"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.

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

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")

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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