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  November 2012

ARSCLIST November 2012

Subject:

Re: Interesting details on new Beatles LP reissues

From:

Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:25:05 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (101 lines)

There are LOTS of insights to be drawn from that short talk; too bad it
wasn't spelled out more clearly for the many audiophiles who have the notion
that a master tape is like an old-master painting - done, perfect, timeless.
Most audio masters are not that and were not anticipated to be that. Not
when the transfer to the lossy, intractable medium of LP was the norm. There
was always going to be another layer of interpretation involved, governed
both by technical needs and commercial considerations.

Mastering people recommend to mixers that they not take the compression and
eq to the max, that they leave some room for the final interpretation under
the controlled conditions of the mastering studio, away from the cranked-up
adrenalin of the recording studio. It is easier to add than to subtract.
That's true today, where the release medium is free from many of the
limitations of analog disc (well, maybe MP3 has re-introduced a new set of
constraints!). Certainly it was true then, when an experienced producer
could probably anticipate the results of a mono cut, but not the trickier
stereo cut.

The one thing about the Stanton cartridge issue that bugs me is that by
being so far behind the curve with a key element, of which many end users
have far superior versions, undermines the credibility of whole process.

Hopefully that doesn't cloud another factoid. Isn't it cool to find out that
for some time Abbey Road's LP masters have been sourced through our little
DACs? High-fives, Tom.

Thanks to Michael Shoshani for the additional info. Hope Hoffman's site
returns soon.

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 3:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Interesting details on new Beatles LP reissues

http://www.analogplanet.com/content/abbey-road-studios-sean-magee-talks-abou
t-mastering-beatles-lp-box

Fremer has a bunch of pre-conceived notions, so the interview can be
grating, but some interesting 
details emerged:

1. pressing for North America at Rainbo in California:
http://www.rainborecords.com/vinyl.htm

2. pressing in Europe is at Optimal Media in Germany:
http://www.optimal-media.com/en/press/vinyl

3. the 44.1/24-bit masters were used. I think what Sean Magee said about the
USB drive is not true. 
I've loaded both the CD and the USB tracks into the computer and compared
dynamics and the USB files 
are less compressed. The 2009 CDs weren't exactly toothpasted, but they are
noticeably "make it 
louder" compared to the USB, playing both back in Foobar2000. The mono CD
box set was claimed to be 
straight transfers, no extra compression, from the mono Parlophone master
tapes. "Uncompressed" for 
Beatles is not very dynamic (see next point). They were baking in a lot of
dynamics control with 
their mono mixes (and stereo mixes for the later albums).

4. I like the fact that Magee spanks down Fremer about the Beatles and
dynamics compression. The 
Beatles LPs were SUPERLOUD in their day. Original Capitol monos will
overdrive any lesser preamp, 
only slightly less so with Parlophones because they cut slightly lower peak
levels to fit more time 
on the sides. The only cuts I've ever heard that weren't
dynamics-compressed, stereo or mono, were 
the Mobile Fidelity reissues. Supposedly those are not compressed, cut at
half-speed from the master 
tapes with no EQ or compression. These new cuts are supposed to have no
additonal compression beyond 
the master tapes. I'll be interested to hear when my set arrives next month!

5. I also like Magee quietly explaining that Fremer's jihad against digital
masters is off-base. 
Almost ALL modern vinyl, reissue and new-issue is cut off digital sources.
Very few companies will 
let old master tapes out of their vaults anymore. There are exceptions,
Kevin Gray and Bernie 
Grundman seem able to get tapes when their client wants to boast they are
remastering from tapes.

6. Notice Magee likes the Benchmark converter. Me too!

7. I do agree with Fremer about the Stanton 681EEE cartridge that Magee uses
for playback on the 
lathe. EMI can't spring for something better? That's a POS. At least get
something accurate like a 
Denon DL-110, which retails for almost the same as what the Stanton used to
(it's not made 
anymore -- good riddance!). If they want something "industrial strength" or
"broadcast grade" to go 
on the SME tonearm, get a Denon DL-103 or the reissue Ortofon broadcast
cartridge.

-- Tom Fine 

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

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
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