File number 2 without a doubt. The electric bass stood out stronger and after 3 listens, Decided that more seperation in the L&R channels. Glad you saved me from making that purchase. I have Billy Joels Stranger vinyl by mobile fidelity and compared those two way back in the day and never felt the need to pay the higher price mobile labs record again. Your German pressing from my standpoint was way better and we all have our own opinion and that is mine. Good job with your presentations man, Enjoyed the chance to hear another sampling
Comparing this two files in Sound Forge and Spectralayers it is obvious that old mastering has equal channels levels and overall dense sound. Abbey Road version left channel is lower by 3db than right, poorer low end and holes in midrange.
I just bought Chic's Album that was re produced using this method. WOW.... What a difference. The Base, the vocals, the instruments. Worth every penny ! I recommend it to any audio file / music lover.
I couldn't tell because I'm listening on a cellphone. BUT... an excellent one to listen on half speed is the Dire Straights Brothers in arms by Abby Road studios. I have both copies and the original sounds great but the half speed is haunting on a high-end system.
Kudos and bravo to you for such a thorough channel that covers most everything HI FI. I agree , if the second recording was the original, the base is easier to distinguish form the drum, and the cymbals are more pronounced, which is a problem with a lot of recordings, not enough high freq response. listen to the cymbals form a live band and you will know what Im talking about. It depends a lot on the specifics, Why go half speed when 45 rpm is touted as being much better high freq response? Why dont they do everything half speed if its better? Ive seen the fine details of everything in the processs, recording, mastering, and production, effect the outcome. 45 rpm makes most sense to me. the high freqs can shine
@@mercurialmagictrees i actually listen to this on analog silver face system from early 80s with proper amplifier and speakers, nr 2 was my choice :-) greatings from Melbourne :-)
Completely in line with half speed mastering wish to see quater speed mastering. The only thing you're loosing are distortion as the lathe is way more precise, better low , better mid, better high. This said, the sound of slower recording is more clinical due to what mentioned previously! It's to the client to buy what he prefer, the more capable would buy the two. File 1 is way more steady/clinical but lack more lathe artifact/distortion. File 2 is more punchy/heretical but less clinical/more distortion. Both sound great! Both worth existing! Ps: That's also valid to digit vinyl, and my preferred method, way more detail captured especially with regular cartridge! Question, as you have some master tape, can't you do a comparison with them to see which one is more closer to the master tape? (i'll bet for the half speed version)
I bought a half speed mastered Frampton Comes Alive in 1981, while stationed in Germany. Sweet Thunder records Audiophile edition #6. Still sounds as good as the 1st time I played it. It was cut in 1976. I had a habit of cleaning a new record & setting my recording levels & taping the record onto a tape deck, an Akai GX 77D. Taped a lot of my friends new records for myself also.
I listened to file 1 and then file 2 from your links. 1 sounded really good, but 2 sounded better with a wider sound stage. Yeah the bass was stronger on 2, but it sounded more real. I even went back and forth and there's a definite difference between the two files. And now to see which is which? Okay...I was surprised that file 2 was the original pressing. I actually preferred 2. Your assessment at the end was spot on.
I’m going to listen with my headphones on, but it would seem, as many others have pointed out, the bass feels thicker and the highs more clear on FILE 2.
Listened to the HiRez downloads and decided File 1 was the half speed mastering but it wasn't because of the better high frequencies in cymbals and 'S' sounds which sounded identical. It just had more clarity in the 500Hz to 2000Hz regions especially in snare hits and lead vocal. File 2 just sounded murkier and softer. I'm listening on Sony MDR V6 Studio Monitor headphones. Just to add concerning high frequencies which are directional meaning they reach the ears first sounding louder, any reverb digitally applied or captured naturally in the recording that gives a sense of presence and separation and clarity primarily occupy the high frequency region mainly around 5kHz to 12kHz. I've noticed this when digitally EQ'ing flat, tinny CD music to make it sound bigger and fuller. Adding a bit of reverb to provide separation of instruments I notice is most pronounced in these higher frequencies so this half speed mastering seems like a good idea but I'm not really hearing a lot of it in the provided examples. IOW it's pretty subtle.
Cutting with half speed would allow indeed to cut higher frequencies BUT the record must be play back with normal speed and here there more or less the same issues with high frequencies as the needle has a mass and the higher the frequencies are the higher is the acceleration of the needle and due to F=m*a the higher the forces for the needle and also the vinyl are.
This is not quite a fair comparison. We don’t know if the same exact master tape was used to cut both pressings. Though I do agree that #2 sounded much better.
I could tell the difference right off the bat. File one to me was the best. I have quite a few albums from both studios who do half speed masters and I think it's worth it
Good one! Yes, I prefer file #2. It could have been a difference in EQ, but #2 has more bass, is more dynamic with no downsides that I could hear. Cymbals, sibilants (the usual problem areas) seem about the same. Good rips, BTW. Your table & cart seem to be setup well.
Tony that may be a good idea...(I hate to show off though)...in any case you can catch a glimpse here if you haven't already: ua-cam.com/video/zoz5pXtgNG8/v-deo.html And here: ua-cam.com/video/Ybmw-qGOtAc/v-deo.html
File 2 felt more “full”. The highs and lows were balanced. It definitely had more thump as well. File 1 felt a bit empty. Low ends missing. Highs very prominent. 2 is my choice.
Hi there greetings from Portugal... love your channel watch it all the time :),now I wanted to share something on this theme. My first 1/2 speed record was the Technics Audio Inspection Vol.1 (1976) and it really has an impressive sound .. moving forward, a few days ago I had a 80$ credit in a big chain store here nearby and ordered 2 albuns that I wanted ... (Zigy stardust - David Bowie) and Brothers in Arms, I got the brothers in arms because it was 45 rpm, and I saw both with 1/2 cut from Abbey road, so I thought, lets see where this goes. I have both original pressings of Ziggy and brothers, but they where from my sister, so when I listened this new half cuts they sound to me horrible, it seems the cimbals are outside of everything, the bass is not enough compared to the original, and it didn't sound anything close to the beauty of the Technics half cut Mastering that i remembered, so I just saw your video and I went to the Technics LP and they have the process and I cut and paste here and this is my theory, this new half cuts are not working because groove width, but I don't know, I just noticed that from Technics research, the half cut method in order to be possible the groove widthness had to be expanded and a limit of 16min per side was introduced. Reading this I believe that Abbey Road is doing half speed mastering but keeping the groove dimensions to the limit, and that brings limitations, but this is what is explained by Technics research in 1976: "2. Low speed cutting and frequency response range In the cutting process, the cutting master tape playback speed was reduced from the conventional 38 cm/sec to one half, or 19 cm/sec, and the speed of the lacquer master disc was also reduced from 33* rpm to 163 rpm, and the cutting was made at these reduced speeds. This made possible increased volume levels and improved transient response, with the frequency response characteristics of the cutting process expanded tics of the cutting process expanded to 20 Hz-45 KHz. 3. Abundantly wide cutting pitch In order to make the most of the above factors, the groove pitch was chosen that there would be ample clearance between grooves. The actual recording time per side is therefore some 16 minutes, and no attempt was made to compress the groove spacing. This enabled higher peak levels, and a more-than-adequate groove amplitude, so that the low frequency response, in particular, is greatly improved." So while not aproaching step 3 at the current half cuts.. that means we are loosing indeed the low frequency response....Do you have that Technics LP ? It is Technics Audio Isnpection Vol. I - It has an amazing version of Caravan - Duke Hellington :) P.S.: My system for ref. SL-1200GR | EPC-205c Mk3 + Jico SAS on Boron | Mo-Fi Phono
Wow, the difference was very noticeable. My hearing is not the greatest so I was surprised that I could tell the difference. I preferred # 1 because it was more crisp, while # 2 seemed a bit muffled to me. I am using speakers with good bass end so maybe that's why it sounded like # 1 had enough bass. I wonder if it would have been different if I heard # 2 before # 1? I don't know.
From what I've read in the comments, people confuse mastering with the physical fidelity of the disc. The main advantage of recording at medium speed ensures the cutting head more time to work at high frequencies, this greatly solves the effect of internal distortion. In sum, the sound obtained is cleaner, with less distortion and no wheezing. This does not add or subtract frequencies, it only resolves them better at cut time. People are only evaluating if it sounds sharper or more open and this is because they were made with different equipment. We already know that in the analog world there is nothing mathematically identical. The sound samples were taken from the second track of this LP, an area where distortion is less likely for any cutting technique. A fair comparison would have been with the last track and clarifying that the listener's attention should be on the distortion and not on the sound equalization.
Inner groove distortion will surely benefit from this process but the main advantage is that all frequencies are cut at half their value, so higher frequencies, which may be cut off or distort have the chance to remain intact and present in the groove. Very simple.
@@anadialog Very well, we agree, it is more or less what I have said before. The distortion actually becomes more evident around 17000hz. Low and mid frequencies are not a big problem for the real speed cutter. Excuse me if I am being imperinent, it is not my intention. Listeners do not pay attention to this aspect, they only talk about the different equalizations that actually have other reasons. This technique does not address that issue. What's more, even it seemed to me that the original version sounds more open. From a strictly technical point of view, cutting at medium speed is much more effective when the recording is of quality and the mastering has been taken care of respecting the physical limits of the vinyl, otherwise it would be useless, perhaps even worse. This is why this technique is not always used.
Just because they are using a digital file doesn't mean it's been compressed? If you are using a much higher quality 24 bit source, intended for Hi Fi listening vs a format for the masses, which digital often is (because 99% of playback systems on earth are cruddy)... But assuming they know they are working with vinyl they are not looking to compress it down to playback on ten dollar earbuds.
digitization as such doesn't mean compression. actually, digital domain allows for much deeper dynamic range than analog does. digital mastering for loudness is another thing.
Would it be better to compare on the last track of record and I listened a few times it’s weird I like the first then I like the second then first again but they just have a different sound
The first thing I noticed was that File 1 has obvious clarity and detail in the cymbals which File 2 lacks. File 2 has more bass up front but if it is at the cost of mid range clarity or if File 1 half master has the ability to bring out this clarity then for me file 1 is a winner. Hi fidelity clarity is the thing for me.
It seems that some engineers do a better job than others using half speed mastering. Stan Ricker of Mobile Fidelity back in the day made many great half speed masters. In an old interview with an old Mobile Fidelity guy he mentions that CBS saw what Mofi was doing and decided to take back their catalog and put out the CBS Masterworks. That's why Dark Side is Mofi and Wish you Were Here is CBS. But in the interview he mentions before they did Wish You Were Here they cut a few stinkers because they didn't know you had to use a different EQ with Half Speed. I think the CBS Wish You Were Here and the Mofi Dark Side are both superb. BTW - I couldn't tell the difference listening with my headphones to the Police. I got lazy and didn't download the digital files.
File 1 better bid did you allow for equalization factors on bass? Half speed would need more emphasis on bass as rate of change of flux would decrease,hence output to head reduced thereby reducing bass volume and dynamic range. Cheers Colin S30/8/19
I think the difficulty here is that we are not actually judging the half-speed mastering technique, but the two different masters used. The recent police remasters are not the same sonically as the originals from the 70s/80s. We can only truly evaluate the virtues of the half-speed mastering process if both LPs are cut from an identical master with the same processing applied at the cutting stage, maybe even cut on the same lathe. This scenario is unlikely to exist for any album.
Don't thino only half-speed. Thino a good digitally sourced copy recently released. Does it stand with an original pressing (not even UK)...that wad the objective...
@@anadialog It's probably a good thing you didn't try a UK copy of that album, it was terribly mastered, no bass. I've had three different copies, all the same. The only copy I have with decent bass is the one in the recent box-set. Your German pressing sounds great though.
Loved this as always! I felt that Number Two was a considerably better. To me it was a much fuller and warmer sound. Thanks for another fascinating subject! Ciao!
I went for file 2, I really thought it was the half speed version? 😃 Lots of differences in opinion in the comments so I suppose it's relative to the listener?
File 2 had more prominent bass that threatened to overdrive a little, but file 1 the bass was much smoother even though not as prominent, it was a preferable listen.
#2 sounded the best... somewhat surprised.. Stan Ricker a good friend who most of his cutting was done at 1/2 speed..ELO one of my favorites.. myself a cutting engineer thought the 1/2 speed process didn’t show enough difference to warrant the cost and time involved. Now Direct to disk is a different story to me the best sound experience other than hearing the music live....Thanks Richard Simpson
I agree with you, option 2. iIn fact we have two USA copies, a UK copy and a Netherland copy of each the cpolice album plus several singles and maxis of the band and the UK editions are superior in tonal quality to the others, although the edition gosth in the machine abbey road at medium speed is pretty good. Unfortunately the other half speed albums have not been released separately yet and I have read reviews about quality problems in the box set manufacturing
Hello, And thanks for posting. There seems to be some confusion regarding your sample file. Can you confirm that you used a German/West German first pressing? If so, would you please state the deadwax/ matrices for this sample? As it stands, and according to Discogs, only later re-issues appear from Germany. IOW, this title does not seem to appear as a 1979 German/West German pressing. Rather only later issues/re-issues from the mid 80's. Generally speaking, a 1st pressing should have the original A&M logo labels(not the 5LP circle labels), original AMLH catalog and no barcode. Thank you for your efforts!
Hi, i only had to play the two different soundclips once to hear a noticable difference. Before i even heard your opinion at the end of the video i thought the original german pressing sounded much more alive and the bass sounded far deeper and rounded. Before listening i actually thought the 45rpm master would have had a more fuller rounded sound but i was wrong. Having said all of that i just bought the 45rpm Abbey Road master of Japan`s album Tin Drum and the Bass on that recording sounds very full and rhythmical, better than the original 1980`s vinyl pressing i have. I know you buy some cds. I don`t know if this will be of interest to you but Sony have just released a Quadraphonic double cd of Miles Davis Bitches Brew. I don`t personally have a Quadraphonic system but a friend of mine does so i`m going to listen to it on his system. Do you have any Qaudraphonic pressings? I think with most things related to different pressings it comes down to the source material used and personal taste. I was one of the subscribers who asked for you to make this video so thanks very.
Hi there! Thanks for your insight. No, I don't have quadraphonic records...you need 4 identical speakers and a decoder...but I would love to have that possibility! Good observer, yes, you are correct, it was a specific request...
The INXS Kick half speed master I own is the absolute best sounding piece of vinyl in my collection. It brings Michael Hutchence forward and gives everything a higher sense of energy and immediacy.
Interesting comparison - I too preferred file 2. What cartridge were you using for this test? Just curious as some cartridges seem to be better with one style of music over another. Another question comes to mind about the mastering. You showed the equipment, and as far as I know, all mastering is done using a linear tracking method. I find it interesting that all modern turntables are using pivot arms vs linear tracking that were gaining in popularity when CDs started taking over. I recently obtained some Technics linear tracking turntables and find them excellent because the P-mount cartridges are quickly installed and the only adjustments/alignments needed are tracking force. With linear tracking, there is no anti-skating adjustment and the design of the P-mount cartridges were standardized to eliminate all other alignments. Have you tried any linear tracking turntables and why do you think that these haven't made a comeback as they would seem to be technically superior to pivot arm types and would probably be considerably easier to make given the technology available today? Great channel and keep up the good work! Bob
Hi Bob, the cart is a MC Dynavector DV 20X2 L. Very interesting observation. You are right. They cut tangential but we listen mainly in pivoted. No, I never had a tangential TT although I have listen them. The problem is technology. Just like direct drive motors, you need a very good (hance very expensive to develop, produce and buy) project. Low quality tangential TT are very very bad. If you are employing state if the art technology and materials it is probably superior ti pivoted tracking. Pivoted and, following my example, belt drive TT are much much more easy and cheap to produce and make. Now with this comeback we may be seeing new quality priducts worth the purchase. Especially, I think, with HD vinyl...
Hello from Canada! I was wondering if you could do a video where different album types such as repressings, reissues, remasterings, etc can be explained. As sometimes these terminologies are confused and used interchangeably where they shouldn't be. Thanks.
liked the german pressing too, funny, I listened on my imac speakers so I didn't expect to hear much. I actually heard more high frequency info on the second file...
Thanks for doing this video, I was curious about the Half Speed Mastered albums. I have a 1977 “Elegant Gypsy” by Al Di Meloa and I love it. I saw a Half Speed Mastered version and was curious about it. It was pricey, so I didn’t buy it. For the Police versions you played, I picked the 2nd one at first. I’m glad I didn’t read the comments first. Anyways, I was shocked to find out the 2nd was the original German pressing. Quite interesting!
Enjoyed the video and topic. Can you please provide some more info (deadwax, labels, etc) about that German pressing? According to Discogs there is no such thing as a first German pressing of this album, only reissues. Interesting to see if Discogs is wrong, would not be the first time.
