On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:27:52 GMT, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 05:35:44 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:49:19 GMT, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:17:59 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:15:16 GMT, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:56:33 +0300, Iain M Churches wrote:

In the case where original master tapes cannot for some
reason be used, it is quite normal to make the initial
transfer for the CD from a negative metal disc master
which can be played with a suitable cartridge.
This disc is referred to as a mother, and is the
one used to grow matrices for stampers. The quality
from these is quire remarkable. I have several.

I dunno. I've never heard any CDs from 20+ master tapes that didn't suffer
from a seriously reduced s/n.

Perhaps you're simply confused by the fact that on CD you can hear the
tape hiss, whereas on LP it's masked by surface noise.

No. I can hear tape hiss on a clean LP as well.

So why on earth do you think that CD has a 'seriously reduced s/n'
compared with tape?

I never said any such thing. I said that 20-40 year master tapes have a
seriously reduced s/n.

That might have been what you *meant*, but as you can clearly see
above, it's not what you actually said.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:56:33 +0300, Iain M Churches
wrote:


"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...

Master tapes suck when they're 40 years old.

If you are referring to the oxide shedding problems due to
poor binding on some analogue tape, this was confined
to BASF and AGFA. I am pretty sure that Abbey Road
would have used EMI tape for quarter inch and probably
Ampex for multitrack, which in those days was 4
tracks on 1".


BASF and Agfa are actually less of a problem than Ampex tapes which went
through a very bad period from the mid 70's to the mid 80's. A very large
percentage of Ampex tapes from that period have to be baked before they
can be played whereas I see very few BASF and Agfa tapes that are
unplayable.

Of course, if we are talking about Beatles tapes then none of this applies
as all their tapes date from before the mid 70's and should be playable
with no problems (apart from maybe the odd disintegrating splice).

Cheers.

James.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:38:22 +0300, Iain M Churches
wrote:


I have a huge number of recordings in both formats.
It is rare, except on classical CDs to find that the CD
matches the original vinyl. "Smiley EQ" is terribly
popular in mastering suites. In these days of
programmable digital equalisers, it maybe that
many have it as a preset:-)

You could also look at things the other way round - maybe the original
cutting engineer had to roll off the low and high end in order to get a
successful cut that would play on the majority of record players at the
time. Remember that we're talking BSR autochangers here rather than the
Garrard 301.

Cheers

James.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:52:54 +0100, James Perrett wrote:


On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:56:33 +0300, Iain M Churches
wrote:


"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...

Master tapes suck when they're 40 years old.

If you are referring to the oxide shedding problems due to
poor binding on some analogue tape, this was confined
to BASF and AGFA. I am pretty sure that Abbey Road
would have used EMI tape for quarter inch and probably
Ampex for multitrack, which in those days was 4
tracks on 1".


BASF and Agfa are actually less of a problem than Ampex tapes which went
through a very bad period from the mid 70's to the mid 80's. A very large
percentage of Ampex tapes from that period have to be baked before they
can be played whereas I see very few BASF and Agfa tapes that are
unplayable.

Of course, if we are talking about Beatles tapes then none of this applies
as all their tapes date from before the mid 70's and should be playable
with no problems (apart from maybe the odd disintegrating splice).

Is "playable" good enough? How does the quality compare to playing a record
made from when the tapes were new?

I suppose you think that the Hor Zu pressing is the only one to have?
Well, you're an idiot. The *definitive* version of Please Please Me is
the UK Parlophone pressing. Why? Because *that* is what people
actually bought, and *that* is what made the Beatles famous.

Is it as close to the original session tapes as you can get? No. Is it
technically as good a job as could be done? No. It is however the
*original*, and much more importantly, it was the version approved by
George Martin, and the original Parlophone CD uses the same mono
mixdown. Please take your stupidity elsewhere

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

what a pathetic answer - you really have no idea what you're talking
about...yet again
Your resorting to insults shows you've lost another debate -
the UK PPM LP used the WRONG TAPE - how can I get you to understand
that? this is fact, it's history. The differences between masterings
are obviously not subtle enough for your ears - probably explains why
you can't hear the differences between cables and CD players.

Beatles anorak .me? sure along with another few thousand like me. Your
arguement for Martin "approving it so it must be right" it a f*cking
joke. And proves you know nothing about this subject

Stew admit it, you were the guy who had his head flushed down the
toilet at school by all the bigger boys, now you cowardly have to bully
behind a keyboard,

go and listen to some music for a change you stupid ****ing idiot
****

On 4 Oct 2005 09:22:15 -0700, "Tim" wrote:

I suppose you think that the Hor Zu pressing is the only one to have?
Well, you're an idiot. The *definitive* version of Please Please Me is
the UK Parlophone pressing. Why? Because *that* is what people
actually bought, and *that* is what made the Beatles famous.

Is it as close to the original session tapes as you can get? No. Is it
technically as good a job as could be done? No. It is however the
*original*, and much more importantly, it was the version approved by
George Martin, and the original Parlophone CD uses the same mono
mixdown. Please take your stupidity elsewhere

what a pathetic answer - you really have no idea what you're talking
about...yet again
Your resorting to insults shows you've lost another debate -

Not an insult, simply an accurate observation.

the UK PPM LP used the WRONG TAPE - how can I get you to understand
that? this is fact, it's history. The differences between masterings
are obviously not subtle enough for your ears - probably explains why
you can't hear the differences between cables and CD players.

The differences among masterings are indeed apparent to me - but the
original release LP is the *definitive* version - for the pure and
simple reason that *that* is the version which sold enough to make
them famous. Other arguments are mere anorak bleatings.

Beatles anorak .me? sure along with another few thousand like me. Your
arguement for Martin "approving it so it must be right" it a f*cking
joke. And proves you know nothing about this subject

Actually, it proves that I know what really matters about the Beatles
sound.

Stew admit it, you were the guy who had his head flushed down the
toilet at school by all the bigger boys, now you cowardly have to bully
behind a keyboard,

Actually, I was the guy who taught Judo to the other kids. Do you have
any idea how utterly pathetic and whining you sound? Bullying from
behind a keyboard? BWAHAHAHA!

go and listen to some music for a change you stupid ****ing idiot
****

I do, all the time - on a really good system which contains no snake
oil. Thanks for proving yet one more time that you are a cretin.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article .com, Tim
wrote:
Your resorting to insults shows you've lost another debate -
[...]
go and listen to some music for a change you stupid ****ing idiot
****

Spot the inconsistency....


Rod.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:02:03 GMT, AZ Nomad wrote:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:52:54 +0100, James Perrett
wrote:

Of course, if we are talking about Beatles tapes then none of this
applies
as all their tapes date from before the mid 70's and should be playable
with no problems (apart from maybe the odd disintegrating splice).

Is "playable" good enough? How does the quality compare to playing a
record
made from when the tapes were new?


Making them playable is the first stage in the process. Matching the
playback machine to the tape by aligning the heads and setting the EQ is
the next stage. Once you've made the adjustments then the tape will sound
almost exactly as it did when the vinyl was mastered. I say almost because
there is a slight self erasure of high frequencies which takes place just
after recording but this would have affected the tape at the original disc
cutting session unless the record was cut just a few minutes after the
recording. There is certainly no increase in noise with age unless the
tape has been stored in poor conditions.

Of course, you might prefer the sound of the vinyl because the cutting
engineer may well have tweaked the eq or added a little compression during
the cut. If you know what was changed then you can apply the same changes
yourself when listening to the master tape (or a flat transfer to CD).

Cheers.

James.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:17:41 +0100, James Perrett wrote:


On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:02:03 GMT, AZ Nomad wrote:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:52:54 +0100, James Perrett
wrote:

Of course, if we are talking about Beatles tapes then none of this
applies
as all their tapes date from before the mid 70's and should be playable
with no problems (apart from maybe the odd disintegrating splice).

Is "playable" good enough? How does the quality compare to playing a
record
made from when the tapes were new?


Making them playable is the first stage in the process. Matching the
playback machine to the tape by aligning the heads and setting the EQ is
the next stage. Once you've made the adjustments then the tape will sound
almost exactly as it did when the vinyl was mastered. I say almost because
there is a slight self erasure of high frequencies which takes place just
after recording but this would have affected the tape at the original disc
cutting session unless the record was cut just a few minutes after the
recording. There is certainly no increase in noise with age unless the
tape has been stored in poor conditions.

Of course, you might prefer the sound of the vinyl because the cutting
engineer may well have tweaked the eq or added a little compression during
the cut. If you know what was changed then you can apply the same changes
yourself when listening to the master tape (or a flat transfer to CD).

Personally, I don't. My problem with CDs from ancient master tapes is the
result of several CDs I own that have a S/N similar to a Type I pre-recorded
cassette with no noise reduction.

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:32:01 +0200, Mikkel Breiler wrote:


On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:10:41 GMT, "Fleetie" wrote:

Maybe in 100 years' time, CDs will seem even more antiquated than old vinyl
seems now. In that case, a CD of a famous band, with its original packing,
might be worth a significant amount.

CDs may indeed be seen as even more antiquated than Vinyl in 100 years.

Vinyl today is a continuation of an older working principle which was vinyl taken to
it's (so far) peak, over older shellak 78 rpm recordings and phonograph rolls before
that.

CDs are compared to that only the first generation digital media with DVD being the
second. That is like sound rolls and 78 rpm records.

Didn't laserdisks get digital audio first? Wasn't the "compact" in "compact
disc" in relation to laserdisk?