sparks wrote:Has anyone had any experience with Half-Speed Mastering?
If you're not sure what I am talking about, read
this.It seems to be making a small come back and I'm just wondering if anyone has had records mastered at half-speed or if this is just another audiophile obsession gone too far.
I've spoken with mastering engineers (at Abbey Road) who have done it, back in the day when it was in vogue, and there are a few drawbacks to it.
Firstly, the transfer electronics need to be very good in the low end -- flat to 10Hz, with a controlled roll-off below that. Very few systems are that good.
Secondly, any eq changes need to be mapped an octave lower and executed manually (not by ear, as you're not really hearing the thing). Cues and mid-song changes are also very hard to execute, because you're not hearing the program normally.
Thirdly, the cutter heads and drive amplifiers need to have exceptional power to work at frequencies that low. You can probably forget about cutting direct-to-metal.
Fourth -- and this is not a trivial issue -- the whole process takes twice as long in the studio. If you blow a blank and have to re-cut an 18 minute side, it isn't as much of an intrusion as when that same side takes 36 minutes to run.
Fifth, the azimuth computer preview times all need to be re-calculated, and some systems don't have th eproper belaying rollers for it, so you'll end up cutting through a ddl, which kinda defeats the purpose.
Since the program hasn't been listened-to during the cut, it needs to be QC checked after the fact, and if that requires waiting for a test pressing, then the whole job becomes really cumbersome.
The benefits to half-speed cutting are all in the treble range: cleaner "s" sounds, better HF detail, sharper transients.
It was an interesting experiment, but the experiment didn't warrant continuing.
best,
-steve
