interesting phenomena in the cutting room

Dear Atmasphere: You was whom started the thread and as I posted I'm just one more ignorant ( down there ) about the overall recording process and that's why I ask to the expert that in this case is you but you don't gave any explanation about and only said: "  the things listed most have nothing to do with the LP except the mastering, plating and the resulting quality of the pressings. "

IMHO I think that an explanation is in order to why the other " subjects/recording characteristics " have nothing to do with the LP because I can read in several LP's " histories " how the recording was made where talks on many those recording links that you say " have nothing to do with LP ". Examples:

- in the Rega recording of Cristine Collister LP Roy Gandy ( that I think is not an ignorant as me. ) write in the " historty " of this recording: " After trying many new and vintage microphonesCristine choose the amazing Pearl C22.... to avoid the increase of sibilance.... we built a new mixing console......all the voices and instruments were recorded directly  into the tape machine ( Studer A80 ) via a Rega designed mic preamp.....to mix the final 8-tracks onto two-track 1/4 inch Rega designed  a purpose built fully discrete 8-channel mixer based on the Rega pre-amplifier. Monitoring on various Rega speakers... "

- Sheffield was and is famous because their D2D great recording where they by-pass ( between other things ) the tape recorder used nonmally in all LP recordings and where exist always a degradation of the original audio signal.
Sheffield made other non D2D very good recordings: " live to two-tracK ".

- Music Labs has its own K2 recording technology.

- The Super Analogue Disc were famous recordings because they explain and by pass more than 4 normal recording process links.

- VTL not only builded his mics mixer/amp but build in purpose the microphone that was used during the VTL recordings.

-Three Blind Mice ( Misty ) made this recording ( and others. ) using 3 mics on the piano, 3 mics in the bass and 8 mics in the drums ( almost all different mics ). So, 14 mics for three instruments.

- other label recordings use only 3 mics and other labels 20-40 as deutchs gramaphone.

- on those recording LP examples the producers and enginners were different and all those LP sampels sounds way different with different quality level.

Why all those recording labels took so many care and choices and even build own electronics to make better recordings where we can hear the differences?  if almost all what I listed " have nothing to do with the LP " from where comes the differences on each recording?

Could you make a wide explanation that put some light in what I posted here and elsewhere in this your thread?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear friends: Like you I'm a guest in this Atmasphere thread. Because he decided to stay " dead silence " against my posts where I ask for a wide explanation I have to ask to a today expert recording engineer trying to learn and understand not only what for me was a no-sense answer from Atmasphere but if what I posting here was totally wrong and this is what he email me:


""""  Mics and preamps, as well as microphone placement is one of the most important parts of the recording processes. You can never correct for this, if done wrong. You can always remix and remaster.....as well as recut. So, IMO, anyone who says otherwise has not consider just how important this is...... """"""

by coincidence in my non-expert list I posted that.

Not only for the answer of this recording engineer but for what I posted in my first post this thread (    " The real limitation in LP recording is the playback apparatus, not the cutters. "

That I remember in this forum I never read a post where some one saids that cutters were the problem with the LP recordings/playback. )
was only part of the Atmasphere's agenda to promote what he do because at the end he is a seller. Nothing wrong with that, this is a free world.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Perhaps Ralph understands that all the points you raise about the recording processes are common to both digital and analogue and have nothing to do with the 'cutting' processes of the LP....?

Very good info here guys. I have enjoyed reading about the recording process.

Hello Raul, I didn't know there were new posts to this thread. I'm still trying to sort out this new format Audiogon is using and one of the things that is frustrating is it does not use a good 'new post' system!

Regarding your comments, they were in fact addressed quite well in halcro's response just above. Most of what you commented about is a commonality with all good recordings- you want the recording to be as good as possible regardless of the format.

We've resorted to building our own equipment for the recording process as well. Its not to accommodate anything to do with the LP so much as it is to know that we are giving the signal from the mics the best chance that we can give it!

Overall otherwise I've found the LP format to be pretty accommodating
It has wider dynamic range than tape, and effectively has wider range than CD as well, despite the CD having greater dynamic range on paper. As is often seen in this sport, what is practical and what is on paper are often two very different things!

Y'all have a Happy New Year!