new Lp; Reference Recordings--Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances

[Mike Lavigne]

i just recieved a new Lp of the RR Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances. this recording has been a reference in CD since it came out in 2001, and i also have it on my server in the HRx 176-24 version. i've likely listened to this recording many hundreds of times.

but never like this.

as i've been listening i've been trying to determine whether it's an analog master or digital master, or something 'in-between'. i've read the notes from the CD, and looked over the RR web page. the only thing i can find is a quote from a review Harry Pearson did when the CD first came out that reads

..........how Johnson got that huge climax at the end of the Dances cleanly onto tape transcends engineering and goes into the realm of magic." -- Harry Pearson, TAS

in 2001 i think RR was still doing both a 176/24 and tape master from the same mic feed. anyway; at this point i don't really know the answer to the source format.

Harry Pearson does mention in his review (AS Jan 2012) of the previous RR Lp release of the Stravinsky 'Song of the Nightengale' that it's analog tape based, but transfered to 176/24 for feeding the cutting lathe due to concerns about the condition of the master tape. which is where my 'in-between' comment came from.

i'm going to go out on a limb, and say i think this one is analog tape sourced based on what i'm hearing. the tape would only be 10 years young.

in any case; if you liked the CD or HRx of this recording, you will love the Lp. way more meat on the bones, more tonal color and body, and a liquidity that gets lost in the digital process. and the dynamics and bass are wonderful.

both the CD and HRx are known for their excellent soundstage as digital recordings, the Lp is better yet but not hugely so, although it does have more depth and ambient substance.

the Lp simply has a 'believeability' to it which for me gets me to relax into the music. it sounds right.

nice job RR, and nice mastering job by Chad's QRP facility.

quiet, flat surfaces and really nice sounding on my NVS/Telos/A90 set-up.

anyone who wants to easily compare CD to 176hz-24bit to an Lp just try this and decide for yourself what's going on.

 

[MylesBAstor]

i just recieved a new Lp of the RR Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances. this recording has been a reference in CD since it came out in 2001, and i also have it on my server in the HRx 176-24 version. i've likely listened to this recording many hundreds of times.

but never like this.

as i've been listening i've been trying to determine whether it's an analog master or digital master, or something 'in-between'. i've read the notes from the CD, and looked over the RR web page. the only thing i can find is a quote from a review Harry Pearson did when the CD first came out that reads



in 2001 i think RR was still doing both a 176/24 and tape master from the same mic feed. anyway; at this point i don't really know the answer to the source format.

Harry Pearson does mention in his review (AS Jan 2012) of the previous RR Lp release of the Stravinsky 'Song of the Nightengale' that it's analog tape based, but transfered to 176/24 for feeding the cutting lathe due to concerns about the condition of the master tape. which is where my 'in-between' comment came from.

i'm going to go out on a limb, and say i think this one is analog tape sourced based on what i'm hearing. the tape would only be 10 years young.

in any case; if you liked the CD or HRx of this recording, you will love the Lp. way more meat on the bones, more tonal color and body, and a liquidity that gets lost in the digital process. and the dynamics and bass are wonderful.

both the CD and HRx are known for their excellent soundstage as digital recordings, the Lp is better yet but not hugely so, although it does have more depth and ambient substance.

the Lp simply has a 'believeability' to it which for me gets me to relax into the music. it sounds right.

nice job RR, and nice mastering job by Chad's QRP facility.

quiet, flat surfaces and really nice sounding on my NVS/Telos/A90 set-up.

anyone who wants to easily compare CD to 176hz-24bit to an Lp just try this and decide for yourself what's going on.

I'll try and ask Marcia tomorrow.

 

[mep]

I just ordered all 3 titles that RR has on LP. I hope the damn things are quiet since they are coming from Chad and the boys. Also, if we find out the Symphonic Dances was sourced from a digital file instead of analog tape, does that mean that Mike has to eat some digital crow?

And I say that because if the LP was sourced from a digital file and the LP sounds better than the digital file, some people aren't going to buy that and another food fight will ensue. I hope that all 3 LPs sound great.

 

[rbbert]

According to an interview in UHF magazine, the RR LP's are cut from a digital master to aid in the cutting process (previewing).

 

[Bruce B]

According to an interview in UHF magazine, the RR LP's are cut from a digital master to aid in the cutting process (previewing).

(Getting knife and fork for Mike!)

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I just ordered all 3 titles that RR has on LP. I hope the damn things are quiet since they are coming from Chad and the boys. Also, if we find out the Symphonic Dances was sourced from a digital file instead of analog tape, does that mean that Mike has to eat some digital crow?

And I say that because if the LP was sourced from a digital file and the LP sounds better than the digital file, some people aren't going to buy that and another food fight will ensue. I hope that all 3 LPs sound great.

i did go out on a limb, without knowing for sure one way or another. it was a guess.

i like plenty of digital sourced Lps. and there are plenty of digital sourced Lps that are crap. others have digital in the mastering process somewhere. there is a wide gamut of variables. i'd only say that overall my favorites are the all analog. i don't get too hung up on how any particular Lp is mastered.

i do always wonder if an Lp with digital in the process might have sounded better kept in analog. digital is just so easy for the engineer. unless the client insists the engineer will go the easy path.

i'll add that whatever RR says happened in the mastering/lathe cutting process, we don't necessarily know what actually happened. they have their agendas like anyone else. and clearly it's to push PCM and it's cred.

another question is whether the Lp of Symphonic Dances started as an analog recording, or started as a 176/24 recording. if there is a tape, i'd like to see that one become a Tape Project tape. in 1/2".

we'll see what Myles has to say that Marcia said.

oh and to let you know; those 2 other RR Lps both sound pretty good. nicely done in my opinion.

the Dick Hyman is maybe a bit laid back but is a fine recording. the Stravinsky is really good all around.

 

[mep]

Thanks for the info Mike. I hope all 3 LPs sound great. With regards to LPs made from digital files, I agree that some sound real good and some not so good. Donal Fagan's Nightfly is an example of early digital that is exposed for what it is with a high quality system.

I do believe that the LP is transparent enough to tell you how good the original source was that made the LP whether it was digital or analog.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Coming from a non-LP/RR/analog person as you may already know.I hope this is not taken as cheap shot at analog. It is not meant to be so, not the intention..

But ... This also says a lot about how far digital has progressed and how good it is or has been ... Whether ultimately this LP is sourced from a digital file as some posts would suggest or not, It is telling that it is very difficult or impossible to discern digital from analog with digital at its best ... A few years ago, one would not have to revert to ask the producer .. The sound would have told you everything one needed to know .. Not anymore ...

 

[JackD201]

Source doesn't matter much to me. Quite a few reall good digitally recorded LPs and lots of all analog dogs too, we just never see them because owners probably thought they were worth preserving for future generations of music lovers LOL. I usually go for first or early pressings over reissues, gotta get them while you can.

Anyway, I love Rach and I like Oue. RR has always been consistent and what they have been consistent at, I like as well. Into the shopping cart.

Thanks for the heads up Mike.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hi

Coming from a non-LP/RR/analog person as you may already know.I hope this is not taken as cheap shot at analog. It is not meant to be so, not the intention..

But ... This also says a lot about how far digital has progressed and how good it is or has been ... Whether ultimately this LP is sourced from a digital file as some posts would suggest or not, It is telling that it is very difficult or impossible to discern digital from analog with digital at its best ... A few years ago, one would not have to revert to ask the producer .. The sound would have told you everything one needed to know .. Not anymore ...

it's no more difficult to tell whether an Lp has digital in it's mastering chain now, than it ever has been. many late 70's early 80's pressings use digital to some degree, and they are a crap shoot to know for sure. i have maybe a 100-200 classical pressings from that era and maybe 30-40 are digital in some way or another. some you can tell and some not so much. but that era was not the best for analog either; with lot's of edgy solid state stuff in the signal path.

now if you compare them to a 50's or early 60's pressing of the same type of music it might be more evidant. it's not an accident that everyone always wants the 50's and early 60's pressings.

today's very best recordings and masterings have the potential to be the best. but there will always be so many variables in the end product of any media that one aspect can be masked.

and we still don't know for sure about the mastering chain of this recording.

 

[Nevillekapadia]

So I have a query for the digital/analog transfers to LP folks.......which will sound closest to the master?

If you took one of the RR Analog Master tapes or for that matter any master, and cut a lacquer to make an LP like the Symphonic Dances; at the same time transferred it to digital in a DSD (better if it was even 2xDSD) format, and then played both back in the studio.............and A/B'd the two against the master tape! Which would be closest to the master? ;-)

I think quite a few will know the answer.

As Mike mentioned the "end product of any media...." that matters most.

 

[ack]

Mike, you beat me by a day! I got mine last night but haven't played it yet... currently warming up my amps...

Marcia, what I really want next is Nojima Plays Liszt on LP!

 

[Nevillekapadia]

Marcia, what I really want next is Nojima Plays Liszt on LP!

That is a brilliant performance and recording, I was lucky to pick one of fleabay sealed.

 

[ack]

That is a brilliant performance and recording, I was lucky to pick one of fleabay sealed.

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

 

[ack]

the Lp simply has a 'believeability' to it which for me gets me to relax into the music. it sounds right.

First audition is over and am now comparing the HDCD vs the LP, level-matched and within half a second apart... I can't say I am hearing differences between the A90/VPI/Ayre and the Alpha DAC in my system, except the cymbals which are a touch clearer and slightly more dynamic in the LP - they are both immensely enjoyable, relaxing and so you-are-there right. The overall rendering is uncannily virtually-the-same between the two sources. Probably my components' resolution abilities. It would be interesting to bring in another more expensive phono preamp...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

So I have a query for the digital/analog transfers to LP folks.......which will sound closest to the master?

If you took one of the RR Analog Master tapes or for that matter any master, and cut a lacquer to make an LP like the Symphonic Dances; at the same time transferred it to digital in a DSD (better if it was even 2xDSD) format, and then played both back in the studio.............and A/B'd the two against the master tape! Which would be closest to the master? ;-)

I think quite a few will know the answer.

As Mike mentioned the "end product of any media...." that matters most.

i have heard a number of 2xdsd copies from tape where i also have the Lp. i don't necessarily know the exact master tape that the Lp was sourced from. with my Telos/NVS set-up for analog, the Lps are many times as good as the tape, and while the 2xdsd is very very good, but not quite as good as the tape or the Lp. but it's gets close in many ways.

another way to look at that question is when my friend brought over his KORG to make 2xdsd copies off my Rockport last year. the KORG did sound great, but not transparent to the source. it was easy to tell which was which when we switched back and forth.

those 2xdsd copies were great in their own right and really when digital is that good there is nothing to complain about. but there is better with the best analog.

 

[MylesBAstor]

So I have a query for the digital/analog transfers to LP folks.......which will sound closest to the master?

If you took one of the RR Analog Master tapes or for that matter any master, and cut a lacquer to make an LP like the Symphonic Dances; at the same time transferred it to digital in a DSD (better if it was even 2xDSD) format, and then played both back in the studio.............and A/B'd the two against the master tape! Which would be closest to the master? ;-)

I think quite a few will know the answer.

As Mike mentioned the "end product of any media...." that matters most.

Bruce has done it and demoed it at CES. Let's say that the digital file is not a copy of the tape. Where it falls most notably short of the tape is in the upper octaves, followed by a loss of dimensionality and harmonic content.

 

[MylesBAstor]

i have heard a number of 2xdsd copies from tape where i also have the Lp. i don't necessarily know the exact master tape that the Lp was sourced from. with my Telos/NVS set-up for analog, the Lps are many times as good as the tape, and while the 2xdsd is very very good, but not quite as good as the tape or the Lp. but it's gets close in many ways.

another way to look at that question is when my friend brought over his KORG to make 2xdsd copies off my Rockport last year. the KORG did sound great, but not transparent to the source. it was easy to tell which was which when we switched back and forth.

those 2xdsd copies were great in their own right and really when digital is that good there is nothing to complain about. but there is better with the best analog.

Ok so the scoop is that the RR LPs are high Rez digital copies (I think 24/176). Keith Johnson apparently is very protective about his master tapes and doesn't want to play them, as I was told, the four or five times, it would have required to cut a good lacquer. That also explains my lukewarm run to the first two albums -and not being particularly interested in buying more.

That said, they should have been more forthcoming. Reminds me of when Clarity Records released the Mary Stallings LP and didn't tell anyone it was a digital recording.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Ok so the scoop is that the RR LPs are high Rez digital copies (I think 24/176). Keith Johnson apparently is very protective about his master tapes and doesn't want to play them, as I was told, the four or five times, it would have required to cut a good lacquer. That also explains my lukewarm run to the first two albums -and not being particularly interested in buying more.

That said, they should have been more forthcoming. Reminds me of when Clarity Records released the Mary Stallings LP and didn't tell anyone it was a digital recording.

Myles,

thanks. just to clarify, when you say 'high rez copies', you mean copies of the analog tape as opposed to simply the hi rez recording off the mic feed.

i say that because that was the explanation given to Harry Pearson in the Jan 2012 Absolute Sound for the process for the Stravinsky.

i was thinking; it's too bad they didn't have Paul Subblebine make a working 1" master from Keith's original master (like the Tape Project does) and then cut the lacquers from that. you would solve the problem, make a better Lp, and already be half way there for a Tape Project title. it would have cost a few hundred for the 1" tape; but they could/would have sold more Lps for sure.

Paul could have cut the lacquers and sent them to QRP for pressing.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Myles,

thanks. just to clarify, when you say 'high rez copies', you mean copies of the analog tape as opposed to simply the hi rez recording off the mic feed.

i say that because that was the explanation given to Harry Pearson in the Jan 2012 Absolute Sound for the process for the Stravinsky.

i was thinking; it's too bad they didn't have Paul Subblebine make a working 1" master from Keith's original master (like the Tape Project does) and then cut the lacquers from that. you would solve the problem, make a better Lp, and already be half way there for a Tape Project title. it would have cost a few hundred for the 1" tape; but they could/would have sold more Lps for sure.

Paul could have cut the lacquers and sent them to QRP for pressing.

Yes you bring up a good point that I didn't consider I assumed they did it from the tape and that probably was true with the recording where analog and digital was done in parallel. But you're right: I don't think there's an analog tape of the Rachmaninoff and that's probably right from the digital master. Guess Paul would know

And yes I was thinking about them using the one inch copy but Keith probably felt the digital version was better.