LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  August 2008

ARSCLIST August 2008

Subject:

Re: ELP Turntable (Re(2): [ARSCLIST] RIAA EQ software)

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:47:20 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (83 lines)

I'm with Mike on this overall but Charles makes some good points.

I don't know of any commercial remastering producer and/or engineer who would prefer to go with a 
transfer of an original or later press LP instead of the master tape. They only do this when they 
have no choice, like when the master tape has been lost. I know of plenty of times where great 
effort has been expended to find safety tapes (2nd generation copies) rather than try a transfer of 
an old disk. The LP has just too many limitations -- fuzzy midrange on peaks, ticks and pops, rumble 
and surface noise, poor channel separation at certain frequencies. It's always amazing to me when 
the things sound great -- I tip my hat to the mastering folks and pressing folks who make that 
happen. I'm old enough to remember the era before CD's. NO THANKS! I can't think of one example of a 
WELL-MASTERED CD where the original LP sounds better. The problem, as I've stated many times, is 
that many CD's aren't well-mastered. But neither were most LPs, again I'm old enough to remember how 
lousy most of them sounded. This nostalgia for that medium is curious to me, but I won't make a 
blanket statement here because some of the newest generation of LP reissues -- which feature a 
viable business model for quality due to a much higher price point -- are really superb. At this 
luxury price point, you can do excellent mastering and strict quality control at the pressing plant.

Anyway, back to the master tape issue, I think both Mike and Charles make valid points. Mike's point 
is, a properly stored master tape played back on a properly aligned machine will sound better than 
the LP version and I agree based on the numerous examples I know of first or second-hand. However, 
Charles makes the valid point that tapes are not indestructable and many record companies were less 
than careful in their vaults.

A final comment -- of course it's great to be able to make a high-quality disk transfer if you can't 
find a tape or the tape is highly deteriorated. The new Mosaic set of early 50's Oscar Peterson trio 
albums contains maybe 1/4 total cuts from disk transfers because Universal was unable to locate the 
original session tapes or later safeties. The sample I heard at Mosaic's website was impressive; I 
have some of those original Mercury and Verve records and mine sure don't play that nicely nowadays!

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael H. Gray" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] ELP Turntable (Re(2): [ARSCLIST] RIAA EQ software)


> 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
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager