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

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

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

Pick an LP at random in a music shop, it probably is. A tiny fraction of
LPs manufactured in the early-mid 80s are less so. I'll wager at least
90% of LPs out there are heavily doctored.

Sounds comparable to the percentage of cds that are heavily doctored.

Anything that's non-pop music will be pretty much a duplicate of the
master tape. Most of the CDs I have (not pop) have been mastered
directly from the actual master. Why do further doctoring on an already
completed work ?

Think of the lp as the "completed work" and you might catch on.

In an imaginary world, if LP also had ruler-flat characteristics and no
unusual mechanical traits then no post-mastering stage would be
necessary there either.

Since an additional stage is necessary, it's simply part of the lp
making process.

The only difference is a non-destructible mastering stage instead of a
lp production mastertape.

"non destructible mastering stage" what on earth are you talking about ?
When preparing for digital distribution, the entire post-mastering stage
is dropped as it is unnecessary (excepting pop music of course). Non
destructible editing is a feature of a digital audio workstation, but
it's absolutely nothing to do with mastering. You have your terminology
badly mixed up.

What do you think they make digital masters with? All kinds of weird
stuff happens in mastering, digital or otherwise. There's no guarantee
that anything is an exact copy of anything at the consumer level. What
do you think a remix is? They have them in classical, too.

Complete and total hogwash! The final recorded work as the artist
intends is on the final master tape (that is why it is called the
"master"), and all mixing and EQing to extract the correct sound will
have been done during the production of that master.

You're arguing by definition. I do not accept your definition. End of
argument.

It's not my definition, it's the one used by recording engineers. Feel
free not to accept what the rest of the profession does, but
unfortunately you are not at liberty to make up your own definitions for
things, at least not if you want to be understood by the sane world.

I didn't realize you were a recording engineer. You have a unique
viewpoint compared to the ones I've worked with. However, you are making
up your definition and arguing from it. There's no truly "final" master
tape. One can remix; one can remaster. The artist's intent has nothing
to do with the definition. Believe me, a producer won't hesitate to
reject a "master" if he thinks he can afford to improve upon it at any
stage short of the production run, and sometimes even after.

From that point
forth, mass production is singularly concerned with reproducing that
master tape as closely as possible.

No, it isn't. It's all about extracting coins from pockets

Indeed it is, and it has been shown. People will pay for a remastered CD
that has been freshly cut from the original master, with no weird
doctoring or other side effects at all.

Just as they will spend for high quality lps.

EQ and compression *are* necessary on vinyl, as the various
imperfections of the medium would ghost much of the sound, and for
practical reasons due to the inherently mechanical nature of the cutting
and playback processes.

That's what makes mastering an art.

Agreed.

Surprising how good the result can
be.

And it's a damn shame hearing what gets done to a master tape in order
to squeeze it uncomfortably onto an LP.

Turntable owners are happy to have lps to play.

If you told the engineer this silly
"complimentary" theory of yours, he'd laugh in your face. Engineers used
as little EQ and compression as they could get away with. Unfortunately
that was still a lot.

You mean a mastering engineer would never increase the treble knowing of
vinyl's attenuation?

I am talking about CD.

Cds don't need complementary eq. Maybe pre-emphasis now and then.

as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.

Another nasty idiosyncrasy, completely unnecessary with the advent of
digital.

But sonically transparent.

It's not sonically transparent - no attenuation/amplication process is.
Once you cut a bit out of a sound, you can't magically amplify it back
again. It's lost.

Well, yes, you can, within limits.

How about the "nasty idiosyncrasies" of
digital, all those nasty high frequency artifacts that have to be
filtered out?

Tell me about these "high frequency artifacts" and what process is used
to filter them during mastering.

Not during mastering. In the player/DAC.

As we all know, the process of playing back vinyl is what adds all the
warmth (read : distortion). The CD will be a fairly authentic
reproduction of the LP cutting master - ie flat and crap. That's what is
going onto your vinyl, baby.

That's what I want: the cutting master is meant to get the most out of
the lp.

Saying that producing a cutting master is about getting the most out of
(or "compliments") an LP is like saying that wearing a corset
compliments a fat person's physique. On face value this is correct, but
it is misleading. A corset would not be necessary if the fat person
simply lost weight, and he'd feel a lot better at the same time.

The word is still "complement". No matter what ridiculous inapt analogy
you come up with, lp mastering is generally intended to make good
sounding records.

Likewise, the LP cutting master is necessary because of the practical
problems associated with the medium. It is meant to cut down the music
so that it can be *put* on LP, as this would otherwise be impossible. It
is not a question of "getting the most out of" the LP. It is a question
of getting something listenable out of the LP, whilst trying to preserve
as much of the original sound as possible (60% is about the best, on a
good day). That is the only compromise which comes into the equation,
and almost all musicians and engineers will tell you that it is a
terrible one and they're glad to be shot of it.

Sure, because it requires skill. So much easier to ride the mouse at the
DAW.

Without the compensations of vinyl, of course it will sound
strange.

Do you think all those EQd and compressed bits of sound magically spring
out of the vinyl somehow ?

I use an amplified stylus.

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

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

You have vinyl ears. This is a physical and psychological malady where
worship of an obsolete media results in listener behavior that is hard to
distinguish from deafness.

Lps can sound great. Cds can sound great. I have adequate means to play
each and collections that will take a lifetime to get through. How is
that like deafness?

Stephen

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

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

You have vinyl ears. This is a physical and psychological malady
where worship of an obsolete media results in listener behavior that
is hard to distinguish from deafness.

Lps can sound great. Cds can sound great. I have adequate means to
play each and collections that will take a lifetime to get through.
How is that like deafness?

Easy to explain except you deleted all your own incriminating words, and I
don't feel like cleaning up your mess.

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:

You have vinyl ears. This is a physical and psychological malady
where worship of an obsolete media results in listener behavior
that is hard to distinguish from deafness.

Lps can sound great. Cds can sound great. I have adequate means to
play each and collections that will take a lifetime to get through.
How is that like deafness?

Easy to explain except you deleted all your own incriminating words,
and I don't feel like cleaning up your mess.

There's a classic Arny dodge.

Just responding to a classic Stephen dodge.

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

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:
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.

Don't know where you get the idea that an lp master can include overdubs.

It's purpose was simply to make the master tape capable of being cut to an
lp with the minimum of alteration. Plenty of studio engineers understood
the limitations of the lp format, but the talent or production team
frequently didn't, so the studio master was made to their requirements
regardless if it could be transferred to lp or not. Head in the sand was
alive and well even then.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*

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:
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.

Don't know where you get the idea that an lp master can include overdubs.

You can even overdub when creating the cutting master.

It's purpose was simply to make the master tape capable of being cut to an
lp with the minimum of alteration.

Unless you really, really wanted more handclaps or a nose flute or
something.

Plenty of studio engineers understood
the limitations of the lp format, but the talent or production team
frequently didn't, so the studio master was made to their requirements
regardless if it could be transferred to lp or not. Head in the sand was
alive and well even then.

Interesting, but pointless: I read a profile of profile of Tony Levin in
which the writer blamed him for blowing up his stereo with 10 hz tones
on the lp.

Stephen

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

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:
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.

Don't know where you get the idea that an lp master can include overdubs.

You can even overdub when creating the cutting master.

It's purpose was simply to make the master tape capable of being cut to an
lp with the minimum of alteration.

Unless you really, really wanted more handclaps or a nose flute or
something.

Plenty of studio engineers understood
the limitations of the lp format, but the talent or production team
frequently didn't, so the studio master was made to their requirements
regardless if it could be transferred to lp or not. Head in the sand was
alive and well even then.

Interesting, but pointless: I read a profile of in which the writer
blamed Tony Levin for blowing up his stereo with 10 hz tones
on lp.

Stephen

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

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:
It's purpose was simply to make the master tape capable of being cut
to an lp with the minimum of alteration.

Unless you really, really wanted more handclaps or a nose flute or
something.

Then it ceases, by definition, to be a master tape.

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

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 :

Don't know where you get the idea that an lp master can include overdubs.

You can even overdub when creating the cutting master.

Why would you do that ?

--

"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 :

I can't help you with your master tape fetish. Master tapes are just
another step in the delivery process.

They are the final step. If it isn't the final step, then it's not a
master tape.

The lp master is also just another step and it can add to the final
work, either by artistic choice (eq, sound treatments, etc)

But the artists seldom had anything to do with the cutting master.

or
literally, using "inserts" or even live overdubs.

That's mad, as any future work cut from the master tape would not
include such overdubs. It can't be common for such changes to be made.

"non destructible mastering stage" what on earth are you talking about ?
When preparing for digital distribution, the entire post-mastering stage
is dropped as it is unnecessary (excepting pop music of course). Non
destructible editing is a feature of a digital audio workstation, but
it's absolutely nothing to do with mastering. You have your terminology
badly mixed up.

What do you think they make digital masters with?

You can make them with any digital recording device.

Good. Now explain the leap from "stage" (my word) to "editing" (your
word).

I'll do that if you explain why you brought up "non-destructible" which
is an editing technique, not a stage in the mastering process. You can
use destructive editing if you want.

What I meant was that in today's ProTools world, there's less and less
special about the master, compared to the pageantry and drama of a
mixing session on a pre-automation mixer, with multiple tracks or even
tapes or live performance, or compared to the mystery and black art of
lp production.

The master is the final finished work. This doesn't change if you use
Pro Tools. Pro Tools simply makes it easier to go back and alter the
master from the source material again. But that's not a unique feature.
In theory you can do that without Pro Tools.

All kinds of weird
stuff happens in mastering, digital or otherwise.

Yes, so ?

So why the big deal about eq'ing lp masters?

Because it ****s the sound up.

I won't get pedantic over whether or not I said or implied "exact copy".
The important point is that the CD will carry pretty much all of the
sound recorded on the master tape. It is another matter if the producers
decides to alter the sound from the master tape on the way, that is his
choice.

Like the choice to make an lp.

That choice is dictated by the market, not by artistry. You'll note that
these days it's a choice seldom made. I rarely hear of artists who
publicly complain about their music not being released on LP.

I've commented on other threads that I regard a revisit of the
multitrack tapes, even by the same mastering engineer, as a separate
work of art. Even if you try to be the same as you were before, it'll
never sound that way.

You've just created a new master. Which is the sacred one?

That is a matter of personal opinion. The relevant thing is that they
are different.

It's not my definition, it's the one used by recording engineers. Feel
free not to accept what the rest of the profession does, but
unfortunately you are not at liberty to make up your own definitions for
things, at least not if you want to be understood by the sane world.

I didn't realize you were a recording engineer.

I am not a doctor either, but I know when I have a cold.

So you're not a recording engineer? It seems I'm a lot closer to the
industry than you are.

I'm not a recording engineer, no. Are you ?

They are, but people seldom have the opportunity to listen to the final
master tape (a properly remastered CD provides the best way to get close
to that experience).

Direct to disc.

Extremely rare.

It's not sonically transparent - no attenuation/amplication process is.
Once you cut a bit out of a sound, you can't magically amplify it back
again. It's lost.

Well, yes, you can, within limits.

No you can't.

Dolby. Used a lot for recordings.

Dolby doesn't magically amplify things back again. You always lose a
certain amount of the sound.

Once you attenuate it below the noise floor, it's gone.
That's why a lot of amplifiers (expensive or otherwise) don't sound that
great at low volumes.

You make a good case for the gentle natural compression of vinyl.

You can compress yourself at home if you want without interfering with
the recording.

That also requires skill. I have heard extremely badly mastered CDs, I
have no doubt you have too. We are really a very long way away from the
plug and play world, and true artistry still shines through head and
shoulders above everyone else.

Lps would actually help some things, if only because the
hyper-compressed digital clipping heard too often in pop music would
make for poor tracking,

Incompetence on the part of some mastering engineers doesn't mean that
alternative media are better.

--

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