Feel free to expand on something since they don't go into a lot of detail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUGRRUecBik&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IReDh9ec_rk&NR=1
A Concise Tutorial
Moderators: piaptk, tragwag, Steve E., Aussie0zborn
-
Dr. Groove
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:25 pm
A Concise Tutorial
"A dog don't want a bone. That's why he buries it." --James Brown
These videos are pretty accurate with one major exception that I'll get to later. These appear to be part of the educational series "How It's Made" which is produced in Canada and aired on the Discovery and Science cable channels in the USA. These tutorials are generally quite accurate and very informative in that they compress a lot of info into a short presentation. I recommend them as a quick intro into many different subjects. It's interesting to note the tour of the Transco lacquer plant. I haven't used a Transco lacquer in over 20 years, but they still package them exactly like they did back in the mid 80s.
The Lathe pictured is a Neumann, apparently a VMS-70, and the cutter appears to be an SX-74. They don't make mention of this, but the stylus is heated by a small coil of wire wound around the sapphire shank, close to the cutting tip. You can see the silvery heater wires leading from the tip area in the closeup of the cutting operation. Heating the cut is REQUIRED to obtain a low noise cut in lacquer. You absolutely cannot get a quiet cut any other way. When properly heated, the residual cut lacquer noise is below that of any analog tape used as a program source, including that with Dolby A noise reduction. In other words, it is essentially not perceivable. Without heat, the cut will be 10 to 15 dB noisier, well up into the noticeable range. Note also the sucker tube positioned close to the stylus tip which is using a vacuum to pull the "chip" or swarf away as it is being cut. Allowing the chip to remain on the surface of the disc is inviting a snarl where the old chip thread may get run over again by the cutting tip which will cause a noise and possible cutter lift. "Losing the chip", meaning the vacuum pickup failed during the cut for one reason or another was usually cause for the lathe operator to reject the lacquer and start all over again with another blank.
By the way, the production portion of the lacquer is NEVER played before it is put into the plating tank. Playing it, even with the most delicate playback stylus will ridge or streak the sidewalls of the groove which will degrade the sound when it's plated. The "test cut" that is mentioned in the video is performed outside the 12 inch finished diameter of the record and is often played to judge the noise performance of the lacquer and cutting tip and to adjust the correct cutting heat for that particular lacquer as it varies from one batch to another. The test cut portion of the lacquer is cut off the finished stamper and playing it does not affect the production portion of the record.
The major problem with this video presentation is that they don't describe the extra metal matrix steps that are customarily done. Yes, you can make a stamper directly from the lacquer as is shown here, but this is done only for very small production runs or special orders. The major danger with this so-called "one step" process (one metal part per lacquer) is that if the stamper is damaged either in handling or use (which is fairly likely), you're screwed and forced to have another lacquer cut, a costly and time consuming proposition. The lacquer material is much softer than the plated metal and is frequently damaged as the metal is separated from it so that the lacquer cannot be used again. Far more common is the standard matrix or "three step" process. In this process, the first metal part plated from the lacquer is called the "father" or "metal master". This part is then electro-cleaned and passivated (both are chemical bath processes) and placed back into a plating bath. The passivation adds a microscopic layer of oxide on the surface of the metal master so that the newly plated part on top of it can be separated. Without the passivation, the new plating would bond to the metal master and ruin it. The second plating is then split away from the metal master. You now have a metal positive image which is actually a metal record that can be played with a conventional stylus. These are called "mothers" or "molds" and, yes, they are 100% played by the quality control department to judge the quality of the process so far. Several mothers can be made from the metal master without damaging it, and several are routinely made if there is a large order of pressings to be serviced. Any audio defects in the playback of the mother are noted by marking the mold with a wax pencil, and the mold is sent to the "mold repair" technician. He locates the defect under a microscope. Often the defects are little bits of metal stuck in the groove and the technician can carefully pry the particle out of the groove with a pick. If he judges that he has repaired the mold, it is sent back to the mold testers for an audio retest. If the mold is not repairable, it is scrapped at that point. Note that considerable effort is expended to assure the quality of these metal molds. This is because each mold can be passivated and plated to an produce the third metal part, a negative, which is NOW made into a stamper as shown in the video. If a stamper is damaged, another can be ordered from the mold in a very short time. And many stampers can be made successively from the one or more molds to service a large order of records. For example, a new release from a huge artist can require hundreds of thousands of records to be in the initial pressing order put on the plant (well, that USED to be the case when Elvis put out another title
). This would require that the same order be put up on several presses and run at the same time. It wasn't uncommon for us at RCA to have a large order up on 10 or 20 presses running simultaneously. Doing this requires the three-step metal matrix processing just described to provide enough metal parts without requiring multiple lacquers to be cut.
