I make copies of my own session masters pretty often. I have trouble telling the copy from the original unless I already know which is which. Nobody I have played the tapes to can reliably tell which is the copy. If properly done, one generation difference is hardly noticeable. Of course, each successive generation will become more noticeable from the original. The claim that vinyl cut from a tape will sound better than a copy of the same tape can only be made by someone who has never actually made the comparison. With old recordings, it is the condition of the tapes that matters more than the generation. An "original master" that has been mishandled and/or suffering from pre-echo might sound worse than a safety copy made from that master years ago that has been store properly and untouched. Case in point. Many Decca masters used for modern reissues by labels such as Speakers Corner suffer from pre-echo, whereas I have production and safety masters stored at other facilities that sound far better than those reissues.
Supersense Mastercut Edition Lacquers
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
@adrianywu thanks for the information. Does it also mean that Supersense lacquer cut from a second or third generation copy can be as good as the lacquer cut from the original master tape? If that’s the case Supersense can be better than any vinyl due to the lack of processes required for vinyl production?
Last edited:
Supersense uses ONE copy for the Master. This is clearly stated on the website.
DG is a part owner of Supersense, which likely makes them more willing to share access to the master tapes.
It is not a "second or third generation" copy! Just read the website.
Both. The point is that a vinyl (or lacquer) cut from ONE Copy from the master, if not the master directly, will likely sound better than a tape that is several copies away from the master.
I do not have a tape machine, just a very good vinyl playback system. So this is a hypothesis (that vinyl will sound better) - also one shared by Fremer. Perhaps someone with a world-class TT and R2R will compare the same album on both. I am really keen to hear the vinyl on an Air Force Zero/One, SAT, Nagra, or OMA K3.
My pleasure. The same hypothesis would apply to something like the Original Source from DG for example.
I am tempted to buy a Ballfinger and try it out with an AP album... but I can't quite justify it, as I don't own any tapes.
I am tempted to buy a Ballfinger and try it out with an AP album... but I can't quite justify it, as I don't own any tapes.
The term master tape is often misunderstood. For early classical recordings made by RCA, Mercury, Decca etc., recordings were made with 3 microphones to a 3 track recorder or using up to 12 microphones through a mixer in real time to a stereo recorder. Editing was often done on these "session tapes". For RCA and Mercury, the 3 track edited work part was then mixed to stereo. A number of copies from these edited work parts were made, some to serve as "production masters", some as "safety masters" and put into the archive. For distribution, copies were made from the production masters and sent to mastering facilities all over the world. After the mastering engineers received the tapes, they would usually make another copy in case they mess up the original. The would then either use the distribution copy to cut the lacquer, applying EQ, compression etc. in real time, or they might make another copy with the EQ etc. and use that for cutting.
For Decca, the "original" master would be the edited work part with all the splices. It is doubtful if these tapes would ever be allowed out of the company premises, as many splices have weakened with age and can fall apart at any time. At most, an old production master or safety master might be sent, but more likely a copy of one of these. For RCA and Mercury, the "original master" would be the stereo mix down tape. Again, doubtful the record label will allow these out of their sight.
After multitrack became popular, there might be a number of steps from the multitrack master to the final stereo mix. Groups such as Pink Floyd were pioneers in introducing effects with tape loops, track bouncing etc. The final stereo mix might have some tracks that have been copied many times.
To be honest, audiophile releases are small runs with limited revenue generation, esp. these lacquers. Record labels will certainly not risk their master tapes this way. The reason why MFSL has resorted to using digital files was because they wanted to use the early generation tapes, which the labels would not allow out of their facilities. Therefore, MFSL has to go to the tape archive with their equipment to make the digital copy, which they can then use multiple times, only limited by their licensing terms.
Back to your question. If the copies were made with professional equipment that has been properly aligned, 2 or 3 generations of copying would have very little audible effect. Most LPs produced in the 1950s to 1980s were made with third or fourth generation copies. Whether the lacquers might sound better than vinyl depends on other factors. The lacquer was not developed for this purpose, and deforms over time. As I said before, mastering engineer could detect deterioration if the lacquers were left overnight before plating.
Not all lacquers are equal. I have asked the Japanese supplier to Supersense and they certainly disagree with this. Fremer does as well, as he has demonstrated on YouTube that his decades old lacquers have no deterioration.
If you want to talk about what media was developed for which purpose, reel tapes were certainly not developed for frequent at home playback.
Back to the point: I am not saying the Supersense sound better than well engineered regular vinyl. I have albums that sound just as good as the lacquers - so I would not rush to buy the Supersense thinking they must be better than a regular album - not true.
Magnetic tape was developed in Germany during WWII for radio broadcasts. The radio stations needed to broadcast 24/7 and had to fill up the time with music. The allies were initially puzzled how the Germans managed to get musicians to play throughout the night until they figured out that the Nazis had invented a high quality recording system. Tapes were therefore designed to be played over and over again.
Commercial stereo recordings appeared in 1954, from RCA and Decca. All stereo recordings were only released on tape until 1958, when the stereo LP was invented. Therefore, tape was the only home playback format for stereo for more than 4 years. It remained the playback format of choice for serious (and well heeled) audiophiles throughout the 1960s and early 1970s. 7.5ips tapes in those days cost 3 to 4 times more than the equivalent LPs. It is difficult to make the claim that tapes were not developed for home playback when there were so many consumer tape machines sold over the years. Go to Ebay and you will see how many 4 track tapes and tape machines are available even today.
I know a few mastering engineers, and they were all surprised somebody would sell lacquer, which is supposed to be used once and then discarded. I would certainly take their word over that of someone who promotes commercial products for a living.
Personally, I have been making orchestral and chamber music recordings on tape for professional musicians for 25 years, so I do know a thing or two about it. I gather you have not heard any master tape playback, so I suggest you should try to when you have a chance.
The standards for what constitutes "high fidelity" was not as high for a radio station in the 40s and 50s. Also, tapes were not played hundreds of times - radio stations would make new mixes - from records - on a weekly or even daily basis.
For "stereo" sure, but everyone had mono records and were perfectly happy with them for decades before tape. You make it seem like tape was the only option for home playback!
Here is a test of a Supersense lacquer being played 100 times with no measurable signal deterioration. Do you have something similar for tape?
Acetate Disc Longevity
korfaudio.com
Last edited:
All I can say is that your claims are based on the opinions of a minority, without having any direct experience yourself at least as far as tape is concerned. The vast majority of professionals and audiophiles do regard open reel tape as the highest fidelity source available, even to this day.The standards for what constitutes "high fidelity" was not as high for a radio station in the 40s and 50s. Also, tapes were not played hundreds of times - radio stations would make new mixes - from records - on a weekly or even daily basis.
For "stereo" sure, but everyone had mono records and were perfectly happy with them for decades before tape. You make it seem like tape was the only option for home playback!
Here is a test of a Supersense lacquer being played 100 times with no measurable signal deterioration. Do you have something similar for tape?
Acetate Disc Longevity
Some of the source tapes used for making the Supersense lacquers probably have been played more than 100 times over the years if the titles have been reissued multiple times.
I have production master tapes from the early stereo era (the earliest was from 1954) that still sound amazing. People who had never experienced master tapes were stunned after hearing these tapes. Unfortunately, a few of them decided to go down the rabbit hole of starting a tape collection ! I am not sure their wives would be happy about that.
I believe it was Rolling Stone that once declared that Marvin Gaye’s “What’s Going On” as the number one album of all time. I don’t know about that, but it certainly is one of my favourites. That is why, despite my general avoidance of any digital-to-vinyl records, I bought the very highly regarded Mobile Fidelity 45RPM One-Step Supervinyl ultradisc’s of it. When later I saw a pure analogue “Mastercut” lacquer of it was available from Supersense, I bought one of those too.
My impression of the lacquer: Supersense provides a pair of cotton gloves with the record so that one doesn’t leave oily finger prints on the surface. Handling the lacquer with those (or silicone medical examination gloves without powder) is a good idea as they warn you to avoid allowing any liquids to touch the surface and advise only a brush specifically designed for removing dust from the record surface.
My front end is quite good and doesn’t impede the presentation in any way. I played the first side through completely, not wanting to make any clicks or pops inadvertently. First thing I noticed was the silence. Whereas with vinyl playback I hear when the stylus comes in contact with surface a then a quiet but audible background groove friction sound before the music starts, with the lacquer I heard a much quieter contact sound then nothing until the music starts.
The next thing noticed, nothing again. By that I mean that many recordings draw your attention to various aspects of the recording, the sound stage width and depth, how far it extends beyond the speakers. If the speakers disappear or not. Bass and/or treble extension (or lack of either). How real-sounding each instrument sounds, etc. With the Marvin Gaye lacquer my attention did not focus on any hi-fi characteristic. It did not bring anything to my attention but instead I found myself slumped back in my seat, eyes closed , the music waffling over me like gentle ocean waves breaking on a wide sandy shore of some tropical island. Totally relaxing and enjoyable.
I did not get that from the MoFi 45RPM one-step, but then I hear very noticeable differences between analogue and digital-to-analogue, that some others on this site claim they do not.
Both literally being one-step’s, both being the very best example of the same music, I decided to do a listening session of each, with audiophiles (one of which prefers digital, one listens mostly to digital but has vinyl replay equipment and a third who, like me, has only analogue playback equipment).
I played the Supersense Mastercut all the way through side one first. I then changed the speed to 45RPM and lowered the volume two notches (to make volume the same, the MoFi recorded slightly hotter). So not to let the un-natural break between songs adversely bias the comparison (necessary on the MoFi as 45RPM allows only two tracks per side), I stoped the session after the second song on that first side finished.
Results (not double blind so unable to eliminate possibility of bias): The audiophile who prefers digital preferred the MoFi version, citing greater clarity, imaging, distinction in voice and instruments and suggested that if I ever sell my system that I play this MoFi record to demonstrate it. The second audiophile also with a predominantly digital playback history, said he preferred the lacquer. He didn’t go into too much detail, but gave the thumb up and nod to the Supersense Mastercut. The third audiophile, who like me plays vinyl exclusively with valves, preferred the Supersense Mastercut as well, citing more air around the instruments, more real sounding. I, as might be expected, preferred the Mastercut (for the reasons I illuminated above). I told the others that the MoFi DSD-analogue sounded slightly etched/sharp (clarity?) and unnatural to me. What that does is draw one’s attention to the different instruments, sound stage and other “hi-fi” characteristics and prevents one from just sitting back, relaxing and enjoying the music. I added that I didn’t think I could listen to more than one such album per listening session and would cut my listening session short thereafter.
I am afraid I can not say how durable the lacquer will be, too soon, but my faith is strong as I bought another. Bill Evans arrived yesterday.
Last edited:
It’s best to only clean the surface of the Supersense lacquer with an air brush, and not touch it with an actual brush. The fragility comes not from playing it multiple times but from how it’s handled between plays.
There’s a video of someone with the Coltrane album who did not receive a sleeve from Supersense. The record should definitely be a in sleeve - so let Supersense know if you didn’t receive one.
There’s a video of someone with the Coltrane album who did not receive a sleeve from Supersense. The record should definitely be a in sleeve - so let Supersense know if you didn’t receive one.
I respect your hands on experience and I always take note of your replies on tape related topics. One thing has me wondering:
On the recent digital vs analog thread you wrote "Double rate DSD is indistinguishable from the mic feed on our monitoring system. As we do mostly live performances, we tend to do very little editing, and so DSD works fine. PCM does have an advantage; there are plug-ins that add tape hiss, harmonics etc. to emulate analogue. Therefore, it is possible to make digital sound as good as analogue ! We don't need that as we always run a tape recorder in parallel."
This and other comments you made in that thread make it seem to me that, for you, a good high rate DSD recording is above tape. Of course you still make tape in parallel so I am a bit confused. Anyway, on this thread you are ( in an all analog context ) defending tape.
I am not trying to pick on you, just very curious if you feel, in order of quality, that the quality ranking goes DSD>tape>d2d lacquer?
Again I very much appreciate your bringing field experience to these discussions.
I don’t have tape experience but I do have in my media room world class digital (Taiko Extreme with the latest software and add-ons, Nagra HD DAC X [rated higher than MSB by some]) and the Nagra Reference TT and HD Phono.
DSD definitely does not exceed analog vinyl. Not even close!
I think it’s best not to compare and just enjoy each medium for what it offers. It’s really difficult to do a proper comparison anyway.
DSD definitely does not exceed analog vinyl. Not even close!
I think it’s best not to compare and just enjoy each medium for what it offers. It’s really difficult to do a proper comparison anyway.
Last edited:
I don’t want to get hung up n the analogue/digital comparison but on just how nice the lacquer disc sounds period. The lacquers are much better sounding than any of my Analogue Productions 45RPM, same my Deutsche Gramophone, my fone, MoFi, Electronic Recording Co., and even my direct-to-discs. They are that good.
As a recording medium, high rate DSD is in my opinion the best currently available. However, hardly any music is available commercially as native high rate DSD recordings. Most commercial DSD issues (downloads, SACDs) are either reissues of old analogue recordings, or conversions from PCM. There are some small outfits doing native DSD recordings of less well known artists. But for recordings from mainstream artists, the best format one can find is still the analogue tapes. This is why I convert all my master tapes directly to high rate DSD and the files almost always sound better than streaming, downloads or CDs of the same recordings. What is sad is that the bulk of digitally recorded music is in Redbook CD format, which is clearly inferior to analogue technology from even as early as the beginning of stereo.
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. 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.
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
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
Last edited:
Similar threads
