Andrew wrote:OK, Lars here's a thought (I'm holding off my boxing up while this research plays out), but would it make sense to use the inverse of the most common cutter machine as the defacto standard iRIAA? Other than that a switch-able RIAA to accommodate standard and SAL74 settings?
-- Andrew
Hi Andrew,
I have come to the conclusion that this is an unsolveable problem
.
I do not the think the most common cutter is relevant. IMHO many of the best recordings where made before SAL74(most common?) .
To use the SAL74 as iRIAA is the worst idea.
Do you by the way know what cutters the different recording companies used as I have no clue? I know Decca used Neumann. SX66 might have been used when they did their best recordings.
Now to my ideas whatever bad or good cutters have been used:
We must assume the recording engineers at their best tried to trim their machines to comply with the RIAA curve on the endproduct: the vinylrecord. We must also assume that they, when installing the machines, also did testrecordings to check that the endproduct was OK against the standard RIAA. Otherwise they must have been totally stupid!
This leads to the conclusion that the iRIAA should fully comply with the RIAA-standard.
Whats wrong with fine tuning your RIAAs against lets say two test records: One European and one American?? One would then have a chance to adjust for imperfections in the electromechanical gear, player, arm , cables and pickup.