Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
Andy Evans
excerpt - "try and find a transistor circuit that can deliver 50V rms at less
than 1% distortion with no feedback!"
=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Andy Evans
This brief discussion of amplifiers is intended to point out how traditional
measurements result in unwise decisions for amplifier design. The lower
harmonics are nearly inaudible compared to the upper harmonics, yet they
dominate almost any THD measurement! The meter is steering the designer, the
reviewer, the dealer, and the consumer away from good sound.
It’s the classic tale of a drunk looking for his car keys under the
street-light, even though he suspects he lost them in a completely different
place. "The light is better here!" say the mainstream engineers,
mass-marketers, and magazine reviewers — but the key to good sound sure
isn’t where the audio industry has been looking.
If it were, why do stereo LP’s made 40 years ago, amplified with 65-year-old
direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today’s digital sound played
through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos? The differences between mass-fi and
true high fidelity are as plain as day to an (open-minded) listener.
We are in the odd position of discovering that as speakers get better and
better, the true merits of vacuum-tube circuits become more and more evident.
After all, even J. Gordon Holt gave the Crown DC-300 transistor amplifier a
Class "A" rating in 1971. At the time, the modestly-priced Dyna Stereo 70
received a lower rating - yet with modern speakers, the DC-300 is unlistenable,
and the Dyna just keeps sounding better. The entry-level EL84 amps of the early
Sixties (Scott 299, Eico, and Dyna SCA-35) sound remarkably natural and
realistic with today’s more efficient, and much more transparent, speakers.
There is no reason to believe speakers will stop getting better, since all
kinds of new innovations in materials science are on the horizon, and there are
major advances in computer modelling techniques every year. Synthetic diamond
cones, anyone?
It’s time to debunk the myth of "euphonic distortion" once and for all and
discover the genuine and subtle sources of amplifier distortion that people are
actually hearing. Once we find measurements that can actually help, rather than
hinder, it'll be easier to build electronics that are friendly to the listener
Arny Krueger
news:20030722080709...@mb-m22.aol.com
> Read the whole article at
> http://www.aloha-audio.com/library/FindingCG.html
> excerpt - "try and find a transistor circuit that can deliver 50V rms
> at less than 1% distortion with no feedback!"
Been there, done that.
But Lynn Olsen's statement is like saying "Try to find a car that will do
0-60 in ten seconds without an engine" because he specifies "no feedback".
In fact, most audio circuits have built-in feedback. Built-in feedback is
why triodes generally have less gain and less distortion in minimal
circuits, than pentodes. Loop feedback is generally added to built-in local
feedback to make all relevant circuit operation parameters as reliable as
possible.
Not to detract from some very good things that the article says if you take
them in a general way. For example:
"So, depending on the type of music you listen to, the spectral distribution
and class of distortion (symmetric vs. asymmetric) will affect the
subjective tonal character. It is much more complex than the simplistic "2nd
Harmonic is Always Better" guff reprinted in the popular press."
Is in some sense true. You can hear what Olsen says for yourself by
listening to musical samples downloaded from
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/nonlinear/index.htm
The sense that Olson's statement is untrue is that most modern audio
playback gear doesn't have readily audible nonlinear distortion of *any*
kind. And you'll find that out for yourself if you listen to the musical
samples, above.
You'll find that 10% nonlinear distortion isn't all that easy to hear unless
it is high order (i.e., fifth). You'll find that 1% nonlinear distortion of
any order isn't that easy to hear. And you'll find that 0.1% nonlinear
distortion is exceedingly difficult or impossible to hear. Note that there
is very little modern audio gear (outside speakers) with as much as 0.1%
nonlinear distortion as typically and properly used.
One of the things you have to realize is that back in the days when tubes
were all we had, it wasn't that uncommon for audio gear to have audible
nonlinear distortion, limited power (therefore clipping was more of an
issue) and audible frequency response characteristics.
Now adays, we've got CD players that have a minimum of 10 to 100 times less
distortion and noise than vinyl playback, and even cheap receivers have well
under 0.1% nonlinear distortion at typical listening levels.
If you could time travel and take a $80 100 wpc stereo receiver like the
Pioneer SX-205 to a circa 1960s McIntosh clinic and palm it off as being
rated at 80 wpc , the McIntosh engineers would measure it and have to skulk
off looking for clean britches. They would not believe their eyes,
particularly if you told them the price, particularly if you adjusted the
price for 40 years of inflation.
Even speakers have flatter response and less distortion than they did in the
days when tubes were all we had. For example in the days of tubes, one of
the most extended, low distortion woofers that was practical to use in a
living room was the AR-1 12" acoustic suspension woofer. Now adays, the
AR-1's bass extension and distortion can be matched by systems with 7 or 8"
woofers that double as pretty fair midrange speakers.
Arny Krueger
> Excerpt - Lynn Olsen
>
> This brief discussion of amplifiers is intended to point out how
> traditional measurements result in unwise decisions for amplifier
> design. The lower harmonics are nearly inaudible compared to the
> upper harmonics, yet they dominate almost any THD measurement! The
> meter is steering the designer, the reviewer, the dealer, and the
> consumer away from good sound.
Again, so far, so good.
> It's the classic tale of a drunk looking for his car keys under the
> street-light, even though he suspects he lost them in a completely
> different place. "The light is better here!" say the mainstream
> engineers, mass-marketers, and magazine reviewers - but the key to
> good sound sure isn't where the audio industry has been looking.
>
> If it were, why do stereo LP's made 40 years ago, amplified with
> 65-year-old direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today's
> digital sound played through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos? The
> differences between mass-fi and true high fidelity are as plain as
> day to an (open-minded) listener.
Absolute bunkum.
> We are in the odd position of discovering that as speakers get better
> and better, the true merits of vacuum-tube circuits become more and
> more evident. After all, even J. Gordon Holt gave the Crown DC-300
> transistor amplifier a Class "A" rating in 1971. At the time, the
> modestly-priced Dyna Stereo 70 received a lower rating - yet with
> modern speakers, the DC-300 is unlistenable, and the Dyna just keeps
> sounding better. The entry-level EL84 amps of the early Sixties
> (Scott 299, Eico, and Dyna SCA-35) sound remarkably natural and
> realistic with today's more efficient, and much more transparent,
> speakers.
Absolute bunkum.
> There is no reason to believe speakers will stop getting better,
> since all kinds of new innovations in materials science are on the
> horizon, and there are major advances in computer modelling
> techniques every year. Synthetic diamond cones, anyone?
True, although there's no evidence that diamond cones would provide audible
advantages.
> It's time to debunk the myth of "euphonic distortion" once and for
> all and discover the genuine and subtle sources of amplifier
> distortion that people are actually hearing.
Via DBTs we know that most "amplifier distortion" exists only in people's
heads.
>Once we find
> measurements that can actually help, rather than hinder, it'll be
> easier to build electronics that are friendly to the listener
Electronics aren't the problem - speakers and microphones are. We don't even
know what an ideal speaker and microphone should do, let alone make one.
Jim Lesurf
<aeatarts...@aol.comnohawker> wrote:
> Read the whole article at
> http://www.aloha-audio.com/library/FindingCG.html
If I get a chance I'll have a look. :-)
> excerpt - "try and find a transistor circuit that can deliver 50V rms at
> less than 1% distortion with no feedback!"
If they mean "into a loudspeaker load with an impedance between 4 and 8
Ohms" when considering domestic audio power amps, then I suspect you could
match this with:
"try to find a *valve* circuit that can deliver 50V rms at less than 1%
distortion and no feedback.!"
