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

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

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 ?

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!

Stephen

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

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

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

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.

First of all, "non-destructible" is an adjective, not a technique. I
chose not to say "non-destructive" so that you wouldn't make the leap
you're making. I guess that didn't work.

Let's get back to basics. What did you mean by "non-destructible" ?

Not destroyable. Yes, I'm agreeing with you that a digital master is
delivered to the pressing plant with the presumption that the bits are
intact.

While I wasn't referring to DAWs as such, it is true that the modern
editing process doesn't generally change the original recording, but
accumulates changes on the way to the nominally final product. This
master reflects numerous artistic choices, any of which can be undone.

One might even say an lp master is more special because it can't be so
easily restored.

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.

Not so easily.

Yup. Ease of use is the difference. But it's not unique to computer
based digital editing.

A tape-based edit list? Cool idea, but I've never seen one.

Because it ****s the sound up.

Not necessarily. There's plenty of program material that *doesn't*
stretch lp limits.

Like what ?

Typical pop music, once upon a time.

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.

Last time I checked, a substantial portion of the Billboard pop chart
was available on lp.

You have to go out of your way to get it. The pop charts certainly
aren't the be all and end all. They're the tip of the industry iceberg
really.

That's a pretty big tip! I'm not saying lps are as easy to get, but they
are out there.

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

But there can only be one real one, right?

Um no. People go back to the multitracks all the time to do things like
5.1 remixes, others like to just reinterpret their own work. This isn't
relevant to the question of LP cutting masters.

It is relevant to the idea that one shouldn't use lp cutting masters
because they're 'different'. If a multi-track master made to
appropriately use that medium is legit, than so to is an lp master
appropriately modified for its medium. Same for remixes, etc.

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

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

Let's get back to basics. What did you mean by "non-destructible" ?

Not destroyable. Yes, I'm agreeing with you that a digital master is
delivered to the pressing plant with the presumption that the bits are
intact.

What are you talking about ?

One might even say an lp master is more special because it can't be so
easily restored.

It's certainly unique, but if you were to make an LP master today you'd
probably do it on a DAW, and hence the process would be fully reversible
etc. But this is all moot; I do not really think that artists keep
copies of their edit history lying about.

Yup. Ease of use is the difference. But it's not unique to computer
based digital editing.

A tape-based edit list? Cool idea, but I've never seen one.

With the right motivation you could do it. Yes, it would be extremely
impractical.

Not necessarily. There's plenty of program material that *doesn't*
stretch lp limits.

Like what ?

Typical pop music, once upon a time.

Pop music contains vocals. Vocals stretch any recording medium.

--

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

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

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:
At one time the *master* was sent to the cutting engineer who would
have his own lab or workshop. And he would have had *no* facilities
for overdubbing - that's studio work. Nor would it be common to do
overdubs to 1/4" - you'd go back to the multi-track for this.

All it takes is a portable mixer, a mic preamp and a microphone. And I
didn't say it was common.

And some way of getting a sync output off the master - and this isn't
*that* common in 1/4" machines. And feeding it to the talent. And good
acoustics - quiet if nothing else. And then compressors and reverb. In
other words, full studio facilities.

Perhaps. That would be the best way to do it. However, the point is that
it can be done, not that it is easy or common.

Stephen

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

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

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

Let's get back to basics. What did you mean by "non-destructible" ?

Not destroyable. Yes, I'm agreeing with you that a digital master is
delivered to the pressing plant with the presumption that the bits are
intact.

What are you talking about ?

So much for agreeing with you about digital delivery media...

One might even say an lp master is more special because it can't be so
easily restored.

It's certainly unique, but if you were to make an LP master today you'd
probably do it on a DAW, and hence the process would be fully reversible
etc. But this is all moot; I do not really think that artists keep
copies of their edit history lying about.

They archive them. I think the term is 'data disc'.

Yup. Ease of use is the difference. But it's not unique to computer
based digital editing.

A tape-based edit list? Cool idea, but I've never seen one.

With the right motivation you could do it. Yes, it would be extremely
impractical.

Not necessarily. There's plenty of program material that *doesn't*
stretch lp limits.

Like what ?

Typical pop music, once upon a time.

Pop music contains vocals. Vocals stretch any recording medium.

Sir, you're too close to the microphone. Please step back.

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

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Then it ceases, by definition, to be a master tape.

There it it: arguing by definition, aka begging the question.

But it's the *correct* definition. If you wish to use pro terms, you must
accept pro definitions.

You might also look up what 'overdub' actually means. I've never known it
be used with a 1/4" stereo tape. It's exclusively a multi-track term.

--
*Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

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

"MiNE 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

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.

There it it: arguing by definition, aka begging the question.

What's the resulting lp then?

A derivative work of art.

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

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

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.

There it it: arguing by definition, aka begging the question.

What's the resulting lp then?

A derivative work of art.

Arny demonstrates the sound of one hand clapping. If someone plays a
master tape in the woods and no one hears it, is it art?

Stephen

--
--
Stephen McElroy

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

"Stephen McElroy" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

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.

There it it: arguing by definition, aka begging the question.

What's the resulting lp then?

A derivative work of art.

Arny demonstrates the sound of one hand clapping. If someone plays a
master tape in the woods and no one hears it, is it art?

Now that was nice and irrelevant of you Stephen, wasn't it?

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

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
But it's the *correct* definition. If you wish to use pro terms, you
must accept pro definitions.

Pros use the term quite a bit. Count the sticky tabs that come with a
DAT that say "master".

Doesn't mean you use them carelessly.

Whatever you decide is the master is the master.

There are cases in which the master tape doesn't have everything heard
on the commercial issue. It's still the master tape.

No it's not.

Mixdown master, production master, cutting master, stamping master.
Lotta masters in there. What if someone's rough mix is subsequently
chosen for release? Before that choice, it's a work in progress,
afterward it's a sacred encapsulation of intent, right? And if there's a
remix, is it unmastered?

You might also look up what 'overdub' actually means. I've never
known it be used with a 1/4" stereo tape.

Call it "sound on sound" if you prefer, or "ping-ponging".

No - you call it that.

Easy now!

Overdubbing is a precise term which means replacing
one track - or part of a track - with another - not bouncing down a
generation.

Seems you could do that during a mix if you wanted to. You could also do
it to the production master and not the mixdown master.

From http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar0...cles/basic.asp

Doncha like the site's name?

"Modern multitrack technology allows an entirely different approach to
recording, because each instrument can be recorded onto a new track
while listening back to those already recorded ‹ a process known as
overdubbing. What's more, you can overdub only sections of each track,
in order to improve on the performance or correct mistakes."

No reason a mix can't include live elements, which is my point as far as
this goes. "I Am the Walrus" with its aleatoric element of a radio
broadcast (mono mix) is a well-known example. To call the live element a
"live overdub" isn't a stretch.

It's exclusively a multi-track term.

Sigh. If it's exclusively multi-track, what's it "dubbing over"?

I *really* think you need to study the multi-track recording procedure.

Seen it. "Punching in," "comping," all that stuff. To see an experienced
engineer comp a vocal on a two-inch tape machine is quite something. And
there's nothing in your definition that precludes replacing part of a
quarter inch stereo tape.

Once one sees how plastic the sacred master tape is, one becomes less
dogmatic about it's supremacy. For instance, US collectors accept lp
reissues based on British production masters becuase, due to wear and
tear on the overused US master and production masters, they are the best
remaining sources for certain recordings.

Stephen