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  January 2011

ARSCLIST January 2011

Subject:

Re: Digital download stats

From:

Parker Dinkins <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 2 Jan 2011 09:34:54 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (38 lines)

On Jan 2, 2011, at 7:47AM US/Central, Tom Fine wrote:

<snip>

> Early CD's, for the most part -- and again talking about mainstream titles at mainstream prices --  were hampered by bad production choices as much as lower-quality A-D converters.

Actually, early CD production didn't permit very much in the way of A/D converter choices or any other production choices. 

Time and materials were hideously expensive, from the acquisition and use of the Sony or JVC systems, and even much later when mastering from DAT or CDR media was invented. The business was highly capital intensive in the beginning, and business was not that brisk. 

> Using non-master tapes with generation losses or other distortions, playing back on non-aligned tape machines, using lower-quality tape machines than the original master recorders, etc, hampered the sound quality.

I think it takes some highly technical, diagnostic equipment to make factual conclusions of this type. 

> In many cases, a second generation reissue of older material sounded better than the first try and sounded vastly superior to the original LP. There were exceptions, one big problem was that by the late 80s and early 90s when many of these second-try reissues were done, the master tapes were deteriorated. Another problem was that NoNoise and other digital tools were in vogue then and, as now, ham-handed knob-twisters often over-used them. One other problem was that the modern mastering engineers in most cases never even listened to the original LPs, to see what the original cutting engineer did as far as EQ or dynamics control between the master tape and the production LP.

True in some cases, even if again over-generalized. Might be equally valid to point out that in most cases a record label would have their production staff directly supervise the process because of its expense.

> In some cases, particularly with rock, pop and jazz records, there was an added quality to the sound that had a lot to do with how much people enjoyed the song, especially as it was played over the radio.

We have hit upon a *very* important aspect of music and memory. 

You have described episodic memory, sometimes called autobiographical memory. Memory is a strange thing. We don't directly remember long ago events, instead we remember mostly the last recollection  of those events. This often leads to an overly embellished version of what really happened. I've often restored old recordings where the listener has completely confused the memory or event. Fifty year old memories of sound quality make good party talk, but more than not I don't think they hold up in practice.

> While the purists among us may say it's an "improvement" to go back to the master tape with this, some fan wanted to hear what they heard in earlier days, that was their sonic memory. This was a big problem with some rock and soul hits from the 60's. And there were cases like some of the early Contemporary Jazz recordings where the modern mastering engineer didn't listen to the original so he didn't even know that plate reverb was added between the tape and the disk cutter due to the very simple setup in the company's little studio/shipping room at that time (Sonny Rollins' "Way Out West," reverb problem not corrected until late premium-priced reissues).

Again, so this depends on the listener and his/her memory. No surprises here.

> I would say most of the third-generation reissues I've heard are not as good, and it's a big disappointment. The transfers being made today are generally at least 96/24 resolution and the sonic-cleanup tools are better and some (few) folks know how to use them more sparingly. But, master tapes are further deteriorated and worst of all has been the total collapse of common sense and willpower among mastering engineers where they blindly follow orders of tin-eared record company fools to "make it louder", thus crushing dynamics and producing distorted-sounded CD's, and forget about the lossy-format versions of these monsters, they sound doubly horrible. I am not optimistic about a fourth generation of reissues to fix these dumb moves, given the collapsing economics of the business.


What I said above. 

--
Parker Dinkins
Audio Mastering + Restoration
http://masterdigital.com

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager