The pure analogue LP purveyors, in order of excellence in presence

[tima]

I can't help wondering however if Sony, the inventor of the CD, and who was involved in the BetaMax/VHS format wars, is trying to rid us of better-sounding pure-analogue recordings in order to fully monopolise the market. If surface noise is the only difference in sound between a vinyl recording and a CD then why buy anything but CD's?

I suspect Sony's massive catalog assures them of licensing revenue regardless of format or original source.

 

[adrianywu]

I have been comparing some of my master tape copies and original LP releases to the reissues I own. I have written about my (limited) experience with Analogphonic here: https://www.psaudio.com/blogs/copper/the-joys-of-monophonic-recordings-part-one
And about some EMI tape releases here: https://www.psaudio.com/blogs/copper/tape-versus-vinyl
You can read about the Analogphonic mono Milstein releases, but enough to say that I never bought from them again.
Another recording I compared extensively is the Solti Decca Beethoven 9th. I have the original Jubilee box set, the Speaker's Corner reissue and the MFSL from 1981. I also have a copy of the Decca production master. The recording was panned by most critics for the sound, and I guess with Solti having must taken up his post in Chicago, the Decca engineers were still trying to figure out the venue and the band. I must say though that the tape sounds hugely better than any of the three LP releases. The original Decca box set was the weakest, almost unlistenable with compressed, muddy sound. The Speakers Corner was better, with more clarity, but it has a hardness to the sound and dynamics were still compressed. The MFSL was the best of the three, but still unsatisfactory in my opinion. I understand the difficulty in transferring large choruses onto vinyl. Much easier just to compress the dynamics then to try repeatedly to get a clean cut.
On the other hand, I have the production master of the Solti Beethoven 3rd . The one with the VPO and the lion on the cover. It is also a difficult LP to cut, given the length of the movements (the second movement was cut onto both sides). The tape is absolutely fabulous, and so is my original wide band ED2 SXL release. In fact, this LP sounds closer to its tape than any of the three Beethoven 9th LP versions to theirs. And that record was cut in the early 1960s. I think at the end, it is a matter of how much care and effort was spent on the mastering.
Another interesting comparison is with my set of tapes made from the studio masters of Elite Recordings, including the VOX Ravel box set which was the subject of an early AP reissue (https://www.psaudio.com/blogs/copper/a-look-at-ravel-s-works-for-orchestra). I have also compared a production master of the RCA Royal Ballet Gala Performance with my Classic Records reissue. I can write about it here if anyone is interested.

 

[Solypsa]

I think at the end, it is a matter of how much care and effort was spent on the mastering.

Yes!

 

[tima]

I have been comparing some of my master tape copies and original LP releases to the reissues I own. I have written about my (limited) experience with Analogphonic here: https://www.psaudio.com/blogs/copper/the-joys-of-monophonic-recordings-part-one

Fascinating article -- nice job!

 

[bonzo75]

I have been comparing some of my master tape copies and original LP releases to the reissues I own. I have written about my (limited) experience with Analogphonic here: https://www.psaudio.com/blogs/copper/the-joys-of-monophonic-recordings-part-one
And about some EMI tape releases here: https://www.psaudio.com/blogs/copper/tape-versus-vinyl
You can read about the Analogphonic mono Milstein releases, but enough to say that I never bought from them again.
Another recording I compared extensively is the Solti Decca Beethoven 9th. I have the original Jubilee box set, the Speaker's Corner reissue and the MFSL from 1981. I also have a copy of the Decca production master. The recording was panned by most critics for the sound, and I guess with Solti having must taken up his post in Chicago, the Decca engineers were still trying to figure out the venue and the band. I must say though that the tape sounds hugely better than any of the three LP releases. The original Decca box set was the weakest, almost unlistenable with compressed, muddy sound. The Speakers Corner was better, with more clarity, but it has a hardness to the sound and dynamics were still compressed. The MFSL was the best of the three, but still unsatisfactory in my opinion. I understand the difficulty in transferring large choruses onto vinyl. Much easier just to compress the dynamics then to try repeatedly to get a clean cut.
On the other hand, I have the production master of the Solti Beethoven 3rd . The one with the VPO and the lion on the cover. It is also a difficult LP to cut, given the length of the movements (the second movement was cut onto both sides). The tape is absolutely fabulous, and so is my original wide band ED2 SXL release. In fact, this LP sounds closer to its tape than any of the three Beethoven 9th LP versions to theirs. And that record was cut in the early 1960s. I think at the end, it is a matter of how much care and effort was spent on the mastering.
Another interesting comparison is with my set of tapes made from the studio masters of Elite Recordings, including the VOX Ravel box set which was the subject of an early AP reissue (https://www.psaudio.com/blogs/copper/a-look-at-ravel-s-works-for-orchestra). I have also compared a production master of the RCA Royal Ballet Gala Performance with my Classic Records reissue. I can write about it here if anyone is interested.

the Solti 9th was never from the decca golden era (it is from 1972) so it is not as good as the older ones. The recording was by Kenneth Wilkinson and I find it quite realistic. I have both that and speakers corner and they are at similar level. Your decca copy sounds poorer than the average. I have played it on 5 systems so far and it sounded compressed and tweaked on 1, quite good on another, and decent on three others (at no point anywhere as good as the decca originals that are at crazy prices). It also has a very good 4th movement for the vocals and the first is excellent.

 

[Marcus]

I have also compared a production master of the RCA Royal Ballet Gala Performance with my Classic Records reissue. I can write about it here if anyone is interested.

I’m very interested! Please share your experience. One of my favorite RCA LP’s.

 

[adrianywu]

I’m very interested! Please share your experience. One of my favorite RCA LP’s.

The tape copies of the Royal Ballet I have came from Decca production masters they used to produce the LPs after the rights of the recording reverted back to them. Interestingly, on casual listening, the Classic 33rpm reissue (I have not heard the 45rpm) seems more dynamic. However, there is a tonal hardness absent from the original, and I gather this might be due to the cutting electronics, which I believe were solid state. It is a well known fact that certain harmonic and non-harmonic distortions make the sound seem louder. The Classic was definitely very clean and the dynamic range has been well preserved, but it lacks the beautiful string tone of the original recording. It sounds less natural than the tape. I would love to hear the original Soria box set.

 

[adrianywu]

the Solti 9th was never from the decca golden era (it is from 1972) so it is not as good as the older ones. The recording was by Kenneth Wilkinson and I find it quite realistic. I have both that and speakers corner and they are at similar level. Your decca copy sounds poorer than the average. I have played it on 5 systems so far and it sounded compressed and tweaked on 1, quite good on another, and decent on three others (at no point anywhere as good as the decca originals that are at crazy prices). It also has a very good 4th movement for the vocals and the first is excellent.

Don't understand what you mean by originals ? The Jubilee box set was the original UK release. I guess there was a large production run, so some of the later pressings might not be as good. Mine has the code 2W on three sides and 3W on one. BTW, a friend got hold of the acetate tapes of the Leibowitz Beethoven 9 that Wilkie recorded for Readers Digest. Much better recording than the Solti, and insanely intense performance !

 

[Rensselaer]

I suspect Sony's massive catalog assures them of licensing revenue regardless of format or original source.

Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg could not spend all their money in a lifetime, some say that if all the people in America were stratified from poorest to richest, these two combined would exceed the lower half, so why are they fighting over “threads”? Their net worth, like Sony’s, doesn’t stop them trying to get ALL of the bananas.

 

[Rensselaer]

Analogphonic is doing reissues in all analog mastering from analog master tapes.
Speakers Corner reissues are all analog, details here: Speakers Corner info
Craft Recordings also looks like it is putting out reissues from an all analog chain.

And of course, most any LP pressed prior to 1980-ish.

I was burned by Music Direct/MoFi on Ultradiscs that they misrepresented as being AAA however, because I live in the UK, I am unable to participate in the class action suit going on in the States. Since then, I am a bit wary of companies touting that their release being sourced from the original masters as every vinyl recording of music (not recorded directly to a analogue-to-digital recorder), has been sourced from the original analogue master. MoFi did not make the process clear, skipping over the bit about mastering from a digital file but still claiming "one-step".

I looked up Analogphonic reissues and am not reassured by their source/process descriptions either. For example; Mozart-Clarinet Quintet in A Major, Cat no. LP43085 reads; From the original Masters of Universal Music (now owned by Sony). As stated, every recording made before the invention of analogue-to-digital tape recording will start with an analogue original master but there needs to be assurance that there was no digital conversion in the process. This process is stated as following; Audiophile analogue mastering by Rainer Maillard at Emil Berliner. Is this AAA, or is what is meant by Audiophile analogue mastering actually mean conversion of the digital file to analogue using an audiophile grade DAC, then cutting that now converted stream in analogue to vinyl? Even more confusing was the description for; The Last Recital, Nathan Milstein. Cat. no. PWC2L - 0008. It reads; From the Original Masters of Warner Music (Sony owned), Direct Metal Mastering by Thomas Oscher at Railroad Tracks Studio. All of it comes from the original masters, despite the inclusion or not of digital processing, and what is direct metal mastering? Any engineers out there?

I have written to Analogphonic for clarification as to which recordings are AAA, awaiting their response.

 

[bonzo75]

Don't understand what you mean by originals ? The Jubilee box set was the original UK release. I guess there was a large production run, so some of the later pressings might not be as good. Mine has the code 2W on three sides and 3W on one. BTW, a friend got hold of the acetate tapes of the Leibowitz Beethoven 9 that Wilkie recorded for Readers Digest. Much better recording than the Solti, and insanely intense performance !

The Leibowitz is great for both 9th and 5th.

by originals I don’t mean technically the original but what is considered to be a quality, collectible original that came from the golden era. For each of the labels, e.g. for decca from the SXL 2xxx series.

 

[bonzo75]

Elon Musk

 

[mtemur]

what is direct metal mastering? Any engineers out there?

DMM is a different process which uses copper disc instead of lacquer to cut the reference discs. More importantly stampers can be made from reference disc unlike traditional lacquer-father-mother-stamper process. There are a couple of DMM mastering facilities still operating.

 

[Rensselaer]

DMM is a different process which uses copper disc instead of lacquer to cut the reference discs. More importantly stampers can be made from reference disc unlike traditional lacquer-father-mother-stamper process. There are a couple of DMM mastering facilities still operating.

In what way, if any, does cutting to copper differ in sound quality to cutting to shellac?

 

[adrianywu]

In what way, if any, does cutting to copper differ in sound quality to cutting to shellac?

Here is a series of article by a mastering engineer on DMM. https://www.psaudio.com/blogs/copper/the-dmm-dubplate-and-the-art-of-pushing-the-boundaries-part-one

 

[mtemur]

In what way, if any, does cutting to copper differ in sound quality to cutting to shellac?

It (DMM) differs in sound quality in a bad way. IMHO many technical improvements offered by DMM did not improve sound quality. Cutting lacquer with a heated diamond is like cutting butter with a very hot knife. It's easy. But cutting metal (copper) is not an easy thing. I think that's where DMM lose the race, dynamics, detail, high frequency extension etc.

 

[Solypsa]

DMM came right at the very end of serious development for vinyl mastering. Nice idea ( reducing steps in production ) but without the benefit of a few more decades of ongoing development.

 

[Lee]

Impex

 

[SoundMann]

It (DMM) differs in sound quality in a bad way. IMHO many technical improvements offered by DMM did not improve sound quality. Cutting lacquer with a heated diamond is like cutting butter with a very hot knife. It's easy. But cutting metal (copper) is not an easy thing. I think that's where DMM lose the race, dynamics, detail, high frequency extension etc.

Have you conducted a live real-time comparison between a good DMM pressing, and the original performance?

 

[Solypsa]

Have you conducted a live real-time comparison between a good DMM pressing, and the original performance?

Real time?