Recently unsealed my Don't Look Back!I was going to ask if it was a Wally. Almost all the Don't Look Backs were Wally, but the first album is out there in a variety of cuts.
Recently unsealed my Don't Look Back!I was going to ask if it was a Wally. Almost all the Don't Look Backs were Wally, but the first album is out there in a variety of cuts.
Great show indeed.You are KILLING ME WITH YOUR LP COLLECTION!
was just dusting my BD discs of the series….
Just have to play it at twice the speed!The label says mastered at half speed.
Does it sound kind of slow?
I have that one too - no shrink but the hype sticker is on the cover. I probably haven’t played in decades, but my recollection is it was just okay sounding (like many half-speed masters).
Yeah I think the record and mastering companies were trying to find a way to put the obsolete CD-4 equipment to use, and have a new gimmick to sell the same recordings twice. Some sound good, some like the CBS "Mastersound" records sound a little thin and bright to me, not all of them. The quality of the vinyl used to press those probably made more difference than half-speed mastering.I have that one too - no shrink but the hype sticker is on the cover. I probably haven’t played in decades, but my recollection is it was just okay sounding (like many half-speed masters).
I have the Dutch pressing of "2112" and , unfortunately was below par compared to the Japanese pressings...Rush - Moving Pictures
My personal favorite Rush album.
Not half-speed but an import on good quality vinyl.
View attachment 79893
Actually I think it’s sort of the other way around. Half-speed mastering existed long before CD4, but in order to cut CD4 high frequency carriers without frying cutter heads, half-speed mastering was sort of a necessity.Yeah I think the record and mastering companies were trying to find a way to put the obsolete CD-4 equipment to use, and have a new gimmick to sell the same recordings twice. Some sound good, some like the CBS "Mastersound" records sound a little thin and bright to me, not all of them. The quality of the vinyl used to press those probably made more difference than half-speed mastering.
Actually I think it’s sort of the other way around. Half-speed mastering existed long before CD4, but in order to cut CD4 high frequency carriers without frying cutter heads, half-speed mastering was sort of a necessity.
However as you allude to and as I understand it, Stan Ricker liked the results of half-speed mastering - so when there was a use it or lose it with the JVC equipment when the CD-4 plug got pulled, he repurposed and customized the equipment and started the cottage industry of half-speed mastering.
Many of the early CBS Mastersounds were cut without a corresponding adjustment in EQ, so they can sound tinny. And, yes, the quality of the JVC vinyl used by MFSL was superior - and I’m assuming was chosen by MFSL because it had been able to handle the playback of CD-4 high freq carrier without immediate wear.
It wasn’t widely used, but I think it dates back to the 50s.I had never heard of half-speed mastering until the earliest days of quadraphonics and CD-4, and reading about how they cut 30 kHz and upward deviation toward 50 kHz. I had read that some of the early CBS Mastersounds didn't have properly compensated EQ. Why the engineers didn't know what would happen when played at normal speed with standard RIAA EQ is beyond my imagination.
Enter your email address to join: