New JAES paper on tracing distortions

[vladan3101]

The first paper on tracing distortion (due to the curvature of the reproducing stylus being different than on the lathe cutter) in the "Journal of Audio Eng. Soc" in almost 45 years. It is a review paper, so that everybody can download it for free (without a JAES subscription) at https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=22236.

Also, some new results on distortion figures for LPs are presented, showing unbelievably large numbers under many practical conditions. A few possible explanations as to why the LPs don't sound nearly as bad as numerical distortion results suggest are discussed, and a set of controlled subjective tests is proposed to assess the audibility of the phase distortions introduced by tracing (and tracking) errors.

Several techniques to reduce tracing distortion by predistorting the signal before cutting are also discussed (aka "de-skew,” "dynamic correlator,” "tracing simulator", etc.)

[Aussie0zborn]

I look forward to reading that in full. Bear in mind that there is no acetate in a lacquer disc. We generally refer to the cutting stylus as "cutting stylus" rather than a "chisel" and a lacquer disc as a "lacquer disc" rather than "an acetate disc". Again, there is no acetate in anyting we use and no reason for this word to appear in your paper.

[vladan3101]

I look forward to reading that in full. Bear in mind that there is no acetate in a lacquer disc. We generally refer to the cutting stylus as "cutting stylus" rather than a "chisel" and a lacquer disc as a "lacquer disc" rather than "an acetate disc". Again, there is no acetate in anyting we use and no reason for this word to appear in your paper.

You are right that there is no acetate in "acetate disk", per “Wikipedia” since the late 1950s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetate_disc), but at least in my age group (senior citizens), it is still used quite often.

[vladan3101]

It just occurred to me that this might be the first paper in the “Journal of Audio Engineering Society” to reference a document from the “Secret Society of Lathe Trolls” website (reference [57]). A search in the AES library (https://www.aes.org/e-lib/) seems to confirm that this is the case.

[boogievan]

There's acetate in record-pressing vinyl (Polyvinyl acetate) and, according to R. K. Morrison (in Disk Recording 1930-1960), there used to be blank records for amateur use made of 'cellulose acetate'. I've also heard that there's a little ethyl acetate in nitrocellulose lacquer as a solvent for making the target viscosity. fwiw.

When I use the term, 'acetate', it's usually when speaking of a non-oversized lacquer being used as an 'instantaneous record' - but not as an example of a master cut, which I'd normally call a 'ref' (as in, 'reference disk'). 'Dub plate' is another term used for when the 'acetate' is of reggae / dub / jungle / trance / rave etc...

[leemichael]

Yes here in the UK the underground dance music scene commonly called 12” laquers “acetates” as an alternative to Dub Plates!

[Aussie0zborn]

Yes here in the UK the underground dance music scene commonly called 12” laquers “acetates” as an alternative to Dub Plates!

That's a longstanding practise as it is in record collecting circles. One doesn't expect to see it in a professional paper where nomenclature is important.

[Phinster]

Many club dj's called dub plates 'slates'...

[vladan3101]

We all seem to agree with "Wikipedia" that lacquer disks have not been made of acetate since the late 1950s, but as far as I can remember, the term "acetate disk" continued to be used regularly in the industry despite not being correct chemically.

From the mid-70s to maybe late 80s, while I was in contact with people involved in disk production, nobody used the term "lacquer disk." Although it could have been a local thing in hindsight, I was then in Yugoslavia, and "lacquer disk" sounds pretty awkward when translated literally.

JAES did not find this usage unacceptable, either – the paper went through the hands of the Editor, Associate Editor and two reviewers, and nobody complained. Although the first two were from Europe; reviewers are anonymous, but there is a good chance that at least one, if not both, were from Europe too. Is it possible that the terminology difference is regional?

OK, I searched AES-Library to check for professional usage more broadly. Search for "acetate disk" OR "acetate disc" gave 87 hits, the same with "lacquer" gave 164 hits. No chance I will go through all of them, but "acetate" seems to be a valid term there, although "lacquer" is two times more frequent.

