Print

Print


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.