![]() ![]() The 30 kHz tone was turned off, and has remained off ever since. So, with the improved blanks, the required surface finish of the groove could be achieved without having to resort to technologies that would be more appropriate in dental laboratories. This innovation was short-lived in disk mastering (fortunately for those with sensitive hearing), as Teldec promptly improved their blanks, using the softer copper phosphate layer that is still in use to the present day. This may seem like a bit of a crude afterthought, and for audio purposes, it probably was, but rather impressively, considering that this was the early 1980s, it was one of the first (if not the first) practical implementations of ultrasonic vibration-assisted machining, which is currently all the rage in the precision engineering and nanotechnology sectors. The copper layer was quite hard, and to achieve the desired surface finish in the cutting operation, a 30 kHz tone was used to vibrate the cutting tool (stylus). In the very early days of DMM, the blanks were not very refined. It has been widely discussed, mostly in speculation, that DMM sounds harsh due to the use of a 30 kHz tone fed to the cutter head to assist with cutting the copper surface of the disk. Which is why properly made records can and do sound so impressive, when we come across them.īoth DMM and lacquer mastering have produced outstanding products, as has tape and even (I am clearly biased in favor of analog audio technology, but credit is due where credit is due) properly implemented digital technology. It is the human factor that overwhelmingly tends to underutilize the available technology, producing results that fall short of expectations and potential. It is extremely rare that we would really get to hear the actual full benefits of the technology. Most of what we may not like in a record is more often than not a result of substandard recordings, mastering done in haste, inadequate quality control, or, all too often, desperate attempts to fix a not-so-good performance, to at least have a product to sell. Which is why it is hard to really compare between DMM and lacquer strictly in terms of sound quality. But this was neither the major selling point, nor its most popular application. This is not to say that the equipment could not produce high-quality results. Professional recording equipment and disk mastering systems were being developed to allow less-skilled personnel to get the job done, faster. ![]() The development of disk mastering (and recording technology) reflected the general mood in the industry. Whether lacquer or DMM, the majority of records out there were never mastered (or even recorded) with absolute sound quality in mind. Was DMM (direct metal mastering) ever intended to offer a sonic improvement, compared to “prior art”? When it comes to normal mass-produced vinyl records, it is hard to tell. Part One and Part Two of this series were published in Issue 147 and Issue 148. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |