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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  April 2015

ARSCLIST April 2015

Subject:

Re: More tales of woe from the tape vaults

From:

John Haley <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 7 Apr 2015 13:58:27 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (119 lines)

Interesting points about azimuth in these circumstances, Tom. Of course
once everything has been digitized, it's hard to address azimuth "errors"
except with EQ, and there is a limit on what can be done with that. This
is an issue Richard Hess has been working on, I believe.

And to Richard, I hope you will find time to publish something about that
very useful information. I know a Journal that I bet would be interested
...

Best,
John




On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> I'm not saying this is the case with these specific tapes, but azimuth
> gets tricky with rock master tapes.
>
> The mastering engineer who cut the LPs of a Led Zeppelin anthology, a guy
> who always works with a phase display right in front of his face, told me
> that he was sent digital masters to cut the LPs and a bunch of the songs
> were clearly out of azimuth. He speculated that all the tapes had been
> played back on the same machine but no one had changed anzimuth for each
> tape -- or that the master tapes were made up of songs mixed at different
> studios without a common azimuth reference. That is what I think is common
> with big-name rock albums -- stuff mixed at several different studios at
> different times comprising the 2-track master tape. Unless the producer or
> mixing engineer carried around a single alignment tape and adjusted both
> play and record azimuth to it at each studio, how likely is that every song
> is locked into the same azimuth? I remember with multi-track tapes, it was
> drummed into everyone's head at Sigma Sound NYC to adjust the 24-track
> machine's azimuth (align play, then align record to play), print tones and
> then don't touch a damn thing on the machine while that reel is being
> recorded. Preferably don't touch a damn thing throughout the multi-track
> sessions, if the band is working during a block-booked time period (and
> also pray that the Ampex 456 tape batch you're using was slit well enough
> to stay within the azimuth you set as it travelled through the transport).
> I don't think that kind of discipline was universally enforced
> industry-wide with 2-track mix-master tapes, so it's entirely possible that
> the master for an LP side contains songs slightly or more than slightly out
> of azimuth from each other. I'm not sure how many people paid attention to
> this issue back in the day. I don't think Bob Morrison at STL or Jay
> McKnight at MRL ever claimed that all of their tapes carried the same
> azimuth, because they don't. That's why the only assurance I can think of
> is the producer carrying a single 2-track alignment tape to every studio
> and having everyone standardize on that one tape.
>
> Specific to the Tom Petty remasters -- Chris Bellman at Bernie Grundman's
> place is a good engineer with a long track record of good-sounding
> remastering work. I'm sure he pays careful attention to things like
> azimuth. Come to think of it, I'd bet that he is well aware of RX's tools
> including EQ compare, and there are complex reasons we don't know as to why
> EQ'd copy tapes sounded better than master tapes in the cases where they
> were used.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 1:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] More tales of woe from the tape vaults
>
>
> And there is always the issue of: did they set the azimuth right for the
>> "worn out" sounding masters? I know that's a basic thing, but I have
>> learned in life to ask the dumb questions. I also don't know what "worn
>> out" sounding means. Unless they were playing the master tapes at parties
>> or something, there is no reason they would be "worn out." If there were a
>> more specific response about what is wrong with them, perhaps the issues
>> could be addressed.
>>
>> Best,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Richard L. Hess <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-04-07 11:54 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
>>>
>>> I just had e-mail correspondence with one of the first-person
>>>> participants. He told me that the tapes were playable as in they'd pass
>>>> through a transport, but they sounded "worn out" compared to the EQ'd
>>>> copies that they used. The decision was to use what the artist and
>>>> producer thought sounded better. It's an aesthetic and artistic
>>>> decision. In any case, moves are afoot to clarify the text on the
>>>> HDTracks website.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only question I have with that was what would the "worn out" tapes
>>> sound like if the same EQ was applied to them as was applied back in the
>>> day to the EQ'd masters, thereby saving a generation?
>>>
>>> Samplitude and iZotope both offer an "EQ match" function, so it might be
>>> a
>>> quick test (tweak to taste later if there seems to be a good reason to
>>> use
>>> the "worn out" tapes with modern EQ).
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Richard
>>> --
>>> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
>>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800
>>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
>>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

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

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