Digital vs Analog Masters

Topics regarding professional record cutting.

Moderators: piaptk, tragwag, Steve E., Aussie0zborn

User avatar
boogievan
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:43 am
Location: Dutchess County, NY

Re: Digital vs Analog Masters

Post: # 48241Unread post boogievan
Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:07 am

diamone wrote:Some of that is because the lacquer master is a living organic substance where the metal mother and stampers are not.

There are people that insist that acetate tape preserves the warmth of the recording better than polyester because of the same reason (organic acetate vs chemical petroleum).

Solution(s)
1. DMM where EVERYTHING is inorganic so there's nothing to miss and
2. cutting at 33 for 45 playback to eliminate a lot of the shrill harshness of DMM while at the same time minimizing the bass contour effect you get as a side effect from half speed mastering.
Dear interwebs interlocutor, to preclude conflation, allow me to add that I didn't wish to suggest that the softness of the lacquer makes the sound warmer than the metal. Rather, somehow, in spite of the high craft, the master lacquer groove's virginal modulation is not fully captured by electroforming the stamper, which, in spite of its stiffness, will sound a little duller than the master lacquer's first playback, so, the vinyl pressings, also, will sound a little duller than the master lacquer's initial playback - and, therefore, won't sound as good as the reference did (at least on its initial playback) - and, therefore, won't sound as good as an 'acetate' will (on its sole playback [see below]). Therefore, bespoke 'acetates' are what should be sold. (They needn't be cut until there's an order from the online store.)

Indeed, the lacquer master is so soft that it can't be played even once and then be replayed with the same transient detail (and, therefore, audiophile excitement). It might be close, but, you will find that the jaw drops a little less in awe at each subsequent reproduction of the dub. Alas, a single pass by even a 1-gram stereohedron pickup stylus will sand off an audible amount of detail, provided the acoustics and monitoring are very good and one's in a 'critical listening' mood. The sound of a well-grown mother is similar to the sound of a 'previously-enjoyed' lacquer... ...and, incidentally, the sound of a very clean lab's MDC-grown mother (i.e., lacquer with a somewhat dull 'air band' memory) is the sound of another lab's Transco-grown mother (i.e., should have been noticeably clearer...).

In spite of the elastic memory of lacquer and the plastic memory of nickel, the nickel mother will always be slightly duller-sounding than the virgin lacquer... To test, the mother can be played back and simultaneously captured to a .wav file and the 'shot'-and-'pulled' lacquer (that was virginal when it was used to grow the father) can be played back (for the first time - after metal processing) and captured simultaneously to a .wav file in order to see what audible differences exist between the mother's groove and the 'grandmother's' grove - as .wav files.

Our tests show that some labs make a closer electroform of the mandrel than others, but none fully captures the micro-dynamics of the virgin lacquer groove. It's impressive that nickel records fail to match the clarity of the original groove sound, since they're stiffer than lacquer and also their grooves' similarities to the lacquer masters' grooves, as observed under a microscope, show that very, very much of the modulation is identical. But ears are much finer resolvers of minutia than are eyes. For example, the once-around whooshes that are caused by a father's silver grooves having been torn during separation from the master lacquer often leave no visible artifact, even at 150x magnification. But it's quite audible. One might well need a scanning electron microscope in order to see what we can hear played back from a groove.

So, the way to get the best sound from a gramophone record is to abandon pressing vinyls and simply have bespoke acetates cut for each customer.

He's only going to play it once, in most cases, and then admire the artwork of the jacket - let's be honest. If he plays it several times, he may wish to purchase a replacement copy. This bolsters the cutting industry (through repeat business) while improving the sound for the customer. Rather hard cheese on the labs and plants, but they are the ones making the records sound low fi, and a minimum run of shipped pressings costs more than most delivered dubplates. So, what are we gaining by making scads of inferior copies, when so few people even own a record player?

As for DMM, there's limited excursion compared to lacquer mastering, so the bass potentially suffers. Great for most Classical and spoken word, however. D&B, Dub, House, Reggae, Rock, and Blues... ...not so much. If stampers and vinyls are made from the DMM and it isn't sold as an 'acetate,' they'd also be losing what already could have been achieved with a bespoke 'acetate' (which contains no acetate, of course).

