Print

Print


Charles Lawson wrote:

>"Michael H. Gray" <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>  
>
>>I am not sure that the original statement about 
>>an LP eventually being more 'faithful' to
>>the 'original sound' of the master tape is any more than a fanciful 
>>supposition ...
>>    
>>
>
>Oh, it's definitely more than a fanciful supposition.  Masters well-stored
>over a long time can (and often do!) develop problems that a non-worn LP
>will not exhibit.  (It's one of the reasons that the BBC would cut 78s and
>LPs of their taped materials to be used as their permanent archive instead
>of tape.)  The LP *will* have problems of its own, of course, but those
>problems may be preferable to the print-through, high frequency loss,
>distortion etc. of a tape.  As with most things, it's a case-by-case sort
>of thing.
>
>  
>
>>unless, of course, you've exposed your masters to stray 
>>magnetic fields ... in which case, you're not
>>taking good enough care of your tapes to begin with.
>>    
>>
>
>You would be amazed what even major labels have done...  Still, even if
>you are storing things properly, entropy will get ya--more so with any
>frictional medium.
>
>--
>Charles Lawson <[log in to unmask]>
>Professional Audio for CD, DVD, Broadcast & Internet
>  
>
Dear Charles -

Hmm ... my experience with tape masters from 1951 doesn't gibe with 
that.  Print-through, sure; distortion, yep, even with properly executed 
bias, 'cause tape isn't a linear medium.  HF loss?  Ya gotta convince me 
on that one.

I've probably visited more 'major label' tape vaults and examined more 
tapes than I'd like to remember ... and I don't recall mastering 
engineers anywhere using these tape complaining about HF loss from 
masters.  I remain skeptical ... but would love to have specific 
examples cited to convince me.

Mike Gray