Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

"MiNE 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Me:
Good analogy. In my hypothetical situation, the mosaic artist has
his own store where he sells mosaics based on oil paintings that
he hides in his basement. Not only that, the oil paintings were
commissioned as templates for his mosaics. The artist adds details
and effects not found in the template painting. His customers have
a cultural bias towards tiles.

The vinyl equivalent of this would be LP's that were produced from
the onset only for distribution as LP's, with no hopes of future
improvements in media. I don't believe that this has ever been the
case, except for perhaps some tiny, short-run boutique recordings.

I've never seen an LP that wasn't meant for distribution as other
than an LP, unless you count those melted lamp shade things in gift
shops years ago. I assumed those were returns, not special
pressings.

Irrelevant since the point was that the same musical performances
distributed on LPs were at various times distributed as:

(1) 45's
(2) Open reel tapes
(3) 8 track tapes
(4) cassette tapes
(5) CDs
(6) DVDs
(7) Radio broadcasts
(8) TV broadcasts
(9) Laserdiscs

and that this was often known at the time the performance was
recorded.

None of those are lps, are they?

That's because the list is made up of release formats other than LP.

"LP's that were produced from the
onset only for distribution as LP's" wasn't it?

You've ignored the element of time. In the beginning and through the
mid-1940's phonograph recordings were THE format. Starting in the mid-late
1940's there was finally another format with equal or better usability, and
higher sound quality.

You're back to koans again.

No, you're ignoring what was said, twice.

I suppose we all want something better to hope for.

Yes, like a relevant thoughtful answer from you Stephen.

Perhaps if you gave it some thought you'd see the connection.

I see an obvious dis-connection.

You've been hanging out with people like Ludovic too much, Stephen.

Has he seen an lp that was meant to be distributed as something other
than an lp?

If you want to masturbate with my words Stephen, hey whatever winds your
clock.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message


Cds aren't music, either. A bell is a cup, and all that.

Chesney, we've obviously chased Stephen off the deep end.



http://www.wireviews.com/reviews/a_bell_is_a_cup.html

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
I know how "common" it is. (At the cutting stage, it isn't an lp yet.)

Sorry. To what will shortly become an LP.

An acetate, to be precise.

Nice to see you're being precise for once.

Maybe you're hung up on the word 'overdub'. Was there anything wrong
with the definitions I supplied?

You're the one who used it originally.

Is that all it takes, that I used it? I used it in sense that recording
a new track in a multi-track master is often called 'overdubbing',
hardly a novel usage.

Sigh. I think you need to be reminded of what you actually wrote......

**********
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.

**********

I don't see any mention of a multi-track master, unless you're now
asserting they use that as an lp master.

How pedantic. It shows your determination to avoid understanding. I
expect you'll be taking after the sound card and hard disk recorder
people if they say "overdub" without a tape present.



"For those who don¹t know much about studio recording, the process of
adding instruments to an existing track is called overdubbing."

It is in this sense, "adding instruments to an existing track" that I
used the word.

(That movie might be "Grace of My Heart")

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
"For those who don¹t know much about studio recording, the process of
adding instruments to an existing track is called overdubbing."

Did you have to search long to find an explanation that agreed with your
own faulty one? Overdubbing *does not* involve adding things to an
existing track, but replacing them. In essence, all it means is adding
material to the performance at a later stage - often by replacing
something which was recorded at the original session as a guide.

Perhaps you don't understand multi-track tape recording - as much else. If
you try and add something to an already recorded track by switching off
the erase, the bias current will partially erase the existing - mainly the
higher frequency content. I've never known this used in any pro recording
- indeed none of the multi-tracks I've worked with offered this facility.

If you were running short of tracks, you'd bounce several down to one to
free some up.

It is in this sense, "adding instruments to an existing track" that I
used the word.

Then that's an even bigger nonsense than most of your theories since it
badly degrades the material which already exists on the track.

(That movie might be "Grace of My Heart")

You must be a movie makers dream - believing everything you see or hear.
Were you one of the people that went into a panic when 'War of the Worlds'
was first broadcast on radio?

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
"For those who don¹t know much about studio recording, the process of
adding instruments to an existing track is called overdubbing."

Did you have to search long to find an explanation that agreed with your
own faulty one?

Actually, I didn't. I was looking for cutting room anecdotes.

Overdubbing *does not* involve adding things to an
existing track, but replacing them. In essence, all it means is adding
material to the performance at a later stage - often by replacing
something which was recorded at the original session as a guide.


At last, a competing definition. Here's another

http://www.modrec.com/glossary/defin...ubbing&uid=116

"Enables one or more of the previously recorded tracks to be monitored
while simultaneously recording one or more signals onto other tracks."

Not necessarily replacing anything.

http://www.audioed.com.au/glossary_free2.html#o

"To record new tracks on a multitrack recording system in
synchronisation with previously recorded tracks."

New tracks, so that precludes replacing.

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

"1) Adding additional musical parts on a track of a multitrack tape. 2)
Sending a previously recorded signal through a console and mixing it
with the audio from a new sound source, recording onto another tape."

No replacement required. I like the second definition for the
exceptional situation I hypothesized, just think "cutter" instead of
"another tape". It works for the electroacoustic "tape and instrument"
piece, too.

http://www.audiomasterclass.com/libr...1glossary.html

"A track recorded onto a multitrack tape after the backing tracks."

Rather general, but it doesn't specify replacing anything.

And here's another, for "punch in/ punch out":

http://www.modrec.com/glossary/defin...%20/%20punch-o
ut

"The entering into and out of record mode on a track that contains
existing program material for the purpose of correcting or erasing an
unwanted segment."

Yes, that's what I meant by "punch in".

Back to "overdub"

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/regu...m/glossary.htm

"To add another part to a multitrack recording or to replace one of the
existing parts."

Doncha love the name of the site? That's right, you didn't care to
comment. At last we see your definition as an alternative to mine.

http://www.tape.com/Bartlett_Article...ing_terms.html

"To record a new musical part on an unused track in
synchronization with previously recorded tracks."

Precludes replacing.

http://www.futureproducers.com/site/...definition/id/
285

"To add another part to a multitrack recording or to replace one of the
existing parts."

There's yours again, as an alternative.

But these might all be American. How about the Beeb?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/soldonsong/glossary/o.shtml

"These days recording an album is a complicated and fiddly business so
overdubbing (adding*extra recorded sound to a song,*especially in order
to heighten the total effect) is essential. Overdubbing has led to
additional practices. These include "tracking," where the ensemble
arrangement gets recorded first and then the improvised solos are taped
and inserted. "Layering" techniques have also been developed where each
instrument can be recorded separately. Occasionally this is accomplished
by recording sections separately - rhythm, solos, harmonies , lead
vocals."

That's a complicated definition of "tracking" (do you retrospectively
call it "layering" if you don't later improvise a solo?). "Overdub" is
adding sound, not replacing sound, according to BBC2.

Perhaps you don't understand multi-track tape recording - as much else.

It seems that I do.

If you try and add something to an already recorded track by switching off
the erase, the bias current will partially erase the existing - mainly the
higher frequency content. I've never known this used in any pro recording
- indeed none of the multi-tracks I've worked with offered this facility.

My informal definition didn't require using the same track. On the other
hand, "sound on sound" was a fairly common feature for home recording
decks, usually 1/4 inch reel to reel.

If you were running short of tracks, you'd bounce several down to one to
free some up.

"Ping-pong".

It is in this sense, "adding instruments to an existing track" that I
used the word.

Then that's an even bigger nonsense than most of your theories since it
badly degrades the material which already exists on the track.

I didn't require the same track.

(That movie might be "Grace of My Heart")

You must be a movie makers dream - believing everything you see or hear.
Were you one of the people that went into a panic when 'War of the Worlds'
was first broadcast on radio?

You'd like to think so.

I've shown that my usage and informal definition of "overdub" is
consonant with those of a number of online glossaries. Maybe your
workplace has an idiosyncratic usage.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
At last, a competing definition. Here's another

It's only a competing definition if taken out of the context it was given
in

http://www.modrec.com/glossary/defin...ubbing&uid=116

"Enables one or more of the previously recorded tracks to be monitored
while simultaneously recording one or more signals onto other tracks."

I've no argument with that - or any of the others which I've snipped.

But to refresh your obviously short memory here's what you quoted and my
reply in context.

******

"For those who don¹t know much about studio recording, the process of
adding instruments to an existing track is called overdubbing."

Overdubbing *does not* involve adding things to an
existing track, but replacing them.

*******

Or are you still under the impression that you can overdub material to a
master tape?


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.

--
*I speak fluent patriarchy but it's not my mother tongue

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Try and keep up. Stephen seems to think you can add something in the
same place to a track that's already got something on it.

That's your interpretation of what I said. You're insisting on a narrow
definition with which I do not agree.

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?

What's "sound on sound" then?

Look it up - you're good at that. But not learning from it, obviously.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Try and keep up. Stephen seems to think you can add something in the
same place to a track that's already got something on it.

That's your interpretation of what I said. You're insisting on a narrow
definition with which I do not agree.

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

What's "sound on sound" then?

Look it up - you're good at that. But not learning from it, obviously.

It's enough that you learn.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
At last, a competing definition. Here's another

It's only a competing definition if taken out of the context it was given
in

http://www.modrec.com/glossary/defin...ubbing&uid=116

"Enables one or more of the previously recorded tracks to be monitored
while simultaneously recording one or more signals onto other tracks."

I've no argument with that - or any of the others which I've snipped.

So that jab about context doesn't mean anything.

But to refresh your obviously short memory here's what you quoted and my
reply in context.

******

"For those who don¹t know much about studio recording, the process of
adding instruments to an existing track is called overdubbing."

Overdubbing *does not* involve adding things to an
existing track, but replacing them.

*******

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.

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.

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.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
Try and keep up. Stephen seems to think you can add something in the
same place to a track that's already got something on it.

Maybe that's the impression you got, but I didn't. I read it as adding
something to the master at the LP cutting stage, which certainly comes
under the all purpose definition of overdubbing. Perhaps I'm not as
pedantic as you are?

Perhaps you'd then tell me how you add to a stereo or mono master at the
cutting stage? Stephen hasn't been able to despite waffling on for several
days.

I have not been waffling. You play the master through a splitter or
mixer or console (however you want to call it) for monitoring. You
record as the master plays, the mic and master are balanced with another
mixer whose output goes to the cutter or whatever intervening
electronics are required (a limiter might be a good idea).

Refer to my recent post in which I especially mention that one
definition of "overdub" fits this situation, one analoguous to a tv
broadcast with live announcers and pre-recorded material. I imagine this
is done from time to time.

Or are you under the misapprehension that the new element is recorded
onto the production master? That would be missing the point, which is
that elements of the final product might not be present on the master
tapes.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

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

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

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.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

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

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

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

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

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

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

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

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

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

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

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

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

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.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

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

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
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.

If you'd ever solo'd a mic in front of, say, a guitar cabinet, kick drum
or trumpet, in a typical studio multi-mic balance, you'd know just how
little 'aural space' it's picking up.

FFS, that's the whole point of a multi-mic setup...

--
*I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

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

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.

An interview with a Motown recording engineer:

Thanks.


http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording.../olmo/olmo.php

Bob Ludwig:

http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_bob_ludwig/

MoFi (publicity piece?):

http://www.vxm.com/21R.46.html

--

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

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

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

Yes. She revisited the *repertoire*. Sorry if the juxtaposition of my
two sentences led you to the incorrect conclusion that I thought SOB 2K
was a remastering of SOB.

I hardly see what relevance this has to our discussion. Bach is probably
the most revisited "repertoire" of all time, with the possible exception
of certain rather irritating songs by Abba and the Bee Gees.

Why is it necessary to make a distinction
over whether or not a sound has passed through air before it gets
recorded?

Because you asked.

I didn't ask for your opinion about your views on a sounds
"artificiality".

Why is this musically relevant ? When it gets played back from
the recording it's not "actual sound" is it ?

It's a matter of reference. Few knew what a synthesizer sounded like
when SOB was released, so there was little basis for determining if the
recording was accurate or not.

But this is true of any situation where people do not have the
opportunity to hear the master recording. That is the only possible way
for there to be "reference", and for any other derived source you have
to take the artist/engineer's word for it. Anyway any other instrument,
like an electric guitar (regardless of how it is recorded), sounds very
different from one musician to the next.

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.

This is unexpected. The advent of electronic music was a profound change
in how music is created. It's not snobbery to understand the fundamental
difference between acoustic and electronic sounds.

That's a switch in your argument. You used the word "artificial" which
implies that further than merely describing the fundamental difference
(no argument there) you were making a judgement about sounds produced in
certain ways. There is no difference in "artificiality" between a
vibrating string or a vibrating oscillator, except that one technique
happens to be newer than the other. People made this sort of argument
about pianos whenever they came out.

--

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

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

"Chesney Christ" wrote in message

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

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.

An interview with a Motown recording engineer:

Thanks.


http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording.../olmo/olmo.php


Bob Olhsson. All through the article he talks about all the home-made gear
that Motown used. He doesn't say who made it, I don't think. The two
"homies" were Mike McClain (sp?) and David Clark. That would be David Clark
of AES/ABX fame. They were the Motown equipment development and maintenance
department in those days. I first met them when I was 14 and worked in a
Lafayette Radio store in downtown Detroit.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

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

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.

An interview with a Motown recording engineer:

http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording.../olmo/olmo.php

There is only really one relevant paragraph here :

"Berry Gordy had the experience of getting burned by trying to do that.
He had learned early on the hard way that if you didn’t get it right
you really couldn’t do anything about it. And of course with vinyl
that was a lot more the case than with compact discs.

They were very, very concerned that things not be particularly modified
in the transfer. They’d rather do a new mix than try and fix anything
in mastering. So I started out pretty much doing really hot flat
transfers, although if we heard something that seemed obvious to change,
we could throw on some EQ and send an alternative version labeled with
what we did."

I don't see any contradiction here with what I've been saying, although
I would hardly call it the kind of detailed appraisal of mastering
techniques that Carlos' site provides.

Bob Ludwig:

http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_bob_ludwig/

I know about this guy. Well respected and extremely talented. But in
this article he's just describing his job which is to improve the sound
on master tapes which have been poorly mixed. In other words, the work
that his sent to him is incomplete. Occasionally it's so bad that -
"under certain circumstances, I have to ask the song to be remixed." -
obviously there's only so much he can do.

It's sad that he manages to be factually incorrect, and quotes a popular
myth :

"It is customary to believe that the CD is superior to the LP in terms
of bandwidth, but this is not the case. The CD is limited to 22,000
cycles, whereas the LP is able to reproduce frequencies up to 50,000
cycles, which in the PCM world equals a sampling rate at 100 kHz. The
bottom line is that LPs mastered with DMM still sound really good."

That harms his credibility somewhat. He goes on to shill for SACD, which
damages his credibility even further (in my book).

I disagree with him on another point :

"While we are in the analog domain, I would like to add that I think
analog lends itself really well to pop music. The unlinearities added in
terms of compression and harmonic distortion are, in many cases,
desirable, unless you ask all-digital people like Bob Clearmountain, who
doesn't at all like the fact that analog machines aren't reproducing
what you are feeding them. [Laughs.]"

This is of course a matter of disagreement. If I were a recording
artist, I wouldn't want my mastering engineer to add distortion and
compression to my recording. Then again, this is more to do with the
market he is selling his work into.

MoFi (publicity piece?):

http://www.vxm.com/21R.46.html

MoFi are the masters of hype, with this silly nonsense of pressing CDs
with gold (completely unnecessary). That aside, this article is about
all the hard work and messing about you have to do in order to make a
good master. There's a lot of voodoo-style crap in there about digital
recording clocks. I have heard some MoFi CD masterings, and they
certainly sound excellent, but that's usually because they went back and
sought good quality source material. Nothing to do with these whacky
custom-built D/A convertors.

--

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

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:
"It is customary to believe that the CD is superior to the LP in terms
of bandwidth, but this is not the case. The CD is limited to 22,000
cycles, whereas the LP is able to reproduce frequencies up to 50,000
cycles, which in the PCM world equals a sampling rate at 100 kHz. The
bottom line is that LPs mastered with DMM still sound really good."

That harms his credibility somewhat. He goes on to shill for SACD, which
damages his credibility even further (in my book).

It certainly is possible to record frequencies well above the cut off
limit of CDs on vinyl - the old JVC quadrophonic system relied on an FM
carrier at about 30 kHz, IIRC. But you needed a special cartridge, and the
system was very susceptible to wear and damage.

It also begs the question as to why you'd want to, given that CD can
handle high amplitude HF signals with no problems, which vinyl certainly
couldn't.

--
*It was all so different before everything changed.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

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

Yes. She revisited the *repertoire*. Sorry if the juxtaposition of my
two sentences led you to the incorrect conclusion that I thought SOB 2K
was a remastering of SOB.

I hardly see what relevance this has to our discussion. Bach is probably
the most revisited "repertoire" of all time, with the possible exception
of certain rather irritating songs by Abba and the Bee Gees.

You've lost track of the context of this part of our discussion. You
were discussing thing Carlos could have done beyond what she did in
remastering SOB, such as re-record parts. I simply mentioned that she
made a new recording of her old repertoire.

Why is it necessary to make a distinction
over whether or not a sound has passed through air before it gets
recorded?

Because you asked.

I didn't ask for your opinion about your views on a sounds
"artificiality".

I didn't give an opinion.

Why is this musically relevant ? When it gets played back from
the recording it's not "actual sound" is it ?

It's a matter of reference. Few knew what a synthesizer sounded like
when SOB was released, so there was little basis for determining if the
recording was accurate or not.

But this is true of any situation where people do not have the
opportunity to hear the master recording. That is the only possible way
for there to be "reference", and for any other derived source you have
to take the artist/engineer's word for it. Anyway any other instrument,
like an electric guitar (regardless of how it is recorded), sounds very
different from one musician to the next.

The master as unknowable reference? I agree with that. However, with
most instruments, one can hear them played. That wasn't the case for the
Moog and SOB.

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.

This is unexpected. The advent of electronic music was a profound change
in how music is created. It's not snobbery to understand the fundamental
difference between acoustic and electronic sounds.

That's a switch in your argument. You used the word "artificial" which
implies that further than merely describing the fundamental difference
(no argument there) you were making a judgement about sounds produced in
certain ways.

You can rest assured that I was not making such a judgment and no switch
occured.

There is no difference in "artificiality" between a
vibrating string or a vibrating oscillator, except that one technique
happens to be newer than the other. People made this sort of argument
about pianos whenever they came out.

Yes, there is, and, no, they didn't.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
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.

If you'd ever solo'd a mic in front of, say, a guitar cabinet, kick
drum or trumpet, in a typical studio multi-mic balance, you'd know
just how little 'aural space' it's picking up.

That's a different issue. You do grant that even a close-mic setup works
on sound waves.

Indeed, but the microphone converts this into an electrical signal. And a
synth attempts to mimic this accurately, if that's what it's setting out
to do. My point is that there will be little or no 'aural space' with
either.

FFS, that's the whole point of a multi-mic setup...

Didn't BBC have an electronic music lab? Someone there might know the
difference between synthesized and acoustic.

The Radiophonic Workshop used both 'real' and synthesised sounds - and
played around with both 'till they got the effect they wanted.

FWIW, it's pretty easy to synthesise any one note of any instrument at
any one time. The difficulty is that each time that note is played on a
real instrument by a real human it will be slightly different. It's got
nowt to do with room acoustics that synths don't sound like the real thing
- even when they set out to do so.

--
*Re-elect nobody

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

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

I don't see any contradiction here with what I've been saying, although
I would hardly call it the kind of detailed appraisal of mastering
techniques that Carlos' site provides.

Too bad she couldn't use Motown engineers to master her lps!

She didn't have any say in the matter.

A flat
transfer seems a good thing.

The term "flat transfer" isn't defined anywhere there.

Another question and answer was relevant. Ohlsson mentions how much he
likes cutting vinyl: "It's wonderful."

Enjoying doing something doesn't mean it's inherently good.

This is of course a matter of disagreement. If I were a recording
artist, I wouldn't want my mastering engineer to add distortion and
compression to my recording. Then again, this is more to do with the
market he is selling his work into.

You wouldn't say that as such. You'd say, how can I get a drum sound
like I heard on this other recording?

Colouring a drum sound at the mastering stage would be plain daft, I
don't care what anyone says. If you want a certain drum sound, you'll
record it properly and colour it on your multitracks, not when you're
doing any pre-pressing stuff.

--

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