I have only three of four DMM and they are spectacular. Very nice. Too bad it didn't catch as the LP's were then in decline. I think there is still one place in the US that has one lathe operating. Shai בתאריך 27/02/13 10:39 PM, ציטוט Randy Lane: > I recall EMI/Angel adopted Telefunken's Direct Metal Mastering (DMM) system > in the 1980s too. One claim about DMM was that it enabled LP side lengths > to be longer than otherwise possible without loss of fidelity. > I can't say I always agreed with that, but since most of my purchases of > EMI material that used DMM were reissues it is hard to entirely blame DMM > for quality/audio issues, there being many other factors as you've > enumerated Tom. I did find Telefunken DMM pressings usually quite superior > to earlier non-DMM pressings, particularly with the > Harnoncourt/Leonhardt Bach Cantata sets. I recall ditching many of the > earlier sets in favor of the DMM pressings when DMM versions became > available. > Anyone have opinions about DMM? > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> I tend to agree with Roger that there were some very good-sounding >> classical LP records made in the 1980s. There were some good reasons, >> however, why this era is shunned by some collectors. >> >> 1. many people don't like the sound of early digital recordings, period. >> From 1979 onward, many and then most new classical LPs were made from >> digital masters. The classical labels wholeheartedly embraced digital >> recording early. So the same mentality that left some without a CD player >> well into the 1990s would lead them to hate digital-master LPs. >> >> 2. this also carried over into the reissue market. Labels would make >> digital masters for early CDs (we know how good those sounded, by and >> large) and then cut a "New Improved Digital Remaster" LP. Collectors by and >> large didn't like these reissues one bit, no matter how good the vinyl and >> pressing. >> >> 3. there were reissues like Mercury Golden Imports which didn't sound >> anything like the originals, although they were pressed on very quiet >> vinyl. There were also reissues of mono content mastered to fake stereo and >> all the quiet vinyl did was show how bad fake stereo sounds. >> >> 4. I've heard conflicting stories about the Angel issues of EMI material. >> One version says that EMI would send over NAB-EQ dubs for Capitol to cut. >> The other story says EMI would send over CCIR master tapes and Capitol's >> cutting guys would EQ around their NAB playback curve. Either way, I agree >> with David Burnham that some of those Angel reissues don't sound right. In >> contrast, as I understand it, some, many or most of the London reissues of >> Decca material were pressed from either plates or laquers made in England. >> If I recall correctly, some of the manufacturing was done in Canada, but >> maybe that was only the sleeves? >> >> 5. Columbia and RCA reissued a few classic titles using gimmicks like >> half-speed mastering and heavy vinyl. Some of them sounded OK, but I recall >> reading a lot of bad comments about RCA not sounding like the original >> Living Stereo records. >> >> 6. the final net-net for late-era USA vinyl was it was paper-thin and the >> sleeves were often cheaply made. Production was sloppy, so you'd get inner >> sleeves folded over and having scratched the record in process. Non-warped >> records were less than common. Stuff from record clubs was even worse, a >> step down in quality. >> >> There are some cases with the early digital recordings, where the original >> LP sounds much better than the CD. The main reason for this would be early >> sample-rate conversion equipment and early CD mastering in general. For >> instance some people very much prefer the early Columbia 3M Digital records >> on their original LPs vs the Masterworks Digital CDs of the late 80s. Same >> for Telarc and RCA early digital recordings made with the Soundstream >> system. By about 1985, many original recordings were "born" at 44.1/16-bit, >> so there shouldn't have been any bitrate conversion issues. However, Decca >> used its proprietary 48k/18-bit system throughout the 1980s, and EMI may >> have used its higher-than-CD-resolution well into the 80s. I think RCA used >> Soundstream for quite a while, too. >> >> Finally, you got some specialized audiophile LP reissues, for instance >> Decca on Mobile Fidelity and various Polygram material out of Japan, that >> was of very high quality. >> >> Many of these comments run parallel in the jazz world. Stuff "Newly >> Digitally Remastered" and then put on a newly-cut LP usually didn't sound >> better than originals. This was especially true with Columbia reissues of >> 78's where someone had gone nuts with CEDAR and destroyed any ambience or >> room-tone in the original recordings, plus lopped off the entire top end. >> >> In the rock world, there are definitely cases of fast-selling albums where >> later remasters (required because so many copies had been sold that new >> laquers and plates were needed) sound better than original pressings. There >> are also plenty of the opposite. In general, record-club versions sounded >> worse if they weren't pressed from original parts (and they usually still >> did because they'd be pressed on warped paper-thin noisy vinyl). The >> overall quality of rock LPs suffered when duped cassettes became the go-to >> mass medium in the late 80s. LP releases of new albums just about stopped >> by the time CDs outsold cassettes. >> >> -- Tom Fine -- בברכה, שי דרורי מומחה לשימור והמרה של אודיו וידאו וסרטים 8-35 ממ.