I would say "pioneer" rather than Old Fart. I started working in the DAW world in 1996, on my
then-new Pentium II PC with a Soundblaster 16 soundcard and Soundforge v3, long pre-Sony. This was
doing editing and sequencing for Audible, with their original content. Then Napster and MP3.com came
along and I bought one of the early MP3 players. Then I started dubbing my LPs and ripping CDs to
build an MP3 library. Then I got hired by a museum to transfer their exhibit audio and their audio
archive and that was that. This all financed my bad habit of buying and restoring Ampex tape decks.
So it all went out to analog eventually! ;)
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] trapped at 44.1/16
> On 1/21/2015 8:18 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>> To Dave's point, there were many albums made on tight budgets that were
>> recorded on DA-88's and mastered right to DAT. This was before there was
>> much mixing "inside the box," so the DA-88 audio went out the lousy DACs
>> into an analog console (usually not a very high quality one, at those
>> budget levels) and then was mixed directly to DAT. I have no idea how
>> they did sequencing and editing without a DAW, but this could easily be
>> done on a Sonic/Mac II workstation in the early 90s.
>
> Also on the lower-budget system that used Turtle Beach's software SoundStage to edit and sequence
> 16-bit audio. I got one around 1993, and paid $1,200 for it (with the interface, which was S/PDIF
> in and out. For some reason it also had MIDI inn and out. Anyone want to buy mine?
>
> I paid another $1,200 for a hard disk for that system. It held a big 1.2 gigs. I had to juggle
> things on and off it when editing.
>
> But I also remember sequencing an album, recorded to DAT, on analog This was in 1992; we then
> dubbed it to DAT and brought the DAT tape to a mastering house in Chicago to be transferred to
> 1630 and have PQ codes added.
>
> I think this means I'm officially an old fart.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>
> I don't think the
>> 20-bit systems mattered much for rock and pop music, but they probably
>> helped a little bit with classical and maybe jazz. The bigger problem in
>> those systems was jitter and mangled top end from lousy low-pass
>> filtering in the DACs if things went back down to analog for mixing.
>>
>> I've noticed on HDTracks that, case in point, REM's output from the mid
>> and late 90s, is only available in 44.1/24-bit, and I wonder if the
>> 24-bit is up-converted from something else.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "DAVID BURNHAM" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 6:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] source of HD audio - Fleetwood Mac "Tusk"
>>
>>
>>> I think that by the '90s there was a greater understanding about the
>>> limitations of 44.1k/16 bit recordings and that most recordings were
>>> done at 20 bit which was a significant improvement. I also think,
>>> however, there was a tendency to record at 48k sampling rate and while
>>> that is a slight improvement over 44.1, the sample rate conversion
>>> necessary for CD releases took its toll.
>>> db
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 5:55 PM, Alex Tomlin
>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>
>>> I don't know what was used for the new hd material but I guess it
>>> would be from analogue sources as I'd think the soundstream wouldn't
>>> be the only master for such a big title. Perhaps a remaster was made
>>> to tape or had too?
>>>
>>> I have seen cases of big acts having the insight and money to try new
>>> technology but also do tried and tested formats too so I would expect
>>> to see a 1/4" master made too.
>>>
>>> I have also seen cases where a tape master was made of the cut in the
>>> us and then sent to Europe etc and then 40 years later these become
>>> the best sources.... We're discovering almost mint tape masters of
>>> classics all the time which then become sources for hd releases.
>>>
>>> Problems do arise in the late 80s where no analogue tapes were made
>>> and platforms then reject all material simply because of sample rate
>>> and bit depth.
>>>
>>> How much music from the 90's is capped at 16-44!?!.... Perhaps in 10
>>> years we'll have some cool upscale technology to help with that one.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:52, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> According to the press release for the Fleetwood Mac album "Tusk"
>>>> http://www.fleetwoodmac-uk.com/articles/presskits/pk_tusk.html
>>>> the album was mastered to the Soundstream digital audio system
>>>> (50kHz/16-bit), including transitions and sequencing.
>>>>
>>>> So what is the source of HDTracks' download and modern-day remasters
>>>> of the album? Was a tape master made from the Soundstream? If so.
>>>> it's not really a "high resolution" product, nor are any transfers of
>>>> that tape. Or, did the gruop go back to the analog tapes and remix to
>>>> high-resolution?
>>>>
>>>> I forgot the exact details, but Soundstream had made a point to say
>>>> that something they did integrating the USC marching band into the
>>>> title track was not possible with analog equipment.
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|