Does Half Speed Mastering really sound better? Plus a Stan Ricker 1/2 speed gem unveiled.

Two great prizes man! You'll be at a thousand before you know it brother just keep up this great content! ✌️🎸

I like how you explained in detail exactly what half speedmastering was I had an idea, but was not 100% sure. I know my Bob Marley half speedmaster albums that I have sound fantastic, rolling Stones exile on main Street half speed master I don't care for as much as the original present. Now I've got a question for you Steve what do you think is the best sounding mo-fi copy of an album you have? Not necessarily your favorite which one do you think sounds the best?

Great videos. How can I win your Beatles vinyl giveaways? Thanks.

I don’t think the Giles Martin Remasters were Half-Speed masters. Bringing in the topic of remixing into a remastering topic can blur the matter for those I am sure you’re trying to educate. Also, not a fan of taking an analogue source and digitizing to out it back on an analogue medium (vinyl). Obviously, if the origin source is digital or the master tapes are worn or destroyed, there is no choice. Wish each LP would have a 3-letter code like CDs used to have to know the sources and processes (example: ADA = analogue source, digital mastering to an analogue medium)

Let’s be honest. How many fans of music can afford to buy a MFSL Dark Side Of The Moon, or a copy of the original UK first pressing of Sgt. Pepper’s, or the Nimbus or the Australian audiophile pressings? Yet video after video, comments, threads, articles, all praise the sound of those original pressings or MFSL pressings that cost a mortgage payment ? I’ll never own one of those, and so if there are now half speed pressings to satisfy demand and/or remixes to correct flaws and the limitations of audio mixing and mastering from 50 years ago, I welcome them. It isn’t fair that only a selected few can enjoy those albums at full, rich sound while rest of us have to settle for shitty sound quality all of our lives. So far I own about 8 titles - Rolling Stones, Beatles and McCartney solo, and can attest to the great improvement over the old versions.

I played this video at half speed.

Really not a fan myself and I am purposely staying away from the Abbey Road half speed stuff. That said, I was told that the John Martyn Solid Air sounds amazing (just really expensive right from the start).

IMO half speed or "normal" speed doesn't matter as much as WHO is doing the mastering (cutting the laquer) and who is doing the pressing. With the right mastering engineer like Kevin gray or Bernie grundman the results are usually very good. Mofi releases are usually quite good but for some reason they always seem to boost the bass eq (too much).

Half speed is good for you if you prefer a more treble overall sound.I do.Thanks Steve.

I have a decent collection of original MoFi 1/2 speeds (and some UHQR, including Dark Side of the Moon). I also have a few non-MoFi 1/2 speeds like Nautilus's "The Cars" and Columbia's "Wish You Were Here."
1/2 speed mastering is not a switch you can throw and instantly improve things. It is a vinyl mastering tool that can can, improve things. Generally, MoFi, particularly in the late 70s/early 80s got it right more than wrong.
It is definitely true that if the master recording is sub-par, 1/2-speed will highlight that. I was rather disappointed with the "The Doors" MoFi issue but in retrospect, it probably just accentuated the problems in the master. Most every other MoFi record in my collection is superior to the standard issue version.
Note, another benefit to the MoFi version of most records is that they used virgin vinyl, which is normally noticeably more quiet than standard issue vinyl. It is definitely more uniform as it was a crap shoot as to what you got on a standard issue and where your pressing was in the run.
Those that claim a loss of an octave of bass on 1/2-speed mastering are WAY over playing their hand. Okay, so you move a 20Hz wave down to 10Hz (only on mastering)...so? The only trick is to ensure that the playback deck is flat down that low. Most any audio down below 20Hz is going to be lost due to the playback equipment, and more importantly, the room it is being played in (how long is a 20Hz wave? (1130ft/s)/(20c/s) = 56.5 feet (or 340/20 = 17m). That is larger than MOST people's listening rooms and, as one goes down in frequency on a vinyl system, you are going to be getting into the rumble associated with vinyl (how flat is the record, how centered is the hole, what forces and reactions are the tone arm and stylus going through and trying to reproduce?)
I suspect, it would be more interesting to see where the "head bumps" were on the playback deck to see what frequencies were moved into those as that would likely be more audible than any losses at the bottom end.
If the source is a digital file, I'm not quite sure what the point of the vinyl version, let alone the 1/2-speed pressing, was but that is going to be personal preference, I guess.
By and large, I'll put a Mobile Fidelity Original Master Recording, of the late '70s/early '80s up against most any other vinyl version, of that time. And, if the equipment and room are capable, they will sound as good or better than was was offered of those titles in that era. The improvement in overall quality was not insignificant. For the most part, the equipment I used was neither top-end nor bottom but a bit above average, I'd say. For the vinyl, the key components were a Mitsubishi LT-30, Signet TK9LCa cartridge, Yamaha C4 preamp, Threshold S/500 amplifier and JBL L250 speakers with a JBL B460 subwoofer (driven by a Yamaha M2...sometimes I would switch the amplifier roles).

I have read that Miles transfers uses a digital source when cutting (either his own from tape or given to him). Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t there half speed cuts made in the 1970’s when there was no digital medium you could transfer to? If that’s correct then he could do a AAA half speed cut nowadays?

Thank you for shoring up my theory , thet these multiple recordings are for the marketable and the new record collector
Quote..."I feel...its really good for the masses these days, just getting into vynel and listening to it and listening to it and listening to these albums saying, "Wow, these albums really sound great.".
Marketed for the masses as more and more people get into vynel and they're hearing some of these records for the first time."
Which brings us these rediculesly over priced and redundant " limited" box sets

I like the half speed mastering. The vocals and the music sound so natural.

Like your videos.....BUT.....totally disagree with you on your premise! Half Speed Mastering is total snake oil.....especially Miles Showell! Had to look away the entire time your video was playing because in the background displayed is my favorite album of all time .....The Rolling Stones Sticky Fingers.....that reissue from Abbey Studios is.......AWFUL!!!!!!!! As is the rest of the RS reissues.......AWFUL!!!!!! Sorry but I have a 1977 slightly warped reissue that sounds waaaaay better! This process and Miles engineering is a total scam! Sorry to be so direct but I take this personally to my wallet...since i purchased all the reissues at a steep price. If you see Miles Showell in the deadwax....stay away! If you don't believe me in this post....pick up the Sticky Fingers reissue....drop the needle on Brown Sugar and tell me what you think.....GARBAGE!!!! This is not a rant on you but the process of Abbey Road and Mr Showell.....Keep up the great work on your channel👍

I'm very disappointed in the two brand new half speed masters I've bought. Issues with cracks/pops on the "Back To Black" Amy WInehouse album which also sounded even worse than the US standard pressing (I'm in the UK). The Abba one wasn't any better. All looks very nice with the certificate and all but what's the point if the sound is crap? My 80's half speed masters sound much better so really disappointed with these new ones.

Half speed is a gimmick. It sucks. It has inherent problems that full speed doesn’t have. You lose an octave off the bottom and add sibilance to the high end that has to be digitally fixed. See: Kevin gray. Jvc had a room to cut half speed for quad. Quad went away and we were sold a bill of goods.

If mofi and analogue productions are cutting full speed that’s is all you need to know. You can’t cut half speed analog. If vocals on half speed sound crisp and not sibilant then it’s digitally altered. Also, if it’s being marketed to the masses then that tells me everything. Next maybe we they can market speed holes for your turntable.

You pronounce “octave” weirdly.

No

another Awesome video as usual

Thats some strong med..??

1/2 speed mastering equals double the price. That’s it really!

Stan is my my father. I am very proud of his work. I miss him. Thank you for this great information for all to get to know him.

I'm not sure how 1/2 speed mastering works these days. In particular, what are they using as masters, since modern recording is typically done at 24bit 96khz, and who knows what master tapes are made available. I was friends with Stan, and would sit in his garage with him in Ridgecrest CA and watch him cut on his Neumann lathe. One day, he reached to his shelf, pulled out a Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon album, signed it and handed it to me. The key of 1/2 speed is to have the original tape, the tape be in good shape, etc. I recall when Stan started receiving digital recordings to then put to 1/2 speed. How does that improve the sound, if the original sucks to begin with? As Stan would say..."you can't polish a turd"....but Stan did what he was paid to do. Additionally, tape degrade as well, some shed horribly. So even if you had an original master, would it play today the same as it did 50 years ago? I would bet no. Stan and I discussed 2/3 mastering which we thought might improve some of the shortcomings of 1/2 speed. I miss him. "Don't get wounded!"....would be how he would often say goodbye.

I have a pink floyd - wish you were here half speed mastered by cbs audiophile pressing

Sorry but the MOFI pressing of DSOTM is no where near the best sounding version of that album! It is slightly odd sounding. Even a late 70's UK reissue is better than that!

I think the main reason the new remixes of some of the Beatles albums, cut with half speed mastering, sound very different to the original LPs is because of the REMIXING. The mastering plays a part too but it's the digital remixing that accounts for the greatest difference in sound.

Target has Sade's best of abbey road 1/2 speed for $25.50...complete steal and AMAZING sound quality wow!

Folks, I recommend that you steer clear of half-speed mastered pressings.

The technology is capable of better sound quality. However, nothing can compensate for the sub-par mixing and mastering that goes on in the studios.
In fact, a better canvas will reveal more of what the studio personnel did wrong.

It has been 10 years since I last purchased a half-speed mastered pressing. That is when I learned, from multiple purchases, that none of them had better sound quality than my hot stamper, normal-speed mastered pressings.

My conclusion is that the studios took, what was a good idea, and now they use that process just so that they can slap a "Half Speed Mastered" label on it, and sell us albums that we already own.

I will never waster my hard earned cash on another half-speed mastered pressing, unless someone (whose ear I trust) gives me a recommendation. That recommendation has never happened.

Please do not waste your money.

The best way to get great sounding pressings is to find people whose ears you trust, and when they recommend a pressing, try to find the stamper code for that specific pressing.
Then shop for that stamper code.

If you go with some other stamper code, you will likely never land a great sounding pressing.
If you go with that recommended stamper code, then you have a very good shot at landing a great sounding pressing (alas, even with the right stamper code, you can still land a dud).

In my sound quality journey, I have not always been able to identify the right stamper codes. So I randomly purchased multiple copies of the same album. More often than not, none of them impress me. But once in a while, I get blown away -- and that made it all worthwhile.

But with today's vinyl prices, I no longer have the luxury of the above. But if I did seek out a great sounding title, I would not spend a nickle on any half-speed mastered pressing. The same goes for heavy vinyl.

Hi there, I wanted to share something. 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.

Hi there

The two leading guys in the business, Kevin Gray and Bernie Grundman, are not fans. They recommend 45rpm, for hotter cuts and better dynamic range.

We love you Steve!

No

No

Say at what fking speed it' needs to be played at ! Just a bunch of jibberish.