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  March 2014

ARSCLIST March 2014

Subject:

Re: When's a master a master?

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:02:43 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (84 lines)

Unless a producer is willing to make a 3-2 mix every time a new mass-media master is made, you have 
to make a 2-track "cutting master." It's worth noting that almost all overseas LP issues of Mercury 
Living Presence, as well as all reel tapes, record-club LPs and some LP reissues were made from 
second-generation (or later) tapes. At the original LP cutting sessions, the 3-2 mix sent to the LP 
cutter was also recorded to 2-track tapes. These were then sent to overseas affiliates, sometimes 
dubs of these tapes (3rd generation) were sent overseas. Dubs (3rd generation) were sent to the 
record clubs (which cut their own, lower-level, squashed-dynamics versions), and reel tapes were at 
least third generation, usually 4th generation.

Notable exception to these trends are some early stereo-era EMI releases of Mercury albums. In those 
cases, EMI was sent either laquers or metal parts to press at their plants. These records contain 
"FR" (Fine Recording) notations in the deadwax. I don't think this MO was followed during the whole 
time EMI was issuing stereo Mercury material. When Philips bought Mercury and took over European 
pressing and distribution, they worked from 2-track (second generation) tapes, and cut their own LPs 
(at lower average levels but with the same dynamics as USA Mercury LPs).

I have long argued (and get very little traction with people who can make the changes) that all 
releases (CD, downloads, LPs, etc) should clearly state their source. The stupid three-letter codes 
on CDs are useless, they are a way to cover up using multi-generation tapes or inferior digital 
transcodes.

Also, people who were in the reissue business in the 90s will back me up on this, it's not an 
overstatement to say that Mercury Living Presence CDs raised the bar on truth-in-advertising and 
reissue practices in general. When MLP succeeded in the marketplace and received rave reviews, 
everyone started going back as close to session tapes as they could, and the general quality of 
reissue CDs improved. It happened first with classical, then jazz, then blues/country/rock/etc. 
Credit definitely goes to the vault-diggers at the big labels, who dug in and found master media 
instead of relying on "we always used this third-generation tape to cut LPs so it's good enough." 
The later 90s advent of the DAW meant that first-generation session tapes could be transferred and 
re-edited, as long as reliable original edit notes still existed. To their credit, Sony and BMG made 
very audible improvements in their classical reissues if one compares first-generation and 
latest-generation CDs. Two great examples are RCA Living Stereos from the early "Gold Seal" days vs 
the hybrid SACDs, and Columbia recordings of Szell/Cleveland from the "Great Performances" early era 
discs vs. Dennis Rooney's Masterworks Heritage CDs. EMI also improved between early era and "Great 
Recordings of the Century" versions, but I don't like the Abbey Road love affair with hiss-reduction 
DSP. I'll always prefer original dynamics and "air" with the tape hiss.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 7:32 AM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] When's a master a master?


> There is another way to look at it. Those work-parts were left alone so
> preserved from repeated use. They didn't suffer as the Decca Ring Cycle
> apparently did (an assumption there as to why that's all worn out). Once a
> really good release format came along, they were rested and ready. Also, if
> the originals had been lost, there were lots of secondary sources. The pity
> is it took so long, and buyers were denied superior product for years.
>
> Treating the 2-track mix as the "master" also makes sense given the
> occasional disaster that had to be addressed. The patching of stereo masters
> with bits from mono takes points to that. I'm thinking of Munch La Mer and
> Reiner Symph Domestica; there may have been more or different examples.
>
> Were the originals edited? Or was that left to the mix down masters? Again,
> posterity might have been served by not cutting up the originals. More work
> for Jon and Mark, et al. Hats off to them in any case. The complete Reiner
> box is like a gift from heaven.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 6:17 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Fwd: [ARSCLIST] "Why Vinyl Is the Only Worthwhile
> Way to Own Music"
>
> As far as I know, the only RCA Living Stereo issues that are all from
> first-generation tapes are the BMG SACD/CD discs. Jon Samuels and Mark
> Donahue will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that all of
> the 3-track session tapes were mixed to 2-tracks, which were then edited
> into "master" tapes. And, a third generation dub was often used to cut LPs.
> For the earliest stereo recordings, the ones made on the RCA 2-track machine
> at 30IPS, at least the earliest stereo LPs were cut from first-generation
> tapes. Later LPs may have been cut from dubs (they must have been, because
> the first generation tapes were still in good playing condition 50 years
> later).....
>
> 

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