The press shown in this video I don't exactly recognize, but it is probably an SMT, a Lened, or a Hamilton. Actually, almost every pressing plant heavily customized their presses with extra bolt-ons and automation, so it's sometimes hard to recognize the original maker of the press. At RCA, we designed some of our own presses, so nobody else had the same ones. Most plants by the mid 1970s were using automatic presses such as these seen in the video. Prior to that, the press operator had to manually place the labels in the press and then obtain a "shot" or "puck" of vinyl from the extruder and place it in the press, and then activate the press closing cycle. After the press finished it's timed sequence of squeezing, heating and cooling the record, it opened up and the operator had to take the record out by handling the flash that oozed out around the edge, place the record on the edger station, then stack the record on the finished disc spindle.
The Lathe pictured is a Neumann, apparently a VMS-70, and the cutter appears to be an SX-74. They don't make mention of this, but the stylus is heated by a small coil of wire wound around the sapphire shank, close to the cutting tip. You can see the silvery heater wires leading from the tip area in the closeup of the cutting operation. Heating the cut is REQUIRED to obtain a low noise cut in lacquer. You absolutely cannot get a quiet cut any other way. When properly heated, the residual cut lacquer noise is below that of any analog tape used as a program source, including that with Dolby A noise reduction. In other words, it is essentially not perceivable. Without heat, the cut will be 10 to 15 dB noisier, well up into the noticeable range. Note also the sucker tube positioned close to the stylus tip which is using a vacuum to pull the "chip" or swarf away as it is being cut. Allowing the chip to remain on the surface of the disc is inviting a snarl where the old chip thread may get run over again by the cutting tip which will cause a noise and possible cutter lift. "Losing the chip", meaning the vacuum pickup failed during the cut for one reason or another was usually cause for the lathe operator to reject the lacquer and start all over again with another blank.
By the way, the production portion of the lacquer is NEVER played before it is put into the plating tank. Playing it, even with the most delicate playback stylus will ridge or streak the sidewalls of the groove which will degrade the sound when it's plated. The "test cut" that is mentioned in the video is performed outside the 12 inch finished diameter of the record and is often played to judge the noise performance of the lacquer and cutting tip and to adjust the correct cutting heat for that particular lacquer as it varies from one batch to another. The test cut portion of the lacquer is cut off the finished stamper and playing it does not affect the production portion of the record.
The major problem with this video presentation is that they don't describe the extra metal matrix steps that are customarily done. Yes, you can make a stamper directly from the lacquer as is shown here, but this is done only for very small production runs or special orders. The major danger with this so-called "one step" process (one metal part per lacquer) is that if the stamper is damaged either in handling or use (which is fairly likely), you're screwed and forced to have another lacquer cut, a costly and time consuming proposition. The lacquer material is much softer than the plated metal and is frequently damaged as the metal is separated from it so that the lacquer cannot be used again. Far more common is the standard matrix or "three step" process. In this process, the first metal part plated from the lacquer is called the "father" or "metal master". This part is then electro-cleaned and passivated (both are chemical bath processes) and placed back into a plating bath. The passivation adds a microscopic layer of oxide on the surface of the metal master so that the newly plated part on top of it can be separated. Without the passivation, the new plating would bond to the metal master and ruin it. The second plating is then split away from the metal master. You now have a metal positive image which is actually a metal record that can be played with a conventional stylus. These are called "mothers" or "molds" and, yes, they are 100% played by the quality control department to judge the quality of the process so far. Several mothers can be made from the metal master without damaging it, and several are routinely made if there is a large order of pressings to be serviced. Any audio defects in the playback of the mother are noted by marking the mold with a wax pencil, and the mold is sent to the "mold repair" technician. He locates the defect under a microscope. Often the defects are little bits of metal stuck in the groove and the technician can carefully pry the particle out of the groove with a pick. If he judges that he has repaired the mold, it is sent back to the mold testers for an audio retest. If the mold is not repairable, it is scrapped at that point. Note that considerable effort is expended to assure the quality of these metal molds. This is because each mold can be passivated and plated to an produce the third metal part, a negative, which is NOW made into a stamper as shown in the video. If a stamper is damaged, another can be ordered from the mold in a very short time. And many stampers can be made successively from the one or more molds to service a large order of records. For example, a new release from a huge artist can require hundreds of thousands of records to be in the initial pressing order put on the plant (well, that USED to be the case when Elvis put out another title
). This would require that the same order be put up on several presses and run at the same time. It wasn't uncommon for us at RCA to have a large order up on 10 or 20 presses running simultaneously. Doing this requires the three-step metal matrix processing just described to provide enough metal parts without requiring multiple lacquers to be cut.The press shown in this video I don't exactly recognize, but it is probably an SMT, a Lened, or a Hamilton. Actually, almost every pressing plant heavily customized their presses with extra bolt-ons and automation, so it's sometimes hard to recognize the original maker of the press. At RCA, we designed some of our own presses, so nobody else had the same ones. Most plants by the mid 1970s were using automatic presses such as these seen in the video. Prior to that, the press operator had to manually place the labels in the press and then obtain a "shot" or "puck" of vinyl from the extruder and place it in the press, and then activate the press closing cycle. After the press finished it's timed sequence of squeezing, heating and cooling the record, it opened up and the operator had to take the record out by handling the flash that oozed out around the edge, place the record on the edger station, then stack the record on the finished disc spindle.
