Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:07:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fpl07e01bi2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):

> "Sonnova" <sonnova@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:fpigha02o8g@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:15:35 -0800,
>> dpierce.cartchunk.org@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote (in article
>> <fpg2g7021ju@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>> 
>>> On Feb 17, 5:41 pm, Sonnova
>>> <sonn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in
>>>> another post, the things over which the mastering
>>>> engineer has direct control are on the mechanical end
>>>> of the process, not on the signal side. And those
>>>> things are unlikely to affect the sound in any way from
>>>> disc to disc or day to day.
>>> 
>>> Well, you might want to, then argue the meaning of
>>> "mastering" with Bob Katz. See, the second edition of
>>> his book "Mastering Audio: The Art and Science" was just
>>> published and maybe 99%
>>> of the book deals with stuff that has nothing to do with
>>> the "mechanical end of the process." Indeed, most of
>>> what he deals with have DIRECT effect on the way the
>>> final disk sounds.
>> 
>> I don't doubt it. But all of those things are done
>> because of the mechanical limitations of the process, not
>> of the source material.
> 
> That's not always the case. Subjective tastes are usually addressed at
the 
> same time. No matter what you have heard, the process is not entirely 
> automated. Yes, some automated equipment may be used, but as a rule the 
> operational parameters of some or all of the equipment are set by ear.
> 
>>> Though you might dispute the point with Mr. Katz, had I
>>> the op****tunity to wager on the outcome of said dispute,
>>> you, hopefully, won't take offense on who I might choose
>>> to
>>> place my bet on.
> 
>> Place your bet on who you like. There is little that one
>> can do in the chain between the master tape and the
>> record master that would alter the sound of similar
>> master tapes from master disc to master disc.
> 
> Sure there is - all of the equipment that is in that chain has
adjustements 
> that can audibly affect sound quality.
> 
> If you are so sure of what you know, name the equipment that would be
used 
> in that application, and show that it lacks operator adjustments that
can 
> affect sound quality.

Acceleration limiters are calibrated to the cutting head as are the
headrooom 
limiters. Once set they aren't touched until the head is changed. The
inverse 
RIAA network is fixed. Of course the gain is variable, but as long at it
is 
used to to keep the cutting head out of the mud and below the limiter 
threshold, it shouldn't affect the sound, just the volume. Running the
signal 
into limiting, will, of course, result in distortion, but you don't want
to 
go there. No mastering engineer does. Other than that, its mostly about 
volume. The louder the better (that vinyl S/N thing, you know), but you
have 
to understand the limitations. Low frequencies make for large cutting
stylus 
excursions and large excursions can cut through the groove wall into an 
adjacent groove (called overcutting). Thus most commercial record cutting 
systems have a another tape pickup head if front of the actual pickup.
It's 
duty is to tell a computer what the frequency response and dynamic 
distribution of the signal that's coming (and delayed by only a few 
milliseconds) so that the groove pitch on the record can be closed down or

opened up. The mastering engineer can override this, but there's little 
reason to do so. After all, we're trying to do a balancing act here of 
optimizing the amount of program that fits on the a side against the need
to 
limit groove excursions for S/N concerns, overcutting, and trackability. 
There is little use making records that the average record player cannot 
track. In my experience, most of the variability in the sound quality that

one can get from a single lathe is in the cutting masters. These tapes
vary 
so much that the same lathes can produce records that sound anywhere from 
spectacular to downright unlistenable. When I worked at Century, many
years 
ago, we'd get everything from high-school bands to polished municipal 
symphony orchestras. The quality was all over the place, yet little if
none 
of that variability came from the cutting process. 

>> I have mastered more than my share of records in my time, I know
>> what would affect the sound of the finished disc and what
>> wouldn't. Almost all of the things that would affect the
>> sound of a record have to do with the limitations of disc
>> cutting and transferring sound from a medium with a
>> greater dynamic range than the final disc, and these are
>> pretty much the same from disc to disc.
> 
> "pretty much the same" is a very vague statement and allows for changes
that 
> would cause audible differences.

That's because, like I said, the master tape was far more variable than
the 
cutting process. 
 
> The whole reason why recorders that are remastered are advertised as
such, 
> is because remastering with a different operator and different equipment
can 
> reasonbly be expected to cause audible differences.

That's true. But the type of difference I'm talking about (getting back to

the original premise of this thread) is that the reviewer heard
differences 
in overall clarity, you know, the proverbial "veils" being lifted. These
are 
the types of differences that a cutting room setup would not cause (my 
original premise), as far as I know, unless they were on the master tapes
to 
begin with or, some components in the cutting chain were changed. In the 
latter case, re-cabling could effect such a change if some of the
connections 
had become dirty or corroded, and the new cable freshened them. A new 
(actually they're rebuilt) cutting head would be the component most likely
to 
be changed in a working cutting room setup between sessions. New cutters
have 
to be EQ'd or "normalized" when installed and a good cutting engineer can
do 
that in such a way that nobody can tell that the head's been changed - but
it 
takes commitment and a lot of talent and work to do so.

>> Now the tapes may
>> be wildly different, but that's another story. I suspect
>> that Rudy Van Gelders master tapes sounded very similar
>> from artist to artist.
> 
> The obviously sounded different because they involved different artists.

> What you seem to be saying is that there was a "Van Gelder Sound" that
was 
> never audibly different. If it was never audibly different, then there
were 
> never any adjustements to the equipment that was used during the
mastering 
> phase, and if that were so, why would Mr.Van Gelder's services be needed
if 
> the equipment was unchanged?

I never said that the Van Gelder sound was never audibly different. I
assert 
that there is a recognizable "Van Gelder Sound". 

 I record, at present, a jazz band, a wind ensemble and a symphony
orchestra. 
I use different mikes and different mike techniques for each, yet, the 
overall sound I get from each is very similar because I strive for the
same, 
consistent results. I strive for big soundstage, good image specificity,
and 
wide dynamic range. Others might gain-ride to keep the overall level of
the 
recording high, but my recordings require a lot more volume control on 
playback because I DON'T gain-ride or use signal processing of any kind.
Low 
level passages are, indeed, low level and loud passages are really loud,
but 
because I NEVER reduce the gain of high level passages, and because I try
to 
stay well clear of "0" Vu (-3 dB is my absolute peak) the overall average 
level of my recordings is around -20 dB.

I've heard many of Van Gelder's recordings and a have number of them both
on 
vinyl and on JVC's XRCD series CD. He had a distinct sound; one that had
many 
characteristics in common from recording to recording. This characteristic

sound likely resulted from the use of the same equipment chain, same 
microphones, same mixer/pre-amps, same tape deck and to a certain extent 
(especially the later ones) same recording venue. The differences between
his 
various recordings do not include differences in recording clarity, 
distortion, or gross variances in frequency response from session to
session. 

-- 
Do you know the difference between students like you, amateurs and 
professional jazz musicians? Student bands and amateurs "almost" swing! 

Fred Berry
Professor of Music
Stanford University