Back to Vinyl Records and TTs

[reubensm]

The main issue is that most old re-issues of older titles are 'digitally mastered', and buying those for serious audiophiles is like committing harakiri for them. However, there is no choice when the release is for a new title. I bought a few new titles which is probably nothing more than MP3 quality to be honest. I have serious doubt that the source is simply not analogue. Esp. one 'Sufiana' LP from Sony music that I purchased was no better than MP3. Though I liked the pressings of some English LPs that I bought a few months ago like Dire Straits & Nirvana.

Reuben, I noticed M97Xe in your signature. When did this happen and what encouraged you for taking this plunge? When we get to read your listening experience?

Regards,
Saket

Gifted by a friend, I am perhaps the only FM who would be using this as my No#2 cart behind the M44-7. Guess I can't live without the bright bassy sound of the M44-7.

 

[Saket]

Gifted by a friend, I am perhaps the only FM who would be using this as my No#2 cart behind the M44-7. Guess I can't live without the bright bassy sound of the M44-7.

Nice friend!

Also, I toyed around with the equaliser settings and found that with some careful setting, the M44-7 can be very neutral sounding as well (Guys, bash me if you feel like for this statement). That saves some grands I guess for me at the moment.

Do post some listening and also some comparative impressions of the two.

Regards,
Saket

 

[sachu888]

Gifted by a friend, I am perhaps the only FM who would be using this as my No#2 cart behind the M44-7. Guess I can't live without the bright bassy sound of the M44-7.

You are not the only one.I never liked Shure M97xe sound.Its very dull.Ortofon Om10 was definitely better.My vintage AT15Ea beats all.Its very fine nude Elliptical (.2X.7) with very low internal inductance,but the replacement stylus(ATN 15sa)is very costly @ $150(approx)

Regards,
Sachin

 

[jls001]

In this day and age we can't really expect to get new AAA records. No one, except some very rare specialty studios, record on analog tapes anymore. I am not sure if even these guys would still have the analog consoles to edit and master - in analog domain - the recordings done on analog tapes. More likely they would have done an A to D, and done the editing and mastering in the digital domain, making it an ADD record.

Everyone and his brother now uses Protools and records straight to a hard disk drive. So obviously editing and mastering are also achieved in the digital domain, making it a DDD record.

Foo Fighters' Wasting Light is the only album in recent memory that was recorded on analog tapes ("The album was recorded using entirely analogue equipment until post-mastering", to quote the Wikipedia page linked here), which probably makes it an AAD record.

 

[Saket]

Thanks Jls for the information.

BTW, am tempted to ask that how was old music recordings done in the studio when vinyl was the primary medium of playback. Is it that the tapes existed then too, but used only for recording the masters in the studio?

Thanks,
Saket

 

[jls001]

Thanks Jls for the information.

BTW, am tempted to ask that how was old music recordings done in the studio when vinyl was the primary medium of playback. Is it that the tapes existed then too, but used only for recording the masters in the studio?

Thanks,
Saket

I will ask a couple of audio engineer friends for explanation of how things were done before digital means were available. I do remember one of them mentioning that while editing, they had to cut and splice tapes. But I was not curious enough to ask him for what purpose.

Google baba says that magnetic tapes were invented in the mid 30s in Germany.

Shellac 78s were invented much earlier, at least 3 decades before. Cylindrical records were invented even earlier. I have personally seen a 1905 78 rpm record of a classical Indian performance.

 

[Saket]

I will ask a couple of audio engineer friends for explanation of how things were done before digital means were available. I do remember one of them mentioning that while editing, they had to cut and splice tapes. But I was not curious enough to ask him for what purpose.

Google baba says that magnetic tapes were invented in the mid 30s in Germany.

Shellac 78s were invented much earlier, at least 3 decades before. Cylindrical records were invented even earlier. I have personally seen a 1905 78 rpm record of a classical Indian performance.

Thanks Jls.

BTW, even if the tapes were invented in 30s, they still might not have made to the mainstream (even for recording masters at studio) until quite a few years later. So, at times I am puzzled that what medium was used to record the masters. Must not be a cylindrical record, must not be a live vinyl cutter lathe. If not the tapes too, then what? Hope someone clarifies this.

Thanks,
Saket

 

[peace_sells]

In this day and age we can't really expect to get new AAA records. No one, except some very rare specialty studios, record on analog tapes anymore. I am not sure if even these guys would still have the analog consoles to edit and master - in analog domain - the recordings done on analog tapes. More likely they would have done an A to D, and done the editing and mastering in the digital domain, making it an ADD record.

Everyone and his brother now uses Protools and records straight to a hard disk drive. So obviously editing and mastering are also achieved in the digital domain, making it a DDD record.

Foo Fighters' Wasting Light is the only album in recent memory that was recorded on analog tapes ("The album was recorded using entirely analogue equipment until post-mastering", to quote the Wikipedia page linked here), which probably makes it an AAD record.

