In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
No, I'd say that's not overdubbing. Overdubbing takes place on the same
tape, or on two or more machines locked in sync.

I'll agree with you here. I meant "overdubbing" in the general
colloquial sense which I indicated by using the term in quotes.

There's no 'colloquial' use of technical terms in my book - it makes a
nonsense of them, as any snake oil advert will show.

However, those quotation marks arrived rather late on in the discussion,
by which time you should have been clear on what the term meant judging by
the number of sites you appear to have visited in search of support for
your argument.

I did not intend the specific technical meaning you offer. However, my
general intent was clear and a reasonable person would have been able
to make the distinction.

In which case I'm glad I'm not reasonable.

One could overdub (replace an existing recording with an new one) a
master tape if one wanted to if one were unhappy with a mix or
something.

Again, that's not ovedubbing, but over-recording. Overdubbing involves
listening to the sync output of the tape while recording the new -
something you can't do with a stereo machine.

You should try separate record and playback heads. And a delay.

Any port in a storm, eh? But perhaps it's escaped you that the erase head
comes *before* both the record and replay heads, and on a true stereo
machine it's a full track device...

I hope you've read carefully all those sites you have visited. And
have learnt that you can't overdub to a track without replacing what
was there before.

In the sense that a new track that was formerly *noise* and would
otherwise be muted so as not to contribute to the mix is replaced by
wanted signal, you are correct, a distinction without a difference.

At least you appear to have learned something at last.

You underestimate me.

Perhaps. But not on your performance here.

--
*If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn