I'd run with them and take the next step. I think the 1/2 speed mastering of the whole thing is something to discuss like how is the equalization handled.
Mix and match of track cutting speed is probably going to be problematic.
EDIT - checking around there are the obvious EQ issues and at least one major released a series of 1/2 speed mastered LP's and got it wrong.
Mix and match of track cutting speed is probably going to be problematic.
EDIT - checking around there are the obvious EQ issues and at least one major released a series of 1/2 speed mastered LP's and got it wrong.
Last edited:
Looking at the current track list, these are suggested corrections to levels needed to stay inside the envelope of normal mastering cuttability and playback. If you fix these levels, it becomes a normal record and no-one should object.
As to centring, suggest ask for best efforts on the day and hope. Hold back 100 off to be made without a centre hole, for DIY or machine house centring.
Just my 2p worth. HTH
LD
Test 9,10,11 level -20dB ref 5cm/s and on outer track
Test 12 -3dB level
Test 13 - Constant velocity RIAA off amplitude -6dB rise time 100uS
Test 14 -12dB level.
Test 18 - 0dB level
Test 28,30 10dB level
Test 12 -3dB level
Test 13 - Constant velocity RIAA off amplitude -6dB rise time 100uS
Test 14 -12dB level.
Test 18 - 0dB level
Test 28,30 10dB level
As to centring, suggest ask for best efforts on the day and hope. Hold back 100 off to be made without a centre hole, for DIY or machine house centring.
Just my 2p worth. HTH
LD
Handle it in the source files.
Master at 1/2 speed throughout.
One can see how that might happen, but with the calibre of minds here that would be seriously embarrassing !
LD
Sorry for delay. My last post was a bit back, was going to give you some results of my communication:
I got a mastering house who says they can do it to our specs and are interested. I got their information from those who were working at The Mastering Lab with Doug Sax. They sent a quote for the master and it seems reasonable from my experience. They say they are game. Of course, we'd have to get them to agree to our specification and establish what that is, specifically, in writing. I send them the google drive folders, trackless, etc. but didn't get specific on requirements.
I don't want to say who they are or what their quote was out of respect for their privacy. I will send the response I got to Pano and Scott to review and maybe inquire further so we can lock something in?
Took ~35 emails with various folks but I think this is the most promising?
I got a mastering house who says they can do it to our specs and are interested. I got their information from those who were working at The Mastering Lab with Doug Sax. They sent a quote for the master and it seems reasonable from my experience. They say they are game. Of course, we'd have to get them to agree to our specification and establish what that is, specifically, in writing. I send them the google drive folders, trackless, etc. but didn't get specific on requirements.
I don't want to say who they are or what their quote was out of respect for their privacy. I will send the response I got to Pano and Scott to review and maybe inquire further so we can lock something in?
Took ~35 emails with various folks but I think this is the most promising?
Here is a first attempt at analyzing a frequency sweep track using the Hibert transform to display instantaneous amplitude and frequency to see if this can be useful.
This is the first track on the CBS STR120 recorded at 24/96 and reduced to 16bit recorded with an external flat mic preamp and FET buffer (so the cart saw standard loading). The track is constant velocity from 500 to 50k log sweep at 24sec per decade (48sec) and has a 1k reference tone before and after. On the left is amplitude (some of the big glitches are on the LP via bubbles or warps). The data could only go to 48K (I have no 192k sound card) but there is some aliasing/rolloff above 46k so the last few kHz are noisey/garbage. On the right is frequency. These are both smoothed 96000*60 (one minute time record) transforms. The processing time is essentially invisible.
The axes are dB re:1kHz and Hz with the horizontal in samples 0:5,760,000 on both. Very little manipulation and one could plot this as magnitude vs frequency.
This is the first track on the CBS STR120 recorded at 24/96 and reduced to 16bit recorded with an external flat mic preamp and FET buffer (so the cart saw standard loading). The track is constant velocity from 500 to 50k log sweep at 24sec per decade (48sec) and has a 1k reference tone before and after. On the left is amplitude (some of the big glitches are on the LP via bubbles or warps). The data could only go to 48K (I have no 192k sound card) but there is some aliasing/rolloff above 46k so the last few kHz are noisey/garbage. On the right is frequency. These are both smoothed 96000*60 (one minute time record) transforms. The processing time is essentially invisible.
The axes are dB re:1kHz and Hz with the horizontal in samples 0:5,760,000 on both. Very little manipulation and one could plot this as magnitude vs frequency.
Attachments
This is just a first look (fairly raw), I plan to have a nice dB/logfreq plot with grids. One problem is that these old LP's were generated with instruments that used motors and gears and the stated correspondence of frequency to time is not exact. So I think I can actually correct that and even correct for the TT speed (but that's probably overdoing it).
This is a Grado MI so it is not that loading sensitive, the bump also appears when recording with a normal RIAA setup. If anyone has the ability to post sweeps from other setups I could play with them.
They were able to do sweeps to 50k a long time ago so we should not give up on them.
EDIT/HINT - Kevin I'm back here for now, running this side of the test record on one of your super-duper TT's might be of interest.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if this is relevant to our project or not ... at a minimum, it's interesting from an academic standpoint. It's a patent-applied-for process of pressing higher quality vinyl that works with conventional cartridges, etc.
Check it out:
HD Vinyl - Vinyl Technology, Ultimate Sound, HD Schallplatte | HD Vinyl
I must say that if the claims turn out to be valid, and the costs reasonable, this could be a game-changer for this project. But time will tell. One problem (for us) is the timeline ... actual LPs won't be available until a projected 2019. But I think it's something that should be explored. We have a potential opportunity to be amongst the first test LPs to employ this technology.
Looking forward to comments from the major players in this project.
Check it out:
HD Vinyl - Vinyl Technology, Ultimate Sound, HD Schallplatte | HD Vinyl
I must say that if the claims turn out to be valid, and the costs reasonable, this could be a game-changer for this project. But time will tell. One problem (for us) is the timeline ... actual LPs won't be available until a projected 2019. But I think it's something that should be explored. We have a potential opportunity to be amongst the first test LPs to employ this technology.
Looking forward to comments from the major players in this project.
Last edited:
I very much doubt it. If the laser alone is 600k then the masters will be a lot more than standard lathe cuts. No one has proven if ceramic stampers actually work in a standard press and what their real lifetime is. Clearly they are good at selling sizzle though as have 4.6M in funding to waste chasing the dream.
Nice idea conceptually. Doubt we'll see anything from it.
Nice idea conceptually. Doubt we'll see anything from it.
A very interesting opportunity that could turn this project into a real succes.
Hans
Bill, you are always so positive.
Give this project a change to prove itself, from a technological point of view it sounds promising.
If we could be some sort of pilot with a reduced tarif, it would be a very nice marketing tool for them.
Hans
HD Vinyls :
I had similar thought on removing steps in vinyl cutting. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/299551-vinyl-presses.html#post4895044
-x-x-
HD Vinyl website says they will remove tangential error but have not explained how. Also how would the precise spindle hole be cut ? From the money involved I don't think it will be cheap. How is the recording used to laser cut master is also not explained. If it is digital why not listen to digital direct? Making a test record would be advantageous though.
Regards.
I had similar thought on removing steps in vinyl cutting. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/299551-vinyl-presses.html#post4895044
-x-x-
HD Vinyl website says they will remove tangential error but have not explained how. Also how would the precise spindle hole be cut ? From the money involved I don't think it will be cheap. How is the recording used to laser cut master is also not explained. If it is digital why not listen to digital direct? Making a test record would be advantageous though.
Regards.
Man who sells CDs gets drunk and says 'hey let's cut a record with a laser'. He scribbles out a patent application Espacenet -
Description and waits a few years, then hypes it out to get investment to actually try it out. No actual cutting has been done, so serious research into can it be pressed.
So right now I see lots of PR and no actual R&D. As ever I am always happy to be proven wrong