Supersense Mastercut Edition Lacquers

[adrianywu]

In theory direct to disc lacquers sound best. This is the simplest signal path from the microphone vibrating to the cartridge stylus vibrating. If you think about it, nothing is more direct. (Magnetic particles aligning on a tape and then being read by a magnetic head and converted to movement at the speaker is not more direct).

Second should be an analog tape - IF you are playing the master and it has not degraded.
In practice, an album that you can buy on tape will be many copies removed from the master, while a well engineered and manufactured record is usually just 1 copy from the master. Furthermore, a well engineered record will not have distortion at the end - not audible anyway — while tape noise and other sonic degradation (from the multiple copies) is audible.

Third, a well recorded vinyl album (e.g., DG Original Source) is a close second. And it can be a very close second, since there has been more innovation in the vinyl playback space in the past few decades than in the analog tape space. Perhaps that will change if Nagra, for example, launches a 75th Anniversary Reference tape deck; but for now, what you get from SAT, TechDas, Nagra, and others in the very high end TT space is more advanced than what the modern tape deck manufacturers are doing.

If you have not heard one of these reference TT systems with a world-class phono stage, I highly encourage you to do so. It may dispel your notions of how a record “should” sound!

Fourth, digital will always require conversion from analog and back to analog, and therefore will never sound more live and realistic than the above, assuming all the other variables are held constant.

D2D lacquer > Master Tape > Vinyl > Tape Copies > Digital

As I said, my experience with tapes is different from yours. My tapes were made by the major labels or at professional mastering facilities. Where did you get your tapes ? There are "master tapes" on sale at places like Ebay that are in fact copied from digital sources. Have you found commercial 15ips tapes from the likes of Analogue Productions and The Tape Project deficient ? It is generally acknowledged that these tapes are better than any other commercial formats available, sometimes substantially so, and only second to the original studio masters. If you find the opposite, maybe your tape machine needs to be realigned by a professional. Can you give some examples of commercially available tapes that you have found inferior to vinyl ?

 

[Solypsa]

As a recording medium, high rate DSD is in my opinion the best currently available.

Thank you for clarifying. May I ask why you still run a parallel tape capture path?

However, hardly any music is available commercially as native high rate DSD recordings.

Yes.
Also it wasn't fair of me to mention d2d lacquer since hardly anyone has heard such, myself included. As we know lacquers intended for release will never be played so any d2d lacquer replay will have been test cuts...i do tend to think this, in theory, could be the best analog possible.

Too bad analog laserdisc tech was never brought forward to its possible heights...

I have not heard these Supersense lacquers, so I cannot comment. However, they still suffer from the same limitions of dynamic range, end of side distortion etc. With D2D, it is even more important to use dynamic limiting since there is no look ahead while cutting.

Since it is possible to cut a record that is not trackable by any cartridge, it is the replay cart that is the limit here (before limitations of medium or cutterhead)

( also fixed pitch robs you of duration on a side, not dynamic range per se.)

And often, it is simply not possible to fit a whole movement of an orchestral work onto one side of an LP/lacquer without using compression. It might work for some music that does not have a wide dynamic range, and in those cases, it can sound wonderful.

Yes duration per side is a serious limit of the 12" record.

Thanks again for commenting in detail.

 

[Zeotrope]

Have you found commercial 15ips tapes from the likes of Analogue Productions and The Tape Project deficient ? It is generally acknowledged that these tapes are better than any other commercial formats available, sometimes substantially so, and only second to the original studio masters.

Why don’t you provide examples of who has said this, as I can find none. Actually, Fremer recently posted (I pasted the link above) that no comparison has ever been done between the same album on tape and on a high end turntable. He said he hopes to do this comparison at some point, and he believes vinyl will sound better.

 

[Zeotrope]

Also it wasn't fair of me to mention d2d lacquer since hardly anyone has heard such, myself included. As we know lacquers intended for release will never be played so any d2d lacquer replay will have been test cuts...i do tend to think this, in theory, could be the best analog possible.

You can certainly buy D2D lacquers. Supersense sells 2-3 currently.

 

[Solypsa]

I mean a live direct to lacquer cut without tape. They would have to have to the musical ensemble play the song for each and every transfer. They are doing that?

 

[Zeotrope]

I mean a live direct to lacquer cut without tape. They would have to have to the musical ensemble play the song for each and every transfer. They are doing that?

Yup.

 

[Solypsa]

Wow. Wow. Wow.

I'm on their site now and I see that they did a few sessions both d2d and tape, but the ones for sale say cut from the tape. I don't see the release of the d2d. Could you link me to the page with the d2d release? Thanks

 

[Zeotrope]

Wow. Wow. Wow.

I'm on their site now and I see that they did a few sessions both d2d and tape, but the ones for sale say cut from the tape. I don't see the release of the d2d. Could you link me to the page with the d2d release? Thanks

"We are doing a live recording straight to disc and tape - there is no editing, no fixing, no auto tune, it's just me, the needle and the music. It's exciting, and the reason I prefer this is the humanity to it - there are cracks and wrinkles, which makes it valuable, daring and vulnerable. And all of that comes across in the recording." - Gregory Porter

So they say “recorded direct to disc and tape”, which I gathered means that they cut the lacquer at the same time as they record. But now that I read it again and think about it, it is recorded to tape first and then they play back the tape 100x to make 100 lacquers.
“Recording sessions to unique locations.Their performance is mastered and mixed on the fly and directly recorded to analog tape. From this one of a kind mastertape we thereafter cut our Editions in real time.”
It seems like Gregory was not quite accurate in his description, sorry about that.

I did buy the Guy Chambers and tried 2 copies; both had too much noise for my liking and I returned them. Not sure why, and if they are all like this. I am tempted to try the Gregory Porter, but don’t think I will unless someone has given it a great review first.

 

[adrianywu]

Thank you for clarifying. May I ask why you still run a parallel tape capture path?

Yes.
Also it wasn't fair of me to mention d2d lacquer since hardly anyone has heard such, myself included. As we know lacquers intended for release will never be played so any d2d lacquer replay will have been test cuts...i do tend to think this, in theory, could be the best analog possible.

Too bad analog laserdisc tech was never brought forward to its possible heights...

Since it is possible to cut a record that is not trackable by any cartridge, it is the replay cart that is the limit here (before limitations of medium or cutterhead)

( also fixed pitch robs you of duration on a side, not dynamic range per se.)

Yes duration per side is a serious limit of the 12" record.

Thanks again for commenting in detail.

Analogue is run in parallel because some people believe a pure analogue path is the ultimate in sound quality. Critics such as Fremer thought the new MFSL releases were the best thing since sliced bread until the label confessed that DSD files were used to cut the lacquers, and suddenly, those same records became unacceptable. It is therefore obviously not about the sound.
If it is too cumbersome to bring all the equipment, since we have to go to some quite inconvenient locations, I am happy with just the DSD recorder.
One problem with digital in general is storage. I know my tapes will outlast me, but I really don't know how long my files will last on the hard drives. The drives can fail, and over time, the data can corrupt. This is a real situation as I had to copy failing drives, and a small number of files had drop outs in the new hard drive. Unlike copying tape, where one might expect a 2dB increase in tape hiss and perhaps a slight increase in distortion, errors in digital files result in loud pops. One drop out in digital audio tape will render the whole tape unusable. This is why many radio stations who switched to DAT had to buy back some analogue tape machines to make back ups.
One cannot manipulate the DSD signal other than making simple splices. It has to be converted either to PCM or to analogue. In this case, I prefer to convert to analogue, or use the analogue master to do DSD conversion after post-production.
The problem with dynamics on vinyl is not even the tracking ability of cartridges, but there is a physical limit to the width of the groove and the pitch between grooves, as determined by the cutting system. If you try to cut a groove wider than the maximum pitch allowed between the grooves, the grooves will run into each other and become unplayable. Automatic systems with look ahead are conservative when setting the limits, but engineers often bypass this limit to try and get an extra couple of dBs in, but any mistake would mean starting the whole process again.

 

[adrianywu]

Why don’t you provide examples of who has said this, as I can find none. Actually, Fremer recently posted (I pasted the link above) that no comparison has ever been done between the same album on tape and on a high end turntable. He said he hopes to do this comparison at some point, and he believes vinyl will sound better.

I have done plenty of comparisons between tapes and vinyl. I don't really care what others say until I have made my own comparisons. You don't seemed to have heard proper tape playback yourself, but have plenty of opinion about it.

 

[Solypsa]

One problem with digital in general is storage. I know my tapes will outlast me, but I really don't know how long my files will last on the hard drives.

I wondered if that was part of it. Makes sense.

The problem with dynamics on vinyl is not even the tracking ability of cartridges, but there is a physical limit to the width of the groove and the pitch between grooves, as determined by the cutting system.

Formerly I owned a VMS70 with Zuma pitch computer. So I get it.

Doesn't change the fact that you can cleanly cut an 'unplayable' groove...

 

[adrianywu]

I wondered if that was part of it. Makes sense.

Formerly I owned a VMS70 with Zuma pitch computer. So I get it.

Doesn't change the fact that you can cleanly cut an 'unplayable' groove...

A Shure V15 will probably track anything. However, distortion increases rapidly well before the cartridge mis-tracks.

 

[adrianywu]

Why don’t you provide examples of who has said this, as I can find none. Actually, Fremer recently posted (I pasted the link above) that no comparison has ever been done between the same album on tape and on a high end turntable. He said he hopes to do this comparison at some point, and he believes vinyl will sound better.

I take Fremer's recommedations as seriously as I take those of a used car salesman. His writing can be entertaining, but I take it with a pinch of salt. One needs to remember who pays for all this, and it is certainly not the readers, at least not directly, and only when we buy something he recommends. In any case, his knowledge about tapes is pretty minimal. You only need to go to the tape forum here or read Myles Astor's forum: https://www.audionirvana.org/forum/the-audio-vault/all-things-reel-to-reel and you will read the opinions of long time tape enthusiasts, many of whom are recording industry insiders.

 

[Zeotrope]

I recently learned that Fremer does not get paid to write reviews. While there is an indirect payment, from advertising, he is likely the most honest reviewer alive. He has nothing to prove. He was chastised by OMA for not writing enough about the K5 that he owns -which goes to show that if anything he goes the other way to avoid appearing biased.

Your comments about each tape copy adding 2dB of noise and distortion are exactly right. I just look at the facts. 2dB is considerable, especially when there are multiple copies between the master and what’s in the ~$500 box. As you know, 10dB is a doubling of noise. This is why I firmly believe an album on tape vs the same album on vinyl is likely to sound better on a great TT and phono stage.

And I doubt your tapes will outlive you (I hope not!) - the problem of storage/data retention is greater for analog tapes. Digital data is easy to backup and create perfect copies from one copy to another. Forget about DAT tape, all you have to do is transfer your files to a cloud service like AWS and they will automatically backup as many times as you wish. Automatic checksums will ensure the data is bit perfect (something that should be on file streamers!).
Of the 3 media, analog tape is the worst for longevity. It’s funny how you skip over the negative aspects of tape while dwelling on inconsequential aspects of vinyl. Your comments about vinyl cutting have been well known for over a hundred years - it still results in the best sound - a well cut record on a great system will not introduce audible distortion.

I am open to listening and comparing, something you are clearly not open minded about. Perhaps because all the facts point to vinyl having the edge over a copied album on tape?
Anyway, it would be an interesting experiment, that’s all.
Enjoy the music!

 

[mtemur]

Critics such as Fremer thought the new MFSL releases were the best thing since sliced bread until the label confessed that DSD files were used to cut the lacquers, and suddenly, those same records became unacceptable. It is therefore obviously not about the sound.

It’s certainly about the sound, at least for me. I refused to buy MoFI releases because I didn’t like what I hear and suspected that they’re sourced from digital. I’ve written my concerns somewhere in this forum and I did it long before MoFI scandal surfaced. So, people can hear it. I’m not the only one here. Critics is another issue I agree with you on that and I don’t defend their recommendation strategy.

The problem with MoFi is adding additional steps, DSD in this case. If the source is analog then the best result can be achieved by cutting from analog master tape. Against common belief of DSD or digital converts an additional digital step is audible. The problem with MoFI case is not about analog or digital, it’s adding unnecessary additional steps. It was and still is DSD additional steps and lying to customers.

If you record the same performance to tape and DSD in parallel then cut two lacquers one from DSD master and one from tape master and compare them, the result from DSD master can be better. Or can be worse I don’t know but it’s not the point with MoFI, it’s adding unnecessary additional steps. If the record label doesn’t let you take out master tapes then you can not release those albums. That’s it. Other companies convince record labels and use approved mastering facilities. On the other hand MoFI only use their mastering facility and want master tapes to travel across the country which is a dealbreaker for labels.

Another false judgement is blaming people by not identifying DSD in the chain. Without any comparison one can not and shouldn’t have to identify a digital step in the chain. The real test can only be done with two records; one is MoFI and the other one is cut from master tape without additional DSD step. That’s how a comparison made. If people still prefer MoFI than you’re right it’s not about the sound and we are all deaf. Blaming people liking MoFI compared to nothing or a poor reissue is unfair.

MoFI issue is about:
1- Adding additional DSD step
2- Lying customers

MoFI issue is not about:
1- Identifying DSD or digital step in the mastering chain
2- Identifying provenance of the source, analog or digital

No recording medium (lacquer, DSD, tape etc) can sound as good as the source it was recorded from. Any additional step whether analog or digital is definitely audible. Anybody who thinks that a DSD transfer of a master tape exactly sounds the same like the master tape is either doesn't have good equipment to reveal the differences or doesn't have the ability to detect the differences. I believe we can rule out the second possibility for forum members here. Any conversion or recording medium is not transparent, they certainly add their character by wiping out liveliness and organic character of the source. Some do a better job than the others. DSD can be a better recording medium or not. I don't want to start an argument about that, for me it isn't. Digital, as a consumer product always makes me feel like listening to plastic sound.

After putting aside MoFI issue if we return to tape vs supersense lacquer debate we still don't know which is better.

 

[Zeotrope]

I completely agree, @mtemur… I recently played an album that had a DSD step and it was clearly audible. It wasn’t “bad”, it just sounded like a hybrid between analog and digital, which is what it was.
Even DSD sounds like the musicians are just rushing to get through the set - the emotion and passion is gone. It’s hard to describe; but when you hear it side by side, it’s easy to hear.
Fremer’s point, when he gave certain Mofi positive reviews, is exactly what you eluded to: it can still sound better than a poor all analog cut. The turning point was the lack of disclosure.

 

[adrianywu]

It’s certainly about the sound, at least for me. I refused to buy MoFI releases because I didn’t like what I hear and suspected that they’re sourced from digital. I’ve written my concerns somewhere in this forum and I did it long before MoFI scandal surfaced. So, people can hear it. I’m not the only one here. Critics is another issue I agree with you on that and I don’t defend their recommendation strategy.

The problem with MoFi is adding additional steps, DSD in this case. If the source is analog then the best result can be achieved by cutting from analog master tape. Against common belief of DSD or digital converts an additional digital step is audible. The problem with MoFI case is not about analog or digital, it’s adding unnecessary additional steps. It was and still is DSD additional steps and lying to customers.

If you record the same performance to tape and DSD in parallel then cut two lacquers one from DSD master and one from tape master and compare them, the result from DSD master can be better. Or can be worse I don’t know but it’s not the point with MoFI, it’s adding unnecessary additional steps. If the record label doesn’t let you take out master tapes then you can not release those albums. That’s it. Other companies convince record labels and use approved mastering facilities. On the other hand MoFI only use their mastering facility and want master tapes to travel across the country which is a dealbreaker for labels.

Another false judgement is blaming people by not identifying DSD in the chain. Without any comparison one can not and shouldn’t have to identify a digital step in the chain. The real test can only be done with two records; one is MoFI and the other one is cut from master tape without additional DSD step. That’s how a comparison made. If people still prefer MoFI than you’re right it’s not about the sound and we are all deaf. Blaming people liking MoFI compared to nothing or a poor reissue is unfair.

MoFI issue is about:
1- Adding additional DSD step
2- Lying customers

MoFI issue is not about:
1- Identifying DSD or digital step in the mastering chain
2- Identifying provenance of the source, analog or digital

No recording medium (lacquer, DSD, tape etc) can sound as good as the source it was recorded from. Any additional step whether analog or digital is definitely audible. Anybody who thinks that a DSD transfer of a master tape exactly sounds the same like the master tape is either doesn't have good equipment to reveal the differences or doesn't have the ability to detect the differences. I believe we can rule out the second possibility for forum members here. Any conversion or recording medium is not transparent, they certainly add their character by wiping out liveliness and organic character of the source. Some do a better job than the others. DSD can be a better recording medium or not. I don't want to start an argument about that, for me it isn't. Digital, as a consumer product always makes me feel like listening to plastic sound.

After putting aside MoFI issue if we return to tape vs supersense lacquer debate we still don't know which is better.

I agree with your views. My comment is about the critics who praised MFSL releases until the revelation about the DSD step, and then claimed that they had heard it all along and that the LPs are actually rubbish. Nothing wrong with the DSD step, as long as they made this known. The majority of LPs are cut from digital nowadays and people still buy them. Personally, I don't buy MFSL products, but if they release their DSD source files as downloads, I might consider....
Master tapes are of course the best source available, but I am not going to listen to my master tapes for entertainment, esp. if they were made 50 years ago. The next best thing is a high rate DSD copy that I made personally from the tapes with my own equipment. At least in my system, these sound better than any other commercial format I can find in most cases.
Record labels are becoming very protective of their tapes nowadays. From what I have heard, EMI (Universal) will only agree to make production masters at Abbey Road and sending out these masters. No other facility is allowed to touch the masters. In fact, a friend of mine only managed to get digital files from Abbey Road for his LP reissues, but he was able to get several production master tapes for a limited run of tape reissues. Naxos sent out the original master tapes for the Proprius tape reissues, but these are extremely expensive as Naxos is apparently asking for a very high licensing fee. I think they too will only send production master tape copies for LP reissues. Decca has been very reluctant to provide tapes, and they have only ever licensed two titles for The Tape Project for reissues, with a limit of 100 copies each. I suspect they too now only allow digital files. In any case, most of the Decca tapes from the 1950s and 60s are in bad shape, since they were recorded at 396nWb, and with the tape stock of that era, there is now a lot of print through. Ironically, many of the safety and production masters made in the 1970s and later with more modern tape stock are still in good shape, and maybe people should start using these for reissues.