dmm vs acetate and...levels

[grae.area]

1. i was always into cripsy dynamics and healthy distance between the drum peaks and the RMS
2. i know how dmm was advertised to be the last word in master cutting (no pre-echo, clean cut, blahblah)

but:

100 out of 100 of my faverite records appeared to be electroplated from a lacquer disc.
10 out of 10 of my fave engineers cut into lacquer, and lacquer only.

the DMM's that we receive from "our friendly cutting factory" distort at mid volumes compared to an average record processed from a lacquer.

i have to understand what is at fault:

bad cutting skills vs bad/worn cutting equipement vs poor quality of the dmm disc itself.

im almost certain that my ear does not accept dmm cuts, but.. i need a physical explanation where the distortion of sound comes from.

[flozki]

i did dmm cutting for more than 10 years. and everything i liked on laquer cutiing i did not have on dmm.
i modified mine to cut even deeper but still i did not like.
then i converted bac kto lacquer.

but today there is reason to use dmm and also hope to get nice cuts.

the SAL84 is the end of neumann over engineered madness. basically same as sal74. i cant call it nice sounding.but its the standard.
but with additional 10khz equalizer.and a very questionable tracing simulator like insert to correct the 15 degree angle error.
which works in theory but in real life not the best idea. (using analog delay chips and a opamp massacre at its best). not very good for nice sound.


so if the 10khz EQ is badly adjusted. the tracing simulator off spec you have def. a bad sound.
dynamic vertical limiter..well another piece of queston. it makes cutting easy. but soundwise?hmm.
the magnesium screws to fix the stylus. a lot of them worn out.
the scew need a defined torque to have a good distortion free result. there was a torque tool.
most people dont use it anymore for good reason. off spec and wrong use. a lot of broken screws.
so the torque is set by hand. well i personally have problems to sense absolute torque with my hands.

also there is already the first dmm machine here with a ultracut rack
no ugly electronic angle correction
no ugly bsb
short cables. nice amps..

all that helps to get a nicer sound.

as i am part of the new DMM service we made a few developments and work rounds to bring dmm back to a good performance.
i hope it will be hearable in the near time future.

- new stylus screws in pipeline
- new dmm stylii are much improved. very good quality control that helps
- new spare parts for dmm heads. soon most heads will be back to specs.
-we bring a new torque key to the market. that will great reduce the distortion

also from 3th party there are good dmm blanks out. the hard years are over i think..

today with the bad lacquer stylii galvanic situation dmm can be much better result for a lot of records.
dynamic quiet stuff. where bad galvanics can destroy all the lacquer magic....
so it seems we should give this technology another chance. ..

[grae.area]

that's a good read

solo brushes, shakers, violin, acappellas - that's what (to me) sounds ok cut in dmm, but whenever it gets to punchy bass drum and cripsy basslines, that where dmm fails to me, as if the original ADSR envelope was impossible to transmit on the disc, resulting in "rubbery", slow / boomy sound..

not to mention anything tr 808/909 driven..

[Johanz]

that's a good read

solo brushes, shakers, violin, acappellas - that's what (to me) sounds ok cut in dmm, but whenever it gets to punchy bass drum and cripsy basslines, that where dmm fails to me, as if the original ADSR envelope was impossible to transmit on the disc, resulting in "rubbery", slow / boomy sound..

not to mention anything tr 808/909 driven..

I had records done again on DMM where the 808 low was nearly lost on de lacquer (became like one big thing the other kick, a 909). So the sub of the 808 returned on DMM and was also more defined (as a separate sound, as intended). Just like in the master. It keeps the transients better, more defined mid high/high also. My experience till now is that when I wasn't satisfied with a test pressing on lacquer, and had it done again on DMM, the results were much more close to the master when using DMM. I can see what you can achieve with Lacquer cutting too, bringing out some basslines and stomping kicks and making deep cuts, all good, but it's always a bit more tricky due to the process it has to go through. I'm doing mastering and I always notice the DMM cuts are closer to my masters as the Lacquer cuts. The sounds of Lacquer can be really nice, but I rather do this saturation in lows and softer edged mids and highs myself in mastering, when necessary. The results of a lacquer cut are always a bit more unpredictable IMHO.

Good to hear from Flozki DMM is getting to another level and it would awesome if this technology will be further developed and new and even better machines will be produced in the future. So scientology can take those and I take their 82's . With prices asked these days for second hand 70, 80 and 82's it must be getting more interesting for an investor I would say, but I have no clue about the cost price these days for recreation of machines with the quality of Neumanns'. Maybe Behringer should do a Chinese remake