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
Jim Lesurf
<aeatarts...@aol.comnohawker> wrote:
> Excerpt - Lynn Olsen
> This brief discussion of amplifiers is intended to point out how
> traditional measurements result in unwise decisions for amplifier
> design.
This may be the case for both transistor and valve based amplifiers.
Depends upon the care with which measurements are made, how well they are
interpreted, and how relevant they may be to actual use with music.
> The lower harmonics are nearly inaudible compared to the upper
> harmonics,
The above statement makes various unspecified assumptions about the kind of
musical signal patterns being used, the other equipment, and the hearing of
the individual listener. Also about the actual levels of distortion, etc,
etc.
> yet they dominate almost any THD measurement! The meter is
> steering the designer, the reviewer, the dealer, and the consumer away
> from good sound.
That may be the case if the measurement fails to be appropriate and the
person reading the resulting values does not assess their relevance.
However if the distortion *is* low even with musical signals, then this
should not be a factor unless someone *likes* distortion. :-)
> It's the classic tale of a drunk looking for his car keys under the
> street-light, even though he suspects he lost them in a completely
> different place. "The light is better here!" say the mainstream
> engineers, mass-marketers, and magazine reviewers - but the key to good
> sound sure isn't where the audio industry has been looking.
I am not personally surprised if someone says that many reviews in
magazines are of doubtful value. However I'd tend to apply this to many
'reviews' which go no measured results at all, just as I would to those
which do, but fail to ensure they are relevant.
> If it were, why do stereo LP's made 40 years ago, amplified with
> 65-year-old direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today's
> digital sound played through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos?
Good question. :-) I'm not sure everyone here would offer the same
answer, though. One possibility is that people may sometimes actually
prefer a sound which is distorted or altered in some ways, whereas other
may not like such changes.
Another possibility is that such 'mass-fi' might use lousy
speakers, etc. No doubt there are other possibilities... :-)
> The differences between mass-fi and true high fidelity are as plain as
> day to an (open-minded) listener.
Maybe I am not as open-minded as I thought. My experience is that this
varys from case to case and I would be reluctant to make such a general
statement as if it were invariably correct.
> We are in the odd position of discovering that as speakers get better
> and better, the true merits of vacuum-tube circuits become more and more
> evident.
Not sure who "we" are here... :-) FWIW I use electrostatic speakers, but
prefer a transistor amp. So far as I am concerned this does not 'prove'
anything much beyond being what I prefer. ;->
> After all, even J. Gordon Holt gave the Crown DC-300 transistor
> amplifier a Class "A" rating in 1971. At the time, the modestly-priced
> Dyna Stereo 70 received a lower rating - yet with modern speakers, the
> DC-300 is unlistenable, and the Dyna just keeps sounding better. The
> entry-level EL84 amps of the early Sixties (Scott 299, Eico, and Dyna
> SCA-35) sound remarkably natural and realistic with today's more
> efficient, and much more transparent, speakers.
The above seems to assume I am American or have lived there. Since this is
not so for me, and I have no real personal experience of the amps quoted I
can't comment.
> It's time to debunk the myth of "euphonic distortion" once and for all
This may require evidence, though, as opposed to simple assertion. ;->
> and discover the genuine and subtle sources of amplifier distortion that
> people are actually hearing.
Indeed.
> Once we find measurements that can actually help, rather than hinder,
> it'll be easier to build electronics that are friendly to the listener
Hard to argue against that as a generalisation. May well lead to better
units of all types.
TBH I'm not quite sure why the above is meant to be a serious argument for
valve amps being 'better' than transistor ones. Seems to simply be saying
that any measurements need to be relevant and correctly understood. Beyond
that, it just seems to be some personal assertions. Have I missed
something?
FWIW I have no argument with, for example, proposals that simple THD is of
limited value in many cases. Just did a webpage on that. :-) Indeed, it
throws a nice light on 'valve' topologies and gives an argument that could
be said to be in their favour... :-)
Also curious that this posting and a previous one seem to focus on one form
of 'distortion' and ignore other factors - e.g. the relatively high output
impedance of many valve amps compared with typical transistor ones.
Julian Fowler
Evans) wrote:
>Excerpt - Lynn Olsen
<snip>
>If it were, why do stereo LP’s made 40 years ago, amplified with 65-year-old
>direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today’s digital sound played
>through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos?
Two points here:
* this is a highly subjective statement ("sound much better" is
entirely in the perception of the listener - some may agree with this,
others disagree)
* the LPs of 40 years ago were made on using technology that can only
be considered crude by today's standards, and they were made to be
played using equipment that, in most cases, would be put to shame by a
contemporary no-name mini system (I still recall my father's delight
at having his Decca record player retrofitted w/ a stereo cartridge,
one channel of which went through the original amp and (built-in)
speaker, the other to a matching box w/ a second amp and speaker). If
40 year old recordings sound poor on modern equipment, maybe that's
because the latter does all too good a job of revealing the
inadequacies of the former.
>The differences between mass-fi and
>true high fidelity are as plain as day to an (open-minded) listener.
>
>We are in the odd position of discovering that as speakers get better and
>better, the true merits of vacuum-tube circuits become more and more evident.
>After all, even J. Gordon Holt gave the Crown DC-300 transistor amplifier a
>Class "A" rating in 1971. At the time, the modestly-priced Dyna Stereo 70
>received a lower rating - yet with modern speakers, the DC-300 is unlistenable,
>and the Dyna just keeps sounding better. The entry-level EL84 amps of the early
>Sixties (Scott 299, Eico, and Dyna SCA-35) sound remarkably natural and
>realistic with today’s more efficient, and much more transparent, speakers.
Given that the components referred to above are US in origin, and US
"mass-fi" equipment has been historically a very poor cousin of UK
equivalents, I'm not sure how valid this comparison is.
Julian
--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk
Arny Krueger
news:4c16054...@st-and.demon.co.uk
> In article <20030722080709...@mb-m22.aol.com>, Andy Evans
> <aeatarts...@aol.comnohawker> wrote:
>> Read the whole article at
>> http://www.aloha-audio.com/library/FindingCG.html
> If I get a chance I'll have a look. :-)
>> excerpt - "try and find a transistor circuit that can deliver 50V
>> rms at less than 1% distortion with no feedback!"
> If they mean "into a loudspeaker load with an impedance between 4 and
> 8 Ohms" when considering domestic audio power amps, then I suspect
> you could match this with:
> "try to find a *valve* circuit that can deliver 50V rms at less than
> 1% distortion and no feedback.!"
This is an excellent point. First off, 50 volts RMS into 8 ohms is 312
watts, and tubed amps that put out 300+ watts are very rare. The McIntosh
amp used to drive LP cutting lathes comes to mind. MC 300, right?
Secondly, most tubed amps did have feedback - on the order of 10-20 dB or
more, depending what you counted.
The McIntosh had both loop feedback and cathode-coupled feedback through
special windings on the output transformer, for example.
The essence of the "Ultra Linear" output transformer was local feedback in
the output stage for another example.
Both these amps had loop feedback on top of the local feedback through the
output transformer.
Bottom line: Lynn Olsen is talking trash.
RJH
"Julian Fowler" <jul...@bellevue-barn.org.uk> wrote in message
news:bajqhvg2so2mji22n...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Jul 2003 13:05:13 GMT, aeatarts...@aol.comnohawker (Andy
> Evans) wrote:
>
> * the LPs of 40 years ago were made on using technology that can only
> be considered crude by today's standards, and they were made to be
> played using equipment that, in most cases, would be put to shame by a
> contemporary no-name mini system (I still recall my father's delight
> at having his Decca record player retrofitted w/ a stereo cartridge,
> one channel of which went through the original amp and (built-in)
> speaker, the other to a matching box w/ a second amp and speaker). If
> 40 year old recordings sound poor on modern equipment, maybe that's
> because the latter does all too good a job of revealing the
> inadequacies of the former.
> Julian
>
> --
> Julian Fowler
> julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk
My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an
original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not
forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and
LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the
quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They
must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.
Don't know about all the valve stuff I'm afraid. Don't understand the
technical bits and never had the opportunity to listen. But if nothing else
it's made me think that there might be something in it after all given the
'passion' here ;-)
Rob
Arny Krueger
> * the LPs of 40 years ago were made on using technology that can only
> be considered crude by today's standards, and they were made to be
> played using equipment that, in most cases, would be put to shame by a
> contemporary no-name mini system (I still recall my father's delight
> at having his Decca record player retrofitted w/ a stereo cartridge,
> one channel of which went through the original amp and (built-in)
> speaker, the other to a matching box w/ a second amp and speaker). If
> 40 year old recordings sound poor on modern equipment, maybe that's
> because the latter does all too good a job of revealing the
> inadequacies of the former.
Amen, brother.
Stewart Pinkerton
Evans) wrote:
>Read the whole article at http://www.aloha-audio.com/library/FindingCG.html
>
>excerpt - "try and find a transistor circuit that can deliver 50V rms at less
>than 1% distortion with no feedback!"
Try and find any valve circuit that can do this - into a speaker
load......
*All* amps use feedback, but some don't use *global* feedback, leading
to a common claim about 'zero feedback' valve amps.
BTW, the answer to your question is any Krell FPB series amp from the
FPB300 up. They don't use global feedback. Also, there are damn few
valve amps capable of delivering 300 watts to an 8 ohm load, which
requires 49 volts rms. There are however many such SS amps - and they
can maintain their output voltage much better into real-world speaker
loads which dip to 3 ohms or less.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
Evans) wrote:
>Excerpt - Lynn Olsen
>
>This brief discussion of amplifiers is intended to point out how traditional
>measurements result in unwise decisions for amplifier design. The lower
>harmonics are nearly inaudible compared to the upper harmonics, yet they
>dominate almost any THD measurement! The meter is steering the designer, the
>reviewer, the dealer, and the consumer away from good sound.
>
>It’s the classic tale of a drunk looking for his car keys under the
>street-light, even though he suspects he lost them in a completely different
>place. "The light is better here!" say the mainstream engineers,
>mass-marketers, and magazine reviewers — but the key to good sound sure
>isn’t where the audio industry has been looking.
See Jim's post for a good debunk of the above.
>If it were, why do stereo LP’s made 40 years ago, amplified with 65-year-old
>direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today’s digital sound played
>through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos?
Who says that they do?
> The differences between mass-fi and
>true high fidelity are as plain as day to an (open-minded) listener.
Very true, but luckily true high fidelity can now be had for
mass-market money - if you avoid valves, of course.......
>We are in the odd position of discovering that as speakers get better and
>better, the true merits of vacuum-tube circuits become more and more evident.
What 'merits'?
>After all, even J. Gordon Holt gave the Crown DC-300 transistor amplifier a
>Class "A" rating in 1971. At the time, the modestly-priced Dyna Stereo 70
>received a lower rating - yet with modern speakers, the DC-300 is unlistenable,
>and the Dyna just keeps sounding better.
Er no, the Dyna keeps sounding warm and mushy, like it always did. You
can't just jump from 'true high fidelity' to the classic rose-tinted
sound of the Strereo 70 without comment.
> The entry-level EL84 amps of the early
>Sixties (Scott 299, Eico, and Dyna SCA-35) sound remarkably natural and
>realistic with today’s more efficient, and much more transparent, speakers.
Yes, and so do small Class A SS amps like the Sugdens.
>There is no reason to believe speakers will stop getting better, since all
>kinds of new innovations in materials science are on the horizon, and there are
>major advances in computer modelling techniques every year. Synthetic diamond
>cones, anyone?
Very true, and they will continue to expose the technical deficiencies
of valve amps.......
>It’s time to debunk the myth of "euphonic distortion" once and for all and
>discover the genuine and subtle sources of amplifier distortion that people are
>actually hearing. Once we find measurements that can actually help, rather than
>hinder, it'll be easier to build electronics that are friendly to the listener
Even better, use SS amps which often have distortion products well
below their (very low) noise floor...............
I'll happily put up my trusty old Audiolab 8000P against *any* valve
amp at *any* price.
Nick Gorham
> *All* amps use feedback, but some don't use *global* feedback, leading
> to a common claim about 'zero feedback' valve amps.
Been thinking about this, where is the feedback in a triode, with a
NiCad between its cathode and ground ?
I use this in my phono stage, and I can't for the life of me, see any
feedback.
--
Nick
Chris Morriss
<ni...@lurcher.org> writes
The low internal impedance in a triode is because of the internal
feedback between the anode and the grid. Although the feedback
mechanism is obvious at high frequencies (Miller effect) the varying
voltage on the anode couples to the grid as an NFB mechanism even at LF.
Thinking of directly heated triodes, I see the pair of DA100s that I'm
selling on Ebay are up to 186 pounds.
--
Chris Morriss
Chesney Christ
>If it were, why do stereo LP’s made 40 years ago, amplified with 65-year-old
>direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today’s digital sound played
>through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos?
At one fell swoop, the author totally destroys his own credibility.
--
"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com
Chesney Christ
>My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an
>original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not
>forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and
>LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the
>quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They
>must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.
No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded
masters. Unfortunately a lot of CDs use those original cutting master
tapes, and they reveal this compression well. This is not the fault of
CD, it is caused by poor quality source material.
Some of the vinyl enthusiasts on this group will tell you that vinyl
sounds just fine even after it has been digitally recorded. This
suggests several things, (1) CD/digital can record source material
sufficiently well to be almost completely transparent; (2) to repeat (1)
in a different way - the act of recording the vinyl onto CD doesn't
remove the so-called "warmth"; and (3) the "warmth" that people refer to
is a characteristic of vinyl, caused mostly by distortion, compression
and other imperfections.
Andy Evans
NiCad between its cathode and ground ?>>
That's what I was wondering.
MiNe 109
Chesney Christ <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
>
> >My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an
> >original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not
> >forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and
> >LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the
> >quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They
> >must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.
>
> No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
> were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded
> masters...
Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not
all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd. Second, some eq is
meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the
medium. In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be
considered 'broken', as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.
You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good
sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed).
Stephen
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
It's in the total impedance to ground, including the internal
resistances of the NiCad and the triode cathode, also the internal
feedback from anode to grid. That's why the pentode was developed, to
reduce this internal feedback and thereby increase gain.
To be fair, this is certainly about as low a feedback value as you can
get from a triode, with the NiCad bias!
Arny Krueger
news:smcatut-C7D23C...@newsr4.texas.rr.com
> In article <Mr6NogO3SaH$Ew...@ntlworld.com>,
> Chesney Christ <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
>>
>>> My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I
>>> think) and an original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well
>>> as the music let's not forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles
>>> stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and LP). I bought a few remastered
>>> Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the quality compared to the
>>> record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They must have got
>>> something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.
>>
>> No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
>> were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original
>> recorded masters...
>
> Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not
> all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd.
The compression is a variable, the equalization is pretty much a given.
> Second, some eq is
> meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the
> medium. In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be
> considered 'broken', as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.
The problem with this wild-add theory is that the natural frequency response
of the LP medium varies tremendously from playback system to playback
system.
> You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good
> sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed).
Since no reliable independent standard has been cited for "good sounding",
you're talking out the back of your neck.
Arny Krueger
news:1OScnYpZVbL...@giganews.com
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:50:27 +0100, Chesney Christ used
> <nrDH4+NTOaH$Ew...@ntlworld.com> to say...
>
>> A certain Andy Evans, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
>>
>>> If it were, why do stereo LP's made 40 years ago, amplified with
>>> 65-year-old direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than
>>> today's digital sound played through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack
>>> stereos?
>>
>> At one fell swoop, the author totally destroys his own credibility.
>
> everywhere.
Such a gentleman!
So intellectual!
LOL!
Chesney Christ
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:50:27 +0100, Chesney Christ used
><nrDH4+NTOaH$Ew...@ntlworld.com> to say...
>
>>
>>>If it were, why do stereo LP’s made 40 years ago, amplified with 65-year-old
>>>direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today’s digital sound played
>>>through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos?
>>
>>At one fell swoop, the author totally destroys his own credibility.
>
The problem is nothing to do with digital, or bigotry. It's that the
author simply said that the recording "sounds better" and we're simply
expected to accept it.
As we already well know on this group, rightly or wrongly, different
people have a different idea of what "sounds better" means. Some people
think distortion, compression and heavy EQ applied to the recording
prior to production improves the sound. And fair play to them. Some of
us think that precise reproduction sounds better. Fair play to us as
well.
Chesney Christ
>> No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
>> were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded
>> masters...
>
>Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not
>all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd.
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.
>Second, some eq is
>meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the
>medium.
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. From that point
forth, mass production is singularly concerned with reproducing that
master tape as closely as possible.
It is possible to further alter it as required for the target audience,
and this is often done for pop music, but it is incorrect to say that
this is "necessary" and it is bunkum to talk about it being
"complimentary" to anything. Digital's natural frequency response, when
properly aligned and set up, is ruler flat so no EQ is necessary. It
will reproduce the recorded work *exactly* if it is required to do so,
as is frequently the case with classical recordings and on any music
intended to be listened to by serious musophiles.
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. 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.
> In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be
>considered 'broken',
It certainly would be broken - without extensive EQ and compression the
resulting LP would be unplayable, and the cutting lathe could be
seriously damaged (notwithstanding technological developments in the 80s
which enhanced this situation - albeit too late). These are PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS, and are absolutely nothing to do with making the music
more enjoyable. They are necessary for the music to be playable in the
first place. It's that simple.
>as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.
Another nasty idiosyncrasy, completely unnecessary with the advent of
digital.
>You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good
>sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed).
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.
To get the best out of the CD you need to go back to the master tape and
do a direct cut, straight over to the digital. Then you'll be in a
position to hear all the bits that they had to remove from the LP.
Nick Gorham
> In message <3f1d902a$0$18492$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>, Nick Gorham
> <ni...@lurcher.org> writes
>
>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>> *All* amps use feedback, but some don't use *global* feedback, leading
>>> to a common claim about 'zero feedback' valve amps.
>>
>>
>> Been thinking about this, where is the feedback in a triode, with a
>> NiCad between its cathode and ground ?
>>
>> I use this in my phono stage, and I can't for the life of me, see any
>> feedback.
>>
>> --
>> Nick
>>
>
> The low internal impedance in a triode is because of the internal
> feedback between the anode and the grid. Although the feedback
> mechanism is obvious at high frequencies (Miller effect) the varying
> voltage on the anode couples to the grid as an NFB mechanism even at LF.
Yes I can see that, didn't think of it a feedback, but you are right.
Don't quite see how that leads to Miller, but thats probably my lack of
understanding. Should be able to fix that given time :-)
--
Nick
MiNe 109
Chesney Christ <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
> >> No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
> >> were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded
> >> masters...
> >
> >Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not
> >all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd.
>
> 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.
The only difference is a non-destructible mastering stage instead of a
lp production mastertape.
> >Second, some eq is
> >meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the
> >medium.
>
> 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.
> 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 or have you
forgotten about cassette tapes? DAB? If Flexi-discs made the most money,
that's all we'd see in the shops.
> It is possible to further alter it as required for the target audience,
> and this is often done for pop music, but it is incorrect to say that
> this is "necessary" and it is bunkum to talk about it being
> "complimentary" to anything.
I'll bet you refused to use your cassette Dolby switch.
> Digital's natural frequency response, when
> properly aligned and set up, is ruler flat so no EQ is necessary. It
> will reproduce the recorded work *exactly* if it is required to do so,
> as is frequently the case with classical recordings and on any music
> intended to be listened to by serious musophiles.
>
> 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. Surprising how good the result can
be.
> 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 think he would laugh in your face it you said he
wouldn't.
It doesn't matter if the amount of eq is a little or a lot, it should be
the exact right amount for the purpose.
And it's "complement".
> > In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be
> >considered 'broken',
>
> It certainly would be broken - without extensive EQ and compression the
> resulting LP would be unplayable, and the cutting lathe could be
> seriously damaged (notwithstanding technological developments in the 80s
> which enhanced this situation - albeit too late). These are PRACTICAL
> CONSIDERATIONS, and are absolutely nothing to do with making the music
> more enjoyable. They are necessary for the music to be playable in the
> first place. It's that simple.
Omelettes, eggs.
> >as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.
>
> Another nasty idiosyncrasy, completely unnecessary with the advent of
> digital.
But sonically transparent. How about the "nasty idiosyncrasies" of
digital, all those nasty high frequency artifacts that have to be
filtered out?
> >You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good
> >sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed).
>
> 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. Without the compensations of vinyl, of course it will sound
strange. However, this is a record company problem, not a fault of the
medium.
> To get the best out of the CD you need to go back to the master tape and
> do a direct cut, straight over to the digital. Then you'll be in a
> position to hear all the bits that they had to remove from the LP.
Removed from the lp? Better lock the doors before they take any more
away...
Stephen
MiNe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
What an odd thing to say. The standard for "good sounding" is the
opinion of RJH. Too bad about the American Hendrix pressings or I'd have
an opinion, too.
Stephen
Dave Plowman
Don't think it would be a good idea to use the RIAA curve on a tape...
--
*There's no place like www.home.com *
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
Dave Plowman
> less than 1% distortion with no feedback!"
Into what load? The only thing domestically that needs 50v rms is a
loudspeaker...
--
*I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you
MrBitsy
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:FjWdnQLLL-N...@comcast.com...
Rubbish. I have a 25 year old deck going through a Roksan Kandy Mk3 amp and
Quad 11L speakers. On certain recording its sounds better to me than my CD
player. Of course, certain CD recording sound better to me than the vinyl.
MrBitsy.
Julian Fowler
<raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote:
>
>"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>news:FjWdnQLLL-N...@comcast.com...
>> "Julian Fowler" <jul...@bellevue-barn.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:bajqhvg2so2mji22n...@4ax.com
>>
>> > * the LPs of 40 years ago were made on using technology that can only
>> > be considered crude by today's standards, and they were made to be
>> > played using equipment that, in most cases, would be put to shame by a
>> > contemporary no-name mini system (I still recall my father's delight
>> > at having his Decca record player retrofitted w/ a stereo cartridge,
>> > one channel of which went through the original amp and (built-in)
>> > speaker, the other to a matching box w/ a second amp and speaker). If
>> > 40 year old recordings sound poor on modern equipment, maybe that's
>> > because the latter does all too good a job of revealing the
>> > inadequacies of the former.
(I should have added to my original note that modern reproduction
equipment can also reveal how appallingly some recordings have been
mastered for CD!)
>> Amen, brother.
>>
>
>Rubbish.
What specifically is "rubbish"?
>I have a 25 year old deck going through a Roksan Kandy Mk3 amp and
>Quad 11L speakers. On certain recording its sounds better to me than my CD
>player. Of course, certain CD recording sound better to me than the vinyl.
I think that we're actually agreeing here: firstly that there's no
point in generalizing, secondly that recordings from the pre-digital
era may well sound better on analogue equipment. After all, n
original 7" of Martha Reeves and the Vandellas "Dancin' In The
Streets" sounds better on a mid-60s Dansette cranked to the limit :-)
Dave Plowman
MrBitsy <raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote:
> Rubbish. I have a 25 year old deck going through a Roksan Kandy Mk3 amp
> and Quad 11L speakers. On certain recording its sounds better to me than
> my CD player.
Then you're listening to a poorly recorded CD.
> Of course, certain CD recording sound better to me than
> the vinyl.
That's the norm.
--
*Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
Jim Lesurf
<cr...@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The low internal impedance in a triode is because of the internal
> feedback between the anode and the grid. Although the feedback
> mechanism is obvious at high frequencies (Miller effect) the varying
> voltage on the anode couples to the grid as an NFB mechanism even at LF.
> Thinking of directly heated triodes, I see the pair of DA100s that I'm
> selling on Ebay are up to 186 pounds.
Hmmm. Perhaps I should have sold the PX4's and PX25's I had on ebay!
:-)
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
Nick Gorham
> In article <6evhU3BJBaH$Ew...@oroboros.demon.co.uk>, Chris Morriss
> <cr...@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The low internal impedance in a triode is because of the internal
>>feedback between the anode and the grid. Although the feedback
>>mechanism is obvious at high frequencies (Miller effect) the varying
>>voltage on the anode couples to the grid as an NFB mechanism even at LF.
>
>
>>Thinking of directly heated triodes, I see the pair of DA100s that I'm
>>selling on Ebay are up to 186 pounds.
>
>
> Hmmm. Perhaps I should have sold the PX4's and PX25's I had on ebay!
> :-)
>
> Slainte,
>
> Jim
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3036416863&category=14973
--
Nick
Keith G
> Rubbish. I have a 25 year old deck going through a Roksan Kandy Mk3 amp
and
> Quad 11L speakers. On certain recording its sounds better to me than my CD
> player. Of course, certain CD recording sound better to me than the vinyl.
For the record Ray, your '25 year old deck' was *twice* the price of a Linn
Sondek at the time......
;-)
Chris Morriss
The A-G capacitance, together with the source impedance of the signal
feeding the grid create a Miller (or Blumlein) integrator.
--
Chris Morriss
Chesney Christ
>> 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 ?
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.
>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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> >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.
> 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.
>> 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.
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.
> 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 ?
MiNe 109
Chesney Christ <thegreat...@hotmail.com> 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.
Arny Krueger
> In article <PYL90AQz5uH$Ew...@ntlworld.com>,
> Chesney Christ <thegreat...@hotmail.com> 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.
Think of it as a compromise between human manipulation and an inadequate
medium 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.
It's a kludge.
>>> 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.
Think of the music that the musicians produced as a camel. Think of the
inadequacies of the LP media as the eye of a needle. Think of LP mastering
as the business of forcing a camel through the eye of a needle.
>>>> 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.
Think of the limitations of LP playback as trying to play a full symphony in
a room with the acoustics of a tile bathroom.
>
>>>> 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.
99.5% of all music lovers can't be bothered with LPs. It's only a tiny noisy
minority of iconoclasts that keep bringing them up on audio newsgroups.
>>>> 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.
The turntable becomes an end in itself.
>>>> 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.
Per the red book standard, not ad-hoc manipulation by mastering engineers
>>>>> 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/amplification 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.
The bottom line is that the LP production and playback process is inadequate
to handle the dynamic range of live music, while the CD format can easily
handle it with dynamic range to spare.
>>> 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.
Red Book digital is sonically transparent including the player/DAC The LP
production/playback process has always left audible artifacts.
>>>> 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.
The road to LP sonic hell is paved with intentions of making 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.
The only reason why I ride the mouse of my DAW is to cover up the technical
inadequacies of musicians.
>>> 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.
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.
MiNe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> 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
Arny Krueger
Easy to explain except you deleted all your own incriminating words, and I
don't feel like cleaning up your mess.
MiNe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "MiNe 109" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:smcatut-17321B...@newsr3.texas.rr.com
> > In article <VPudna1POK4...@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> 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.
Stephen
Arny Krueger
Just responding to a classic Stephen dodge.
Chesney Christ
>> 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.
If I thought that, I'd be wrong. The master tape is the completed work,
from which all copies are derived. The artist rarely has control over
the duplication/distribution process, the record company does that. It
is arguable whether or not LP mastering is an artistic process; it isn't
done to add anything to or enhance the work, although it certainly takes
a great deal of skill and expertise to do it well.
>> 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.
True. I am not contradicting that.
>> "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.
> All kinds of weird
>stuff happens in mastering, digital or otherwise.
Yes, so ?
>There's no guarantee
>that anything is an exact copy of anything at the consumer level.
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.
>What
>do you think a remix is? They have them in classical, too.
A remix is a re-interpretation of the work, often done prior to
mastering. In your typical chart remix, the voices are derived from the
multitrack tape. So this is irrelevant to what we're talking about.
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.
>> 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.
> 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.
Yes there is.
>One can remix; one can remaster.
Remixing is creating a new "final master tape". I am not disputing that.
This is effectively a different work of art, therefore a different
master. Bringing this up is missing the point.
> 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.
A producer who would do so would be an idiot. If the master doesn't
sound right, tweaking it later is to wallpaper over the cracks. Better
to go back to the multitrack tapes and nail it right at the start. I
won't dispute that other people will see it differently though, but this
doesn't alter the point that further editing beyond the final mastering
tape is *not necessary*.
>> 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.
If they can be found, and if the listener likes the distortion,
compression, EQ, crackling and surface noise.
>> 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.
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).
>> >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.
Now and then ?
>> 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. 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.
>> 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.
You are altering your use of words a lot. I do not dispute that LP
mastering is intended to make good sounding records. But to state that
is redundant. Why would anyone set out to make a bad sounding record ?
>> 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.
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.
MiNe 109
Chesney Christ <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
>
> >> 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.
>
> If I thought that, I'd be wrong. The master tape is the completed work,
> from which all copies are derived. The artist rarely has control over
> the duplication/distribution process, the record company does that.
> It is arguable whether or not LP mastering is an artistic process; it isn't
> done to add anything to or enhance the work, although it certainly takes
> a great deal of skill and expertise to do it well.
I can't help you with your master tape fetish. Master tapes are just
another step in the delivery process.
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.
> >> 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.
>
> True. I am not contradicting that.
Then it's not wrong to use one to make lps.
> >> "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).
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.
One can imagine the producer wondering, "Was that sacred expression of
intent ten 'undos' back or eleven?"
> > All kinds of weird
> > stuff happens in mastering, digital or otherwise.
>
> Yes, so ?
So why the big deal about eq'ing lp masters?
> >There's no guarantee
> >that anything is an exact copy of anything at the consumer level.
>
> 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.
> >What
> >do you think a remix is? They have them in classical, too.
>
> A remix is a re-interpretation of the work, often done prior to
> mastering. In your typical chart remix, the voices are derived from the
> multitrack tape. So this is irrelevant to what we're talking about.
> 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?
> >> 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.
> > 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.
>
> Yes there is.
Until you make another one.
> >One can remix; one can remaster.
>
> Remixing is creating a new "final master tape". I am not disputing that.
> This is effectively a different work of art, therefore a different
> master. Bringing this up is missing the point.
Sanctity of the master, etc.
> > 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.
>
> A producer who would do so would be an idiot.
Mr. Christ, meet Sir George Martin.
> If the master doesn't
> sound right, tweaking it later is to wallpaper over the cracks. Better
> to go back to the multitrack tapes and nail it right at the start. I
> won't dispute that other people will see it differently though, but this
> doesn't alter the point that further editing beyond the final mastering
> tape is *not necessary*.
Semantics. A master is just a moment in the decision process. If you get
it wrong, you'd be a fool not to try again.
> >> 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.
>
> If they can be found, and if the listener likes the distortion,
> compression, EQ, crackling and surface noise.
Take it as given.
> >> 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.
>
> 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.
> >> >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.
>
> Now and then ?
Not often.
> >> 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.
> 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.
> >> 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.
>
> You are altering your use of words a lot. I do not dispute that LP
> mastering is intended to make good sounding records. But to state that
> is redundant. Why would anyone set out to make a bad sounding record ?
You "correct" my spelling several times and I'm the one altering my
usage?
> >> 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.
>
> 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, sorta like how keeping phase consistent is
important for studio headphone monitoring but benefits playback on good
home systems.
Dave Plowman
MiNe 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> 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.*
MiNe 109
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smcatut-EE4DF1...@newsr3.texas.rr.com>,
> MiNe 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> 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
MiNe 109
> In article <smcatut-EE4DF1...@newsr3.texas.rr.com>,
> MiNe 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> 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
Dave Plowman
MiNe 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> 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 *
Chesney Christ
>> 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 ?
Chesney Christ
>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 fucks 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.
MiNe 109
Chesney Christ <thegreat...@hotmail.com> 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
MiNe 109
Chesney Christ <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Arguing by definition again... Recording master, mixing master,
production master, glass master, stamping master, etc.
> >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.
Generally they have a say accepting or rejecting test pressings.
> >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.
A recent example: the stereo version of "My Generation". The feedback
inserts have gone missing, so the only 'real' version is the production
master (and the vinyl releases). How about the live radio in "I Am The
Walrus"? IIRC, the waves and seagulls bit in "(Sittin' on) The Dock of
the Bay" is another example.
Not common, no, but it happens.
> >> >> "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.
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.
A digital production master is just another tape or disc. A cutting
master is an object. I was making that distinction.
> >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.
Not so easily.
> >> > 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 fucks the sound up.
Not necessarily. There's plenty of program material that *doesn't*
stretch lp limits.
> >> 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.
Last time I checked, a substantial portion of the Billboard pop chart
was available 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.
But there can only be one real one, right?
> >> >> 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 ?
No, but I've hired them, and mastering engineers as well.
> >> 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.
Not the 78 rpm variety.
> >> >> 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.
We call that "tape hiss".
> >> 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.
Nothing I do at home interferes 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.
You blame mastering engineers for today's pop sound? You really aren't
in the industry, are you?
Dave Plowman
MiNe 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> 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!
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.
It's not a good idea to believe everything you see on films or TV.
Trust me. ;-)
--
*To be intoxicated is to feel sophisticated, but not be able to say it.
Chesney Christ
>> 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" ?
>> 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.
>> Because it fucks the sound up.
>
>Not necessarily. There's plenty of program material that *doesn't*
>stretch lp limits.
Like what ?
>> 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 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.
MiNe 109
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smcatut-7D62EE...@newsr2.texas.rr.com>,
> MiNe 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> 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!
>
> 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.
If we're talking about pre-automation days, going back to the multitrack
for a completely new mix might not be the easiest way to do things.
> It's not a good idea to believe everything you see on films or TV.
> Trust me. ;-)
It wasn't "Phantom of the Paradise" if that's what you mean.
Stephen
MiNe 109
Chesney Christ <thegreat...@hotmail.com> 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 fucks 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.
Chesney Christ
>> 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.
Dave Plowman
MiNe 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> 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.
--
*Laugh alone and the world thinks you're an idiot.
MiNe 109
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smcatut-8B36A0...@newsr2.texas.rr.com>,
> MiNe 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> 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
MiNe 109
Chesney Christ <thegreat...@hotmail.com> 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.
MiNE 109
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smcatut-8CFA77...@newsr1.texas.rr.com>,
> MiNe 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> 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?
Stephen
--
--
Stephen McElroy <smcel...@earthlink.net>
Dave Plowman
> 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?
Arny Krueger
"MiNE 109" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:smcatut-127DF6...@newsr2.texas.rr.com...
A derivative work of art.
Stephen McElroy
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
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?
MiNE 109
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smcatut-127DF6...@newsr2.texas.rr.com>,
> MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> 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.
Pros use the term quite a bit. Count the sticky tabs that come with a
DAT that say "master".
There are cases in which the master tape doesn't have everything heard
on the commercial issue. It's still the master tape.
> 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".
> It's exclusively a multi-track term.
Sigh. If it's exclusively multi-track, what's it "dubbing over"?
Stephen
Dave Plowman
MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> 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.
> 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.
> > 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. Overdubbing is a precise term which means replacing
one track - or part of a track - with another - not bouncing down a
generation.
> > 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.
--
*When the going gets tough, use duct tape
Arny Krueger
news:smcatut-46FA75...@newsr2.texas.rr.com
Now that was nice and irrelevant of you Stephen, wasn't it?
MiNE 109
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smcatut-8BBE10...@newsr2.texas.rr.com>,
> MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> 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/mar01/articles/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 ã 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
MiNE 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Stephen McElroy" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:smcatut-46FA75...@newsr2.texas.rr.com
> > In article <umWdnXAkRNw...@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNE 109" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:smcatut-127DF6...@newsr2.texas.rr.com...
> >>> In article <4c177e74f9...@argonet.co.uk>,
> >>> Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <smcatut-8CFA77...@newsr1.texas.rr.com>,
> >>>> MiNe 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> 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?
It was exactly to the point. The "art" is in the end product, especially
when that end product has features unique to it (and missing from the
master tape). No way can this hypothetical lp be "derivative". To say so
is to prefer an incomplete and unknowable stage to a complete one.
I prefer "My Generation" with feedback, thanks.
Stephen
MiNE 109
MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> while listening back to those already recorded ‹ a process known as
Easy now!
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 its supremacy. For instance, US collectors accept lp
Chesney Christ
>> Now that was nice and irrelevant of you Stephen, wasn't it?
>
>It was exactly to the point. The "art" is in the end product, especially
>when that end product has features unique to it (and missing from the
>master tape). No way can this hypothetical lp be "derivative". To say so
>is to prefer an incomplete and unknowable stage to a complete one.
Our disagreement here is that the master *is* complete in the majority
of cases, and that the LP cutting master is the derivative which is
created purely for pragmatic, rather than artistic, reasons.
Altering the work after it has been mastered is something you'd usually
only do if you don't have the time or the resources to go back to the
master tape itself. It doesn't seem like something people would do
voluntarily.
MiNE 109
MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
<snip>
Well, that didn't go as expected. Sorry for the mangled post. I was
trying to correct an incorrect word.
Stephen
MiNE 109
Chesney Christ <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
>
> >> Now that was nice and irrelevant of you Stephen, wasn't it?
> >
> >It was exactly to the point. The "art" is in the end product, especially
> >when that end product has features unique to it (and missing from the
> >master tape). No way can this hypothetical lp be "derivative". To say so
> >is to prefer an incomplete and unknowable stage to a complete one.
>
> Our disagreement here is that the master *is* complete in the majority
> of cases, and that the LP cutting master is the derivative which is
> created purely for pragmatic, rather than artistic, reasons.
No disagreement here on the first part. The second part is debatable
because the pragmatic doesn't preclude the artistic. Indeed, pragmatic
limits can be a spur to creativity.
> Altering the work after it has been mastered is something you'd usually
> only do if you don't have the time or the resources to go back to the
> master tape itself. It doesn't seem like something people would do
> voluntarily.
It's easier than ever to do these days, especially if there's no master
*tape*.
Stephen
Chesney Christ
>> Our disagreement here is that the master *is* complete in the majority
>> of cases, and that the LP cutting master is the derivative which is
>> created purely for pragmatic, rather than artistic, reasons.
>
>No disagreement here on the first part. The second part is debatable
>because the pragmatic doesn't preclude the artistic. Indeed, pragmatic
>limits can be a spur to creativity.
Not in this case, as that extra creative step doesn't get applied to
non-LP formats.
>> Altering the work after it has been mastered is something you'd usually
>> only do if you don't have the time or the resources to go back to the
>> master tape itself. It doesn't seem like something people would do
>> voluntarily.
>
>It's easier than ever to do these days, especially if there's no master
>*tape*.
Yes, as the computer can just record everything you did and rebuild the
master from scratch from the source material. But if you do it a second
time and tweak it, you have a new "master". The point is not whether
it's better or worse (it may be either or none), just that it's
different.
MiNE 109
Chesney Christ <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
>
> >> Our disagreement here is that the master *is* complete in the majority
> >> of cases, and that the LP cutting master is the derivative which is
> >> created purely for pragmatic, rather than artistic, reasons.
> >
> >No disagreement here on the first part. The second part is debatable
> >because the pragmatic doesn't preclude the artistic. Indeed, pragmatic
> >limits can be a spur to creativity.
>
> Not in this case, as that extra creative step doesn't get applied to
> non-LP formats.
Nonsense. The creative step can be from the onset, including all media.
> >> Altering the work after it has been mastered is something you'd usually
> >> only do if you don't have the time or the resources to go back to the
> >> master tape itself. It doesn't seem like something people would do
> >> voluntarily.
> >
> >It's easier than ever to do these days, especially if there's no master
> >*tape*.
>
> Yes, as the computer can just record everything you did and rebuild the
> master from scratch from the source material. But if you do it a second
> time and tweak it, you have a new "master". The point is not whether
> it's better or worse (it may be either or none), just that it's
> different.
Yes, indeed.
Dave Plowman
MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> 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.
In the cutting engineers lab to bring you back on topic?
So you assemble the entire orchestra and vocals, do an identical mix on
your portable mixer, arrange for a sync output to feed all their cans, and
do your overdub.
Yes it's possible. ;-)
--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her
Dave Plowman
MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Well, that didn't go as expected. Sorry for the mangled post. I was
> trying to correct an incorrect word.
You should have overdubbed it.
--
*Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment *
Arny Krueger
I said "derivative work of art" which is to say that the final product is a
work of art in itself.
>No way can this hypothetical lp be "derivative".
The phrase "derivative work" as applied to works of art is generally
accepted and has legal meaning and standing. I'm surprised that it throws
you for a mental loop. Look it up!
>To say so is to prefer an incomplete and unknowable stage to a complete
one.
Stephen, you're barking up a tree of your own misunderstanding.
> I prefer "My Generation" with feedback, thanks.
I wish you were more knowledgeable, Stephen. I think it would make about 80%
of our conflicts go away.
Arny Krueger
> In article <LgpQ5vN7EYJ$Ew...@ntlworld.com>,
> Chesney Christ <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
>>
>>>> Now that was nice and irrelevant of you Stephen, wasn't it?
>>>
>>> It was exactly to the point. The "art" is in the end product,
>>> especially when that end product has features unique to it (and
>>> missing from the master tape). No way can this hypothetical lp be
>>> "derivative". To say so is to prefer an incomplete and unknowable
>>> stage to a complete one.
>>
>> Our disagreement here is that the master *is* complete in the
>> majority of cases, and that the LP cutting master is the derivative
>> which is created purely for pragmatic, rather than artistic, reasons.
>
> No disagreement here on the first part. The second part is debatable
> because the pragmatic doesn't preclude the artistic. Indeed, pragmatic
> limits can be a spur to creativity.
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.
Now what does one say about the mosaic? Legally and ethically, it's a
derivative work. The creatorship and ownership of the art remains with the
original artist who painted the oil painting until he transfers ownership
to someone else. Creatorship is his forever.
If the craftsman tries to do anything with his mosaic without respecting the
wishes of the owner of the original oil painting, his efforts are at best
tainted and possibly illegal. The craftsman who made the mosaic can't claim
that the art is all his.
Furthermore, there is no question that the mosaic is not an accurate
representation of the original work of art. The mosaic is forever condemned
to a subordinate place in the artistic scheme of things. The painting is the
original work of art, and that is that. The mosaic is a derivative work.
>> Altering the work after it has been mastered is something you'd
>> usually only do if you don't have the time or the resources to go
>> back to the master tape itself. It doesn't seem like something
>> people would do voluntarily.
>
> It's easier than ever to do these days, especially if there's no
> master *tape*.
There is still a master recording. This is begging the question or simply
ignorance.
Arny Krueger
> In article <bUvUUmVgWaJ$Ew...@ntlworld.com>,
> Chesney Christ <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
>>
>>>> Our disagreement here is that the master *is* complete in the
>>>> majority of cases, and that the LP cutting master is the
>>>> derivative which is created purely for pragmatic, rather than
>>>> artistic, reasons.
>>>
>>> No disagreement here on the first part. The second part is
>>> debatable because the pragmatic doesn't preclude the artistic.
>>> Indeed, pragmatic limits can be a spur to creativity.
>>
>> Not in this case, as that extra creative step doesn't get applied to
>> non-LP formats.
>
> Nonsense. The creative step can be from the onset, including all
> media.
There's some truth to this. In the days when LP was king, recordings were
created from the onset with the limitations of the LP media in mind. IOW,
the limitations of the media limited the creativity of the artists. There
were a great many things that could be played, but not distributed to
listeners. As LP technology improved, artists worked with fewer limitations.
However, there were always limitations. With CD media there are essentially
no artistic limitations. If it can be played, it can be recorded and
delivered accurately to listeners.
MiNE 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
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.
> >> Altering the work after it has been mastered is something you'd
> >> usually only do if you don't have the time or the resources to go
> >> back to the master tape itself. It doesn't seem like something
> >> people would do voluntarily.
I think they'd only do it voluntarily.
> > It's easier than ever to do these days, especially if there's no
> > master *tape*.
>
> There is still a master recording. This is begging the question or simply
> ignorance.
Nope. I've already explained "begging the question" in this thread.
MiNE 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Granted, but in this hypothetical case, the lp is the intended final
product with unique features beyond those inherent in vinyl.
In general, I suppose all delivery media can be considered 'derivative'.
> >No way can this hypothetical lp be "derivative".
>
> The phrase "derivative work" as applied to works of art is generally
> accepted and has legal meaning and standing. I'm surprised that it throws
> you for a mental loop. Look it up!
I'm not thrown for a mental loop. Without looking it up, I assume a
derivative work would have a non-identical relationship to an available
original. We might gain understanding to learn that Brahms' first piano
concerto was first composed in the format of a two piano sonata, but it
doesn't make the concerto 'derivative' because it wasn't published or
circulated in that original form.
> >To say so is to prefer an incomplete and unknowable stage to a complete
> one.
>
> Stephen, you're barking up a tree of your own misunderstanding.
What a bizarre statement, especially for someone who missed my point to
start with.
> > I prefer "My Generation" with feedback, thanks.
>
> I wish you were more knowledgeable, Stephen. I think it would make about 80%
> of our conflicts go away.
Your standard for knowledgeable must really be something.
Stephen
MiNE 109
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smcatut-8F18B1...@newsr2.texas.rr.com>,
> MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > Well, that didn't go as expected. Sorry for the mangled post. I was
> > trying to correct an incorrect word.
>
> You should have overdubbed it.
Indeed. A classic punch in.
Stephen
Dave Plowman
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> 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.
--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *
MiNE 109
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smcatut-208353...@newsr2.texas.rr.com>,
> MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> In the cutting engineers lab to bring you back on topic?
That wasn't the topic. My point was that the recording can be changed at
any production stage.
Forget about the cutting engineer for a moment and pretend you're
recording direct-to-disc a la Sheffield Lab. You've decided to do an
avant-garde tape and solo instrument piece from the 60s and want to
record the tape direct and the solo instrument with microphones.
Possible?
> So you assemble the entire orchestra and vocals, do an identical mix on
> your portable mixer, arrange for a sync output to feed all their cans, and
> do your overdub.
No. You play the lp production master tape, split the output signal for
monitoring and mix the new element with the original recording before
the cutter.
> Yes it's possible. ;-)
If you say so.
Arny Krueger
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.
MiNE 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> 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.
I suppose we all want something better to hope for.
Stephen
Arny Krueger
news:4c1999323a...@argonet.co.uk
> In article <cjKdnYe5keO...@comcast.com>,
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> 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.
Thanks <blush>
Arny Krueger
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.
> I suppose we all want something better to hope for.
Yes, like a relevant thoughtful answer from you Stephen.
You've been hanging out with people like Ludovic too much, Stephen.
Dave Plowman
> Indeed. A classic punch in.
Heh heh. 'Punching in' is what you do to pick up after a mistake.
Overdubbing replaces the original section completely.
--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.
Dave Plowman
MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > In the cutting engineers lab to bring you back on topic?
> That wasn't the topic. My point was that the recording can be changed at
> any production stage.
And my point was that it won't be other than in the studio.
> Forget about the cutting engineer for a moment and pretend you're
> recording direct-to-disc a la Sheffield Lab. You've decided to do an
> avant-garde tape and solo instrument piece from the 60s and want to
> record the tape direct and the solo instrument with microphones.
> Possible?
Err, direct to disc means just that - no tape. Care to try again?
> > So you assemble the entire orchestra and vocals, do an identical mix
> > on your portable mixer, arrange for a sync output to feed all their
> > cans, and do your overdub.
> No. You play the lp production master tape, split the output signal for
> monitoring and mix the new element with the original recording before
> the cutter.
The whole point of making an lp cutting master is to make sure what you
have on the master tape will cut. Adding something 'live' would be a total
nonsense. You really, really, really, don't do things like that when
making an lp. Trust me.
> > Yes it's possible. ;-)
> If you say so.
--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter
MiNE 109
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smcatut-83207A...@newsr4.texas.rr.com>,
> MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > > You should have overdubbed it.
>
> > Indeed. A classic punch in.
>
> Heh heh. 'Punching in' is what you do to pick up after a mistake.
> Overdubbing replaces the original section completely.
Not around here. One punches in a short segment, a phrase, even just a
note or two to replace a mistake.
Terminology could be different in the UK.
Stephen
MiNE 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
None of those are lps, are they? "LP's that were produced from the onset
only for distribution as LP's" wasn't it? You're back to koans again.
> > 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.
> 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?
Stephen
MiNE 109
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smcatut-8DCB96...@newsr4.texas.rr.com>,
> MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > > In the cutting engineers lab to bring you back on topic?
>
> > That wasn't the topic. My point was that the recording can be changed at
> > any production stage.
>
> And my point was that it won't be other than in the studio.
That's no distinction. It's not even correct. Even digital masters go to
mastering studios and can also be changed at the pressing plant.
> > Forget about the cutting engineer for a moment and pretend you're
> > recording direct-to-disc a la Sheffield Lab. You've decided to do an
> > avant-garde tape and solo instrument piece from the 60s and want to
> > record the tape direct and the solo instrument with microphones.
>
> > Possible?
>
> Err, direct to disc means just that - no tape. Care to try again?
"Tape and solo instrument," remember? There's a whole genre of music for
pre-recorded tapes and live performers.
> > > So you assemble the entire orchestra and vocals, do an identical mix
> > > on your portable mixer, arrange for a sync output to feed all their
> > > cans, and do your overdub.
>
> > No. You play the lp production master tape, split the output signal for
> > monitoring and mix the new element with the original recording before
> > the cutter.
>
> The whole point of making an lp cutting master is to make sure what you
> have on the master tape will cut. Adding something 'live' would be a total
> nonsense. You really, really, really, don't do things like that when
> making an lp. Trust me.
Refer to my earlier comment about how easy and common it is. You'd have
to really, really, really, really want to do it.
Dave Plowman
Kurt Hamster <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >Heh heh. 'Punching in' is what you do to pick up after a mistake.
> >Overdubbing replaces the original section completely.
> So you forgot that he was trying to replace an incorrect word?
> I.e. "pick[ing] up after a mistake"?
No - he got to the end before trying to correct it. You usually 'punch' or
drop in after things have ground to a halt. You can do a repair by
dropping in then out again, but IMHO, that's not so common. There's a risk
of a problem at the drop out point.
--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop
Dave Plowman
MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > And my point was that it won't be other than in the studio.
> That's no distinction. It's not even correct. Even digital masters go to
> mastering studios and can also be changed at the pressing plant.
By adding live vocals etc at the pressing plant? Like I said, anything is
possible, but let's just keep a sense of reality.
--
*Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses.*
Dave Plowman
MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > Heh heh. 'Punching in' is what you do to pick up after a mistake.
> > Overdubbing replaces the original section completely.
> Not around here. One punches in a short segment, a phrase, even just a
> note or two to replace a mistake.
Explain the difference between that and overdubbing, then?
> Terminology could be different in the UK.
It often is.
--
*Young at heart -- slightly older in other places
MiNE 109
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smcatut-23BB78...@newsr4.texas.rr.com>,
> MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > > Heh heh. 'Punching in' is what you do to pick up after a mistake.
> > > Overdubbing replaces the original section completely.
>
> > Not around here. One punches in a short segment, a phrase, even just a
> > note or two to replace a mistake.
>
> Explain the difference between that and overdubbing, then?
Duration. Also, if you would so good as to recall the definition I
supplied a few posts back, overdubbing can mean recording an entirely
new track, hence the synonym, "tracking".
> > Terminology could be different in the UK.
>
> It often is.
Best to table the matter, right?
MiNE 109
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smcatut-13954C...@newsr4.texas.rr.com>,
> MiNE 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > > And my point was that it won't be other than in the studio.
>
> > That's no distinction. It's not even correct. Even digital masters go to
> > mastering studios and can also be changed at the pressing plant.
>
> By adding live vocals etc at the pressing plant?
More normal would be a change of level.
> 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.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
MiNE 109
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <BPacnRGzB8c...@giganews.com>,
> Kurt Hamster <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > >Heh heh. 'Punching in' is what you do to pick up after a mistake.
> > >Overdubbing replaces the original section completely.
>
> > So you forgot that he was trying to replace an incorrect word?
>
> > I.e. "pick[ing] up after a mistake"?
>
> No - he got to the end before trying to correct it. You usually 'punch' or
> drop in after things have ground to a halt. You can do a repair by
> dropping in then out again, but IMHO, that's not so common. There's a risk
> of a problem at the drop out point.
It's a difference in terminology, then. IME, "punching in" is in and out
correcting a mistake in an otherwise complete section. One might call
the "flying start" after a breakdown "punching in" as well, but not
exclusively. Something longer than a "punch in" would be a "patch" but
that might get its own track.
Stephen