new Lp; Reference Recordings--Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances

Mike Lavigne said:

Myles,

so you went and asked them (RR-Marcia) about the source of the Rachmaninoff, and they basically talked about how they did not want to use the original masters for cutting the lacquers so a 176/24 'copy' was used.....not specifically saying that the Rachmaninoff Lp was sourced from a tape. now you think it was only a digital recording to begin with.......or.....maybe......that they had both digital and tape but Keith preferred the digital.

hummmmmm.

Click to expand...

No you jogged my brain about the Rachmaninoff. After all, it's the last day of CES and my brain is fried But check the date of the recording on the LP. I think it's after RR discontinued recording in parallel.

I'm looking forward to hearing the 3 releases on LP. If Mike is happy with the Symphonic Dances, I'm sure it will sound good. I will post my opinons after I hear it and the other two.

Mike Lavigne said:

i looked at the CD two nights ago; the Rachmaninoff was recorded in the spring of 2001. i don't know when they stopped the parallel tape recording.

Click to expand...

According to Paul over on the tape project site, RR stopped recording in parallel when they discontinued releasing records. That was ten or more years ago I think.

This also might help:http://www.musicangle.com/album.php?id=1032

This is no state secret. I think a simple email to RR will clear this up once and for all.

Mike and WBF are now famous!

ack said:

You mean tape or the original LP??? The Tape Project tape has been used in recent shows to allegedly thrilling effects

Click to expand...

Ack, sorry for the late reply as I did not read this thread for a long time, it was the the LP that i picked up.

And in reply to Mike and Myles if the LP or a single dsd (not PCM) copy via a Grim from the master would sound more 'true or exact' to the original, I have heard from industry pro's who have cut vinyl for their living, feel that the digital rendition would be closest.

This does not imply which one is the most preferable one from a listening perspective. I enjoy analog more for the performance it delivers. It is just the amount of equalisation that has to be placed on the lacquer especially when you are cutting a grove as you come towards the centre or end of the record that starts to let the medium down.

I believe Bob Ludwig summed it up best, that if you want something closest to the master than the LP is not it. I think he was smart bu not saying that digital was it either! Something to that effect.

BTW I am an all out analog medium enthusiast. But I just share my conversations and experiences from meeting and talking with industry folks.