It was not telling the truth when compared to the master tape or the acetate record. just like analog but the TONALITY was a bit off. The resolution was fine and we could hear the notes decay, etc. More not-like the sound of the actual master tape. Result? The DSD/SACD version sounded even MORE different than the compact disc digital playback compared to the analog master. So, using the same master tape of WALTZ FOR DEBBY, we compared the before mentioned acetate that we cut on the AcousTech lathe (manufactured in 1967 and modded by Kevin Gray) with a DSD playback of the same tape with the same mastering and levels. SECOND COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DSD MASTER (SACD MASTER). A remarkable thing since records have been basically made the same way for over 100 years. but the sound of the music remains intact for the most part. Please note that an actual record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. The record however, gave back exactly what we put in to it. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). Non unpleasant, just not like the actual master tape. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated due to a loss of resolution. The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. The acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in so many pictures posted here of AcousTech). This was of course playing back the tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. We honestly couldn't tell one from the other during playback. The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the practically the same. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels. We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with the same moves. Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record). We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison. A similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.įIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS PCM CAPTURE. Note that we cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. Also did the same test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. There could be a (gasp) typo or two.Ī few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual historic analog master tape to the playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own with a tiny monitor and no spell check. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this thread. Since I spilled the beans to an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted about this subject. Nothing that I discovered below changed that one bit. First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs I have a bunch of all three formats.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |