The Abbey Road Studios RIP OFF

[Macca]

**Some** of it will be thrown away but for sure you want it all available for mastering of the LP.

It's not simply about feeding a CD to a cutting lathe as was being claimed.

I don't think that was literally what was being suggested, or maybe it was. I doubt they do that often but I think some recordings did/do use the same mastering for both vinyl and digital, simply because doing a special master for vinyl will cost extra.

I think in this specific case it might well be as someone up thread suggested, they have used an original master tape as they promise - and it was knackered. That doesn't explain the large run out compared to the original though. I'd guess they have just pressed it with the grooves a lot closer together because that is how they had it set up already. Usually the only reason you do this is to get loads of tracks onto the LP but it will compromise dynamic range and add noise.

[montesquieu]

I don't think that was literally what was being suggested, or maybe it was. I doubt they do that often but I think some recordings did/do use the same mastering for both vinyl and digital, simply because doing a special master for vinyl will cost extra.

I think in this specific case it might well be as someone up thread suggested, they have used an original master tape as they promise - and it was knackered. That doesn't explain the large run out compared to the original though. I'd guess they have just pressed it with the grooves a lot closer together because that is how they had it set up already. Usually the only reason you do this is to get loads of tracks onto the LP but it will compromise dynamic range and add noise.

If you count up the track lengths you get a whisker over 35 minutes, say 18 minutes a side, and only three tracks on the side that everybody thrashes to death (side 2).

That's pretty short ...

[forsell]

It's not simply about feeding a CD to a cutting lathe as was being claimed.

Not literally... the point is that beyond all that technical speech there is no difference in terms of sound quality -and in the end only this counts- between an Universal/Blue Note reissue that I can buy in a record store in Berlin for Eur 28 -licensed from Blue Note/Spain- where digital files were made from spanish x-generation BN tape copy and then fed into full digital Universal mastering equipment -and "Rudy van Gelder" Blue Note CD-reissue thrown at me everywhere for 6-8 Euro played through a decent 16 bit D/A converter...

The difference between us is obviously the fact, that you like doing your "maths in bits and bytes", an I actually DO listen to all these things...

[Macca]

If you count up the track lengths you get a whisker over 35 minutes, say 18 minutes a side, and only three tracks on the side that everybody thrashes to death (side 2).

That's pretty short ...

Not massively short. I think after about 20 minutes a side you are getting into issues. You have to start reducing bass and dynamic range to get it all on. But 18 minutes should be in the green zone, providing you use the whole LP, which it seems they didn't in this case.

[julesd68]

I bought Simple Minds 'New Gold Dream' vinyl in the Abbey Road half-speed mastered series.

It's one of the very few digitally sourced lps I have but I have to say it sounds fantastic. It was obviously produced with a lot of care and attention to the final product IMO.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a6870646.html

[montesquieu]

Not literally... the point is that beyond all that technical speech there is no difference in terms of sound quality -and in the end only this counts- between an Universal/Blue Note reissue that I can buy in a record store in Berlin for Eur 28 -licensed from Blue Note/Spain- where digital files were made from spanish x-generation BN tape copy and then fed into full digital Universal mastering equipment -and "Rudy van Gelder" Blue Note CD-reissue thrown at me everywhere for 6-8 Euro played through a decent 16 bit D/A converter...

The difference between us is obviously the fact, that you like doing your "maths in bits and bytes", an I actually DO listen to all these things...

You are here for 18 posts and you start throwing personal insults around?

[Macca]

Yes knock that off. We all listen to these things, ridiculous to state otherwise.

[Bksabath]

I faulty press does not mean they RIP people off have you tried it on another turntable it could be your set up thats making poor use of the recording? I'm guessing the original master tapes were used otherwise why would they state this master cuts are different could be a number of issues with this and not the company...and putting a marker on them is a bit unfair..

I have tried the 40 + year old original on the same turntable and the old one sound much better

[Bksabath]

[QUOTE=forsell;923255]Sorry to say, but your statement is based on your EXPECTATIONS as a "customer".
QUOTE]

Caused by over the top advertising statement such us "we have used the original masters" and made every effort to produce the best possible product caused the EXPECTATIONS.

[Bksabath]

That doesn't explain the large run out compared to the original though. I'd guess they have just pressed it with the grooves a lot closer together because that is how they had it set up already. Usually the only reason you do this is to get loads of tracks onto the LP but it will compromise dynamic range and add noise.

Tank you 100% agree whit this as track length is the same what is been left out is dinamics