Vive Apollo!

- Tim E.

User avatar
diamone
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: Digital vs Analog Masters

Post: # 48243Unread post diamone
Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:50 am

Solution: ELPJ contactless laser turntables.
Acetates/refs can be played any number of times without anything being shaved off.

They used to make 200uM DMMs for drum & bass etc dunno if they make em anymore - but if you DO that then you have to have short sides due to the nature of the beast - which countermands the original intent of long sides for DMM.

I could see where a producer might be doing a takeoff on what they used to do in the Music for Nations series in the 80s and having one or two songs on a side and split the difference and do a deep-cut DMM 33-for-45 playback box set.

And deep-cut DMMs DO exist at least they did in the 80's. Look at the German import for Chess (concept album) and the 25th Anniversary German DMM of Jesus Christ Superstar to get an idea.
2 Kinds of Men/Records: Low Noise & Wide Range. LN is mod. fidelity, cheap, & easy. WR is High Fidelity & Abrasive to its' Environment. Remember that when you encounter a Grumpy Engineer. (:-D)

User avatar
boogievan
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:43 am
Location: Dutchess County, NY

Re: Digital vs Analog Masters

Post: # 48257Unread post boogievan
Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:12 am

61 wrote:Solution: ELPJ contactless laser turntables...
I contacted Chiba-sensei to see if he could make a laser player that can accommodate a 14" master. ' いいえ ' was his reply. But how great would it to be able to play the master lacquer before it's processed and not lose any of the sound because it's only being scanned by lasers? I don't expect my customers to spend 15k USD on a player, though. Just order more acetates.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61 wrote:They used to make 200uM DMMs for drum & bass...

The British-developed DDS 822 cutting head by TAM (resembling the green Ortofon, DSS 821), and, possibly, the CH-90 by JVC, can make 200 µm lateral excursions in lacquer. The Ortofon (Danish) originals only had 150 µm peak lateral excursion tolerance before the mechanical stopper that, if touched, could cause damage, when the amp power thereupon surges, due to this removal of the negative feedback. But the frequency and phase response allows conservative level modulation to have a full sound.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a DMM spec I found online:

"Performance data for playback of DMM masters, measured by Teldec, using a Shure V15 Type V pickup.

Frequency Response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz, ± 1 dB


Here's an Ortofon lacquer cutting head response that I found online:

"With 10 dB MFB, the DSS 821 has a response of 10 Hz - 24 kHz +0/-1 dB." Although the lacquer has a butterizing effect, it's actually merciful. But it needs to be crystallized, thereafter.


- Tim E.

User avatar
diamone
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: Digital vs Analog Masters

Post: # 48267Unread post diamone
Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:02 pm

boogievan wrote:I contacted Chiba-sensei to see if he could make a laser player that can accommodate a 14" master. ' いいえ ' was his reply.
You're talking to the wrong people then. They made a whole run of `em for the LOC Culpeper enough to spin 17-1/4 inch blanks and go within a half an inch to the center hole AND be capapble of reverse-direction AND inside out play as well.

So they exist.

If the idiots at the mfg company can't help you - contact the engineers at LOC Culpeper and find out who THEIR contacts are.
boogievan wrote:...clone of a green Ortofon, or, the JVC, can make 200 µM lateral excursions in lacquer.
We're talking mostly about the JVCs bec I got the test pressings from the same team that was involved with the last gasp of CD-4 - just like the DMM and the 33-for-45 people all of which were cross-pollinating on each other - who also designed those cutting heads you mention.

Which is exactly why they kept on developing the ortofon DMM head for. So they could do 3/4 speed mastering instead of half speed mastering to get rid of the bass contour effect and still preserve the headroom AND still have enough room for the CD-4 tone without blowing up the head as you would trying to cut it real-time - necessitating the HSM for CD-4 in the first place.

As we all know it never happened like that for CD-4 - but there are still a handful of standard stereo LACQUER mastered test pressings that are 33 for 45 and that blow their HSM counterparts out of the water handily.

But we're also talking about a 200uM DEEP cut (vertical modulation) because normal DMM depth is around 50-70 whereas a normal lacquer could be +/- 100 even up to 120 or 130 for the loudest e.g. Grampian 7-inch 45 RPM cuts of the late 60s - even tho being mono there'd only be a single depth instead of varying like on a stereo disc.

But you look at some of these 180G test discs from the late 70s and early 80s and you see >150 µM lateral modulation and you also see >150µM DEPTH as well.

So it CAN be done.
boogievan wrote:SX-84 vs an Ortofon
Which is why that same team that developed the JVC and who was borrowing out of the original CED videodisc that used the DMM in the first place, was also borrowing from research done in 1978-79 at Ortofon trying to get in the last gasp of CD-4 a year and a half after it was officially declared dead anyplace else but Japan.

Ortofon wanted the 10Hz to 25KHz (actually 35 in spec but easily testing out to 40 in real time on a Stanton 780DQ) to see if they could relaunch CD-4 or save it from an untimely death - and built - some sources say six other sources say nine - prototype cutterheads that could do both DMM as well as give the frequency range of the Ortofon.

Originally of course these were built so the half speed mastered guys didn't get the bass contour effect they would normally get while still preserving the headroom necessary for CD-4.

But when CD-4 was declared dead even in Japan in the summer of `79 - they kept on w their designs bec they wanted to sell `em to e.g. Mobile Fidelity or Nautilus or etc - who in addition to the HSM crowd were also trying to attract the avant-garde DtD 45 RPM audiophile crowd on LACQUER because until 1982 DMM for audio hadn't really been perfected yet.

Nobody knows where the six - or nine - ortofon DMM heads ended up - or where the research can be found anymore - but it would sure be interesting to find one and or the diagrams and engineering notes for it and see whether or not any of it can be improved upon today.
2 Kinds of Men/Records: Low Noise & Wide Range. LN is mod. fidelity, cheap, & easy. WR is High Fidelity & Abrasive to its' Environment. Remember that when you encounter a Grumpy Engineer. (:-D)

User avatar
boogievan
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:43 am
Location: Dutchess County, NY

Re: Digital vs Analog Masters

Post: # 48288Unread post boogievan
Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:53 pm

61 wrote:If the idiots at the mfg company can't help you - contact the engineers at LOC Culpeper and find out who THEIR contacts are.
Chiba-sensei is an honorable and wise businessman. He knows that manufacturers don't really need a touchless player. since we can play the mother. Therefore, he doesn't waste his resources on a product for a few 14" (or larger) players, when there are already so few who can afford his 12" players. Also, at least one lab I know has the means to play the stamper, itself, with a double-stylus (which simulates a bi-furcated one) capable of straddling the negative groove's ridge and with the platter spinning CCW and with a reverse-orientated cartridge offset angle.


Also, I wonder about the lasers' ability fully to simulate physical stylus tracking errors. That might require the inertia(s) and compliance(s) of the physical cartridge.
61 wrote:But we're also talking about a 200uM DEEP cut...
Are you sure you don't mean 200µm WIDTH of groove? 200 µm = ~ 7,9 mils. That would be 15,8 mils wide if 7,9 mils DEEP. Even Len only cuts about 10 mils wide. So, I cetainly hope no one is ruining their stylus at that idiotic depth you cite. 0;


Furthermore, the DMM and CD cuts are not ideal because the medium has an extremely plastic memory, so one doesn't benefit from the subtle, and often, merciful, smoother-izing of the engraved (and impressed) modulation that's automagic with the elastic lacquer memory. Dial in the best sound, albeit, with treble-swayed psychoacoustics, due to having had to listen to the master for a period of (ear-sensitizing) time while setting the settings. Then, behold the filigree and lace of the test cut groove as it even improves on the good sound of the lacquer-cutting console's program channel with its added heft and attenuated brightness.

CDs usually sound a bit shrill compared to vinyl and tape, regardless of the ME, so, that indicates that we all need some mercy applied to our best efforts in order to achieve the best sounding records. Therefore, we don't want DMM pressings. We just want high-quality (bespoke) acetates... ...with LP-quality jackets and labels, of course.


- Tim E.