Collecting moss, phonos, and radios in the mountains of WNC
hello cd4cutter
someone told me that can be directly pressed metal with a special master, in just one step, for 1000 u. the result of pressing sound is the same as in the three-step process, is not it? im not speak about dmm
if so, aware of the differences in the process? Nickel different one? I have the materials to manufacture a galvanic bath, power supply, buckets, motors, timers and I think that the knowledge needed to do, but do not know the products to use, where to get the nickel, that type of water as temperatures ... . ... current intensity....... needed time ... I have a wide range of hydraulic presses and access to necessary machinery for mechanization and adaptation, and all feel like a fan
thanks
someone told me that can be directly pressed metal with a special master, in just one step, for 1000 u. the result of pressing sound is the same as in the three-step process, is not it? im not speak about dmm
if so, aware of the differences in the process? Nickel different one? I have the materials to manufacture a galvanic bath, power supply, buckets, motors, timers and I think that the knowledge needed to do, but do not know the products to use, where to get the nickel, that type of water as temperatures ... . ... current intensity....... needed time ... I have a wide range of hydraulic presses and access to necessary machinery for mechanization and adaptation, and all feel like a fan
thanks
Marcos
-
Dr. Groove
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:25 pm
Thanks for the info, CD4. That's what I was hoping for. I also thought that the mother step was skipped in that tutorial (and, yes, I saw it or one like on "How It's Made").
I'm looking to start investing in the vinyl market in case my CD investment crumbles. So I'm looking for info to help me get started. It looks hairy though. I don't know where I'll get the room to set up a plant. My upstairs is largely unused except for storage but I don't know if it's big enough. I suppose I could at least get a lathe up there. But I need to get a lathe--period. And learn from someone who knows how to use them. If I could get that much, I may be able to farm the rest of the work out to somebody--give them the master and let them electroplate it, make the mother and stampers and press the vinyls. Maybe if I can see their operation at work and squeeze them for info, I'll learn more about what I would need to do to try and bring the whole process literally in-house.
I might hold off on that though. One clip I watched, a guy was talking about the PVC pellets they use to make the vinyl and he says there are only two suppliers in the country that make them and since they are petroleum based and the price of oil keeps rising, the pellets are becoming more and more expensive and there isn't much competition to keep prices low--you go to one supplier or the other and that's all the choice you get. That right there could kill the vinyl industry so I don't want to invest in too much too fast. But still, I'd love to get a lathe anyway. I'd still love to have one.
Btw, is the 2-track stereo tape hooked to the lathe to provide the signals that move the stylus? When I was working in a studio, we just sent the 2-track off to some other place that turned it into records and I never knew exactly what they did with the tape. I mean, we always got the tape back but I'm not sure how it was used during the time they had it.
I'm looking to start investing in the vinyl market in case my CD investment crumbles. So I'm looking for info to help me get started. It looks hairy though. I don't know where I'll get the room to set up a plant. My upstairs is largely unused except for storage but I don't know if it's big enough. I suppose I could at least get a lathe up there. But I need to get a lathe--period. And learn from someone who knows how to use them. If I could get that much, I may be able to farm the rest of the work out to somebody--give them the master and let them electroplate it, make the mother and stampers and press the vinyls. Maybe if I can see their operation at work and squeeze them for info, I'll learn more about what I would need to do to try and bring the whole process literally in-house.
I might hold off on that though. One clip I watched, a guy was talking about the PVC pellets they use to make the vinyl and he says there are only two suppliers in the country that make them and since they are petroleum based and the price of oil keeps rising, the pellets are becoming more and more expensive and there isn't much competition to keep prices low--you go to one supplier or the other and that's all the choice you get. That right there could kill the vinyl industry so I don't want to invest in too much too fast. But still, I'd love to get a lathe anyway. I'd still love to have one.
Btw, is the 2-track stereo tape hooked to the lathe to provide the signals that move the stylus? When I was working in a studio, we just sent the 2-track off to some other place that turned it into records and I never knew exactly what they did with the tape. I mean, we always got the tape back but I'm not sure how it was used during the time they had it.
"A dog don't want a bone. That's why he buries it." --James Brown
-
Dr. Groove
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:25 pm
Another thing, the tutorial mentions that the biscuits are melted and pressed at 193 degrees C. What the heck are they using for the heat?? I had heard it was hot water going through pipes but at 100 degrees C, it starts to boil so at 193 degrees all the water would flash to steam but even getting steam that hot is a very involved process. Cold water is then rushed through the pipes for cooling phase. At least that's what I heard.
In the Navy, we used superheated steam to run the propulsion plant and that steam required highly pressurized boilers. Superheated steam is also extremely dangerous and requires highly tempered metals to contain it--it just literally tears up ordinary metals. Any moisture or droplets in that steam are like bullets and will tear the blades off the turbines that turn the screws in the engine rooms (the screws are the propellors that move the ship). A process called impingement, if I remember correctly.
It's extremely important that superheated steam have absolutely no moisture in it and that it only contacts metals specifically tempered for superheated steam.
So I'm curious as to what the heat source is for pressing the records. Is it superheated steam, highly pressurized superheated water or a heating element?
In the Navy, we used superheated steam to run the propulsion plant and that steam required highly pressurized boilers. Superheated steam is also extremely dangerous and requires highly tempered metals to contain it--it just literally tears up ordinary metals. Any moisture or droplets in that steam are like bullets and will tear the blades off the turbines that turn the screws in the engine rooms (the screws are the propellors that move the ship). A process called impingement, if I remember correctly.
It's extremely important that superheated steam have absolutely no moisture in it and that it only contacts metals specifically tempered for superheated steam.
So I'm curious as to what the heat source is for pressing the records. Is it superheated steam, highly pressurized superheated water or a heating element?
"A dog don't want a bone. That's why he buries it." --James Brown
I can't imagine anybody actually trying to start up a vinyl record pressing plant these days. There just aren't enough customers to make such a proposition economically supportable. Unless your VERY rich uncle just died and you've got a few million bux that you want to piss down a rathole. Yes, vinyl is making a mini-resurgence in the market, but the operative word is "mini". Vinyl records may well exist for some time to come as a niche market, but it will never be a mass-market commodity like it was back when it was the only viable recorded music medium. A record plant (or a CD or a DVD plant, all of which use essentially the same technology) is a capital-intensive business. You have to have cutting, metal electroforming, and pressing operations, each of which subset requires considerable backup technology. The cutting part is by far the simplest and cheapest part to get into. If you have never visited a record pressing plant, you cannot appreciate the magnitude of the investment represented there.
The pressing operation is the most intensive. Vinyl record manufacture requires live steam and cooling process water in addition to the high electrical power and hydraulic mechanics to operate the record presses. Making the steam requires that you have a boiler on the premesis, which means that you've got to get local government permission and regulation to do it. The cooling water is required in fairly high volume - you don't just hook up to your local water faucet. Record plants routinely had water cooling towers outside the plant thru which they recirculated their cooling water. You don't just go to your local Wally World an obtain these items. I'm not going to go into more detail here to explain how it all works, but if you're really interested in record manufacturing, try to get a tour of one of the few remaining pressing plants. There are no trade secrets that anybody is trying to protect anymore (unlike the early days), so you can usually get a plant tour by just asking for it. You'll learn LOTS from just taking the time to watch the processes and ask a lot of questions as you go thru the plant.
The vinyl record press is comprised of two press molds, each holding a stamper. These molds are then closed under enormous pressure (about 100 tons) and considerable heat which is required to perform "compression molding" of the vinyl record material. This is different from the CD or DVD press which is an injection molding machine. (Many of the 7 inch 45rpm records made starting about 1980 are injection molded out of styrene. This is a miserable material and doesn't hold up to repeated playings worth a damn.) The record molds are heated by live steam passing thru cavities in the mold. After the vinyl has flowed into conformance with the stamper grooves, the steam is turned off and replaced with cooling water to drop the mold temperature and to harden the record prior to the press opening. I don't remember the temperatures we used, but I don't think the steam was considered "superheated". No outrageous requirements were placed on the steam piping. The cooling water drops the temperature of the record to about 150 degrees F when the press opens. At this temperature, the record is still floppy, but is hard enough to be handled and placed on the edger station which trims off the excess flash with either a rotary shear or a knife edge. The press itself is a massive pile of steel - you can't just put one in your house - it would fall thru the floor.
I have no doubt that the PVC and PVA materials needed to formulate good vinyl record compound are getting difficult to obtain. Formulated vinyl never was in huge supply as this particular compound is specialized for record molding. The big record manufacturers like RCA and Columbia maintained their own compounding departments at each plant site. They purchased the individual resins and additives and formulated their own custom vinyl compounds. Later, as a few independent pressing plants came on line, a few third party chemical plants (Keysor Chemical in California is one I can remember) offered their own formulations for sale. Record presses require that the vinyl be pre-formulated and presented to the press as pelletized compound. So you have to do your own compounding (a massive undertaking with more massive equipment such as rolling mills, banbury mills, extruders, and grinders) or buy the pelletized compound from a third party who has made it from the several required ingredients. The primary ingredients are petroleum based, as are the ingredients for CDs and DVDs (polycarbonate), never mind everything else made out of plastic, so the world price of oil will affect all these markets in about the same way.
The pressing operation is the most intensive. Vinyl record manufacture requires live steam and cooling process water in addition to the high electrical power and hydraulic mechanics to operate the record presses. Making the steam requires that you have a boiler on the premesis, which means that you've got to get local government permission and regulation to do it. The cooling water is required in fairly high volume - you don't just hook up to your local water faucet. Record plants routinely had water cooling towers outside the plant thru which they recirculated their cooling water. You don't just go to your local Wally World an obtain these items. I'm not going to go into more detail here to explain how it all works, but if you're really interested in record manufacturing, try to get a tour of one of the few remaining pressing plants. There are no trade secrets that anybody is trying to protect anymore (unlike the early days), so you can usually get a plant tour by just asking for it. You'll learn LOTS from just taking the time to watch the processes and ask a lot of questions as you go thru the plant.
The vinyl record press is comprised of two press molds, each holding a stamper. These molds are then closed under enormous pressure (about 100 tons) and considerable heat which is required to perform "compression molding" of the vinyl record material. This is different from the CD or DVD press which is an injection molding machine. (Many of the 7 inch 45rpm records made starting about 1980 are injection molded out of styrene. This is a miserable material and doesn't hold up to repeated playings worth a damn.) The record molds are heated by live steam passing thru cavities in the mold. After the vinyl has flowed into conformance with the stamper grooves, the steam is turned off and replaced with cooling water to drop the mold temperature and to harden the record prior to the press opening. I don't remember the temperatures we used, but I don't think the steam was considered "superheated". No outrageous requirements were placed on the steam piping. The cooling water drops the temperature of the record to about 150 degrees F when the press opens. At this temperature, the record is still floppy, but is hard enough to be handled and placed on the edger station which trims off the excess flash with either a rotary shear or a knife edge. The press itself is a massive pile of steel - you can't just put one in your house - it would fall thru the floor.
I have no doubt that the PVC and PVA materials needed to formulate good vinyl record compound are getting difficult to obtain. Formulated vinyl never was in huge supply as this particular compound is specialized for record molding. The big record manufacturers like RCA and Columbia maintained their own compounding departments at each plant site. They purchased the individual resins and additives and formulated their own custom vinyl compounds. Later, as a few independent pressing plants came on line, a few third party chemical plants (Keysor Chemical in California is one I can remember) offered their own formulations for sale. Record presses require that the vinyl be pre-formulated and presented to the press as pelletized compound. So you have to do your own compounding (a massive undertaking with more massive equipment such as rolling mills, banbury mills, extruders, and grinders) or buy the pelletized compound from a third party who has made it from the several required ingredients. The primary ingredients are petroleum based, as are the ingredients for CDs and DVDs (polycarbonate), never mind everything else made out of plastic, so the world price of oil will affect all these markets in about the same way.
