|
|
Post by alvaropinto on Jun 18, 2018 11:34:48 GMT
Hi all, this might not be a simple question but here it goes: Are the Classic Records reissues of Blue Note albums made out of analogue sources only or was there any digital process used along the line? I'm thinking particularly on the BLP 1536 J R Monterose self titled album... Thanks! Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by gst on Jun 18, 2018 16:14:05 GMT
I believe it was all analogue. Per Analog Planet's website:
Back to Mono for Classic Records
Classic Records held a well-attended press conference at their Alexis Park booth, where Mike Hobson announced a 15-LP release of classic Blue Note albums in the original mono configurations much preferred by collectors. Classic has been testing various pieces of associated gear to try to duplicate the look and sound of the highly sought-after originals, including reproducing the "deep groove" record label and flat lead-in area (without "groove guard").
But more important than authentic looks (including original label art and paper-on-board jackets) is the sound. Classic had Bernie Grundman's Studer A80 playback tape deck fitted with a mono playback head. To complete the chain, a Westrex 2A mono cutter head was rebuilt and fitted to the Scully lathe by History of Recorded Sound's Len Horowitz and Bernie Grundman Mastering's master tech, Beno May. Test lacquers cut with the stereo and mono heads demonstrated that mono was the way to go. Mastering will be all-tube, using playback electronics from an Ampex 300 recorder and a restored Western Electric mono cutting amp. Classic whetted appetites by giving out copies of Miles Davis' 10" Blue Note debut, Young Man With a Horn (BLP 5013).
I have a few of these In my collection and think they sound great.
|
|
|
|
Post by alvaropinto on Jun 19, 2018 10:02:24 GMT
Hey Blue Note,
thanks for the useful information.That was what I suspected but was unsure.So, even the lacquer cutting was made with a mono head which means that it can be played using a mono stylus right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Jun 19, 2018 14:06:12 GMT
Hey Blue Note, thanks for the useful information.That was what I suspected but was unsure.So, even the lacquer cutting was made with a mono head which means that it can be played using a mono stylus right? If a mono lacquer disk is cut with a stereo cutting head, it can still be played with a modern mono cartridge. The only thing that may cause a problem is playing a modern mono LP with a 1-mil stylus; most modern mono cartridges have 0.7-mil stylus that will properly fit any groove. It really boils down to groove width, not mono/stereo. When I did my research measuring the groove widths of various mono LPs a few months back, I found that the Classic reissue grooves were more of a "modern" width. See dgmono.com/2018/04/06/deep-groove-mono-and-the-great-groove-width-mystery/ |
|
|
|
Post by alvaropinto on Jun 19, 2018 20:56:42 GMT
I see what you mean Rich but if (and here I transcribe)"a Westrex 2A mono cutter head was rebuilt and fitted to the Scully lathe" doesn't that means the groove width corresponds to the measurements of mono vintage records i.e. playable on a 1-mil stylus? I'0m just asking this because I have a Ortofon 25M mono cartridge which I use to play my vintage mono records.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Jun 20, 2018 4:51:01 GMT
For the Classic reissue I brought with me, Duke Pearson's Tender Feelin's, the groove width measured 2.375 mils. That was at the higher end of all the "modern" reissues (those produced after 1970), but the average groove width for mono records produced before 1970 was about 3.0 mils (vintage Van Gelder-cut mono Blue Notes never had a width less than 2.875). So while the minimum groove width standard of the mono microgroove era was 2.15 mils, the Classic 2.375 is close. That being said, I would guess that a 1-mil stylus should still fit that groove and track it ok.
The fact that Classic used an authentic mono cutting head does not guarantee that they (Bernie Grundman) cut the grooves with the old wider 2.15-mil microgroove standard in mind. My understanding is that a mastering engineer still has the choice of what width to cut the groove at even with a mono cutting head. Based on my observation, it would appear that while Classic used an authentic mono head, the 2.375 width indicates that they actually expected most people to play these records with modern 0.7-mil styli.
This is all hypothetical of course, and the best thing to do I think is to play the Classic reissues with both size styli and choose based on what you actually hear (I'm sure you're aware that the OM cartridge fitted with a D25M stylus is technically not mono and you still need to sum the channels at some point for it to play in mono). Personally, I would just play the Classics with a modern 0.7-mil stylus and wouldn't think twice about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by alvaropinto on Jun 20, 2018 5:52:35 GMT
That makes sense. Thanks a lot for your help and illuminating responses
Cheers!....
|
|
|
|
Post by alvaropinto on Jun 23, 2018 8:46:47 GMT
Still on this subject, what about OJC early US pressings from the 80ies?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by gst on Jun 23, 2018 12:17:49 GMT
Still on this subject, what about OJC early US pressings from the 80ies? Thanks! OJC has done a lot of reissues of the years, but the very first ones are very good and supposedly cut from the original analog tapes. However i’m not sure how the record itself was cut. I’m sure Rich will chime in here. |
|
|
|
Post by Doom Girl on Sept 8, 2020 22:10:04 GMT
How do I insert a picture I took into a posting?
|
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Sept 9, 2020 16:21:38 GMT
I think you need to be signed in.
|
|