Did some search with both keywords also. A direct quote from a 1975 paper on lacquer masters (https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2339): "Lacquer recording masters are popularly known as "acetates". In reality, the main film forming material is not acetate but nitro-cellulose or, even more correctly, cellulose nitrate". (p.2)

A more recent JAES paper (2016), which talks about challenges in the archiving and restoration of old audio recordings (https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18107) on the opening page says: "The lacquer disk, often called an acetate, has multiple parts and potentially a glass base, which leaves it ripe for various breakages." (p.94)

Please chime in if you have any comments on this. I cannot change the terminology in the JAES paper, what is in there now is forever, but I often use "acetate" in my book (https://www.lathetrolls.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10067&sid=300be7018061ada39bcb8a517e429b06). If this terminology is wrong or misleading, I can change the text on amazon.com without formally going through the second edition to revise it.

[boogievan]

Although there are permissible mis-usages of the term, acetate, AussieOsborn is right, and you should change that word in your interesting paper to 'lacquer'. This is because, although 'acetate' is used to refer to lacquer-coated disks when used as instantaneous records - ones which you can play, both, during, and immediately after, cutting - without going to nickel and vinyl - your usage concerns the groove cut into nitrocellulose lacquer when making the stampers used for pressing vinyl records. When mastering - meaning, cutting a record to be used for the creation of vinyl-pressing stampers - we never refer to the oversized blank as an acetate. It's always a 'lacquer' (or 'lacquer disk' (or '...disc')). Plus, it's a scholarly paper in the AES Journal, so, there's no need to talk jive. (; Otherwise, thanks for your research and contribution to the craft, Sir!

servus,
Boogievan

[vladan3101]

you should change that word in your interesting paper to 'lacquer'

Thanks for your comment, boogievan. I understood that AussieOsborn’s rationale was that the “lacquer” should be used because there is no acetate in it, and I documented that the term “acetate disk” was used in the JAES as an alternative for master quite often despite that. But I had no idea about this other usage you brought up. It can cause some confusion indeed.

Unfortunately, there is no way to change anything in the JAES paper once it is printed. For concerns like this, the standard procedure in “scientific” journals will be to submit a “Comment on [name of the paper]” type of paper of your own. The editors and reviewers would look at it, and if they decide it deserves publication, I would have a chance to publish a response, usually on the same issue. It is a practice established long ago when journals were printed on paper only, but for some reason, they are keeping it now when probably only a tiny percentage of readers read paper copies.

I know this because they failed to correct some typos in my paper with the numbering of the Appendices. When I repeatedly asked that “Appendix A.1” be retitled into “Appendix A” as referenced in the main part, at least in the internet version, I received no response.

[vladan3101]

On second thought, I would actually encourage you to submit a “Comment” paper to JAES. I am still not sure that this problem is important enough -- some readers might think we are splitting hairs -- but it could help bring some attention to the paper and show that people still read and care about the vinyl issues.

When you look at the JAES nowadays, it turned more into a Digital Signal Processing than an electroacoustics journal. And when you look at the Editorial Board, I would not be surprised if quite a few members would prefer not to have any papers on vinyl published ever.

If it comes to me responding to the comment, I would say something along the lines of the previous post, like “acetate” was used in the past, but we should use “lacquer” only now.

[boogievan]

I had hoped they'd be willing to edit the .pdf for the benefit of all. One can demo Adobe Acrobat, free, for 7 days, and edit the paper.

Will consider a Comment to the JAES. I'm a member, but not a Fellow, so they might not like the 'bandwidth'.

Fwiw, I still welcome the use of 'acetate', even today, as long as it's the traditional (mis-)usage... This is when referring specifically to 'instantaneous records' (and also when referring to the standard-sized blanks) that can be played during, and immediately after, cutting. To protect the delicate modulations of the groove before spraying, we don't play masters cuts - even though we can play the test cut in the outer radii (beyond the disk diameter of the intended pressings) on over-sized lacquers, and never refer to those blanks as 'acetates'.

servus,
Boogievan

[Dub Studio]

Larry Boden's Basic Disc Mastering from 1981 mentions the word "acetate" over a dozen times, and not when talking about instantaneous discs (see "acetate master disc" on page 4). He also calls it a "master disc" (pg. , "lacquer master" (pg.21), "lacquer acetate disc" (pg. 22).

Ok that's just one book, but I don't think there is a strong enough consensus either way. True, there is no acetate in cellulose nitrate, but there isn't any tree sap in it either so why call it lacquer?

I did read a good explanation of why they are called acetates once, but I can't remember it now. Will see if I can dig it out.

[boogievan]

Yes, he corrected that in the second edition. The same sentence (on p. 1) from 2012 reads: 'The cutting stylus in the tip of the cutterhead etches the tone as a side to side continuous physical translation in the surface of the lacquer master disc...'

As for 'lacquer', Wikipedia's entry reads, "Lacquer is a type of hard and usually shiny coating or finish applied to materials such as wood or metal. (Sounds like an MDC.). Although nitrocellulose lacquer isn't the kind of lacquer used in 'Asian lacquerware'', it's often made from cotton or wood, which are, both, high in cellulose, innit? (smh)

- bøøgie

[Dub Studio]

Correction according to whom? The word lacquer is not an official term, its just a de facto standard used in certain contexts to refer to masters and not dubs.

Interestingly, the spokesperson for Apollo on this forum refers to "dubs" and "masters" and only uses the term lacquer to refer to the coating itself (not the discs), which makes sense given that it's the same coating for both.

Yes, some modern synthetic lacquer coatings do contain cellulose nitrate, but that doesn't mean the name lacquer must therefore be the only correct term, its just a handy metaphor that has come to mean a specific type of disc (namely, a master).

I wouldn't say "I am cutting lacquers all day" if some of the discs I am cutting are dubs and some are masters. I use the word acetate to refer to all cellulose nitrate coated discs (because its easier to say) and I differentiate them into the two subcategories "dubs" and "master (lacquer)" when it is necessary to do so.... because it is often necessary to do so.

I don't know which the OP is referring to, but to my ears "acetate" covers both.

[boogievan]

Correction according to whom?

Larry Boden, of course, authored the second edition of his compendium. It reads correctly now, according to Larry Boden and, logically, to our AussieOzborn who raised the initial point about 'acetate' being an incorrect word for 'master [disk]'... No one can force you to accept that. But I've given you the chance to see that Larry changed what he wrote before, and now his words match what I've been saying in this thread. Uncle Larry's been to my studio on several occasions and never once called an already-cut master an acetate, fwiw.

The word lacquer is not an official term, its just a de facto standard used in certain contexts to refer to masters and not dubs.

Actually, 'lacquer' is the word used by the only manufacturer in the world, today - Public Record.

https://www.pbr.co.jp/master-en

Interestingly, the spokesperson for Apollo on this forum refers to "dubs" and "masters" and only uses the term lacquer to refer to the coating itself (not the discs), which makes sense given that it's the same coating for both.

That's why 'lacquer' can be used for both standard and oversized recording disks.
In fact, Apollo's website still reads thus: "Apollo Masters manufactures the highest quality lacquer record discs.'

https://www.apollomasters.com/

Yes, some modern synthetic lacquer coatings do contain cellulose nitrate, but that doesn't mean the name lacquer must therefore be the only correct term, its just a handy metaphor that has come to mean a specific type of disc (namely, a master).

Please make up your mind because, there, you're confirming what I'm saying! (It's not an acetate if it's a master...) 'Lacquer' is indeed, the term for a master (blank). But it's also a logical term for an effective dub. You can, after all, use a 12" master for cutting a 10" vinyl's master cut, or you can use a 12" master as an LP ref - which is a dub. (In fact, even master cuts are dubs. An analog copy is a dub. A 'master' is merely a special type of dub - one that's to be used for making a stamper master..)

Apollo's use of the term. 'dub', was specific to the type of blank which was not only standard-sized, rather than over-sized, but which was, often, or, perhaps, usually, made from reclaimed substrates that were reflown (with lacquer) and were punched through with a second hole for Presto platters and similar. They could not be used for making stampers, so they were not masters, but they were 'lacquers', yet and still.

Also, the guncotton, itself, isn't why they're called lacquers. Rather, the lacquer which is made from guncotton gives them the name, lacquer. Magician's flash paper isn't lacquer. Cellulose nitrate isn't necessarily lacquer. It's so-called 'nitrocellulose _lacquer_' that is lacquer. Cellulose and nitrate, on their own, or even together, don't a lacquer make. You need to add (...wait for it...) acetone.

From Wikipedia's page on 'Nitrocellulose' : "Guncotton, dissolved at about 25% in acetone, forms a lacquer used in preliminary stages of wood finishing to develop a hard finish with a deep lustre..."

I wouldn't say "I am cutting lacquers all day" if some of the discs I am cutting are dubs and some are masters. I use the word acetate to refer to all cellulose nitrate coated discs (because its easier to say) and I differentiate them into the two subcategories "dubs" and "master (lacquer)" when it is necessary to do so.... because it is often necessary to do so.

Yet you _should_ say you're cutting lacquers all day.
An acetate is an instantaneous record which is OK to play.
A lacquer master cut is only to be sprayed.

I don't know which the OP is referring to, but to my ears "acetate" covers both.

The paper is titled, 'Tracing Distortion on Vinyl LPs'. So, he's referring to cuts in lacquer used for growing the nickel record that is the first step of making a stamper used in pressing a vinyl LP.

- (Dub Bull) bøøgie

[Dub Studio]

I think it’s fine to use the word lacquer for a master, and it seems fairly universal nowadays, but to me that doesn’t mean acetate is wrong and I use it when it makes sense to do so. I have every right to change my mind about what word I use depending on the context, just as Larry has the right to change his.

English is a descriptive (not prescriptive) language, and its semantics are not a rules-based system. Words take their meaning from prior usage (not just chemical properties) and there is no higher authority than that. Editing a book, perhaps for consistency or clarity, does not void the words that have been written in the past.

Everyone on this forum probably knows that cellulose nitrate doesn’t contain acetate, just as coca-cola doesn’t contain cocaine or kola nuts. You are not saying anything new there, but that’s just how the English language works. People use a word enough, it sticks. The word lacquer stuck because its a good analogy, not because it’s “correct”.

Words change meaning over time, and granted, sometimes words do become archaic, but that’s generally after they have fallen out of usage for many years. Even then it’s not wrong to resurrect them if you so desire, and I wouldn’t even say it’s a resurrection in this case - people still use this word. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. The OP told you his peers use the word, leave them to it.

Chisel on the other hand, I am not so sure about, but I can't really argue with the logic.

[vladan3101]

Thanks for all the clarifications. I cannot change the terminology in the JAES paper, but I did it already in the latest version of the book (https://www.amazon.com/Electronics-Rock-Roll-Electrnics-Enabled/dp/B0CR832NVZ).

As I mentioned already, the paper used "acetate" mainly because that was the only term used when I hung out with people involved in disk production (the 70s and 80s), where I then was (Yugoslavia), but documented that in JAES both terms appear to have been used interchangeably (the latest cited example is from 2016). The terminology has since changed. We can debate here if the "lacquer" is the dominant or the only or even a proper name. Looking at Merriam-Webster now, it defines "lacquer" basically as a varnish or coating, see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lacquer, so an argument can probably be made that until the late 1950s, the correct name should have been the "acetate lacquer" and the "nitrocellulose lacquer" since, but it is what it is.

Again, I would encourage all of you to submit a "Comment on…" or even a "Correction to …" type of paper to JAES on this. I personally do not think that it is a big deal and that – if they publish it -- some readers will not feel that we are splitting hairs, but it will undoubtedly show the JAES editors that there are people who read and still care about vinyl. I explained more in an earlier post, but it is becoming a DSP journal that does not seem to want much to do with electro-acoustics anymore. It would be nice to remind them of their roots. And you don't have to be a JAES Fellow or even a JAES member to submit a paper, they have authors who are not in practically each issue.

[boogievan]

The Discogs entry for Audio Devices, Inc. has a relevant blurb:
'Audio Devices made blank acetate discs under the trade name Audiodisc for home-cut recordings (such as the "V-Discs" popular during World War II), as well as lacquer blanks for the professional recording industry.' [Note the change in terminology when speaking about professional use...]

Robert K. Morrison writes (in , Disk Recording 1930 - 1960)
'The term 'acetate' was frequently applied to this group of _instantaneous_ blanks, even among professionals, but it was not an accurate description of their formulation. There were some actual cellulose acetate blanks made for _amateur_ recording..."

As for music industry jive talk, we can say 'plating', but the process is not really electroplating.
We can say 'galvaoplasty', but the process was not invented by Luigi Galvani. (It was a different Luigi - last name: Brugnatelli.)

For scholarly articles, the AES should insist on accurate terminology.

{Fwiw, Coca-Cola used to contain, both, coca leaves and kola nuts, which are how it got its name.}

- Bøøgievan Eps