Collecting moss, phonos, and radios in the mountains of WNC
I'm not aware of any technology that allows individual analog recordings to be "pressed" into metal of any kind. Metal is just too hard to take the fine detail of an analog record groove with any kind of pressing or embossing operation. The other main problem being that you would smash the stamper trying to press it into metal. You CAN make metal records by electroforming (plating) them onto a master of some kind, but this is a very time-consuming process which would not be practical to produce an item for sale unless you could charge $200 apiece for the resulting records. Record plants do this all the time when they make the metal mothers, and they even sell these sometimes to other record plants. Or you could cut individual metal records using the DMM process in copper. Another expensive proposition.
The question about what happens to the analog magnetic tape that you send to the cutter is simple to answer: This is how the program content used to get from the mixing studio to the cutting room (or the cassette or 8-track manufacturing plant). These days, copies of original program content are routinely transported from studio to studio by some digital format, either D-tape of some format or by CD-R. These sources are then used to feed the record cutting amplifier or converted into the appropriate mastering medium for cassette tape or whatever else is being manufactured.
I have to keep reminding myself that you whippersnappers who grew up with CDs and iPods can't imagine a world without digital. Digital audio only came on the professional audio scene about 1978 or so. CDs hit the USA market in 1983. Prior to the late 70s, there WAS NO DIGITAL AUDIO. There was no internet, and there were no personal computers. No communications satellites for routine commercial use, and no audio on your TV cable system. Audio was analog. Period. And if you wanted to transport it in a high quality way (i.e., not by telephone lines or by radio), you had to make copies of it onto analog formats, usually 1/4 inch analog magnetic tape running at 15ips. This was the inter-studio standard format. And when you made copies, you introduced degradation into the sound - it's a physical fact of analog life and is unavoidable. So you tried to work with a copy that was as close to the original 2-channel stereo mix as you could get. That didn't always happen. Some of the stuff that got put on record and cassette came from 4th or 5th generation analog copies (particularly recuts and re-releases and re-compilations of hits, etc.) The resultant sound is murky, muddy, noisy, and fuzzy due to the multi-generations of analog copies. So maybe you can imagine the sheer delight of studio engineers when digital audio first hit the scene. Among other things, such as not having to worry about distortion at high levels (distortion actually goes DOWN as level goes up with digital audio - until you hit the wall and clip the signal), you could make COPIES. As many generations as you want. All PERFECT. Each one absolutely identical to all the others. Yes, Virginia, it's true. Analog weenies always want to poo-poo digital audio (I'm NOT one of them), but the fact remains that one of its greatest attributes is that ANY proper copy is IDENTICAL down to the last binary number to any other one - that's what redundancy coding and error-correcting algorithms are all about.
Yep, you can count me among the digital audio converts. I know chapter and verse about analog audio, I've designed plenty of analog audio products and circuits, I've cut analog records with professional equipment, and I know all the things that can go wrong with analog. And they routinely do go wrong. Analog records should not be considered a "premium product" by any technical means imaginable. They're noisy, they distort, and they wear out. Proper digital audio (by which I mean at least 16-bit linear PCM coding such as is used on CDs) is superior in every way to analog audio. It's higher fidelity, it's less distorted, it's less noisy, and it's WAY more robust with use - a CD doesn't wear out by playing it. I like analog records and I own tons of them, but I'm not laboring under any delusions that they are better than CDs.
The question about what happens to the analog magnetic tape that you send to the cutter is simple to answer: This is how the program content used to get from the mixing studio to the cutting room (or the cassette or 8-track manufacturing plant). These days, copies of original program content are routinely transported from studio to studio by some digital format, either D-tape of some format or by CD-R. These sources are then used to feed the record cutting amplifier or converted into the appropriate mastering medium for cassette tape or whatever else is being manufactured.
