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

A certain Dave Plowman, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Let's say that we have a painting, which is a complete work of art.
Let's say that some craftsman decides to copy the painting into some
other media that is more limited in many ways than oil painting, say
mosaic tile. That's almost exactly what a LP mastering engineer does to
a master tape.

That's a good analogy. Congratulations.

Agreed there, but would there be mosaic zealots who'd insist that their
copies were much better than the original work ?

--

"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 :
I said "derivative work of art" which is to say that the final product is a
work of art in itself.

Granted, but in this hypothetical case, the lp is the intended final
product with unique features beyond those inherent in vinyl.

But the LP was seldom ever "the final product" for the recording artist,
elsewhere a list of alternative media has already been given.

I have a specific hypothetical case in mind, so your comment doesn't
apply.

In general, I suppose all delivery media can be considered 'derivative'.

They need not be, as a CD in any serious case is close to an exact
replica of the recorded work, unless a business decision is made to
alter that.

What kind of cover art does a master tape come with?

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 :

Refer to my earlier comment about how easy and common it is. You'd have
to really, really, really, really want to do it.

It is easy and common now, but of course LPs now only account for a tiny
part of the market.

It was not easy or common at the time when LPs were popular - let's be
really generous and pick 1990 as a cut-off date. Certainly in 1990
digital audio workstations and editing by computer were still a thing of
the future.

You agree, too.

Stephen

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

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Like I said, anything is
possible, but let's just keep a sense of reality.

I say it is possible, but difficult and rarely done, to add a live
element to a master tape while making a cutting master. I see that you
agree.

I believe it's also possible to buy a ticket to the moon...

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Like drawing teeth?

--
*Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

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

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
No matter, I don't have
any trouble on the rare occasions I work with audio professionals.

Then on one of those rare occasions, I suggest you ask about how common
it is to do 'overdubs' to an LP at the cutting stage. And be prepared for
some strange looks.

--
*Proofread carefully to see if you any words out or mispeld something *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

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

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Then on one of those rare occasions, I suggest you ask about how
common it is to do 'overdubs' to an LP at the cutting stage. And be
prepared for some strange looks.

I know how "common" it is. (At the cutting stage, it isn't an lp yet.)

Sorry. To what will shortly become an LP.

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.

Wasn't it not uncommon once upon a time for the cutting engineer to
apply his own eq?

The cutting engineer would do all sorts of tweaks to the master tape. But
*not* add to or change the 'performance' as you implied all these days ago
and started this...

--
*Horn broken. - Watch for finger.

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:
Then on one of those rare occasions, I suggest you ask about how
common it is to do 'overdubs' to an LP at the cutting stage. And be
prepared for some strange looks.

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.

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.

Wasn't it not uncommon once upon a time for the cutting engineer to
apply his own eq?

The cutting engineer would do all sorts of tweaks to the master tape. But
*not* add to or change the 'performance' as you implied all these days ago
and started this...

I said one could even change the performance at the cutting stage. You
agree that it is possible. I agree that it is extremely rare (the
cutting engineer wouldn't pull a penny whistle from his back pocket and
extemporise an obbligato during the procedure).

The overall point is that artistic choices can be made at any point of
the production.

Stephen

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

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

The discussion was really about the sanctity (or not) of the master, in
general.

Oh, in general. Yes, I'd rather have the best transfer of the master
tape appropriate to the medium. You mentioned Wendy Carlos. She has a
very good discussion of the issues involved on her website.

Below, you have misrepresented in rather dramatic terms what Carlos'
wrote. It is rather disappointing that you'd conduct an argument by
trying to mislead people, and this throws some doubt on your credibility
in general. Anyone who wants to read what she actually said may look
here :

http://www.wendycarlos.com/repairs.html

See the
section concerning the box-set of her first four albums. New and
improved, departing from the original as needed for her artistic
expression.

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 *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.

She even grants that for those who have 'imprinted' on the
original lp might only be happy with the original lp.

What is invalid about that point ? We already understand quite well that
certain people have a preference for the type of sound you get on LPs,
and that includes the sound of Carlos' CBS-produced LP cutting masters
(several generations removed from the original masters). My whole point
during this thread has been about getting the sound that the artist
intended to record in the first place - as Wendy says - "This is all
much, much closer to what we originally intended back then, but had to
be satisfied with less [TGS - namely the LP]". This contends your point
- which is that the master tape isn't the whole story of what the artist
intended - rather directly

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

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Yes she is, or was (during the 1960s when she
worked at Gotham Studios in NYC). I have considered writing to her to
get her to consider putting up a page on her site entitled "how to
master an LP". Then during arguments like these in the future, I'd
simply have to pass on her URL :)

so her comments
(elsewhere, Mix Magazine?) on the original mastering should be taken as
those of an artist unhappy with her treatment by the record company.

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.


Odd
in a way to champion the early synthesizer with its completely
artificial aural space in a discussion of master tape fidelity.

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

They need not be, as a CD in any serious case is close to an exact
replica of the recorded work, unless a business decision is made to
alter that.

What kind of cover art does a master tape come with?

Cover art isn't music.

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

The CD contains music. I thought that was obvious.

--

"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 :

The discussion was really about the sanctity (or not) of the master, in
general.

Oh, in general. Yes, I'd rather have the best transfer of the master
tape appropriate to the medium. You mentioned Wendy Carlos. She has a
very good discussion of the issues involved on her website.

Below, you have misrepresented in rather dramatic terms what Carlos'
wrote. It is rather disappointing that you'd conduct an argument by
trying to mislead people, and this throws some doubt on your credibility
in general.

I have not misrepresented those writings, certainly not in "dramatic
terms". Nor can it be misleading when I tell where to find the original.
Your claim concerning my credibility is self-serving.

Anyone who wants to read what she actually said may look here :

http://www.wendycarlos.com/repairs.html

See the
section concerning the box-set of her first four albums. New and
improved, departing from the original as needed for her artistic
expression.

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. This is precisely the sort of thing I point out
as contrary to your absolutism concerning master tapes and adherence to
an imagined sacred fixing of intent. Yes, my description of "departing
from the original as needed" is surely closer to the case than yours of
"preserving...the full sound".

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?

She even grants that for those who have 'imprinted' on the
original lp might only be happy with the original lp.

What is invalid about that point ? We already understand quite well that
certain people have a preference for the type of sound you get on LPs,
and that includes the sound of Carlos' CBS-produced LP cutting masters
(several generations removed from the original masters). My whole point
during this thread has been about getting the sound that the artist
intended to record in the first place - as Wendy says - "This is all
much, much closer to what we originally intended back then, but had to
be satisfied with less [TGS - namely the LP]". This contends your point
- which is that the master tape isn't the whole story of what the artist
intended - rather directly

You've overlooked that the *master tape* falls short of her intentions.

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.

Yes she is, or was (during the 1960s when she
worked at Gotham Studios in NYC). I have considered writing to her to
get her to consider putting up a page on her site entitled "how to
master an LP". Then during arguments like these in the future, I'd
simply have to pass on her URL :)

so her comments
(elsewhere, Mix Magazine?) on the original mastering should be taken as
those of an artist unhappy with her treatment by the record company.

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.

The mastering was out of her hands. Some of the changes she complains of
weren't necessary (midrange boost, for one) but were likely part of a
Columbia/CBS "house sound".

Odd
in a way to champion the early synthesizer with its completely
artificial aural space in a discussion of master tape fidelity.

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

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

They need not be, as a CD in any serious case is close to an exact
replica of the recorded work, unless a business decision is made to
alter that.

What kind of cover art does a master tape come with?

Cover art isn't music.

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

The CD contains music. I thought that was obvious.

Once you get past the master tape thing, you're not much on philosophy.

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

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.

--
*Rehab is for quitters.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn