In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Or are you still under the impression that you can overdub material to
a master tape?

You can mix a master tape and new material onto another tape or other
fixing device. Let me guess, you'd say it wouldn't be a master, but to
say that would be begging the question.

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

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.

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.

--
*Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Or are you still under the impression that you can overdub material to
a master tape?

You can mix a master tape and new material onto another tape or other
fixing device. Let me guess, you'd say it wouldn't be a master, but to
say that would be begging the question.

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. 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.

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.

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.

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Err, you said it and apparently meant it. Otherwise how are you going
to add to a master tape in the cutting suite - to try and drag you
back to what you originally said?

Ah, you've completely misconstrued my point. For one thing, I put "live
overdub" in quotes because I didn't mean a strict definition, ie,
recording onto a new track of a multi-track tape.

Now let me see. You expect words to mean what you want them to mean, but
others have to be nitpickingly exact? K3wl.

How gracious of you.

I meant that the new
element is mixed with the output of the tape on the way to the next step
of production.

Like I said - complete nonsense.

Here's what I meant:

http://recordingeq.com/GlosPubKO.htm#SectO

"2) Sending a previously recorded signal through a console and mixing it
with the audio from a new sound source, recording onto another tape."

Please give a verifiable example of where this has actually happened.
And not from Hollywood, thanks.

No need. My claim was that it could be done.

Stephen

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
I meant that the new element is mixed with the output of the tape
on the way to the next step of production.

Like I said - complete nonsense.

Here's what I meant:

http://recordingeq.com/GlosPubKO.htm#SectO

"2) Sending a previously recorded signal through a console and mixing it
with the audio from a new sound source, recording onto another tape."

Ok then I'll stick to the subject and nitpick. A cutting lab wouldn't have
a suitable console.

Please give a verifiable example of where this has actually
happened. And not from Hollywood, thanks.

No need. My claim was that it could be done.

Sigh. Yet again I have to remind you of what you wrote that started this.

*********

From: MiNe 109
Subject: Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
Date: Fri, Fri Jul 25 00:15:00 2003
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

The lp master is also just another step and it can add to the final
work, either by artistic choice (eq, sound treatments, etc) or
literally, using "inserts" or even live overdubs.

********

That doesn't look like a hypothetical claim to me - you're commenting on
the parameters of an lp master.

Then:-

********
From: MiNe 109
Subject: Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
Date: Sat, Sat Jul 26 13:45:00 2003
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

You have to really, really want something that isn't on the master or
production master to be on the finished product.

Saw it in a tv movie!

********

Which rather proves you had no idea about reality. I hope you have now.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

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

A certain Kurt Hamster, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:51:51 +0100, Chesney Christ used
to say...

It is nothing to do with the company. Elsewhere on her site Carlos
describes the LPs as a terrible compromise, but the best that were
available for the time. The LP mastering procedure was necessary.
Nothing to do with the record company.

Why is it that whenever you respond to this topic of discussion you
invariably fall back on quoting Carlos?

Because she's one source on the internet that provides an objective and
informed view of the subject. You are entirely welcome to quote
alternatives.

If you don't like what I'm posting then you can killfile me.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Carlos at no point described any of what she did as "departing from the
original". Throughout her discussion of the remastering her emphasis is
quite clearly on preserving as best as possible the full sound recorded
to the original master tapes, and she describes the pains she went to in
the process of achieving a good balance between removing blemishes and
altering the music. At no point did she suggest that she was attempting
to revise, rework or enhance those works.

She is aware of the issues and discusses them without your dogma. In a
new mastering, she chose not to be absolutely faithful to the original,
but to improve upon it, using skills, tools and experience not available
the first time around.

Carlos did not describe what she did as "improving on the master". I'll
happily be contradicted.

She *did* correct some tiny problems, such as the ticks produced by the
Moog's envelope generators and some of the pitch errors that became
audible, and a tad of noise reduction and pitch correction. Those
admittedly *were* on the master tape, but this does not constitute the
kind of wholesale alteration we're talking about when we do an LP
cutting master.

Where's your master tape fetish now? The pitch correction, etc, are all
changes to the original. What would you think of a pop singer
auto-tuning an old performance?

There is a cutoff point which I concede is entirely arbitrary. But don't
you think there's rather a difference between removing a small number of
ticks, or providing a shade of noise reduction, and re-doing the master
from scratch ? If Carlos had seen it that way she'd have gone back to
the multitracks.

Of course, she's not an lp mastering engineer,

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I stand corrected. I mean that she didn't master the SOB records.
Indeed, if she had, she might have been more pleased with the results.

No. Elsewhere on her site Carlos describes the limitations of LP
mastering and how glad she was to be rid of them. The fact that union
rules prevented her from actually doing the LP cutting master part on
SOB isn't relevant.

Can you explain "artifical aural space" please ? I think you're talking
******** with that remark, to be frank about it.

It's what you get when you don't use microphones.

Last time I checked, microphones were man-made (artificial).

Dig around the website
somemore. Notice terms like "ambient".

http://www.valley-entertainment.com/..._The_Absolute_
Sound/

I take it you're including electric guitars ? Are they "artificial" ?

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

A certain Kurt Hamster, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

It's the "one source" bit I'm having a bit of a problem with. Given that
you continually quote her, do I assume that she is the only source that
supports your view?

Your assumption is unduly cynical. I know of no other sources on LP
mastering to quote, whether they agree with me or not. I'll certainly
read and digest any others you can find.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Carlos at no point described any of what she did as "departing from the
original". Throughout her discussion of the remastering her emphasis is
quite clearly on preserving as best as possible the full sound recorded
to the original master tapes, and she describes the pains she went to in
the process of achieving a good balance between removing blemishes and
altering the music. At no point did she suggest that she was attempting
to revise, rework or enhance those works.

She is aware of the issues and discusses them without your dogma. In a
new mastering, she chose not to be absolutely faithful to the original,
but to improve upon it, using skills, tools and experience not available
the first time around.

Carlos did not describe what she did as "improving on the master". I'll
happily be contradicted.

What is removing blemishes but improving? Remember, I mentioned her
comments positively as a thoughtful discussion of this kind of issue.

She *did* correct some tiny problems, such as the ticks produced by the
Moog's envelope generators and some of the pitch errors that became
audible, and a tad of noise reduction and pitch correction. Those
admittedly *were* on the master tape, but this does not constitute the
kind of wholesale alteration we're talking about when we do an LP
cutting master.

Where's your master tape fetish now? The pitch correction, etc, are all
changes to the original. What would you think of a pop singer
auto-tuning an old performance?

There is a cutoff point which I concede is entirely arbitrary.

Thank you for departing from the absolute. It leaves a lot of room for
agreement.

But don't
you think there's rather a difference between removing a small number of
ticks, or providing a shade of noise reduction, and re-doing the master
from scratch ? If Carlos had seen it that way she'd have gone back to
the multitracks.

She did revisit the repertoire in SOB 2K (Switched On Bach 2000 on
Telarc). I approve of her approach in trying to preserve the integrity
of the original intent but making appropriate changes.

Of course, she's not an lp mastering engineer,

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I stand corrected. I mean that she didn't master the SOB records.
Indeed, if she had, she might have been more pleased with the results.

No. Elsewhere on her site Carlos describes the limitations of LP
mastering and how glad she was to be rid of them. The fact that union
rules prevented her from actually doing the LP cutting master part on
SOB isn't relevant.

One doesn't go into synthesis without desiring and exercising a certain
measure of control. She was clearly unhappy with the mastering, just as
she was unhappy with CBS's quad format, as she said on the website.

I didn't say she'd be happy, just more pleased.

Can you explain "artifical aural space" please ? I think you're talking
******** with that remark, to be frank about it.

It's what you get when you don't use microphones.

Last time I checked, microphones were man-made (artificial).

They operate on actual sound.

Dig around the website
somemore. Notice terms like "ambient".

http://www.valley-entertainment.com/..._The_Absolute_
Sound/

I think you missed this part:

"I mean, go figu these guys are supposed to be into the ultimate in
literalistic imagery - the goal of reproducing the sound of real
acoustic instruments in a real concert hall space. Why should they be
interested in the imaginary studio-created sounds and ambiences of
spacemusic?"

Notice the opposition of "reproducing the sounds of real acoustic
instruments" and "imaginary studio-created sounds..."

Ms Carlos can explain it better than I can. Her mix of ambient and
artifical sounds in "Sonic Seasonings" is an example before the fact of
the spacemusic style.

I take it you're including electric guitars ? Are they "artificial" ?

Depends. Miking a speaker cabinet, no. DI, maybe. Triggering
synthesizers, yes.

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

But don't
you think there's rather a difference between removing a small number of
ticks, or providing a shade of noise reduction, and re-doing the master
from scratch ? If Carlos had seen it that way she'd have gone back to
the multitracks.

She did revisit the repertoire in SOB 2K (Switched On Bach 2000 on
Telarc). I approve of her approach in trying to preserve the integrity
of the original intent but making appropriate changes.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. SOB2K is a completely new performance done using
modern instruments & authentic tunings. It should not be viewed in the
same light as SOB, the only common elements are the name of the album
and the Bach works composed (there is one new one). Carlos hadn't
listened to the original SOB for around 13 years when she did SOB2K, and
quite deliberately avoided it. The intentions in both cases were
completely different, and the two works stand separately side by side.

No. Elsewhere on her site Carlos describes the limitations of LP
mastering and how glad she was to be rid of them. The fact that union
rules prevented her from actually doing the LP cutting master part on
SOB isn't relevant.

One doesn't go into synthesis without desiring and exercising a certain
measure of control. She was clearly unhappy with the mastering, just as
she was unhappy with CBS's quad format, as she said on the website.

The recurring theme here is that she was forced to do things with her
master recording that she didn't want to do, and which she felt
compromised the sound.

Last time I checked, microphones were man-made (artificial).

They operate on actual sound.

This is an absurd argument. Why is it necessary to make a distinction
over whether or not a sound has passed through air before it gets
recorded? Why is this musically relevant ? When it gets played back from
the recording it's not "actual sound" is it ?

http://www.valley-entertainment.com/..._The_Absolute_
Sound/

I think you missed this part:

I am not interested in your opinions on why certain instruments selected
are "unnatural" for certain arbitrary reasons - dogma has no place in
music.

Ms Carlos can explain it better than I can. Her mix of ambient and
artifical sounds in "Sonic Seasonings" is an example before the fact of
the spacemusic style.

Though in that case, the artificial and real sounds are blended to the
point where in some cases you can't tell the difference, although other
sounds are obviously synthesized. The rest of what you're saying is just
waffle, like the sort of thing you'd read in a university thesis, where
bored academics go around trying to manufacture their own relevance by
attempting to classify the unclassifiable and restricting every little
detail into little boxes for the purposes of snobbery.

I take it you're including electric guitars ? Are they "artificial" ?

Depends. Miking a speaker cabinet, no. DI, maybe. Triggering
synthesizers, yes.

You're saying that the same instrument changes between being artificial
or not artificial according to how it is recorded. That's whacky
religious zealotry.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com