Yes very few bands go the analog route these days..I'd add Opeth and Porcupine Tree to the list as well. Their recent albums are "produced analog-ally" (quote from one of their interviews). But apparently the recording was not done on analog tapes because that's a very expensive process. Each roll of tape costs a lot of money! So if they have to re-record, following a mistake, then that means wasting a lot of money (again I'm quoting the interview).

Foo Fighters is in a very good financial position so i guess they can afford to record analog-ally (please excuse the cheap english )..Unfortunately, most of the good bands today do not make that much money.

Some of the reissues that have happened over the past 1/2 years..it says "reissue done using original analog master tapes". What do they mean by this? Is the mixing/remastering done in an analogue manner? Or do they re-record?

 

[jls001]

Some of the reissues that have happened over the past 1/2 years..it says "reissue done using original analog master tapes". What do they mean by this? Is the mixing/remastering done in an analogue manner? Or do they re-record?

Original master tapes are stored in temperature controlled vaults by recording labels. They can survive for many years.

Re-mixing and re-mastering could be in either analog or digital domain. More likely the later.

 

[reubensm]

The key to analogue sound reproduction was multi-track recording. In most cases, every component of the music was recorded on a separate track and mixed together to form the final product. Imagine a recording being done on a 24-track machine, that would have offered the record producer, a wide variety of mixing options. Good old days.

More detailed reading at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_multitrack_recording

Examples of multi-track studio recorders:

 

[reignofchaos]

You are not the only one.I never liked Shure M97xe sound.Its very dull.Ortofon Om10 was definitely better.My vintage AT15Ea beats all.Its very fine nude Elliptical (.2X.7) with very low internal inductance,but the replacement stylus(ATN 15sa)is very costly @ $150(approx)

Regards,
Sachin

It depends quite a bit on system balance. If the system is more on the warmer/mellower side such as Reuben's NAD pre/power, the M44 definitely will sound better than the m97. If your system is extremely revealing, the m97 will sound better. Also I've found that the sound of the m97 depends significantly on the capacitive loading that one provides to it. If the phono pre allows adjusting this, the m97 shines. Else it sounds rather dull and boring. I've now moved on to an all clearaudio setup but the m97xe did quite well with the technics s-arm. Also it sounded far better to my ears with the brush up.

 

[sachu888]

It depends quite a bit on system balance. If the system is more on the warmer/mellower side such as Reuben's NAD pre/power, the M44 definitely will sound better than the m97. If your system is extremely revealing, the m97 will sound better. Also I've found that the sound of the m97 depends significantly on the capacitive loading that one provides to it. If the phono pre allows adjusting this, the m97 shines. Else it sounds rather dull and boring. I've now moved on to an all clearaudio setup but the m97xe did quite well with the technics s-arm. Also it sounded far better to my ears with the brush up.

I agree it depends on system.I have Captive as well as Resistive loading option in my DIY Phono pre.I feel my system is very transparent.I always liked OM10 over Shure M97xe.

Regards,
Sachin

 

[reignofchaos]

Could very well be that the OM10 is a better cartridge - I've never heard it so can't really say. What loading did you use on the m97xe? Try 63k and 300pf and see if you find any changes.

 

[sachu888]

Could very well be that the OM10 is a better cartridge - I've never heard it so can't really say. What loading did you use on the m97xe? Try 63k and 300pf and see if you find any changes.

I tried 62k in my CNC Phono.This was the best combination for Shure M97xe.We purposefully kept 62k option for M97xe in CNC Phonostage.OM 10 is a good cart,and reviews suggest it is better than OM Red.Ortofon had to reintroduced Om series carts due to very good demand.I have now upgraded to AT15Ea and it is far superior to both of the carts.

Regards,
Sachin

 

[Audio_Freek]

The key to analogue sound reproduction was multi-track recording. In most cases, every component of the music was recorded on a separate track and mixed together to form the final product. Imagine a recording being done on a 24-track machine, that would have offered the record producer, a wide variety of mixing options. Good old days.

More detailed reading at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_multitrack_recording

Examples of multi-track studio recorders:

Milion dollar worth Info Reubensm..:licklips:

24 Tracks singing in Stereo mode would be mesmerizing , But people think that Digital mode has more quality in making and reproduction too.

This post just breaks at a shot.. Old days are Goldee days for Music Lovers..Though we have various sources and market to get loaded variety of music now. We miss the traditional analog recording.:indifferent14:

 

[vinojasan]

Waiting for my new AT-LP120-USB from US... Expected on 19th Oct. (Pic from Google) :yahoo:

 

[pksnathan]

Waiting for my new AT-LP120-USB from US... Expected on 19th Oct. (Pic from Google) :yahoo:

Dear friend,

Please let me know how did you import this TT and the customs duty involved in this.

Thanking you,

pksnathan

 

[reubensm]

Dear friend,

Please let me know how did you import this TT and the customs duty involved in this.

Thanking you,

pksnathan

if the TT is hand-carried, you are most likely to escape customs duty

 

[vinojasan]

Vintage vinyl records, now shipped across India

 

[vinojasan]

HMV's Vinyl pressing plant, Dum Dum....