ANA[DIA]LOG I have some Japanese mini lp (CD in fact) this CDs are made from DSD remasters from the original masters tapes and sound imho even better than original LPs
I thought the ride was clearer in No.2 like I could feel the bell better, also the kick felt rounder in No.2, I also thought the snare felt distorted in No.1 as if all the “metal” on the drum kit felt mushy as well in No.1
Para os meus ouvidos eu prefiro a versão half speed, achei o som mais cheio, com os instrumentos bem separados e com notas dos pratos e do vocal em evidência, a versão original é ótima também, Groove no baixo bem profundo, mas achei o volume mais baixo ou abafado não sei dizer exatamente
Back when I used to record analog on CDs (polyvinyl carbonate) this way slowing down the source audio cutting at 33.3RPM to play at 45, I discovered the RIAA curve had to be reworked, not just reversed. Of course you know you can't record "flat" frequency response onto a surface because the bass would cause the needle jump out of the groove. When recording (cutting), the curve for playback has to be reversed, also when cutting at reduced speed, you can't use the traditional curve.
I see. Yes, i use a 'dbx 224' decoder and i really do enjoy the encoding! All kind of surface noise basically vanishes. Counting up to roughly 60 records in the collection now :) @@anadialog
I like file number one which to my ears it had more clarity on the mid high range. Although file 2 gave the low end a punch which sounded awesomely fatter. I believe it's a matter of taste, what song and what instrument your ears are catching and focusing the most and what instrument the artist is trying to make stand out on each song based on the composition of the music. Example: Metallica's Enter Sandman would sound great on a version 2 due to the full fat rich bass that it produces Not so well for the And Justicefor All album. On the other hand Megadeth's Holly Wars will sound great on a half speed master as they tend to go a lot on the mid / high range and because Megadeth has more twist and turns in their music you will be able to appreciate each note and rhythm changes on those guitars. It's like you're in the dark with Metallica (a darker sound), and Megadeth will show you the light. Again, it's a matter of taste and favorite sections of the song; more to what you put you ear into. As for me and the reason for watching this video I believe that I have to find original recording for the Creedence Clearwater Revival LP Bayou Country will sound better on a file 2 because the bass sounds less fat and the mid highs are very pronounced that would even things out. Bass sounds very groovy on the song Born on a Bayou. So I guess I need to keep looking for a version 2 type of record for this album.
Thanks for this compression. It is clear that just because you pay more for a "Re-Master" does not mean it sounds better. A lot of times it is just a marketing tactic!
Did the download ... and preferred File 2 - fuller and more detailed. I don't have many records but was intrigued enough to make a purchase of a crate dig find (good condition). An A&M Canada Audiophile Series - Half speed - pressed in Japan on JVC SuperVinyl - 1975 .... drum roll please ... Chris de Burgh - Spanish Train And Other Stories. It's actually OK - more akin to a 'Devil Went Down to Georgia' / 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' prog rock than the radio assault love ballad that was to come later in in 'Lady In Red'. Recording wise - very good - very low / non-existent noise floor - great sound stage, dynamics and plenty of 'meat on the bones'. Better than either of the example downloads.
I would recommend you check out releases from Tacet (pronounced as Ta as in "ta ta ta" and cet as in "set"). Their half-speed masters are excellent. Also I would would suggest you try one of their LPs that plays from the inside of the LP. This is not exactly a new process. Back in the 30s, 40s and early 50s before the advent of tape for radio broadcasts, Some classical pieces as well as some radio programs were recorded this way. it was so that the change in speed from the outside of the disc compared to the speed on the inside of the disc can accommodate the frequencies changes. If you go to their website www.tacet.de you will find the information on each of the LPs. Either half-speed master, backwards play (inside to outside), and so on.
Where can you possibly get two LP's where everything other than cutting speed is the same? Unless you're in the industry, and in a position to order two separate test cuttings and pressings from the same master, that is... I'd imagine the quality of the master tape matters at least as much, tape copy generation/ age/ storage time/ storage conditions, temperature and humidity/ the state of the cutting lathe and cutter head/ the tape player used for playing the tape, maintenance and adjustment/ the electronics in the signal chain/ the quality of the lacquer material/ the time between cutting and metalizing the lacquer/ and the list could probably go on for pages and pages. Even variations in subsequent stampers may play a role, and how many records were pressed with the stamper before your copy, and the quality of the vinyl itself, and any variations in temperature and time of the pressing cycle. Two separate records at consumer level will most likely be the result of EQ settings on two separate occations and by two different cutting engineers, even. I don't mean to be mean here. Just that we really have to be careful when attributing differences in a finished record to a single step or element in the complex and lossy process involved in manufacturing it.
Sample #2 has more highs, but sample #1 highs seem clearer and crisp. I think there's a need of frequency compensation to hear the benefits of half speed mastering. Many years ago I had an old four-speed turntable (16,33,45,78 rpm) with a very bad cartridge and stylus. I used to record my LPs at 16 rpm and 3¾ ips, then playback at 7½ ips. They sounded very good. Like there would be recorded using a top quality MM (or MC?) cartridge.
Some interesting notes on the Audio Files... (limiting analysis to the first 30 seconds of the audio files) File 2 has about an additional 4 db bass boost. File 1 has a volume imbalance; the right channel on averages about 3 to 4 dB louder than the left channel. Both files exhibit an odd notch at about 84.35 Khz. This makes me wonder how these files were actually captured from the analogue signal path in the first place. LRA measurements are within 0.1 between files, 6.5 for File 1, and 6.6 for File 2. File 1 has dynamic compression, leaving a difference between peak, and RMS peak measurements of 5.2 dB, where file 2 has a difference of 18.0 dB! This compression on File 1 probably occurred when the intermediate master was created.
I will say that if I listen to the files on my laptop speakers, or my phone speakers that file 2 does indeed sound better, but on better speakers, in stereo, I still like file 1 better.
Me too man I thought that No2 was much more dynamic that’s listening through a dac and my HiFi system straight from your video, I used to have CDs of the s Police and was so over them but hearing that German pressing I would buy one again!
I don't think there was a huge amount of difference. Or at least not through UA-cam, (I didn't download the files), but I felt that file 2 was just slightly better. I pre-ordered the new half speed mastering of Dire Straits Brothers in Arms a few weeks ago and it should be arriving tomorrow. I'm really hoping that it's a really good pressing and well mastering from an analog source. Fingers crossed.
@@anadialog Will do, although unfortunately it looks like we'll have to wait a while. I've had a notification from Amazon today, to let me know that there's been a delay and I might not get it until some time in May now! Sigh! 🙄
I have to admit I like the 2nd version best because it had a higher frequency especially around stings boats. Now you want my recommend DE sion for what I think could be put on to have speed would be anything from Jethro Tull from 1971 to 82
Absolutely, considering that I assume the mastering is going to be AAA?( Correct me if I’m wrong ) that will be superb quality but they also might suggest that a new turntable would be required just to even play the new vinyl records!
AAA? I doubt it. Probably in a second phase. It is just too difficult and expensive to do and the goal is not the audiophile market, not exclusively at least, they want to creat a relatively unexpensive product for everyone. They say we can use out old carts but I am sure that for oprimal results you are going to need a specific model...more money on the go!!
ana[dia]log Hmm, AAA mastering is very expensive of course but if they’re going to take it from a Digital Audio file then why not download the digital file instead? Unless the digital format has been over done with the ‘loudness war’, just a suggestion.
I liked number 2 myself, i just got a half speed master 2 lp set of dire straits brothers in arms from the warner brothers remix records, i have only listened to it once, and that was not wet cleaned either, bad idea i know but i wanted to hear it.
Yesterday I bought two Chic albums with half-speed mastering from Abbey Road: C'est Chic and Risque' - they sound awesome to me. And not a crackle or pop to found anywhere of course.
File #2 has more bass. I'm listening to this using cheap Sony Headphones. What ever happened to the Austrian or Belgium engineer who redesigned the cutting lathe. He designed the cutting blade so that the final result would be more contact of the stylus tip inside the groove walls, for better sound reproduction. Not sure what his patented process was called? It was all the talk back about 10 years ago???
