Quantcast
Mastering for Vinyl - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Mastering for Vinyl
Old 31st July 2013
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Alécio Costa's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Mastering for Vinyl

Hi,

Is there a manual of recommended procedures so that we can have a 100% compatible mastering for (180g) vinyl?

Something as informative as this:
- Mastering for Vinyl : Recording Magazine -


Vinyl Mastering Guidelines


Thanks
Old 31st July 2013
  #2
Gear Nut
 
🎧 5 years
There was a small discussion below your post.

Might get your answer there?

Best.
Old 31st July 2013
  #3
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
The best you can do is put the songs in order, set the gaps, & fades, relative levels etc. Leave the rest for the mastering engineer, the person actually making the lacquer master. Only he/she can determine exactly what the music needs to make a good cut.
Old 31st July 2013
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Alécio Costa's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
doubts

a) some People recommended sending only 2 wave files at 96K 24, one for each side.
Some people recommended a wave file/song and let them do the gaps, etc.

b) although RMS is not an accurate means of loudness measurement, folks have recommend no hard limiting, RMS < -12.

Any further recommendations besides care with oversibilant vocals, loud hats, avoid stereo basses ( < 400 Hz) and too much anti-phase info?

Thanks

Last edited by Alécio Costa; 31st July 2013 at 09:15 PM.. Reason: mistyping errors
Old 31st July 2013
  #5
Lives for gear
 
sat159p1's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
The "stereo bass" was discussed somewhere here. But I remember that someone put on subject one of the first Beatles releases on stereo when bass was only in the left (or right) channel. And it was not a problem. Anyone to confirm this?
Old 1st August 2013
  #6
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
EMI Abbey Road only had a 2-track in the earlier years and so all the instruments were recorded on one track and all the vocals were on the other. Most of the Beatles's stuff was engineered specifically FOR mono and the stereo versions were merely an after-thought that A. didn't sound very good and B. didn't sell in large quantities until they became the ONLY way to get them. That's why the mono remasters were such a big deal. THAT's how the albums were meant to be!

Any way, what format each mastering house takes depends solely on their preferences. I'd strongly recommend not trying to do any "sweetening" of the audio aside from the utilitarian things I mentioned previously... no limiter, no buss EQ, compression or narrowing the stereo image etc. That's all up to the mastering engineer cutting the disk. If he needs to sum the bass to mono, he can. If he needs a velocity limiter, he'll add it. He'll do a test cut to see how it sounds and if it's not right, he'll make adjustments and try again till it IS right.

Beware the cutter mills that merely take your files and cut them to disk without taking any care. There's a lot of these and they are not to be trusted.
Old 1st August 2013
  #7
Lives for gear
 
IIIrd's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
96kHz isn't all that necessary...the cutter wont go much above 20kHz...24 or 5 i think...24 bit yes...
Old 1st August 2013
  #8
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by IIIrd ➡️
96kHz isn't all that necessary...the cutter wont go much above 20kHz...24 or 5 i think...24 bit yes...
I don t agree
The stereo image will be much better at 96 than than at 44.1 , so it has sens to premaster at High resolution and use this file for the cut with out any SRC ...
I recommend to premaster at 96kHz for vinyl cutting
16/24 bits ... hmm vinyl does not have a big dynamic range , around 60 /65 dB , so 16/ 24 is not so important , but if you can do it in 24 bits , better !!
Old 1st August 2013
  #9
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
-the cuttable level depends on the playtime on each side A/B
-mono the bass
-no exzessive stereo widening
-no exzess in the high region
-no exzessive limiting
Old 1st August 2013 | Show parent
  #10
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by AUDIOBOMBER ➡️
-the cuttable level depends on the playtime on each side A/B
-mono the bass
-no exzessive stereo widening
-no exzess in the high region
-no exzessive limiting
if you want a poor sounding vinyl record ...It is exactly what you have to do ... !!!
But if you want a good sounding vinyl record , don t do that !!!


of course we can and cut and read stereo , Of course we can cut high frequencies , much higher than what we write on a cd ...
And if the limiter does the sound , of cousre we can use it !!! even with very large amount of reduction !
Old 1st August 2013
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Alécio Costa's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Sticky

Oh, my eyes are aging. Just now I saw the sticky concerning mastering for vinyl. Sorry, Moderators!
Old 1st August 2013 | Show parent
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 
Verified Member
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by sat159p1 ➡️
The "stereo bass" was discussed somewhere here. But I remember that someone put on subject one of the first Beatles releases on stereo when bass was only in the left (or right) channel. And it was not a problem. Anyone to confirm this?
It's doable at a low level but as the level increases the potential for skipping increases - especially on cheap tables. And Paul wasn't pushing 30Hz bass like people are doing these days.

Alécio, if it sounds great to you and your client and clipping / limiting is not excessive then the cutting guy will take it from there.
Old 1st August 2013 | Show parent
  #13
Lives for gear
 
IIIrd's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yann Dub ➡️
I don t agree
The stereo image will be much better at 96 than than at 44.1 , so it has sens to premaster at High resolution and use this file for the cut with out any SRC ...
I recommend to premaster at 96kHz for vinyl cutting
16/24 bits ... hmm vinyl does not have a big dynamic range , around 60 /65 dB , so 16/ 24 is not so important , but if you can do it in 24 bits , better !!

Pointless trying to cut frequencies the cutter wont cut, and the engineer would filter off anyway. 24 bits yes...thats where the detail and the image is....not within the mire of frequencies beyond human hearing, which aren't recorded...mics don't go that high....etc etc....
Old 1st August 2013 | Show parent
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 
Verified Member
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by IIIrd ➡️
Pointless trying to cut frequencies the cutter wont cut, and the engineer would filter off anyway. 24 bits yes...thats where the detail and the image is....not within the mire of frequencies beyond human hearing, which aren't recorded...mics don't go that high....etc etc....
One could argue that the benefit of a higher sampling rate is fewer Nyquist filter artifacts in the audible range rather than the extra octave of audio.

I haven't tested it myself but I'm curious to know how much of the >20k content coming off LPs is reproduction system distortion. It would be interesting to cut two bands: one from a 96k source and the second from a 96k -> src to 44k1 source, and compare. I'll bet the 44k1 source will still show >22k energy during playback. Easy to test, in my spare time...
Old 1st August 2013 | Show parent
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 
Verified Member
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yann Dub ➡️
I don t agree
The stereo image will be much better at 96 than than at 44.1
Can you explain this?
Old 1st August 2013 | Show parent
  #16
Lives for gear
 
807Recordings's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by IIIrd ➡️
Pointless trying to cut frequencies the cutter wont cut, and the engineer would filter off anyway. 24 bits yes...thats where the detail and the image is....not within the mire of frequencies beyond human hearing, which aren't recorded...mics don't go that high....etc etc....
But my moog synthesizer hits 30KHz easy with the filter opened and many other electronic devices.

Why is that everyone from the old days still thinks all music has something to do with microphones. Thats such a myopic point of view.

From what I have had cut I find 96KHz files sound better than 48KHz and some of that information is on the actual record, not brick filtered.

YMMV of course.
Old 1st August 2013 | Show parent
  #17
Lives for gear
 
IIIrd's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by 807Recordings ➡️
But my moog synthesizer hits 30KHz easy with the filter opened and many other electronic devices.

Why is that everyone from the old days still thinks all music has something to do with microphones. Thats such a myopic point of view.

From what I have had cut I find 96KHz files sound better than 48KHz and some of that information is on the actual record, not brick filtered.

YMMV of course.
Nothing above 25K ....not cut on a record the lathe can't (at normal speed)...nothing much above 16k at any significant level..not safe to cut. besides...another limiting factor is playback systems ability to reproduce these frequencies...that includes speakers...my b&w's stop at 33kHz..

not myopic either...
Old 1st August 2013 | Show parent
  #18
Lives for gear
 
IIIrd's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson ➡️
One could argue that the benefit of a higher sampling rate is fewer Nyquist filter artifacts in the audible range rather than the extra octave of audio.

I haven't tested it myself but I'm curious to know how much of the >20k content coming off LPs is reproduction system distortion. It would be interesting to cut two bands: one from a 96k source and the second from a 96k -> src to 44k1 source, and compare. I'll bet the 44k1 source will still show >22k energy during playback. Easy to test, in my spare time...
why not a 96 and a 44.1 ...no sample rate....as for the artifacts...we're talking about a record with surface noise and an clicks etc...

I understand where your coming from, but i think for vinyl...96 isn't necessary
Old 1st August 2013 | Show parent
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 
Verified Member
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by IIIrd ➡️
why not a 96 and a 44.1 ...no sample rate....
Just trying to reduce the variables. I'm going to try it this afternoon.
Old 1st August 2013
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Paul Gold's Avatar
 
Verified Member
8 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
I record into my system at 44.1. and cut from those files. I see no reason to change.

