision metal cutter could directly make you a metal stamper? Or could you get a plastics manufacturer to make x number of plastic records? Completely bypassing any need for a lathe. And although not the quality of proper vinyl, at a much higher res/better quality than her 3d/laser cut records.

If this isn't pie in the sky, then it is possible that the cost of getting a high precision cutter to make a single 12inch piece may be more than a cutting house....but I find it hard to believe that plastics/metals are as tough on people who need 20 pieces as the main record cutters. Especially plastics.

Note: I am aware Amanda's software was set up incorrectly for mono (vertical rather than horizontal displacement), but this could amended and the program could even be amended to write a stereo file. You'd probably need about 32-64gb of RAM just to process a stereo side, but certainly cheaper than a lathe.

PS. I realise the cutting of a record is a beautiful thing, but from what I've read it can also be terribly bad. Surely a digital bypass of the lathe would be better than the Czech Republic?

Links to Amanda's work for people who don't know it.

http://www.instructables.com/id/3D-Printed-Record/?ALLSTEPS
http://www.instructables.com/id/Laser-Cut-Record/

[markrob]

Hi,

I doubt it. At least if you want a record with specs that are equal to that of the current state of the art. As far as I can tell, the precision required is beyond the state of the art in CNC machining. I think you would have to look into the precision level required to make semiconductors to get into the ballpark. Consider that the largest excursions that the playback stylus makes is on the order of +/-.005". Next consider that at higher frequencies, the excursions are much smaller than that; even at high levels. Now assume a dynamic range of 60db to 70db below the maximum level and you will find that you need to cut details the are have dimensions of a wavelength of visible light (380-750nm)! Seem like a tall order to me. Even though the technology is old, its going to be very hard to beat in terms of cost and ease of manufacture.


Amanda's hack was really cool, but I don't think its going to threaten the traditional process anytime soon.

Mark

[renegadescrew]

Thank you so much for the detailed response. The tiny size of the largest stylus movement just absolutely blows me away, never mind the smallest. I did try looking for such info but couldn't find anything. I really didn't think the precision of the cutter was on par with semiconductor production.

I am still intrigued by the possiblities of the technology, and in particular using it in conjunction with higher res production techniques than 3D printing - in order to achieve better results than Amanda's - I will be looking into it.

Staggering stuff.

Thanks again.

Hi,

I doubt it. At least if you want a record with specs that are equal to that of the current state of the art. As far as I can tell, the precision required is beyond the state of the art in CNC machining. I think you would have to look into the precision level required to make semiconductors to get into the ballpark. Consider that the largest excursions that the playback stylus makes is on the order of +/-.005". Next consider that at higher frequencies, the excursions are much smaller than that; even at high levels. Now assume a dynamic range of 60db to 70db below the maximum level and you will find that you need to cut details the are have dimensions of a wavelength of visible light (380-750nm)! Seem like a tall order to me. Even though the technology is old, its going to be very hard to beat in terms of cost and ease of manufacture.


Amanda's hack was really cool, but I don't think its going to threaten the traditional process anytime soon.

Mark

[opcode66]

I have a 3d printer now. I can tell you that on its finest setting it would not be able to make a groove that would sound clean and clear. Not even close. I give the technology 10 to 20 years or longer before it could print a plastic pixel 1 micron by 1 micron. Which would be the ballpark for being able to print a record that would equal one cut conventionally.

That being said, I have been saying for a while that I think one would have better results working with laser etching.

[renegadescrew]

Yes, I agree regarding a 3d printer - although I think the technology isn't so far away from getting somewhere close to the homemade cutters that various people make and (quite rightly!) show off on here.

My question was more geared towards actual manufacturing of plastics/metal - using the same technology and getting an injection moulder to make you a record, or something.

I don't know anything about plastics or such, but if 3d printers are already able to produce a better quality than plastics manufacturers, then I'd be surprised. Per Mark's comments though, the quality of precision required for a proper vinyl is..... .

I was on the phone to an injection moulding place yesterday who said the normal b/e point for making a mould would be 100-250 pieces, and their cutter was 0.010", so double the largest sylus excursion Mark referred to. I was also getting nowhere trying to ask the guy how much better their resolution was than a 600dpi 3d, so I explained exactly why I was asking. Also got nowhere. Obviously I suspect this is my lack of knowledge/terminology. It seems that every different company and/or technology describes their resolutions in a completely different way (layer resolution in microns, or 3/10 inches, or XYZ res, or other variations on a pixel theme). It's not particularly helpful, but then again, nothing much is!

I realised since posting that building a homemade cutter (albeit crap quality) is not rocket-science, especially if you possess the sort of knowledge of electronics to build your own speaker. Or are any man over 50yr old! Don't get me wrong, I don't know the difference between a soldering gun and a child soldier.

I'm like a UN peacekeeping force. So maybe I'll still have a bash!

I have a 3d printer now. I can tell you that on its finest setting it would not be able to make a groove that would sound clean and clear. Not even close. I give the technology 10 to 20 years or longer before it could print a plastic pixel 1 micron by 1 micron. Which would be the ballpark for being able to print a record that would equal one cut conventionally.

That being said, I have been saying for a while that I think one would have better results working with laser etching.

[opcode66]

Yes, I agree regarding a 3d printer - although I think the technology isn't so far away from getting somewhere close to the homemade cutters that various people make and (quite rightly!) show off on here.

This tech has a fatal flaw for making records. It deposits in layers. So, groove walls made this way will always have streaking. That streaking is the high pitched wailing you hear in the playback of any 3d printed record. The trick is to get those layers small enough that they would then become indistinguishable to smooth walls for the playback stylus. That means, the layers have to be smaller than the average tip radius for a playback stylus. Orders of magnitude smaller than current or near future capabilities with the technology. You actually have better X/Y placement than you do Z with most 3d printers. Meaning groove walls are always going to be striated in a fashion that will wiggle the stylus. Even more so than cutting with a suitcase cutter.

My question was more geared towards actual manufacturing of plastics/metal - using the same technology and getting an injection moulder to make you a record, or something.

The record pressing industry has been aware of injection molding all along. The issue is that you can't injection mold a groove. It is detail that is beyond the capacity of injection molding. It is simply way too small of detail. Otherwise, I'm sure the industry would have changed over long ago instead of running 5 ton presses.

but if 3d printers are already able to produce a better quality than plastics manufacturers

I wouldn't say that at all. Extruded and machined plastic parts are of higher accuracy than the equivalent 3d printed version. You can't 3d print a smooth surface. That's an issue for finely made parts.

Per Mark's comments though, the quality of precision required for a proper vinyl is..... .

Everything with respect to grooves is measured in 1/1000 of an inch to give you perspective. Anything tip related (recording or playback) is at micron level. That is really small. Very precise.

I was on the phone to an injection moulding place yesterday who said the normal b/e point for making a mould would be 100-250 pieces, and their cutter was 0.010", so double the largest sylus excursion Mark referred to.

At least one order of magnitude off of what is required to make good sounding audio. But, really, I would say two.

I was also getting nowhere trying to ask the guy how much better their resolution was than a 600dpi 3d, so I explained exactly why I was asking. Also got nowhere. Obviously I suspect this is my lack of knowledge/terminology. It seems that every different company and/or technology describes their resolutions in a completely different way (layer resolution in microns, or 3/10 inches, or XYZ res, or other variations on a pixel theme). It's not particularly helpful, but then again, nothing much is!

Not many industries deal with fine shaping of a surface the way we do. Record cutting in this respect is extremely unique. Others in related industries are used to doing far less detail. That is why they are not getting what you are asking. The other reason is that this just isn't going to work. Well, technically, sure it could work. But, practically speaking, I'm not sure anyone would want to listen to the results. Just being honest. Background noise and inaccuracy of high pitch information would be two distinct issues.

I realised since posting that building a homemade cutter (albeit crap quality) is not rocket-science, especially if you possess the sort of knowledge of electronics to build your own speaker. Or are any man over 50yr old! Don't get me wrong, I don't know the difference between a soldering gun and a child soldier.

I actually find it quite refreshing that the simple old cutters still can make better grooves than a mountain of technology could. KISS. And, working with the forces of nature. Etc. Vinyl cutters are something to marvel at.

[markrob]

Hi,

Actually, you can injection mold records. Polystyrene records were done this way. See this link for an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Records

These weren't the greatest examples of fidelity and they didn't wear well, but they were cheap to manufacture.

Mark

[opcode66]

Like I was saying. Technically, this is all possible. Practically speaking, there is no fidelity there. And, that is why records are still made the same way they were in the 1940's and earlier.

[markrob]

Hi,

While I said they were not the greatest fidelity, I did not mean they did not compete with vinyl pressed records. Millions of these polystyrene records were released by many of the major labels back in the day. The biggest issue with them was a bit higher surface noise, and shorter life as compared with vinyl. They also sometimes had problems working with some of the automatic changers due to the profile (flat).

Mark

[opcode66]

When I was looking to have the halfnuts made, several injection molding manufacturer told me that the threads on the halfnut were too small and too intricate to be produced via injection molding. The threads are huge in comparison to a record groove.

[renegadescrew]

Very interesting regarding Bell Records.

They must've actually cut a record like normal to begin with though in order to create the master and then mould? If your mould is detailed enough then it should work well enough (surface noise, etc aside)

I think another problem in actually making a record mould from a STL file or whatever is the time it would take.

In the below 'how does it work' video from discovery about plastic injection moulding, it takes over 20 hours to cut a low detail mould, and then it moves onto the more high detail cutter after that! So a record mould might take 2-3 weeks to cut that way? Even if you could do it with less surface noise than vinyl, people would rage over the completely digital nature of the "cutting" process. It would also make test cutting/mastering somewhat impossible, or long!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seZqq1qxW30

Thanks for the responses. I need to read one again to try and get it properly! This forum is amazing. I'm slowly becoming obsessed with homemade cutters, microgrooves, David Nelson and stylus moves!

[markrob]

Hi,

I don't think a STL file would be a very good way to describe the record. Given that its a triangulated surface format, it seems to me it would require an very large file size given the surface detail and total area to map.

Check out US patent 2670308 for one source of IP describing injection molded microgroove records. If you start searching, you will see there was a great deal of work done in this area. The main goal being to improve the wear characteristics of the polystyrene.

Mark

[opcode66]

Well, all I can tell you is that 5 injection molding manufactureres out of 5 declined the work on this part. That is when I decided to stop looking into I. M. as an option for fine detailed work. This might be possible. But, find someone willing to do the work these days. I feel you won't be successful given my experience.

This part was unilaterally rejected by I. M. shops. Look how big the grooves are.

[renegadescrew]

Well you all know much more than me (thanks for your videos!), but there is a difference between making an injection mould and making something from an injection mould, is there not?

Unless I am understanding your comments wrongly, the molding manufacturers declined to work on the part below, but if you'd already had the mould made....it would've been fine.

So regarding my original post, bypassing the lathe can't really be done with any acceptable quality (yet or soon). And regarding Bell Records, they prove injection moulding records is possible, but you still need a lathe to cut the original master/make the mould.

Obviously I've been wrong throughout this whole topic so suspect I'll stand corrected again.

Well, all I can tell you is that 5 injection molding manufactureres out of 5 declined the work on this part. That is when I decided to stop looking into I. M. as an option for fine detailed work. This might be possible. But, find someone willing to do the work these days. I feel you won't be successful given my experience.

This part was unilaterally rejected by I. M. shops. Look how big the grooves are.

[opcode66]

I always said it was technically possible. But, I think the process would affect the sound. Markrob says only that it adds background noise. But, I suspect there would be an effect on high frequencies as well due to inaccuracies in creating the mold. If you watch the TV show mythbusters ever, you will see them struggle with the inaccuracy of molds a number of times. Different scale. But...

The Injection people I approached made some pretty neat stuff all in house. But, in the end, still all suggested having them machined as the originals were. The contours combined with the thread itself wasn't something profitable for them to do small scale. Maybe the material (nylon) had something to do with it too. But, I don't think so.

Sometimes it isn't a matter of right and wrong. It is a matter of acceptability. What is acceptable to one audience or audiophile isn't to another. I am questioning the practicality (and quite possibly the product) of this process compared to the conventional pressing. If you look back, In all my posts, I did say this is technically possible. Practicality factors into your designs. Take that from someone who has learned this repeatedly.

[markrob]

Hi Todd,

I don't think you are getting that these records were in fact in mass production over many years. This is not some limited technology that was never adopted by the mainstream. Go to any flea market and rummage through stacks of 45's and you'll see a good percentage injection molded 7"ers. For example, many of the Stones 45's on London here in the US were styrene.

I did look back and indeed you did say this was not possible:

"The record pressing industry has been aware of injection molding all along. The issue is that you can't injection mold a groove. It is detail that is beyond the capacity of injection molding. It is simply way too small of detail. Otherwise, I'm sure the industry would have changed over long ago instead of running 5 ton presses."

Mark

[opcode66]

Later in the same post I clearly siad this.

"Well, technically, sure it could work. But, practically speaking, I'm not sure anyone would want to listen to the results. "

If you are going to quote me, at least be fair about it....

That is what I was told by MODERN manufacturers. There might have been an industry and aparatus for this years ago. Seems no longer today. But, you know what. I dont care. I should just not say anything and let others chase their tails. All sorts of things used to be possible that are no longer PRACTICAL.

So, how do these records sound? I still dont believe they match or rival conventional pressing. 7" records were never expected to sound great. They were sort of a novelty. So, even though they sold a lot, that still doesn't speak to the fidelty of the produced record.

And, again, if it were really easier/better/more econmical/matching or rivaling sound quality, then tell me Markrob, why didnt the industry switch over??? Why haven't more recent plants that have gone online selected this technology? There is a down side that isnt being discussed by you clearly. Love to get Mossboss to chime in here....

[powerstrip]

you know...

don't you think 3D printing a record takes all the fun and tradition out of cutting discs?

I consider it a little blasphemous.

please don't do it.

[opcode66]

It also takes the joy out of listening to the record itself... Unless you like squelching/whaling noises in the background of your music.

[Steve E.]

I suspect this is one of those "everyone is correct" situations. I'm sure the manufacturers Todd was talking to were steering him away from the sort of injection molding that would be possible-yet-unfortunate to be considered for his projects.

Injection molding of some sort was, indeed, very common in record production during its peak. Styrene records are injection-molded. They sound crappier than standard vinyl records. You can identify them readily by the flat vertical edge, instead of the sharp trimmed edge of a pressed vinyl record.

Most of the hit records I bought as a kid were these styrene records. The shittiest thing about them is that my dads audiophile hyper-elliptical playback needles would carve right into the first few grooves of the singles, making this permanent, awful, hissing sound.

It seems to me that a fair number of my early 60s LPs are styrene, too. They are a little harder to identify, but they feel different. They ring when you tap them.

http://www.lathetrolls.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=977&p=3662#p3662

http://www.lathetrolls.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2724

http://www.lathetrolls.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1269&p=9602#p9602

http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/335362

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/are-all-u-s-60s-70s-45s-made-of-styrene.61290/