File 1 sounded a bit flattened/brickwalled compared to file 2. File 2 sounds like it has much more dynamics and sharper attack of the kicks, but also a bit more bass. As far as I know, the half speed lacquer cutting is more like a thing to show off with than an actual improvement. Hypothetically it can have a positive effect, since slower speeds produce less friction in the grooves, meaning less heat. If that makes a difference, I suspect it to be so small that even the inertia of a special ultralight and stiff boron cantilever overrules the improvement, let alone all the other limitations of a turntable system. When it comes to mastering process 'specials', only three things I've heard so far give a noticeable improvement (if applied correctly): Original mastertapes, triple A process and DMM. Especially DMM, when it comes to surface noise reduction.
I picked file #1 was the half speed re mastering..... & that's hearing it through my phone. How great are my ears ! Please half speed re master Michael Jackson's debut album "Don't stop till you get enough"
I have never heard a half-speed pressing that sounded great. In fact, I have never heard a half-speed pressing that sounded better than one of the hot stamper normal speed pressings. A few items: 1) No amount of lacquer cutting technology or advancements will make a poorly mixed and mastered pressing sound good. In fact, the better the canvas, the more we will hear what the studio personnel got wrong with their mixing and mastering. Alas, the vast majority of music that gets released to the public has sub-par sound quality. 2) Without knowing what equipment our host was using to play those samples, we cannot know where the good or bad sound quality lies. In addition to not knowing the gear that our host used, we do not know if he professionally dialed in his turntable: -- the effective length of the tone-arm -- the cartridge's weight -- the vertical tracking alignment / rake angle -- the anti-skating -- the overhang -- the offset -- the zenith angle -- the cartridge's azimuth. The above settings -- every single one -- is critical to reap the rewards that are in the record's groove. A good $500 cartridge will sound better than a $2,500 cartridge, if the former was professionally dialed in, and the latter was not. 3) We do not know how our host converted the analog signal into a digital file. The conversion hardware will affect the sound quality. 4) No two pressings have the same sound quality. Two new pressings, of the same title, unboxed and put on the shelf in a store, will differ in sound quality. On a mass produced stereo, it might be hard to hear the differences -- especially if the turntable was not professionally dialed in. So whichever of the two samples sounds better, if other pressings were used, that could change. Half speed cutting of the lacquer will be beneficial if, and only if, the studio personnel do not compress and equalize what is on the initial capture tapes (or digital files). Alas, based on what we hear for nearly every hit song, the studio personnel are enamored by every box in their studio. If they have a box, they run the signal through that box. If there is a knob, they turn it. If there is a lever, they slide it. If they have a digital tool, they have the signal (or file) traverse it (get processed by it). Even if they keep a box's controls on neutral, they still run the signal through that box -- and every box, without exception, adds coloration and distortion to the once (virtually) pristine signal. The better your home stereo, the more you will hear what the studio personnel did wrong. Win the lottery, and buy that dream stereo, and most of your favorite songs will not sound too good, and such a stereo reveals every flaw -- and you can and will hear the flaws. On one of the rare gem pressings, that has great sound quality, a quality stereo system will reveal that, too. My conclusion is that half speed mastering might have started out with good intentions. But now the studios use that process, simply to slap a label on the pressings to sell you albums that you already own. it is a gimmick, to separate you from your hard earned income. Only when everything is done right, will a half speed master prove to be beneficial. I have yet to hear one that is beneficial. I stopped wasting my cash on half speed masters 10 years ago, and as far as I know, they are still all "wrong" sounding. They are not all terrible. But none of them are simply "right". Whereas, for many albums, you have a shot at landing a normal speed mastered pressing that will sound great. My advice to folks looking for the best sound quality is to find reputable reviewers, whose ears you trust, and try to get the stamper codes on pressings that they say sound great. That will not guarantee you a great sounding pressing (even the right stampers have duds). But without the right stamper, you have no shot. With the right stamper, you have a very good shot at landing an excellent sounding pressing.
Imagine the sound quality of s record which - spins at 78rpm (is a vinyl record) - is 180gram - got mastered half speed - is pressed by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab
file 2 is obviously better for me. It's more lively, it has its soul, more dynamic. That's the first thing I realised, not to mentioned any technical details.
Interesting comparison again. I downloaded your files and compared them with a rip from my original CD release version (bought in the mid 80s). Some things I noticed: File 1 (new master): The stereo balance is a bit off! The right channel is about 3 db louder than the left. Overall less bass and dynamic sound compared to the File 2 and the CD version. File 2 (original vinyl master): Better bass and dynamics compared to File 1. Stereo is also in balance. For both File 1&2: The stereo is left and right swapped compared to the CD version! Maybe you swapped the left and right when digitizing the sound? For better comparison I loaded them all in Audacity and corrected the Left-right stereo to match with the CD, I then normalized the files, so that they all are at 0 db max. From all three, the original CD version to me sounds the most dynamic and detailed, it's actually a really good sounding CD. Closely followed by the original vinyl release. The new master didn't impress me much. It didn't do anything positive for the high frequencies or detail, but it does sound 'flatter' with less bass and dynamics. It goes to show, remasters aren't always the best versions.
Yeah I agree. I wonder if it's down to poor mastering or if tape degradation plays a role. The channel balance issue would be a mastering flaw though, I'm sure.
file 2 sounds louder, makes me think it was remastered digitally to amplify higher frequencies and maybe lower and other frequencies as well, i probably would prefer file 1 i think, also file 2 shows more pops and other artifacts that are related to bad pressing quality
Also I guess the pops and clicks are there because of the age of the pressing, should have thought of that, but sometimes some pressings already come with those defects despite being new editions
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
File number 2 without a doubt. The electric bass stood out stronger and after 3 listens, Decided that more seperation in the L&R channels. Glad you saved me from making that purchase. I have Billy Joels Stranger vinyl by mobile fidelity and compared those two way back in the day and never felt the need to pay the higher price mobile labs record again. Your German pressing from my standpoint was way better and we all have our own opinion and that is mine. Good job with your presentations
man, Enjoyed the chance to hear another sampling
Comparing this two files in Sound Forge and Spectralayers it is obvious that old mastering has equal channels levels and overall dense sound. Abbey Road version left channel is lower by 3db than right, poorer low end and holes in midrange.
File 2 is my choice, it sounds more detailed.
I am so glad that it was not only me who thought the file no 2 sounded better.
I just bought Chic's Album that was re produced using this method. WOW.... What a difference. The Base, the vocals, the instruments. Worth every penny !
I recommend it to any audio file / music lover.
I couldn't tell because I'm listening on a cellphone. BUT... an excellent one to listen on half speed is the Dire Straights Brothers in arms by Abby Road studios. I have both copies and the original sounds great but the half speed is haunting on a high-end system.
I actually preffered file 2.
Kudos and bravo to you for such a thorough channel that covers most everything HI FI. I agree , if the second recording was the original, the base is easier to distinguish form the drum, and the cymbals are more pronounced, which is a problem with a lot of recordings, not enough high freq response. listen to the cymbals form a live band and you will know what Im talking about. It depends a lot on the specifics, Why go half speed when 45 rpm is touted as being much better high freq response? Why dont they do everything half speed if its better? Ive seen the fine details of everything in the processs, recording, mastering, and production, effect the outcome. 45 rpm makes most sense to me. the high freqs can shine
File 2 is my choice. Deeper bass. The whole thing is fatter!
Peter Wikvist yup that's immediately what I thought.
@@mercurialmagictrees i actually listen to this on analog silver face system from early 80s with proper amplifier and speakers, nr 2 was my choice :-) greatings from Melbourne :-)
yeah same here
agree file 2
Definitely caught that deeper base immediately. Highs seemed a bit clearer on the first play.
Completely in line with half speed mastering wish to see quater speed mastering.
The only thing you're loosing are distortion as the lathe is way more precise, better low , better mid, better high.
This said, the sound of slower recording is more clinical due to what mentioned previously!
It's to the client to buy what he prefer, the more capable would buy the two.
File 1 is way more steady/clinical but lack more lathe artifact/distortion.
File 2 is more punchy/heretical but less clinical/more distortion.
Both sound great!
Both worth existing!
Ps: That's also valid to digit vinyl, and my preferred method, way more detail captured especially with regular cartridge!
Question, as you have some master tape, can't you do a comparison with them to see which one is more closer to the master tape? (i'll bet for the half speed version)
I bought a half speed mastered Frampton Comes Alive in 1981, while stationed in Germany. Sweet Thunder records Audiophile edition #6. Still sounds as good as the 1st time I played it. It was cut in 1976. I had a habit of cleaning a new record & setting my recording levels & taping the record onto a tape deck, an Akai GX 77D. Taped a lot of my friends new records for myself also.
Cool!
I listened to file 1 and then file 2 from your links. 1 sounded really good, but 2 sounded better with a wider sound stage. Yeah the bass was stronger on 2, but it sounded more real. I even went back and forth and there's a definite difference between the two files. And now to see which is which? Okay...I was surprised that file 2 was the original pressing. I actually preferred 2. Your assessment at the end was spot on.
Thanks for your analysis!
I’m going to listen with my headphones on, but it would seem, as many others have pointed out, the bass feels thicker and the highs more clear on FILE 2.
Listened to the HiRez downloads and decided File 1 was the half speed mastering but it wasn't because of the better high frequencies in cymbals and 'S' sounds which sounded identical. It just had more clarity in the 500Hz to 2000Hz regions especially in snare hits and lead vocal. File 2 just sounded murkier and softer. I'm listening on Sony MDR V6 Studio Monitor headphones.
Just to add concerning high frequencies which are directional meaning they reach the ears first sounding louder, any reverb digitally applied or captured naturally in the recording that gives a sense of presence and separation and clarity primarily occupy the high frequency region mainly around 5kHz to 12kHz. I've noticed this when digitally EQ'ing flat, tinny CD music to make it sound bigger and fuller. Adding a bit of reverb to provide separation of instruments I notice is most pronounced in these higher frequencies so this half speed mastering seems like a good idea but I'm not really hearing a lot of it in the provided examples. IOW it's pretty subtle.
Cutting with half speed would allow indeed to cut higher frequencies
BUT
the record must be play back with normal speed and here there more or less the same issues with high frequencies as the needle has a mass and the higher the frequencies are the higher is the acceleration of the needle and due to F=m*a the higher the forces for the needle and also the vinyl are.
Ortofon to the rescue LOL
This is not quite a fair comparison. We don’t know if the same exact master tape was used to cut both pressings. Though I do agree that #2 sounded much better.
True, most probably it isn't. It is just a comparison between an original pressing and a new release produced with an audiophile technique...
Very good video with the great information I was looking for! I have the first album of « scissor sisters » on half speed and I’m VERY happy about it!
Thanks!
I could tell the difference right off the bat. File one to me was the best. I have quite a few albums from both studios who do half speed masters and I think it's worth it
You`re right...#2 is much better in Dynamic and Sound! Thank's for your great work👍✌
6:39 for the listening test
Good one! Yes, I prefer file #2. It could have been a difference in EQ, but #2 has more bass, is more dynamic with no downsides that I could hear. Cymbals, sibilants (the usual problem areas) seem about the same. Good rips, BTW. Your table & cart seem to be setup well.
Thanks Paul!
I'm very interested your collection. Could you do a run-through. Perhaps showing off some curiosities?
Tony that may be a good idea...(I hate to show off though)...in any case you can catch a glimpse here if you haven't already: ua-cam.com/video/zoz5pXtgNG8/v-deo.html
And here: ua-cam.com/video/Ybmw-qGOtAc/v-deo.html
File 2 felt more “full”. The highs and lows were balanced. It definitely had more thump as well. File 1 felt a bit empty. Low ends missing. Highs very prominent. 2 is my choice.
Hi there greetings from Portugal... love your channel watch it all the time :),now I wanted to share something on this theme. My first 1/2 speed record was the Technics Audio Inspection Vol.1 (1976) and it really has an impressive sound .. moving forward, a few days ago I had a 80$ credit in a big chain store here nearby and ordered 2 albuns that I wanted ... (Zigy stardust - David Bowie) and Brothers in Arms, I got the brothers in arms because it was 45 rpm, and I saw both with 1/2 cut from Abbey road, so I thought, lets see where this goes. I have both original pressings of Ziggy and brothers, but they where from my sister, so when I listened this new half cuts they sound to me horrible, it seems the cimbals are outside of everything, the bass is not enough compared to the original, and it didn't sound anything close to the beauty of the Technics half cut Mastering that i remembered, so I just saw your video and I went to the Technics LP and they have the process and I cut and paste here and this is my theory, this new half cuts are not working because groove width, but I don't know, I just noticed that from Technics research, the half cut method in order to be possible the groove widthness had to be expanded and a limit of 16min per side was introduced. Reading this I believe that Abbey Road is doing half speed mastering but keeping the groove dimensions to the limit, and that brings limitations, but this is what is explained by Technics research in 1976:
"2. Low speed cutting and frequency response range
In the cutting process, the cutting master tape playback speed was reduced from the conventional 38 cm/sec to one half, or 19 cm/sec, and the speed of the lacquer master disc was also reduced from 33* rpm to 163 rpm, and the cutting was made at these reduced speeds. This made possible increased volume levels and improved transient response, with the frequency response characteristics of the cutting process expanded tics of the cutting process expanded to 20 Hz-45 KHz.
3. Abundantly wide cutting pitch
In order to make the most of the above factors, the groove pitch was chosen that there would be ample clearance between grooves. The actual recording time per side is therefore some 16 minutes, and no attempt was made to compress the groove spacing. This enabled higher peak levels, and a more-than-adequate groove amplitude, so that the low frequency response, in particular, is greatly improved."
So while not aproaching step 3 at the current half cuts.. that means we are loosing indeed the low frequency response....Do you have that Technics LP ?
It is Technics Audio Isnpection Vol. I - It has an amazing version of Caravan - Duke Hellington :)
P.S.: My system for ref. SL-1200GR | EPC-205c Mk3 + Jico SAS on Boron | Mo-Fi Phono
Very interesting comment! Thank you for sharing. I am sure that this one of the reasons why the Abbey Road lps sound so bad
Is UA-cam able to reproduce music nuances to be able to differentiate vinyl from digital?
Wow, the difference was very noticeable. My hearing is not the greatest so I was surprised that I could tell the difference. I preferred # 1 because it was more crisp, while # 2 seemed a bit muffled to me. I am using speakers with good bass end so maybe that's why it sounded like # 1 had enough bass. I wonder if it would have been different if I heard # 2 before # 1? I don't know.
From what I've read in the comments, people confuse mastering with the physical fidelity of the disc. The main advantage of recording at medium speed ensures the cutting head more time to work at high frequencies, this greatly solves the effect of internal distortion. In sum, the sound obtained is cleaner, with less distortion and no wheezing. This does not add or subtract frequencies, it only resolves them better at cut time.
People are only evaluating if it sounds sharper or more open and this is because they were made with different equipment. We already know that in the analog world there is nothing mathematically identical.
The sound samples were taken from the second track of this LP, an area where distortion is less likely for any cutting technique.
A fair comparison would have been with the last track and clarifying that the listener's attention should be on the distortion and not on the sound equalization.
Inner groove distortion will surely benefit from this process but the main advantage is that all frequencies are cut at half their value, so higher frequencies, which may be cut off or distort have the chance to remain intact and present in the groove. Very simple.
@@anadialog Very well, we agree, it is more or less what I have said before. The distortion actually becomes more evident around 17000hz. Low and mid frequencies are not a big problem for the real speed cutter. Excuse me if I am being imperinent, it is not my intention.
Listeners do not pay attention to this aspect, they only talk about the different equalizations that actually have other reasons. This technique does not address that issue. What's more, even it seemed to me that the original version sounds more open.
From a strictly technical point of view, cutting at medium speed is much more effective when the recording is of quality and the mastering has been taken care of respecting the physical limits of the vinyl, otherwise it would be useless, perhaps even worse. This is why this technique is not always used.
Half speed mastering means squat when they are using a digital source that's been compressed at some point in the cause of the loudness wars. 2.
Absolutely. ua-cam.com/video/AjjgPVipuXc/v-deo.html
Just because they are using a digital file doesn't mean it's been compressed? If you are using a much higher quality 24 bit source, intended for Hi Fi listening vs a format for the masses, which digital often is (because 99% of playback systems on earth are cruddy)... But assuming they know they are working with vinyl they are not looking to compress it down to playback on ten dollar earbuds.
digitization as such doesn't mean compression. actually, digital domain allows for much deeper dynamic range than analog does. digital mastering for loudness is another thing.
File 1 sounded when i copied on tape and the tape aged - thats the same sound -So its down to that really
Would it be better to compare on the last track of record and I listened a few times it’s weird I like the first then I like the second then first again but they just have a different sound
The first thing I noticed was that File 1 has obvious clarity and detail in the cymbals which File 2 lacks. File 2 has more bass up front but if it is at the cost of mid range clarity or if File 1 half master has the ability to bring out this clarity then for me file 1 is a winner. Hi fidelity clarity is the thing for me.
You never got to hear someone sing high where sibilance will be a factor on ½ speeds.
I like both. #1 is more controlled, more defined the instruments # 2 may suffer from some echoes after cimballs and drums are played.
The 2015 Queen remasters are 1/2 speed and you notice very boomy bass.
I guess it's always a personal preference. While there is more bass in file 2, the base in file 1 is cleaner. Thanks. Great video.
File 2. The bass is so much more powerful.
Richie, the ultimate audiophile 😂
@@NickP333 audiophiles are horrible
It seems that some engineers do a better job than others using half speed mastering. Stan Ricker of Mobile Fidelity back in the day made many great half speed masters. In an old interview with an old Mobile Fidelity guy he mentions that CBS saw what Mofi was doing and decided to take back their catalog and put out the CBS Masterworks. That's why Dark Side is Mofi and Wish you Were Here is CBS. But in the interview he mentions before they did Wish You Were Here they cut a few stinkers because they didn't know you had to use a different EQ with Half Speed. I think the CBS Wish You Were Here and the Mofi Dark Side are both superb.
BTW - I couldn't tell the difference listening with my headphones to the Police. I got lazy and didn't download the digital files.
File 1 better bid did you allow for equalization factors on bass?
Half speed would need more emphasis on bass as rate of change of flux would decrease,hence output to head reduced thereby reducing bass volume and dynamic range.
Cheers Colin S30/8/19
great video thanks for opening my eyes to look for better sound in my albums
It's a pleasure!
I think the difficulty here is that we are not actually judging the half-speed mastering technique, but the two different masters used. The recent police remasters are not the same sonically as the originals from the 70s/80s. We can only truly evaluate the virtues of the half-speed mastering process if both LPs are cut from an identical master with the same processing applied at the cutting stage, maybe even cut on the same lathe. This scenario is unlikely to exist for any album.
Don't thino only half-speed. Thino a good digitally sourced copy recently released. Does it stand with an original pressing (not even UK)...that wad the objective...
@@anadialog It's probably a good thing you didn't try a UK copy of that album, it was terribly mastered, no bass. I've had three different copies, all the same. The only copy I have with decent bass is the one in the recent box-set. Your German pressing sounds great though.
Thanks for sharing your experience. You should check out the SACD. The dynamics are very good!
Loved this as always! I felt that Number Two was a considerably better. To me it was a much fuller and warmer sound. Thanks for another fascinating subject! Ciao!
Thanks Martin!
I went for file 2, I really thought it was the half speed version? 😃 Lots of differences in opinion in the comments so I suppose it's relative to the listener?
Couod be...I still have to find a half-speed mastering that really impresses me.
File 2 had more prominent bass that threatened to overdrive a little, but file 1 the bass was much smoother even though not as prominent, it was a preferable listen.
#2 sounded the best... somewhat surprised.. Stan Ricker a good friend who most of his cutting was done at 1/2 speed..ELO one of my favorites.. myself a cutting engineer thought the 1/2 speed process didn’t show enough difference to warrant the cost and time involved. Now Direct to disk is a different story to me the best sound experience other than hearing the music live....Thanks Richard Simpson
Thanks Richard for your feedback 👍
I agree with you, option 2.
iIn fact we have two USA copies, a UK copy and a Netherland copy of each the cpolice album plus several singles and maxis of the band and the UK editions are superior in tonal quality to the others, although the edition gosth in the machine abbey road at medium speed is pretty good. Unfortunately the other half speed albums have not been released separately yet and I have read reviews about quality problems in the box set manufacturing
How should I put the speed on my turntable? to play these discs half speed mastering
Playback speed is always 33rpm
Hello, And thanks for posting. There seems to be some confusion regarding your sample file. Can you confirm that you used a German/West German first pressing? If so, would you please state the deadwax/ matrices for this sample? As it stands, and according to Discogs, only later re-issues appear from Germany. IOW, this title does not seem to appear as a 1979 German/West German pressing. Rather only later issues/re-issues from the mid 80's. Generally speaking, a 1st pressing should have the original A&M logo labels(not the 5LP circle labels), original AMLH catalog and no barcode. Thank you for your efforts!
Hi, i only had to play the two different soundclips once to hear a noticable difference. Before i even heard your opinion at the end of the video i thought the original german pressing sounded much more alive and the bass sounded far deeper and rounded. Before listening i actually thought the 45rpm master would have had a more fuller rounded sound but i was wrong. Having said all of that i just bought the 45rpm Abbey Road master of Japan`s album Tin Drum and the Bass on that recording sounds very full and rhythmical, better than the original 1980`s vinyl pressing i have.
I know you buy some cds. I don`t know if this will be of interest to you but Sony have just released a Quadraphonic double cd of Miles Davis Bitches Brew. I don`t personally have a Quadraphonic system but a friend of mine does so i`m going to listen to it on his system. Do you have any Qaudraphonic pressings?
I think with most things related to different pressings it comes down to the source material used and personal taste.
I was one of the subscribers who asked for you to make this video so thanks very.
Hi there! Thanks for your insight. No, I don't have quadraphonic records...you need 4 identical speakers and a decoder...but I would love to have that possibility! Good observer, yes, you are correct, it was a specific request...
Dude. That shelf on the right hand side with the reel to reel would give me sleepless nights.
It's a specially designed shelf that can take up to 30kg and has 4 huge screws in the wall. It's safe! But I'm not putting my Studer on it...
You're right, I could tell the 2nd was better on my cell phone speaker! My Japan (band) half speeds sound nice though.
The INXS Kick half speed master I own is the absolute best sounding piece of vinyl in my collection. It brings Michael Hutchence forward and gives everything a higher sense of energy and immediacy.
Interesting comparison - I too preferred file 2. What cartridge were you using for this test? Just curious as some cartridges seem to be better with one style of music over another.
Another question comes to mind about the mastering. You showed the equipment, and as far as I know, all mastering is done using a linear tracking method. I find it interesting that all modern turntables are using pivot arms vs linear tracking that were gaining in popularity when CDs started taking over.
I recently obtained some Technics linear tracking turntables and find them excellent because the P-mount cartridges are quickly installed and the only adjustments/alignments needed are tracking force. With linear tracking, there is no anti-skating adjustment and the design of the P-mount cartridges were standardized to eliminate all other alignments.
Have you tried any linear tracking turntables and why do you think that these haven't made a comeback as they would seem to be technically superior to pivot arm types and would probably be considerably easier to make given the technology available today?
Great channel and keep up the good work!
Bob
Hi Bob, the cart is a MC Dynavector DV 20X2 L. Very interesting observation. You are right. They cut tangential but we listen mainly in pivoted. No, I never had a tangential TT although I have listen them. The problem is technology. Just like direct drive motors, you need a very good (hance very expensive to develop, produce and buy) project. Low quality tangential TT are very very bad. If you are employing state if the art technology and materials it is probably superior ti pivoted tracking. Pivoted and, following my example, belt drive TT are much much more easy and cheap to produce and make. Now with this comeback we may be seeing new quality priducts worth the purchase. Especially, I think, with HD vinyl...
Hello from Canada! I was wondering if you could do a video where different album types such as repressings, reissues, remasterings, etc can be explained. As sometimes these terminologies are confused and used interchangeably where they shouldn't be. Thanks.
Hi John, good topic! I have taken a note...thanks!
liked the german pressing too, funny, I listened on my imac speakers so I didn't expect to hear much. I actually heard more high frequency info on the second file...
Thanks for doing this video, I was curious about the Half Speed Mastered albums. I have a 1977 “Elegant Gypsy” by Al Di Meloa and I love it. I saw a Half Speed Mastered version and was curious about it. It was pricey, so I didn’t buy it. For the Police versions you played, I picked the 2nd one at first. I’m glad I didn’t read the comments first. Anyways, I was shocked to find out the 2nd was the original German pressing. Quite interesting!
kiss is reissuing a half speed mastering of the german release of killers in march just a heads up
File 2 and I heard the difference on my Samsung phone. Says enough. Great vid.
Ha ha, me too.
Thank you, Sir. You just saved me a bunch of money!
File 2 is more fuller but is there any remastered differences? Or just half speed recording...
No, they are two different masterings. Its impossible to find the same master cut at normal and half speed unfortunately or at least very hard.
File 2. Great video.
I wonder if they can combine half speed with direct metal mastering ?
That would be great...I don't know if they ever used both on a production...
Enjoyed the video and topic. Can you please provide some more info (deadwax, labels, etc) about that German pressing? According to Discogs there is no such thing as a first German pressing of this album, only reissues. Interesting to see if Discogs is wrong, would not be the first time.
What about Brian Eno's Half-Speed Vinyl Series?
They are also part of the Abbey Road series...same issues...go for the originals or other audiophile reissues IMHO
ANA[DIA]LOG I have some Japanese mini lp (CD in fact) this CDs are made from DSD remasters from the original masters tapes and sound imho even better than original LPs
When were these released? They are doing the same with the recent MQA CDs...nothing special though...
ANA[DIA]LOG 2005
I guessed the first one was the half speed mastering...sounded clearer to me.
I thought the ride was clearer in No.2 like I could feel the bell better, also the kick felt rounder in No.2, I also thought the snare felt distorted in No.1 as if all the “metal” on the drum kit felt mushy as well in No.1
Para os meus ouvidos eu prefiro a versão half speed, achei o som mais cheio, com os instrumentos bem separados e com notas dos pratos e do vocal em evidência, a versão original é ótima também, Groove no baixo bem profundo, mas achei o volume mais baixo ou abafado não sei dizer exatamente
Back when I used to record analog on CDs (polyvinyl carbonate) this way slowing down the source audio cutting at 33.3RPM to play at 45, I discovered the RIAA curve had to be reworked, not just reversed.
Of course you know you can't record "flat" frequency response onto a surface because the bass would cause the needle jump out of the groove.
When recording (cutting), the curve for playback has to be reversed, also when cutting at reduced speed, you can't use the traditional curve.
How do you like dbx enconded records? Nautilus has some excellent half-speed mastered SuperDiscs with dbx encoding.
Nautilus is a great label...I never listen to them, you need a DBX decoder...are they good?
I see. Yes, i use a 'dbx 224' decoder and i really do enjoy the encoding! All kind of surface noise basically vanishes. Counting up to roughly 60 records in the collection now :) @@anadialog
Interesting...I always wanted to get a decoder for the late reel to reel recordings...now I have another reason...;-)
I'd suggest the Wish You Were Here comparison. Thanks!
Makes me wonder if half speed mastering on DMM does exists, wich probably may be the ultimate mastering for vinyl with the current technology.
I like file number one which to my ears it had more clarity on the mid high range. Although file 2 gave the low end a punch which sounded awesomely fatter. I believe it's a matter of taste, what song and what instrument your ears are catching and focusing the most and what instrument the artist is trying to make stand out on each song based on the composition of the music. Example: Metallica's Enter Sandman would sound great on a version 2 due to the full fat rich bass that it produces Not so well for the And Justicefor All album. On the other hand Megadeth's Holly Wars will sound great on a half speed master as they tend to go a lot on the mid / high range and because Megadeth has more twist and turns in their music you will be able to appreciate each note and rhythm changes on those guitars. It's like you're in the dark with Metallica (a darker sound), and Megadeth will show you the light. Again, it's a matter of taste and favorite sections of the song; more to what you put you ear into. As for me and the reason for watching this video I believe that I have to find original recording for the Creedence Clearwater Revival LP Bayou Country will sound better on a file 2 because the bass sounds less fat and the mid highs are very pronounced that would even things out. Bass sounds very groovy on the song Born on a Bayou. So I guess I need to keep looking for a version 2 type of record for this album.
Thanks for this compression. It is clear that just because you pay more for a "Re-Master" does not mean it sounds better. A lot of times it is just a marketing tactic!
Wow, to me file 1 just killed the low end mix and punch, and the overall panning now sounds too skewed to the right because of it. Pretty eye-opening.
Did the download ... and preferred File 2 - fuller and more detailed. I don't have many records but was intrigued enough to make a purchase of a crate dig find (good condition). An A&M Canada Audiophile Series - Half speed - pressed in Japan on JVC SuperVinyl - 1975 .... drum roll please ... Chris de Burgh - Spanish Train And Other Stories. It's actually OK - more akin to a 'Devil Went Down to Georgia' / 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' prog rock than the radio assault love ballad that was to come later in in 'Lady In Red'. Recording wise - very good - very low / non-existent noise floor - great sound stage, dynamics and plenty of 'meat on the bones'. Better than either of the example downloads.
Cool!
I would recommend you check out releases from Tacet (pronounced as Ta as in "ta ta ta" and cet as in "set"). Their half-speed masters are excellent. Also I would would suggest you try one of their LPs that plays from the inside of the LP. This is not exactly a new process. Back in the 30s, 40s and early 50s before the advent of tape for radio broadcasts, Some classical pieces as well as some radio programs were recorded this way. it was so that the change in speed from the outside of the disc compared to the speed on the inside of the disc can accommodate the frequencies changes. If you go to their website www.tacet.de you will find the information on each of the LPs. Either half-speed master, backwards play (inside to outside), and so on.
Thanks Keith! I will certainly do that. Thanks for sharing.
First one. But it depends on which speakers I used. File 1 sounds better on my main amp.
Geweldig. 😊
Where can you possibly get two LP's where everything other than cutting speed is the same? Unless you're in the industry, and in a position to order two separate test cuttings and pressings from the same master, that is...
I'd imagine the quality of the master tape matters at least as much, tape copy generation/ age/ storage time/ storage conditions, temperature and humidity/ the state of the cutting lathe and cutter head/ the tape player used for playing the tape, maintenance and adjustment/ the electronics in the signal chain/ the quality of the lacquer material/ the time between cutting and metalizing the lacquer/ and the list could probably go on for pages and pages. Even variations in subsequent stampers may play a role, and how many records were pressed with the stamper before your copy, and the quality of the vinyl itself, and any variations in temperature and time of the pressing cycle. Two separate records at consumer level will most likely be the result of EQ settings on two separate occations and by two different cutting engineers, even.
I don't mean to be mean here. Just that we really have to be careful when attributing differences in a finished record to a single step or element in the complex and lossy process involved in manufacturing it.
Albums that are cut to play 45 rpm speed have an exceptional sound as well BUT LIKE YOU SAID TRUST YOUR EARS IF THIER GOLDEN
Sample #2 has more highs, but sample #1 highs seem clearer and crisp.
I think there's a need of frequency compensation to hear the benefits of half speed mastering.
Many years ago I had an old four-speed turntable (16,33,45,78 rpm) with a very bad cartridge and stylus.
I used to record my LPs at 16 rpm and 3¾ ips, then playback at 7½ ips. They sounded very good. Like there would be recorded using a top quality MM (or MC?) cartridge.
I own one half speed master record and it's played at 45 rpm. Is that common?
Not necessarily....probably an audiophile release
I think you should all relax and just enjoy the music
Some interesting notes on the Audio Files... (limiting analysis to the first 30 seconds of the audio files)
File 2 has about an additional 4 db bass boost.
File 1 has a volume imbalance; the right channel on averages about 3 to 4 dB louder than the left channel.
Both files exhibit an odd notch at about 84.35 Khz. This makes me wonder how these files were actually captured from the analogue signal path in the first place.
LRA measurements are within 0.1 between files, 6.5 for File 1, and 6.6 for File 2.
File 1 has dynamic compression, leaving a difference between peak, and RMS peak measurements of 5.2 dB, where file 2 has a difference of 18.0 dB! This compression on File 1 probably occurred when the intermediate master was created.
I will say that if I listen to the files on my laptop speakers, or my phone speakers that file 2 does indeed sound better, but on better speakers, in stereo, I still like file 1 better.
Very interesting analysis! Thanks! I can only add that the transfer was made with my Zoom Tac 2 at the highest quality possible on audacity.
Denshi-Oji .
Me too man I thought that No2 was much more dynamic that’s listening through a dac and my HiFi system straight from your video,
I used to have CDs of the s Police and was so over them but hearing that German pressing I would buy one again!
I don't think there was a huge amount of difference. Or at least not through UA-cam, (I didn't download the files), but I felt that file 2 was just slightly better. I pre-ordered the new half speed mastering of Dire Straits Brothers in Arms a few weeks ago and it should be arriving tomorrow. I'm really hoping that it's a really good pressing and well mastering from an analog source. Fingers crossed.
Give us some feedback!
@@anadialog Will do, although unfortunately it looks like we'll have to wait a while. I've had a notification from Amazon today, to let me know that there's been a delay and I might not get it until some time in May now! Sigh! 🙄
What cartridge did you use. MC or MM
MC, Dynavector 20x2L
I have to admit I like the 2nd version best because it had a higher frequency especially around stings boats. Now you want my recommend DE sion for what I think could be put on to have speed would be anything from Jethro Tull from 1971 to 82
Have you heard of HD Vinyl? What do you think about it?
I can't wait! The concept seems very logic. The result...who knows...anyway it goes this is going to cost a lot of money to all of us!
Absolutely, considering that I assume the mastering is going to be AAA?( Correct me if I’m wrong ) that will be superb quality but they also might suggest that a new turntable would be required just to even play the new vinyl records!
AAA? I doubt it. Probably in a second phase. It is just too difficult and expensive to do and the goal is not the audiophile market, not exclusively at least, they want to creat a relatively unexpensive product for everyone. They say we can use out old carts but I am sure that for oprimal results you are going to need a specific model...more money on the go!!
I went back to read the HD vinyl website...it says that they start the peocess from an audio FILE...so long for AAA...:-(
ana[dia]log Hmm, AAA mastering is very expensive of course but if they’re going to take it from a Digital Audio file then why not download the digital file instead? Unless the digital format has been over done with the ‘loudness war’, just a suggestion.
The sound stage of #2 sounded every so slightly larger to me.
I liked number 2 myself, i just got a half speed master 2 lp set of dire straits brothers in arms from the warner brothers remix records, i have only listened to it once, and that was not wet cleaned either, bad idea i know but i wanted to hear it.
No contest: the original pressing.
Yesterday I bought two Chic albums with half-speed mastering from Abbey Road: C'est Chic and Risque' - they sound awesome to me. And not a crackle or pop to found anywhere of course.
Try and buy an original pressing of one of those and get prepared to re-evaluate the whole hifi world of today.
File #2 has more bass. I'm listening to this using cheap Sony Headphones. What ever happened to the Austrian or Belgium engineer who redesigned the cutting lathe. He designed the cutting blade so that the final result would be more contact of the stylus tip inside the groove walls, for better sound reproduction. Not sure what his patented process was called? It was all the talk back about 10 years ago???
File 1 sounded a bit flattened/brickwalled compared to file 2. File 2 sounds like it has much more dynamics and sharper attack of the kicks, but also a bit more bass.
As far as I know, the half speed lacquer cutting is more like a thing to show off with than an actual improvement.
Hypothetically it can have a positive effect, since slower speeds produce less friction in the grooves, meaning less heat.
If that makes a difference, I suspect it to be so small that even the inertia of a special ultralight and stiff boron cantilever overrules the improvement, let alone all the other limitations of a turntable system.
When it comes to mastering process 'specials', only three things I've heard so far give a noticeable improvement (if applied correctly): Original mastertapes, triple A process and DMM.
Especially DMM, when it comes to surface noise reduction.
In fact a DMM video is on its way!
@@anadialog Ah, interesting heads up! Somehow, I remember you already talking about DMM in one of your previous videos, I don't know for sure though.
Correct! But just a few seconds...
- which companies are doing Half Speed Mastering in the USA ?
- how much it cost ?
I picked file #1 was the half speed re mastering..... & that's hearing it through my phone. How great are my ears !
Please half speed re master Michael Jackson's debut album "Don't stop till you get enough"
I have never heard a half-speed pressing that sounded great. In fact, I have never heard a half-speed pressing that sounded better than one of the hot stamper normal speed pressings.
A few items:
1) No amount of lacquer cutting technology or advancements will make a poorly mixed and mastered pressing sound good.
In fact, the better the canvas, the more we will hear what the studio personnel got wrong with their mixing and mastering.
Alas, the vast majority of music that gets released to the public has sub-par sound quality.
2) Without knowing what equipment our host was using to play those samples, we cannot know where the good or bad sound quality lies.
In addition to not knowing the gear that our host used, we do not know if he professionally dialed in his turntable:
-- the effective length of the tone-arm
-- the cartridge's weight
-- the vertical tracking alignment / rake angle
-- the anti-skating
-- the overhang
-- the offset
-- the zenith angle
-- the cartridge's azimuth.
The above settings -- every single one -- is critical to reap the rewards that are in the record's groove.
A good $500 cartridge will sound better than a $2,500 cartridge, if the former was professionally dialed in, and the latter was not.
3) We do not know how our host converted the analog signal into a digital file. The conversion hardware will affect the sound quality.
4) No two pressings have the same sound quality.
Two new pressings, of the same title, unboxed and put on the shelf in a store, will differ in sound quality. On a mass produced stereo, it might be hard to hear the differences -- especially if the turntable was not professionally dialed in.
So whichever of the two samples sounds better, if other pressings were used, that could change.
Half speed cutting of the lacquer will be beneficial if, and only if, the studio personnel do not compress and equalize what is on the initial capture tapes (or digital files).
Alas, based on what we hear for nearly every hit song, the studio personnel are enamored by every box in their studio. If they have a box, they run the signal through that box. If there is a knob, they turn it. If there is a lever, they slide it. If they have a digital tool, they have the signal (or file) traverse it (get processed by it).
Even if they keep a box's controls on neutral, they still run the signal through that box -- and every box, without exception, adds coloration and distortion to the once (virtually) pristine signal.
The better your home stereo, the more you will hear what the studio personnel did wrong.
Win the lottery, and buy that dream stereo, and most of your favorite songs will not sound too good, and such a stereo reveals every flaw -- and you can and will hear the flaws.
On one of the rare gem pressings, that has great sound quality, a quality stereo system will reveal that, too.
My conclusion is that half speed mastering might have started out with good intentions. But now the studios use that process, simply to slap a label on the pressings to sell you albums that you already own. it is a gimmick, to separate you from your hard earned income.
Only when everything is done right, will a half speed master prove to be beneficial. I have yet to hear one that is beneficial. I stopped wasting my cash on half speed masters 10 years ago, and as far as I know, they are still all "wrong" sounding. They are not all terrible. But none of them are simply "right". Whereas, for many albums, you have a shot at landing a normal speed mastered pressing that will sound great.
My advice to folks looking for the best sound quality is to find reputable reviewers, whose ears you trust, and try to get the stamper codes on pressings that they say sound great.
That will not guarantee you a great sounding pressing (even the right stampers have duds). But without the right stamper, you have no shot. With the right stamper, you have a very good shot at landing an excellent sounding pressing.
Imagine the sound quality of s record which
- spins at 78rpm (is a vinyl record)
- is 180gram
- got mastered half speed
- is pressed by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab
My choice is 2! What mic you use? Its very very perfect! Regards
Hi! I didn't use a mic, just converted the analog signal from the phono preamp.
file 2 is obviously better for me. It's more lively, it has its soul, more dynamic. That's the first thing I realised, not to mentioned any technical details.
Interesting comparison again. I downloaded your files and compared them with a rip from my original CD release version (bought in the mid 80s). Some things I noticed:
File 1 (new master): The stereo balance is a bit off! The right channel is about 3 db louder than the left. Overall less bass and dynamic sound compared to the File 2 and the CD version.
File 2 (original vinyl master): Better bass and dynamics compared to File 1. Stereo is also in balance.
For both File 1&2: The stereo is left and right swapped compared to the CD version! Maybe you swapped the left and right when digitizing the sound?
For better comparison I loaded them all in Audacity and corrected the Left-right stereo to match with the CD, I then normalized the files, so that they all are at 0 db max. From all three, the original CD version to me sounds the most dynamic and detailed, it's actually a really good sounding CD. Closely followed by the original vinyl release. The new master didn't impress me much. It didn't do anything positive for the high frequencies or detail, but it does sound 'flatter' with less bass and dynamics.
It goes to show, remasters aren't always the best versions.
Thanks for you interesting analysis! I have to check if I reversed left with right. It's just sad to see how these new releases aren't good enough...
Yeah I agree. I wonder if it's down to poor mastering or if tape degradation plays a role. The channel balance issue would be a mastering flaw though, I'm sure.
1 had higher highs but 2 sounded deeper and more detailed. To my ears. I would pick number 2
file 2 sounds louder, makes me think it was remastered digitally to amplify higher frequencies and maybe lower and other frequencies as well, i probably would prefer file 1 i think, also file 2 shows more pops and other artifacts that are related to bad pressing quality
i'm actually surprised that file 2 sounds louder, gonna have to repeat my listening to come to better conclusions myself
Also I guess the pops and clicks are there because of the age of the pressing, should have thought of that, but sometimes some pressings already come with those defects despite being new editions