I have had clients cut two versions of acetates. A 96k version and a 44.1k version. In each case they preferred one over the other. I'd say there is a difference.
Old 1st August 2013
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 
Verified Member
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
DAC -> VMS70/SAL74B -> SX74 -> Ortofon 2M Bronze -> custom pre –> ADC.

I didn’t try recording the feedback or a different cartridge so there are a few other variables worth mentioning.

Not sure what this proves but here's what I got. Plenty of HF off the lacquer that wasn't in the source.

Left to right is:

96k Source, 96k Off Lacquer, 44k1 source, 44k1 Off Lacquer
Attached Thumbnails
Mastering for Vinyl-96k-source.png   Mastering for Vinyl-96k-off-lacquer.png   Mastering for Vinyl-44k1-source.png   Mastering for Vinyl-44k1-off-lacquer.png  
Old 1st August 2013
  #22
Lives for gear
I guess it is just plain friction noise?

Personally I don't think there is a benefit in using anything higher than 44100 for a final product (when there is minimal sound manipulation afterwards compared to mixing/mastering).
But then again - I'm very interested to hear how sampling rate affects stereo imagery - I failed to gather any info on that. And this is something that cannot be seen from those images.
Old 2nd August 2013 | Show parent
  #23
Lives for gear
 
807Recordings's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by IIIrd ➡️
Nothing above 25K ....not cut on a record the lathe can't (at normal speed)...nothing much above 16k at any significant level..not safe to cut. besides...another limiting factor is playback systems ability to reproduce these frequencies...that includes speakers...my b&w's stop at 33kHz..

not myopic either...
Then how did they encode all those good ol quadrophonic discs with the high frequency carrier signals?

It can be done, and has been, and it all comes down to cuts, the cutting system, engineer, etc. I am not suggesting you can cut at +6dB a 30KHz signal though so don't misunderstand what I am suggesting is possible.

Play-time is a huge factor of course and this is also why when I get cuts done I keep it under 6min at 45RPM.
Old 2nd August 2013
  #24
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
The main HF limitation is that a cutting stylus can't cut anything smaller than its own dimensions. This typically meant 15k.

Quad LPs were cut at 1/3 speed with a special, smaller stylus that I was told couldn't be used at full speed without wearing out after only a side or two.
Old 2nd August 2013 | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Adam Dempsey's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson ➡️
One could argue that the benefit of a higher sampling rate is fewer Nyquist filter artifacts in the audible range rather than the extra octave of audio.
This. Minimize any unnecessary dsp (eg, sample rate conversion) from the outset and allow the cutting engineer to do what's needed for a great cut, IME.
Old 3rd August 2013
  #26
Lives for gear
 
Play's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I don't shop for vinyl after the Bill Laswell period and I feel strange about not doing so but this rule applies for me in most cases except maybe classical recording.

It shouldn't be so but most new vinyl I've heard just doesn't sound at all as well realised. To the point where printing to vinyl almost seems like a bit of a gimmick.

Admittedly, this may be self-revealing of a person who craves antiquity and sampling nostalgia.

However, I'd really like to be able to get into new vinyl, its just a bit hard to find a reason with so much obscurity available which is new to me.

Sorry for ranting. I have a deep desire to make a record I would buy myself, nothing revolutionary I suppose but something that would be bought soley for sampling, though I'm not sure what that means, its something felt.
Old 3rd August 2013 | Show parent
  #27
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson ➡️
Can you explain this?
highest sample rate permits to record and read highest frequancies , but also permits to have a better phase response of between the 2 chanels.

just record a tape or a vinyl at 44.1 and 88.2 in your DAW and listen to the differences between the 2 wav files ...the best result will be the 88.2 kHz file , even if there is nothing recorded over 16k Hz ...


we can t listen to very high frequencies , but we can listen to very schort diffreences of time between our 2 ears
For the same reason , we will prefer the sound of a cut done from the 88.2 file than the same cut done with the 44.1 file ... and the best of the best will be the cut from the tape

This is why it is important to use the highest definition for vinyl cutting.
44.1 is used because it is a standard since so many years .... but we schould forget it and work with only with hd formats , or ... tapes
Old 3rd August 2013
  #28
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
how do you make sure that you dont listen to the converter performance that sounds better in this case? another one may sound better at 44.
Old 3rd August 2013
  #29
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
and why the phase response between two channels suffers from the DAs internal filter. did it not performe equal on both channels. why should there be difference?
Old 3rd August 2013
  #30
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Lets skip all of the pseudo-science.

The low pass filters required by low sample rates frequently don't sound very good which has nothing to do with bandwidth and everything to do with crap they generate within the audible band.
📝 Reply
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump