Charles Lawson wrote:
>"Michael H. Gray" <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
>
>>I am not sure that the original statement about
>>an LP eventually being more 'faithful' to
>>the 'original sound' of the master tape is any more than a fanciful
>>supposition ...
>>
>>
>
>Oh, it's definitely more than a fanciful supposition. Masters well-stored
>over a long time can (and often do!) develop problems that a non-worn LP
>will not exhibit. (It's one of the reasons that the BBC would cut 78s and
>LPs of their taped materials to be used as their permanent archive instead
>of tape.) The LP *will* have problems of its own, of course, but those
>problems may be preferable to the print-through, high frequency loss,
>distortion etc. of a tape. As with most things, it's a case-by-case sort
>of thing.
>
>
>
>>unless, of course, you've exposed your masters to stray
>>magnetic fields ... in which case, you're not
>>taking good enough care of your tapes to begin with.
>>
>>
>
>You would be amazed what even major labels have done... Still, even if
>you are storing things properly, entropy will get ya--more so with any
>frictional medium.
>
>--
>Charles Lawson <[log in to unmask]>
>Professional Audio for CD, DVD, Broadcast & Internet
>
>
Dear Charles -
Hmm ... my experience with tape masters from 1951 doesn't gibe with
that. Print-through, sure; distortion, yep, even with properly executed
bias, 'cause tape isn't a linear medium. HF loss? Ya gotta convince me
on that one.
I've probably visited more 'major label' tape vaults and examined more
tapes than I'd like to remember ... and I don't recall mastering
engineers anywhere using these tape complaining about HF loss from
masters. I remain skeptical ... but would love to have specific
examples cited to convince me.
Mike Gray
|