I have to keep reminding myself that you whippersnappers who grew up with CDs and iPods can't imagine a world without digital. Digital audio only came on the professional audio scene about 1978 or so. CDs hit the USA market in 1983. Prior to the late 70s, there WAS NO DIGITAL AUDIO. There was no internet, and there were no personal computers. No communications satellites for routine commercial use, and no audio on your TV cable system. Audio was analog. Period. And if you wanted to transport it in a high quality way (i.e., not by telephone lines or by radio), you had to make copies of it onto analog formats, usually 1/4 inch analog magnetic tape running at 15ips. This was the inter-studio standard format. And when you made copies, you introduced degradation into the sound - it's a physical fact of analog life and is unavoidable. So you tried to work with a copy that was as close to the original 2-channel stereo mix as you could get. That didn't always happen. Some of the stuff that got put on record and cassette came from 4th or 5th generation analog copies (particularly recuts and re-releases and re-compilations of hits, etc.) The resultant sound is murky, muddy, noisy, and fuzzy due to the multi-generations of analog copies. So maybe you can imagine the sheer delight of studio engineers when digital audio first hit the scene. Among other things, such as not having to worry about distortion at high levels (distortion actually goes DOWN as level goes up with digital audio - until you hit the wall and clip the signal), you could make COPIES. As many generations as you want. All PERFECT. Each one absolutely identical to all the others. Yes, Virginia, it's true. Analog weenies always want to poo-poo digital audio (I'm NOT one of them), but the fact remains that one of its greatest attributes is that ANY proper copy is IDENTICAL down to the last binary number to any other one - that's what redundancy coding and error-correcting algorithms are all about.
Yep, you can count me among the digital audio converts. I know chapter and verse about analog audio, I've designed plenty of analog audio products and circuits, I've cut analog records with professional equipment, and I know all the things that can go wrong with analog. And they routinely do go wrong. Analog records should not be considered a "premium product" by any technical means imaginable. They're noisy, they distort, and they wear out. Proper digital audio (by which I mean at least 16-bit linear PCM coding such as is used on CDs) is superior in every way to analog audio. It's higher fidelity, it's less distorted, it's less noisy, and it's WAY more robust with use - a CD doesn't wear out by playing it. I like analog records and I own tons of them, but I'm not laboring under any delusions that they are better than CDs.
Collecting moss, phonos, and radios in the mountains of WNC
-
Dr. Groove
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:25 pm
I've never been to a record factory and they looked hairy--too much for me to invest in but it doesn't hurt to ask. I'd still like to get a lathe though. That I have room for and I'm certain I could get a good one at an affordable price. I'm not rich but I am certainly not struggling to make ends meet (not yet anyway). I have plenty of surplus funds. Buying a lathe wouldn't even come close to busting me. But I don't know how to use one and I don't know anyone who has one. The idea of dropping 2 or 3 grand or however much a decent one costs and not know how to use it makes me squeamish. I don't like that feeling.
As far as being a young whipper snapper who grew up with digital, nothing is further from the truth. I've been out of the Navy for 20 years and I didn't even join until I was in my early-to-mid 20s. I grew up with records. I have an enormous collection of vinyl that I started putting together when I was 14 and making money as a paperboy. I have vinyl albums most people have never heard of. You name it, I got it.
I didn't own a CD until '93. I was working as a recording engineer doing digital recordings for clients and didn't own a CD myself. I was trained to record in analog and had to get trained to record in digital. And, yes, I consider digital recording FAR superior to analog. It's not even a contest. I love everything about it. The greatest thing was that I could put out my own product from start to finish. In the past, you couldn't put out your own product. To make a decent sounding record, you HAD to go into a pro studio and record on the 24-track tape. I mean, you could record straight to a 2-track stereo but you had no individual control over each instrument or voice in the end. You had to get it exactly right and you could never change anything although the recording would be crystal clear--at least as far as analog allows. Some jazz groups and orchestras did that to get clean recordings but they also had to work with engineers who knew exactly what the hell they were doing.
But most people multi-track. I always liked to mike each drum and cymbal and then mix them down stereo to the 2-tracker. I like to record both guitar and bass direct and through an amp and then mix the signals into one track. Most everyone seemed to take bass in direct only but I did it the same as guitar. Then you could do things with that clean direct signal and could change it up practically anyway you wanted to. Then if you had excess tracks--say several different lead solos to choose from--a 24-tracker enabled you to mix them down to one without bouncing. You could also keygating to get a not-so-good bass player, for example, to sound better than he really is.
As you say, bouncing analog tracks kills the audio clarity. Virtually everything on a mixing console was geared to getting the signal as high above the noise floor as possible. The higher the better. Digital has no noise and so its controls don't get used up trying to overcome the noise floor and so you have MUCH more subtle control over the signal. And you can bounce tracks all you want and never lose the clarity. It's all just 1s and 0s.
I do not consider records superior to CD. I am quite angry that CDs seem to be losing popularity as I have invested quite heavily in them and I see nothing wrong with them at all. I think digital music is FAR clearer. But I also have to roll with the punches. There's a contingent that wants vinyl and I currently cannot give it to them. I don't like it but I can't do anything about it but make the adjustment. It's all a matter how much I actually can adjust which is admittedly not much.
As far as being a young whipper snapper who grew up with digital, nothing is further from the truth. I've been out of the Navy for 20 years and I didn't even join until I was in my early-to-mid 20s. I grew up with records. I have an enormous collection of vinyl that I started putting together when I was 14 and making money as a paperboy. I have vinyl albums most people have never heard of. You name it, I got it.
I didn't own a CD until '93. I was working as a recording engineer doing digital recordings for clients and didn't own a CD myself. I was trained to record in analog and had to get trained to record in digital. And, yes, I consider digital recording FAR superior to analog. It's not even a contest. I love everything about it. The greatest thing was that I could put out my own product from start to finish. In the past, you couldn't put out your own product. To make a decent sounding record, you HAD to go into a pro studio and record on the 24-track tape. I mean, you could record straight to a 2-track stereo but you had no individual control over each instrument or voice in the end. You had to get it exactly right and you could never change anything although the recording would be crystal clear--at least as far as analog allows. Some jazz groups and orchestras did that to get clean recordings but they also had to work with engineers who knew exactly what the hell they were doing.
But most people multi-track. I always liked to mike each drum and cymbal and then mix them down stereo to the 2-tracker. I like to record both guitar and bass direct and through an amp and then mix the signals into one track. Most everyone seemed to take bass in direct only but I did it the same as guitar. Then you could do things with that clean direct signal and could change it up practically anyway you wanted to. Then if you had excess tracks--say several different lead solos to choose from--a 24-tracker enabled you to mix them down to one without bouncing. You could also keygating to get a not-so-good bass player, for example, to sound better than he really is.
As you say, bouncing analog tracks kills the audio clarity. Virtually everything on a mixing console was geared to getting the signal as high above the noise floor as possible. The higher the better. Digital has no noise and so its controls don't get used up trying to overcome the noise floor and so you have MUCH more subtle control over the signal. And you can bounce tracks all you want and never lose the clarity. It's all just 1s and 0s.
I do not consider records superior to CD. I am quite angry that CDs seem to be losing popularity as I have invested quite heavily in them and I see nothing wrong with them at all. I think digital music is FAR clearer. But I also have to roll with the punches. There's a contingent that wants vinyl and I currently cannot give it to them. I don't like it but I can't do anything about it but make the adjustment. It's all a matter how much I actually can adjust which is admittedly not much.
"A dog don't want a bone. That's why he buries it." --James Brown
I believe that almost all of us here know the advantages of a vinyl reference on a CD of reference, the power of analysis of the sound of a vinyl is superior to that of a cd, this is so. The CD sounds more clean? correct, but that cleaning is not natural.
I also think that all of us here stand the sound of vinyl, is not it? this very well express our views, but say that as things within this forum I smell a bit strange, without wishing to offend anyone
And ask forgiveness for my English if at any time not express myself in the best way
I also think that all of us here stand the sound of vinyl, is not it? this very well express our views, but say that as things within this forum I smell a bit strange, without wishing to offend anyone
And ask forgiveness for my English if at any time not express myself in the best way
Marcos
-
cuttercollector
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:49 pm
- Location: San Jose, CA
May I attempt a translation?
I think what you are trying to say is that we love vinyl here.
We are aware of it's technical limitations, yet it provides a sound we feel is superior in some ways that can't be measured to the sound of digital at least as far as cds are concerned. Yes the specifications are better for digital and there is no generational loss, but we like the sound of vinyl.
To say we should move on because of the superior technical specifications of digital or because there might be more money to be made there is to miss the point of this entire forum.
Besides, it's FUN !
I think what you are trying to say is that we love vinyl here.
We are aware of it's technical limitations, yet it provides a sound we feel is superior in some ways that can't be measured to the sound of digital at least as far as cds are concerned. Yes the specifications are better for digital and there is no generational loss, but we like the sound of vinyl.
To say we should move on because of the superior technical specifications of digital or because there might be more money to be made there is to miss the point of this entire forum.
Besides, it's FUN !
-
Aussie0zborn
- Posts: 1868
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:23 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact: