[Resolved] Mastered By [Vinyl Cut] vs. Lacquer Cut vs. Mastered By

The runout thread at https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/529e58cbea621117a73e0170 has the following to say about it.

5) Lacquer Cut By / At shall only be used if the role is explicitly stated on the release, e.g. "A Porky Prime Cut", "A Smart Cut", or "Cut At company xyz" or where otherwise confirmed (e.g. Phonodisc numbers 320, 420, 670, etc.). Else use Mastered By / Mastered At.

This is at least partially based on what https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/283722#3000765

There are a couple of thousand releases in the db that use Mastered By [Vinyl Cut]
In my opinion they are all wrong.
They should either use Lacquer Cut if the person is explicitly credited for cutting or else Mastered By should be used. But not Mastered By [Vinyl Cut].

pcerio
Any reasonable description of the instrument or credit role is allowed in the box brackets.

The point being that [Vinyl Cut] is not a reasonable description.
Just like Lacquer Cut [Mastering] or Record Company [Distributor] would not be.
You cannot use a different role in the description field. If it was known that the Vinyl Cut was the only thing the person did, Lacquer Cut would be the only valid credit to use.

I've voted on a couple and later changed them to just use Mastered By.

I've got a NMiC vote by pcerio is also of the opinion that Mastered By [Vinyl Cut] should be used.
See also
sebfact has already voiced his opinion

sebfact
acraphae
In my opinion this is wrong on two levels.
1. only use Lacquer Cut if it's clearly mentioned or established.
2. Mastered By [Vinyl Cut] can never be correct. If it's ok to use Vinyl Cut, then the Lacquer Cut credit has to be used.
Am I completely off and is the current practise as documented in this very thread obsolete?
No, you are right.
Credit for Bellman is Mastered By, unless he explicitly stated that he did cut the record. Then however, Lacquer Cut should be used. See last 2 paragraphs here.

I am surprised that we need to have this discussion again, but here we go. Please bring forward the arguments for and against etc and hopefully we can get an updated ruling by nik if necessary.

bump .

I agree that "Mastered By [Vinyl Cut]" is pointless, anyone who is aware of how records are made should know this.
Vinyl is never 'cut'. It is pressed. And "mastering" is a totally different process.
So it's either "Laquer cut" or "Mastered by".

Disaster_Area
I agree that "Mastered By [Vinyl Cut]" is pointless, anyone who is aware of how records are made should know this.

+1.

Also, what is the current status of mastering credits which are derived from runouts? I seem to recall the previous ruling was that "Mastered By" should always be used unless the release states "Lacquer Cut By"... but a credit which only appears as run-outs only indicates who cut it, which is not always the same person as whoever (pre)mastered it.

velove
2. Mastered By [Vinyl Cut] can never be correct. If it's ok to use Vinyl Cut, then the Lacquer Cut credit has to be used.

Perfectly correct.

brunorepublic
but a credit which only appears as run-outs only indicates who cut it, which is not always the same person as whoever (pre)mastered it.

This is true too. I've been present while dozens of records were mastered or cut, there's a difference between the two.
The mastered By credit should only be used if it's explicitly stated on the release, or there is a good source for it.

velove
There are a couple of thousand releases in the db that use Mastered By [Vinyl Cut]
In my opinion they are all wrong.
They should either use Lacquer Cut if the person is explicitly credited for cutting or else Mastered By should be used. But not Mastered By [Vinyl Cut].

Agreed, too...

As for the vote you got, well that doesn't surprise me, he's making up his own rules - i got the same vote half a year ago...

brunorepublic
a credit which only appears as run-outs only indicates who cut it, which is not always the same person as whoever (pre)mastered it

So, we are supposed to add "Mastered By" based on run-outs (as ever so often there are no guidelines), but you say that is actually incorrect and that we should use "Lacquer Cut By"? I don't know much about the difference myself, but I'd certainly like to add the most correct credit. Even though on many releases, the person who appears in run-outs is also credited for mastering on sleeve.

(On some Swedish releases, the Swedish word "Graverad" = "Engraved" which I guess translates to "Cut" when it comes to records - is used in the sleeve credits, even for CDs - which would be the correct credit then, Mastered By I assume?)

I just saw this thread, I agree that "Mastered By [Vinyl Cut]" should be avoided unless it's explicitly credited on the release in a way that would justify that, e.g., 'Vinyl Cut Mastering: John Smith'.

However, I'm always unsure about what to do whenever there's a mastered by credit printed on the back cover/insert/labels/etc. for one person, but then there's someone else's etching in the runouts.

brunorepublic's, is whether I should have used the lacquer cut role for Carlton Batts' even though it's not explicitly mentioned anywhere or whether there's another way to do this? (I usually find this discrepancy on 90s-era releases).

velove
I am surprised that we need to have this discussion again, but here we go

One thing that has never been addressed is why the Credits List omits definitions for the mastered by and lacquer cut by roles — if those were added it would be a lot easier to provide that as a reference instead of having to start a discussion every time someone has a problem.

Discogs understands Mastered By as holistic process, covering everything from the tape transfer to the plating, of which the cut is just one step.

Therefore, I can only repeat myself (even though contested by many):
We should equal the runout scribes with Lacquer Cut By, as such strictly reflecting the release. Of course, that would not cover any additional role the engineer normally/usually did as well. And yet, we only assume the other mastering steps. We are "encouraged" to follow "as-on" (sometimes excessively and without any common sense whatsoever) but in this case, we shall keep as vague as possible, lumping all kinds of manufacturing steps under a single credit.

And while at it, we should, eventually, get the Plated At / Plated By credit/roles.

berothbr
I'm always unsure about what to do whenever there's a mastered by credit printed on the back cover/insert/labels/etc. for one person, but then there's someone else's etching in the runouts.

We give a Mastered By credit to Person A and a Lacquer Cut credit to Person B.

sebfact
We should equal the runout scribes with Lacquer Cut By, as such strictly reflecting the release. Of course, that would not cover any additional role the engineer normally/usually did as well. And yet, we only assume the other mastering steps

And as has been stated by engineers in threads recently, the cutting engineer doesn't always master too.

I do wonder why people who don't know claim the opposite.

sebfact
We are "encouraged" to follow "as-on" (sometimes excessively and without any common sense whatsoever)

Hahah / +1

avalon67
We give a Mastered By credit to Person A and a Lacquer Cut credit to Person B

What about a release where the mastered by credit is printed, for example, on the artwork for Person A, but the runouts show their etching? A hypothetical example of this would be if a CD shows 'Mastering by Herbie 'Pump' Powers at F/W' and then the runouts show 'HERbiE JR. :v)' — I suppose that it doesn't really matter a tremendous amount, but if someone is credited for multiple roles with different ANVs, then I like to capture that if I can.

berothbr
What about a release where the mastered by credit is printed, for example, on the artwork for Person A, but the runouts show their etching?

Then they (with suitable ANV's) get both credits.........

berothbr
What about a release where the mastered by credit is printed, for example, on the artwork for Person A, but the runouts show their etching?

And what if the credit is printed on the release for Person A and the etching in runout is for Person B.
Like here, https://discogs.cinepelis.org/release/7015061-FM-No-Static-At-All/history#latest

Disaster_Area
Vinyl is never 'cut'. It is pressed. And "mastering" is a totally different process.
So it's either "Laquer cut" or "Mastered by".

+1

typoman2
+1

I get this typo, I really do and I agree with the Lacquer Cut credit, but the advice given is not to use Lacquer Cut unless specified.

It's been customary AFAIAA to use Mastered By [Vinyl Cut] if the credit differs from the printed Mastered By credit.

berothbr
What about a release where the mastered by credit is printed, for example, on the artwork for Person A, but the runouts show their etching?

avalon67
Then they (with suitable ANV's) get both credits.........

+1 because this is two different activities (cutting the laquer and mastering (transferring) the recording)

so what's the final solution? because I'm still not sure :/

zin
final solution

Does anyone know...
AFAIK we still only use lacquer cut when it is explicitly mentioned, other than that we use Mastered By and if there are conflicting credits on a release (artwork says one thing, runouts say another) we use Mastered By [Vinyl Cut].

andygrayrecords
and if there are conflicting credits on a release (artwork says one thing, runouts say another) we use Mastered By [Vinyl Cut]

But if you enter "Vinyl Cut" you make a statement it's known the artist did the cut. In which case you must use Lacquer Cut By instead of course.
If you really don't know, then I guess you'd describe "Runout" or something like that.

I think the staff ruling was for cases where we don't know the role at all but want to add a credit. I bet 99% of the cases in the common runouts thread are ones where we have identified the artist as the mastering engineer who made the cut. Am I right sebfact? Which means IMO we should recommend Lacquer Cut By/At in all those cases, shouldn't we?

jval
Which means IMO we should recommend Lacquer Cut By/At in all those cases, shouldn't we?

+1

andygrayrecords
if there are conflicting credits on a release (artwork says one thing, runouts say another) we use Mastered By [Vinyl Cut].

Mastered By [Vinyl Cut] should be avoided, really. If there are conflicting credits on cover and vinyl, we should in fact use Mastered By and Lacquer Cut By.

jval
99% of the cases in the common runouts thread are ones where we have identified the artist as the mastering engineer who made the cut.

Likely true and I have tried to get this sorted on several occasions to no avail. It's tricky: sometimes mastering and cutting are done by the same engineer, sometimes they are done by different engineers. As the roles cannot be 100% proven though (many here simply don't accept a 99,99% probability) and due to Discogs' "holistic" Mastering definition, Lacquer Cut is to be used only where specifically stated or confirmed by engineer or studio. Else it's Mastered By / At. That's the standing "consensus".

sebfact
Lacquer Cut is to be used only where specifically stated or confirmed by engineer or studio

So your thread does instruct to use Lacquer Cut By/At when it's known the signature belongs to an engineer who cuts?

If you instead meant the thread instructs that credit only when the engineer or studio uses that term, that doesn't make any sense. :) This should be about what was done, not about how they called it.

Edit: Or is that credit instructed in cases where it's known only cut was made?

As you can see, I still don't quite understand the logic behind this. :)

sebfact
: sometimes mastering and cutting are done by the same engineer, sometimes they are done by different engineers.

Which some s can't accept and have persuaded nik to suggest that if all we have to go on is a runout etching, we assume that engineer has mastered and cut. All we know for sure is that the engineer has cut the lacquer.

avalon67
All we know for sure is that the engineer has cut the lacquer.

So it's a fact this type of signature refers traditionally to the person who made the cut? It's impossible the original tradition was to credit the person who mastered?

Maybe it's always been the person who made the cut but originally it was more common the same person also mastered?

Any good external sources about this as evidence? That would be helpful, especially if we want to try a guidelines change.

jval
So it's a fact this type of signature refers traditionally to the person who made the cut?

From all the anecdotal evidence we can see and from my experience yes. I've never seen a cutting engineer engrave another engineers initials/whatever in the runout.

jval
It's impossible the original tradition was to credit the person who mastered?

You have any evidence for proposing that?

jval
Maybe it's always been the person who made the cut but originally it was more common the same person also mastered?

Very likely. We know that it's frequent that the same engineer carries out both roles, maybe more frequent than splitting the tasks.

jval
Any good external sources about this as evidence?

In the last year we've had three cutting engineers in the forums telling us they purely cut the lacquer. We also have instances of a 'Mastered By' credit on the artwork yet a different etching in the runout. What more proof is needed?
It is two different procedures that can be carried out by either two people or one.

avalon67
I've never seen a cutting engineer engrave another engineers initials/whatever in the runout.

Well, often you can find two initials, especially when 1 engineer was "on training" and cuttting "on behalf of". That's splitting hairs though.

avalon67
All we know for sure is that the engineer has cut the lacquer.

True to some extent because there also were some "active" metalworkers who left their marks (not in the lacquer).

avalon67
What more proof is needed?

Diognes_The_Fox right from the start. After all, this is a community build thingy here (majority principle, no?)

After reading http://mightymediadiscs.co.uk/vinmas.html I realised something. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (Edit: I've now corrected myself.)

When the tape/file is mastered all instruments are in their own channels. That's "Mastered By". (Edit: Or "Mixed By".)

When the cut is mastered it's EQing only. That's "Lacquer Cut By". (Edit: Or "Mastered By". "Lacquer Cut By" refers only to operating the lathe.)

from:
https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/402383#3818902

sebfact
Altogether I'm leaning more towards using Lacquer Cut By. However, there are some things to consider:
Not only mastering/lacquer cutting engineers tagged themselves but also plating engineers, such as Eddy Gorecki (EG), or Maxwell Anandappa (MAX), or Francis DeSouza (.z.). In those cases, we evidently cannot credit Lacquer Cut By but Mastered By. Having said that, knowledge about the engineers is required to distinguish the engineering jobs. Or at least checking this thread, when you are active in the forums.

agree

Lacquer Cut By shoud be used for runout scribbles, unless it's one of the exceptions

The exception mentioned should actually be handled with:

sebfact
Plated At / Plated By

If the decision is to start using Lacquer Cut At / Lacquer Cut By the Plated At / Plated By credits should be added to the system too. Then people can make both corrections at the same time which is much more effective.

bump, any more comments?

jval
Plated At / Plated By credits

That would be a good idea.

It could be so easy:
Mastered By - When stated on the release or confirmed by engineer.
Lacquer Cut By - When an engineer's scribe (e.g. Porky) is found in the runouts.
Plated By - When engineer is a confirmed "metalworker".

When an engineer is etching something into the runouts, he evidently does so when cutting the lacquer.
However we can only assume that he also did the tape transfer or mastering in general. In most of the cases we are safe to assume he did, but we cannot be 100% sure. There are many examples where Mastering and Cutting fall apart.

All this is obvious but we still are tied up with a 5 year old definition of mastering by the Management...

Yes, they are two processes. The mastering which is included in cutting is IMO part of that process. It doesn't mean it needs Mastered By.

jval
When the tape/file is mastered all instruments are in their own channels. That's "Mastered By".

When the cut is mastered it's EQing only. That's "Lacquer Cut By".

Btw. What about signatures found on vinyls which have been manufactured using the DMM technique? Isn't it still same kind of cutting? I mean, are the requirements for the audio the same or different? It's still a same kind of process: EQing and cut?

Why are we using Mastered By [Metalworks] instead of Mastered By [DMM Cut] or similar? What does the "Metalworks" mean? :)

Should we even have DMM Cut At/By?

Do we really know when it's been a lacquer cut and when a DMM cut? Is Lacquer Cut By correct in that sense or could some of them actually be DMM cuts? How do we identify a DMM cut? Should Lacquer Cut At/By be changed to Cut At/By because of this?

sebfact
All this is obvious but we still are tied up with a 5 year old definition of mastering by the Management...

I'm the least qualified to explain the difference, but I will say it is confusing both from a contribution and release-page standpoint when there are like 3+ Mastered At companies when 1 is derived from a stamp/etching+engineer, 1 is for metal parts, e.g., LW, and 1 is for something else. So I'm with jval —lots of questions/confusion.

I've just sent a Request to get mngmnt attention here.

zin
I've just sent a Request to get mngmnt attention here.

Thanks zin. This is another inaccuracy that Discogs is spreading that should be corrected. Facts over convenience IMO

To be clear, I agree 101% with sebfact here, see my posts above and in other threads.

sebfact
Plated By - When engineer is a confirmed "metalworker".

I can add this credit.

To reiterate something from the other thread:

nik
Where are used or can be construed precisely, then use them. Otherwise, use a more general term.

From that, I think if the specific role is known, it's perfectly okay to use a more specific credit. Mastered By can be used though when the general nature of that credit cannot be precisely construed.

Thoughts?

Diognes_The_Fox
Thoughts?

Agreed. I using Lacquer Cut when the credit is derived from runout etchings (yes yes I know DMM cuts don't use lacquer, but styrene isn't vinyl either, and nobody is arguing to change the format of countless thousands of American 7" releases).

brunorepublic
yes I know DMM cuts don't use lacquer,

maybe a credit to describe that fact would be good something like :
Direct To Metal Cut By or even the obvious Direct Metal Mastering By
the process is slightly different so i think the credit should imply that
just as Mastered By and Lacquer Cut By are different processes :)

SeRKeT
maybe a credit to describe that fact would be good something like :

The first problem you'll find is that many, many DMM cuts aren't marked as such. A handful of experts can tell by looking at them, but just like styrene vs vinyl, the average person isn't going to see any difference.

SeRKeT
just as Mastered By and Lacquer Cut By are different processes :)

Mastering vs cutting can be completely different processes, whereas lacquer cutting vs DMM cutting are both disc cutting, and not wildly different.

As I feel I have too little knowledge on this to really discuss this, it is really good to see that a solution is being worked out for this.
Would be awesome to have clearly different credits, for music mastering credits that appear on release, and vinyl mastering credits that can be derived from the runouts.

Diognes_The_Fox
Thoughts?

It'd be fantastic.

Edit:

Diognes_The_Fox
I can add this credit.

Also fantastic!

brunorepublic
lacquer cutting vs DMM cutting are both disc cutting, and not wildly different

Disc Cut At/By :)

Edit: This is how it's called when you look around: Cut At/By

Edit: Actually "disc cutting" and "disc cut by" seem to be common too. That's maybe better because it's specific.

Diognes_The_Fox
From that, I think if the specific role is known, it's perfectly okay to use a more specific credit. Mastered By can be used though when the general nature of that credit cannot be precisely construed.

+1

brunorepublic
whereas lacquer cutting vs DMM cutting are both disc cutting, and not wildly different.

Lacquer Cut By and Copper Cut By ;-)

So, when will Plated At and Plated By be added ?

Staff (or whoever knows): Would changing "Lacquer Cut At" and "Lacquer Cut By" to "Cut At" and "Cut By" be a problem technically? If they are internally stored numerically changing the name would be possible. If they are stored as strings then the change would affect only new edits.

I may be wrong but it looks like DMM cuts can't actually be identified always so if we start to use Lacquer Cut At/By for all cutting credits from runouts (instead of the current neutral Mastered At/By) we will sometimes enter wrong information... If the credit had Cut instead of Lacquer Cut we wouldn't have the problem.

sebfact
So, when will Plated At and Plated By be added ?

Just added Plated By. The Plated At lccn entry will require getting on the development schedule. I will bring this up with the team for additional discussion. A more generic option could likely be used with an explanation in the notes for now.

jval
Staff (or whoever knows): Would changing "Lacquer Cut At" and "Lacquer Cut By" to "Cut At" and "Cut By" be a problem technically? If they are internally stored numerically changing the name would be possible. If they are stored as strings then the change would affect only new edits.

I think that change would not propagate to older subs automatically, such as when we dealt with Shoegaze/Shoegazer.

Diognes_The_Fox
jval
Staff (or whoever knows): Would changing "Lacquer Cut At" and "Lacquer Cut By" to "Cut At" and "Cut By" be a problem technically?
I think that change would not propagate to older subs automatically,

I don't see why we would need this anyway. I've always understood the process as lacquer cutting, for vinyl records

avalon67
I don't see why we would need this anyway. I've always understood the process as lacquer cutting, for vinyl records

Agreed. It's really splitting hairs. As I've said before, there are thousands of "vinyl" releases already in the db which aren't vinyl but polystyrene.

The vast majority of records are lacquer cut. And DMM cutting is still cutting, it's the materials and plating which differ from lacquer cuts. If "vinyl" includes different vinyl-like materials like styrene, I don't see why "lacquer cut" can't include DMM, which is still cutting but with different materials.

The reason I brought it up is I think I've only seen "lacquer cut by" here. Elsewhere it's just "cut by" or "cutting". Except for technical information of course, or when it's about lacquers as objects.

avalon67
I don't see why we would need this anyway. I've always understood the process as lacquer cutting, for vinyl records

That's my understanding as well.

jval
Elsewhere

Discogs is often (tempted to write "usually", but ....) doing things differently.... Erm, no, won't get into details here ;-)

Diognes_The_Fox
Just added Plated By. The Plated At

Thanks!!

Question for everyone:
When we update the LCCN roles from mastered by to plated by, should we also remove release notes that clarify why there are, e.g., 2+ mastered at companies in the LCCN being that those are not obsolete or is that considered valid info?

Update: This specifically refers to LCCN 'mastered at' roles where we've been advised to add a note. US examples include SLM, Longwear, Greg Lee, etc. A concrete example of a release with such a note can be found here.

Maybe it's easier to comment if you give an example. :)

Generally, a note is redundant if it only repeats what's already in another section of the release page. If it adds something which is actual info it's not redundant.

I'm curious about what berothbr asked too.

berothbr
This specifically refers to LCCN 'mastered at' roles where we've been advised to add a note. US examples include SLM, Longwear, Greg Lee, etc.

I just added some SLM credits to Everly Brothers - The Everly Brothers. Should they be Plated By now rather than Mastered By?

Diognes_The_Fox
Just added Plated By.

Can someone elaborate when should this credit be used?

phallancz
Can someone elaborate when should this credit be used?

+1 / Some other examples that I'm not sure about:
Greg Lee Processing)

Update: I misunderstood and thought DTF had added a new LCCN role, as opposed to a credit role. The examples are relevant to LCCN, not credits.

phallancz
Can someone elaborate when should this credit be used?

Definitely for all current credit roles Mastered By [Metalworks] or the like. Secondly, instead of generic Mastered By credits for known metalworking engineers, e.g. Eddy Gorecki, to name but a few.

I don't know where did I get the impression those Mastered By [Metalworks] were DMM related. Now I understand. :) So they are post-cut metalworks, Plated By now.

Btw, you need to update the instructions at the beginning of the common runouts thread, to use Plated By.

brunorepublic
I don't see why "lacquer cut" can't include DMM, which is still cutting but with different materials.

Because DMM does not involve any part commonly referred to as 'lacquer'.

zen-dog
Because DMM does not involve any part commonly referred to as 'lacquer'.

I think changing "Lacquer Cut" to "Disc Cut" would be a good idea. It's specific but not so much that it's inaccurate at times. It's a common name for the credit, it seems. The "Disc" isn't mentioned always but it is sometimes. Plain "Cut" could be too unspecific (plain cutting could also mean editing which is of course something totally different) but "Disc Cut" makes it clear.

We didn't get Metal Plated By (or something like that) but just Plated By. I think we shouldn't have Lacquer Cut By either but just Disc Cut By. :)

I know, it's usually lacquer cutting. But, usually we are very strict with things like this. Just think about how we deal different versions of the same company, or identifiers. The basic idea often is we don't assume but instead document only factual and verifiable info.

Of course, if I'm wrong and DMM cuts are really also called lacquer cuts then it's ok. But in that case shouldn't someone provide a reference as a proof. :)

The thing is, it seems the change wouldn't cause any real problems. The data would stay as it is for now and the next edits would just replace Lacquer with Disc, which is a good thing if we're being strict with the .

jval
But, usually we are very strict with things like this.

No we aren't. We have thousands of American 7" styrene records listed in the db as "vinyl".

In both cases, we are talking about technicalities that are only noticeable to a handful of experts.

brunorepublic
technicalities that are only noticeable to a handful of experts

The word "Lacquer" is also a technicality. For the general public "Disc" would be easier to comprehend. :)

Of course if you can provide a reference of a situation where DMM cutting is called lacquer cutting then it's ok. Otherwise I have to ask: Why would we deliberately use a wrong word when we can easily use a right one? :)

brunorepublic
American 7" styrene records listed in the db as "vinyl"

Those are probably also called vinyl in the real world so there we are still "factual". :)

jval
Why would we deliberately use a wrong word when we can easily use a right one?

That is how I feel about the suggestion of 'Disc Cut'. Why do you think that's a good idea? 'Lacquer Cut' is precise terminology. 'Disc Cut' isn't.

zen-dog
Why do you think that's a good idea?

Because:
1) Lacquer is usually only mentioned in technical info. Credits usually just include the word "cut", and mastering/cutting companies usually talk about "disc cutting" or just "cutting" etc.
2) We can't always reliably identify whether it has been a lacquer cut or a DMM cut. So some of the "Lacquer Cut" entries would actually be DMM cuts...

zen-dog
'Lacquer Cut' is precise terminology.

True but it will sometimes be incorrect information.

zen-dog
'Disc Cut' isn't

Well it's precise regarding what it says. A disc is cut. It just doesn't specify the method and the material of the disc. Because we don't actually know it... Lacquer Cut would be usually correct but sometimes it would be a false statement.

Unless DMM cuts really are called lacquer cuts too. Are they? (We need a reference if we're being serious with this. :))

jval
Unless DMM cuts really are called lacquer cuts too. Are they?

They aren't. The internet is full of references.

I do see the point about 'Disc Cut' now, but, for some reason, when I read/hear it, I automatically think of a lacquer cut, which may be down to the frequentness of lacquer cuts vs DMM cuts.

jval
I think changing "Lacquer Cut" to "Disc Cut" would be a good idea.

Can you provide some examples where Disc Cut is a credit?

Good question. In the mean time: Can you provide examples where Lacquer Cut is a credit?

jval
We can't reliably identify whether it has been a lacquer cut or a DMM cut.

Yes we can! Here are about 3000 US releases where it unambiguously states DMM (that that's just what turned up in an advanced search, which has been buggy of late and omits results).

zen-dog
'Lacquer Cut' is precise terminology. 'Disc Cut' isn't.

For what it's worth, I've always been a little confused about what to do on a release (usually from the 90s) where it's something like:
Back cover: Mastered By - Name1
Runouts: XYZ-123-A DMM Name2
E.g., do we add:
Mastered By - Name1
Mastered By [Vinyl] - Name2
or something like, e.g.:
Mastered By - Name1
Mastered By [DMM] - Name2?
Update:

jval
Good question.

It's a rhetorical question because no such credit appears on a release (or at least I've never seen it and, like everyone who's posted here besides for yourself, I've edited 1000s). Therefore, unless I'm wrong, it was intended to illustrate that you're suggesting we add a role to the Credits List despite the fact that it does not appear anywhere on a release nor does it otherwise resemble a role performed by an individual as part of the process that creates a release.

jval
Can you provide examples where Lacquer Cut is a credit?

Any Ron Lenhoff.

berothbr
Mastered By - Name1
Mastered By [DMM] - Name2?

Something like this, I would say.

Alternatively: Mastered by [DMM Cut] or Mastered by [Cutting Engineer].

berothbr
Yes we can! Here are about 3000 US releases where it unambiguously states DMM (that that's just what turned up in an advanced search, which has been buggy of late and omits results).

No. The problem is that not all DMM cuts will contain a DMM-reference in either runout or sleeve credits. So, yes, these examples you found are DMM-cuts, but other releases will not identify themselves as DMM cuts and only someone with a bit of experience could tell by either listening or examining the grooves.

sebfact
for all current credit roles Mastered By [Metalworks] or the like. Secondly, instead of generic Mastered By credits for known metalworking engineers, e.g. Maxwell Anandappa, Francis DeSouza, Eddy Gorecki, to name but a few.

thank for the info

so Plate By is derived from the runouts same as the Mastered By [Vinyl] thing, both can still be used, but when does a knows which one to use?

zen-dog
The problem is that not all DMM cuts will contain a DMM-reference in either runout or sleeve credits.

100% agree. However, jval spoke in absolute .

zen-dog
Alternatively: Mastered by [DMM Cut] or Mastered by [Cutting Engineer].

Good suggestions!

berothbr
jval spoke in absolute .

That was of course a mistake. I meant what zen-dog mentioned above.

berothbr
it unambiguously states DMM

The question is do we accept the inaccuracy Lacquer Cut is sometimes really DMM Cut instead?

berothbr
Any Acetate format release with an engineer's name, initials, etc. on it could arguably be construed as an example. Another examples would be some of the old King Records (3) LPs where they show the equipment and say something about someone like Ron Lenhoff.

A bit far fetched. :) The idea was to investigate how do releases credit lacquer/DMM cutting in the rare cases it's actually written as a text.

berothbr
I've edited 1000s

Have you seen any written cutting credits? I think I've seen "cut by". Yes, see Heartplay (2) - Téléphone. So if the credit should be the same which appears as actual credits Cut At/By is such. The generic nature of the word doesn't really matter. On releases "cut" or "cutting" is understood as this.

If lacquer cutting is also a term which means cutting in general then Lacquer Cut is ok. If it's not I think Cut would be the best solution.

I don't understand anything you wrote sebfact provided a good start pointing. Unfortunately, we are now completely sidetracked on the semantics of Lacquer plus a repeatedly rejected proposal to change a 100% functional existing credit role.

phallancz
so Plate By is derived from the runouts same as the Mastered By [Vinyl] thing, both can still be used, but when does a knows which one to use?

+1 — I assume this is relevant to zen-dog's point that not all DMMed releases self-identify?

We don't yet use Lacquer Cut By as the default cutting credit. We use Mastered By. Of course it's ok to present a third option. It's the same matter. Better to decide it now than edit a lot of releases, change it again, and edit the releases again.

Like I said, it's not really that complicated issue. If lacquer cutting is also a generic term (like vinyl is) then there's no issue. But if it's not, then it doesn't really make sense to use it. It's not important to state "Lacquer". The "Cut" is the important part.

If Lacquer Cut By is the new default credit to use: How do we enter the identified DMM cases? Lacquer Cut By [DMM] or Mastered By [DMM], or something else? Maybe DMM Cut By should be added?

What's the upshot of this thread now?
I credited Sheffield Lab Matrix on Asia (2) - The Smile Has Left Your Eyes.
Do I need to use Plated By? Do we still add the note (as instructed)?

If the artwork on a release gives one credit (Mastered By), and the runouts credit someone else are we using Lacquer Cut By for that?

jval
Of course it's ok to present a third option.

Not when you're the only person trying to present it repeatedly, which causes frustration to other s because it interferes with our ability to reach a satisfactory outcome that will enable us to return to editing and submitting releases, which, for many of us, is the sole reason for forum participation.

jval
If Lacquer Cut By is the new default credit to use: How do we enter the identified DMM cases? Lacquer Cut By [DMM] or Mastered By [DMM], or something else?

This is a good question. (edit) +1

If you want to just return to editing and submitting this is by far the fastest solution: Let's continue to use Mastered By. The description will solve the problem of differentiating from initial mastering:
- Mastered By [Cut]
- Lacquer Cut By
- DMM Cut By

No need to edit all the releases. Time saved. :) And no problems with the word lacquer if I'm allowed to say that again. :D

Edited it. The first is the generic one, when it's uncertain whether it's lacquer or DMM. The second is lacquer and the third DMM, when it's known.

I think this "solution" makes a lot of sense. It's actually what the staff has told us anyway. We've been told to use Lacquer Cut only when it's known. It should be handled as meaning the whole credit. We will actually get better data that way. A release page will claim lacquer or DMM only when it's a fact. However, the description Cut should be used with Mastered By. I think it's been agreed cutting is its own process.

Actually we really should state lacquer or DMM only when it's a fact. They aren't just materials. The record will sound different. This is useful information for s, but only if it's there when it's the truth.

There are probably cases where it's known the mastering/cutting engineer only cuts lacquers, or where a company only has lacquer ed. IMO we should use Lacquer Cut By and Lacquer Cut At for those. There we know the precise credit.

jval
fastest solution:

Can you please kindly hold off on proposing 'solutions' until everyone else's questions about how to use the existing roles have been answered by some of the more knowledgeable, BaOI-focused s like sebfact, w.b., etc.?

jval
Actually we really should state lacquer or DMM only when it's a fact. They aren't just materials. The record will sound different. This is useful information for s, but only if it's there when it's the truth.

Truth?
As said above, we also use vinyl for styrene...

Anyway, don't use Lacquer Cut By when DMM or an alternative name (e.g. DS, DM, 2-Step, etc.) is explicitly mentioned anywhere on the release. Instead use Mastered By [DMM]. Simple as that.

sebfact
Truth?

I meant it's actually an interesting detail for a collector whether a record was mastered/cut using lacquer or DMM, because it will affect the way the record sounds. But it's only useful of course if it can be trusted. That's why I think it would actually be better to just use Mastered By [Cut] when it's unknown which it was. The original idea was to separate cutting from other mastering. The description works for that too.

However, I think we can use (if we aren't already?) Lacquer Cut At/By in the cases where we know it was a lacquer cut. (E.g. the engineer or studio is known to do only those.)

I think we don't have to be 100% sure btw. If it's very likely it was lacquer then IMO Lacquer Cut is a good credit. Mastered By [Cut] would be used when it's known the engineer and/or studio did/does both regularly and didn't/doesn't add an inscription like DMM. You know, we can use common sense. So, basically most of the credits probably indeed can be Lacquer Cut.

sebfact
use Mastered By [DMM]

Thanks. In the future DMM Cut At/By would be nice I think. We don't need it but it would be useful, for the same reasons we have Lacquer Cut and Plated. It would stand out better.

Jovonn - The EP has "JA" etched and "Mastered @ Optimum Mastering" printed. So, if we use Lacquer Cut By how should we handle this type of situation?

1) Both:
Mastered By – JA*
Lacquer Cut By – JA*

2) Only the cutting credit:
Lacquer Cut By – JA*

Which would be correct? The release doesn't of course state JA mastered but well... Isn't it kind of obvious? :) Or is it?

Maybe:

Mastered By [Uncredited] – JA*
Lacquer Cut By – JA*

Or do we play it absolutely safe and leave out the Mastered By because someone else could have mastered? I guess by default that's how it goes...

Surely if the artwork text includes "Mastered by" and the runouts have a signature we then enter two credits.

jval
Jovonn - The EP has "JA" etched and "Mastered @ Optimum Mastering" printed. So, if we use Lacquer Cut By how should we handle this type of situation?

Mastered at - Optimum Mastering
Lacquer Cut By - JA*

unless something indicates DMM was used.

zen-dog
jval
Jovonn - The EP has "JA" etched and "Mastered @ Optimum Mastering" printed. So, if we use Lacquer Cut By how should we handle this type of situation?

Mastered at - Optimum Mastering
Lacquer Cut By - JA*

unless something indicates DMM was used.

This.

as above with the credits :)
i also suggested a credit relating to DMM and although i agree it may not always be clear
as some are untagged as DMM on the release,
from what i , DMM was fairly short lived and they didn't make that many machines that cut direct to metal so it maybe fairly easy with some research to find out the mastering houses responsible and some of the engineers too,
i haven't checked to see how much DMM related stuff is already in sebfact's etchings thread yet though so some may already have been confirmed :)

I agree. Btw. I read from their site that GZ uses a modern version of DMM (in addition to lacquer). So some companies do still use it. But it's not so common generally.

(double post)

jval
(double post)

GZ uses both DMM and Lacquer as far as I know. Pauler uses DMM exclusively, and there are a couple more I believe.

Can anyone actually explain what was this thread conclusions?

phallancz
Can anyone actually explain what was this thread conclusions?

sebfact
Anyway, don't use Lacquer Cut By when DMM or an alternative name (e.g. DS, DM, 2-Step, etc.) is explicitly mentioned anywhere on the release. Instead use Mastered By [DMM]. Simple as that.

I think it's basically that + a new credit role for the plater

And avoid

Mastered by [Vinyl Cut].

(Matters 1 and 2 are related because 2 is about what to do instead.)

1) Mastered By [Vinyl Cut] shouldn't be used.

2) If it's a lacquer cut it should be "Lacquer Cut By". If it's a DMM cut it should be "DMM Cut By" I guess, but we don't have such a credit so at least for now it's "Mastered By [DMM]".

Previously Lacquer Cut was allowed to be used only if there was a written credit. However, I think we've been given the green light now:

Diognes_The_Fox
nik
Where are used or can be construed precisely, then use them. Otherwise, use a more general term.

From that, I think if the specific role is known, it's perfectly okay to use a more specific credit. Mastered By can be used though when the general nature of that credit cannot be precisely construed.

What this IMO means is, when it's identified as a cutting engineer signature, we should use:
- "Lacquer Cut By" for lacquer cuts. All releases older than when DMM was invented should use this. All releases which were cut by an engineer who doesn't do DMM cuts should use this. (The same logic for Lacquer Cut At and companies.)
- "Mastered By [DMM]" (I think "DMM Cut By" would be better but it doesn't exist) for DMM cuts.
- "Mastered By [Cut]" would IMO be used when there's a good possibility it could be a DMM cut but it hasn't been identified as such. IMO this needs to be done only when there's a reason to doubt. Otherwise "Lacquer Cut By" is ok (I mean we don't need to identify each cut separately: If the engineer isn't known of doing DMM cuts it can be assumed it was a lacquer cut, and we can even assume lacquer cut if the engineer is known to always etch DMM in case of a DMM cut).

3) Plated By was added. Plated At will very likely be added, but a bit later. Some instructions were given about for which type of cases the credit should be used now.

4) The common runouts thread should be updated to give these instructions. And the profiles of engineers and mastering companies too. Do we agree about the matter 2 or was the green light only like we've been given permission to decide it but it should be voted still etc?

jval
Mastered By [Cut]

This is exactly the opposite of what phallancz wrote in the post that immediately preceded your own.

Not exactly: Cut != Vinyl Cut

The thing is, if there's a good probability it might not be a lacquer cut the credit Lacquer Cut By/At can't be used since we've been given the instruction the specific role needs to be known. And on the other hand Lacquer Cut is allowed to be used when it's a lacquer cut, so of course we should be allowed to describe "Cut" if that's the level of knowledge we have.

jval
Not exactly: Cut != Vinyl Cut

How does re-introducing a previously rejected discourse about the semantics of 'cutting' help phallancz answer their question and finally move forward? (this is rhetorical).

jval
The common runouts thread should be updated to give these instructions.

I wouldn't go so far as to say 'instructions', but I agree — some guidance about this would be a good idea.

jval
And the profiles of engineers and mastering companies too.

For LCCN-derived profiles, we probably need to hold off until DTF let's us know if a new company role has been added to RSG §4.6.2 before doing so.

berothbr
answer their question and finally move forward?

Use "Lacquer Cut By" if it's a lacquer cut. Use "Mastered By [DMM]" if it's a DMM cut. If it could be either one (the engineer is known of doing DMM cuts without etchings like "DMM" and does lacquer cuts too) use "Mastered By [Vinyl]".

berothbr
I wouldn't go so far as to say 'instructions'

I was referring to the instructions in that thread. They should be updated of course. (If they aren't already.)

jval
If it could be either one (the engineer is known of doing DMM cuts without etchings like "DMM" and does lacquer cuts too) use "Mastered By [Vinyl]".

This was exactly what velove's point is not only something everyone basically agrees with, but also has been previously discussed with similar conclusions reached elsewhere.

The staff hasn't accepted that (for the totally unsure cases) so not everyone. :)

jval
use "Mastered By [Vinyl]".

I'm not sure we've agreed on that. To me, that's even worse than

Mastered By [Vinyl Cut]

which was clearly rejected by everyone early in the discussion.

I believe we should apply precise, self-exaplanatory and unambiguos ways of crediting.

Therefore, I suggest (again) the following:

Lacquer Cut By - when identified as a lacquer cut
Mastered By [DMM] - when identified as a DMM cut
Mastered By [Cutting Engineer] - when unsure if lacquer cut or DMM was used

In all cases, cutting engineers will have to be identified via runout info, explicit credits (sleeve/label, etc).

zen-dog
Lacquer Cut By - when identified as a lacquer cut
Mastered By [DMM] - when identified as a DMM cut
Mastered By [Cutting Engineer] - when unsure if lacquer cut or DMM was used

+1. That's something which the staff has accepted too. So it's the fast way to get this resolved. :)

Diognes_The_Fox can you add "DMM Cut By" and ask "DMM Cut At" to be added also (in addition to "Plated At")?

Just like lacquer cutting is a separate process compared to music mastering, DMM cutting is too. It's only natural to have DMM Cut By and DMM Cut At, just like we already have Lacquer Cut By and Lacquer Cut At.

DMM Cut By is an industry standard credit: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22DMM+cut+by%22