User avatar
Dub Bull
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:53 pm

Re: Digital vs Analog Masters

Post: # 48292Unread post Dub Bull
Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:22 am

I like the sound of acetates, too. But we need pressings as long as each copy costs less than a lacquer (blank), not to mention the added fee for the bespoke cuts. A pressing isn't portraying itself to be a clone of the master cut, anyway. It's its own thing. (About 10x more durable, too, of course, who's asking for the record to sound durable first, and good, second? 0;) It's true that something gets lost in every analog transfer. That's why it's called, 'mastering.'

Then again, $7k for a 7" seems a bit steep: https://www.amazon.com/Had-Enuff-Vinyl-Aynzli-Jones/dp/B0011U8NP2/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1509527731&sr=1-2

Have mercyage,

Father José

User avatar
Dub Bull
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:53 pm

Re: Digital vs Analog Masters

Post: # 48293Unread post Dub Bull
Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:44 am

I noticed that GZ Media give some of the specs of their self-produced copper-plated blanks on their website.

"...The first step in DMM technology is the production of the copper plate. In a galvanic bath, we plate a flat, non-magnetic steel polished disc with a 100 micron thick layer of high purity copper....

So, GZ won't likely be cutting even 200 µm wide, with those, since that would leave 0 margin below the 100 µm depth associated with that - provided the diamond has the effective 90-degree chisel.
Image
(photo, courtesy of Deep Grooves Shop - nice products, Todd!)

BY rolling one's own, s/he can make the blanks have the thickness s/he wants. So, conceivably, like heavy g pressings, heavy [Cu] blanks could be plated for cuts with basic depths that are heavily increased compared to normal. But the basic depth won't make the bass sound fuller, other than how it makes the treble sound softer, since there's more material to push away.

If you cut a lacquer groove with a basic depth of, say, 2,5 mils, for silence, and then use the same settings to cut a new groove of the same program at only 2,0 mils basic depth, the effective eq changes. The detail of the treble energy is slightly more noticeable... so, when you crank it up, you might crank it less, due to the better treble (e.g., DMM or 1/2-speed lacquer) and then not end up hearing increased bass as one might with a cut made with increased basic depth in lacquer or metal (and cut at full speed), which has a smoother top end, so, less ear-fatigue at higher playback levels.

If anyone is cutting into Apollos at even 10 mils wide, I hope they're using a 110-degree chisel so that the depth will be less than half the width. The lacquer is just a coating - the effective part of the chisels are long enough to scratch into the substrate. So, when someone says a big-sounding depth, they must mean the width, probably because it's much easier to measure in the mic than the depth would be, though, knowing the angle of the stylus tip edges, one can identify the depth from the width - but it would be 'x 0,5,' as on the 'Pitch xx' meters... However, Mr. Davies is specific about the difference and always says 'across the top,' so one knows what he means.


- Father José

User avatar
diamone
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: Digital vs Analog Masters

Post: # 48294Unread post diamone
Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:32 am

boogievan wrote:Are you sure you don't mean 200µm WIDTH of groove? Even Len only cuts about 10 mils wide.
Could be. Math has never been my strong suit.

It's been almost 30 years since Len helped me pass my Physics combination essay/supporting calculations final in college using all the record cutting and SQ/CD-4 quadraphonic math. Lucky the professor was a record spec fan as well as an engineer so...(shrug).

I DO know from a field trip to Marcussen's DMM lab once that he told me that for a couple of years in the mid `80s they were making extra-thick copper coatings on the substrates so they could do club singles without having it jump out of the groove because the DMM grooves were supposed to be so shallow compared to a normal LP. I have a few. They look shallow. Some of em skip in the bass parts unless they are 45.

I thought Len was telling me back then that excessively hot pop/rock singles of the late 60s were like half over again a NORMAL groove depth for say the LPs of the period nevermind DMM. I thought Marcussen told me the DMM spec for depth was 50-60 deep - which would make a regular LP maybe 90-100 and the hot i.e. Grampian 45s maybe 110 or so on a 150 lacquer coating.

Len would show 45's like the Stones or the DC5 that were indeed excessively deep compared to their mono LP counterparts - and excessively deep compared to a modern 45 of the 90s - so no I dunno exactly - just repeating what I thought Len and Steve told me from my final nearly 30 yrs ago.
GZ Media wrote:Self-produced copper-plated blanks `100 micron thick layer of high purity copper....
So maybe it's true - with an avg coating of 100 maybe the avg depth is 50-60 to allow for margins.
boogievan wrote:Furthermore, the DMM and CD cuts are not ideal because the medium has an extremely plastic memory, so one doesn't benefit from the subtle, and often, merciful, smoother-izing of the engraved (and impressed) modulation that's automagic with the elastic lacquer memory.
Isn't that supposed to be a double-edged sword though? Like yes you don't get the warmth on a DMM that you get on a lacquer - but then again you're supposed to get better highs and a fuller body on DMM - but you have to trade off a slightly more brittle and harsh sound because of it.
Dub Bull wrote:But the basic depth won't make the bass sound fuller, other than how it makes the treble sound softer, since there's more material to push away.
And then there's other people that said since DMM and the first digital CDs came out pretty much around the same time - that people were originally just using their mastered-for-lacquer production tapes to cut both CDs and DMM with - and hoping for the best - and then later people learned how to remaster specifically for the format.

Maybe the extra-thick DMM coating experiments were one of the things they tried to mitigate that.

There's one article that says that was a good thing because whatever they learned having to remaster for DMM so it didn't sound harsh and brittle - worked equally well for remastering to digital CD.

And then I read somewhere else that since L Ron Hubbard was doing DMM for his speeches and some of his musical renderings - that really DMM was only suited real well to the 16 RPM they used for those recordings.

I never heard a 16 RPM L Ron Hubbard pressing made from a DMM so I cdnt tell you from personal experience how it is - but in a corollary I know EE reel tape that came out right around the same period was only good for speeds 3-3/4 or lower for pretty much the same reason - even if you used the EE EQ settings if you recorded at 7-1/2 off any normal source (or live) - it would have the same harsh and brittle sound that disappeared once you went back to 3-3/4 or even 1-7/8.

Being 3-3/4 and later 1-7/8 were native reel speeds for background music systems in their last gasp of analog formats - music producers for the format were buying up all kinds of ``leftover'' and ``distressed mdse'' EE tape - that got given away to kids like us once they were done with the format a couple of years later - so I could see where somebody would say in an article DMM would be best for doing double-albums at 16 RPM.

If it's true in real life or not who knows.
2 Kinds of Men/Records: Low Noise & Wide Range. LN is mod. fidelity, cheap, & easy. WR is High Fidelity & Abrasive to its' Environment. Remember that when you encounter a Grumpy Engineer. (:-D)

User avatar
TL7
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:53 pm

Vinyl = Analogue?

Post: # 48714Unread post TL7
Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:49 am

Isn't a vinyl always analogue?
It should be possible to store video on vinyl too, or to be treated like a datasette. But to avoid data loss, data density needs to be sacrificed. Error correction code should also be added.

User avatar
diamone
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: Digital vs Analog Masters

Post: # 48716Unread post diamone
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:33 am

TL7 wrote:store video on vinyl too, or to be treated like a datasette.
Been there. Done that.

There is Nothing Wrong With Your Phonograph Set
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he_1HKmEkHs
Type of Picture Quality (Unrelated Audio)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3CFkK5OORw
Format Explanation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2mb4R9W9TI

In Glorious Technicolor, Breathtaking Cinemascope and Stereophonic Sound even.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibByF9XPAPg

RCA CED videodisc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7SS1ah486o
Disc Repurposed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPSj0uwyli0
More Info
https://www.cnet.com/news/rcas-video-lp-format-doomed-from-the-start

and for those of you who get aggravated with the terrible quality of listening to music or watching videos on your cell phones - just remember - the people before you could only Set Around in the Bathtub a-waitin' on them Television Phones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_sg4YLiHxs
2 Kinds of Men/Records: Low Noise & Wide Range. LN is mod. fidelity, cheap, & easy. WR is High Fidelity & Abrasive to its' Environment. Remember that when you encounter a Grumpy Engineer. (:-D)

Post Reply