Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
unclear on 'mixdown master' and 'original master tapes'
Can someone here please list the steps in a typical recording for me, and clear up some terminology? I had thought it was something like 1) multitracking 2) mixing to two-track -- the 'raw' stereo version 3) mastering of the two-track -- the 'reference', original master tape(s) 4) subsequent copying and re-mastering of the OMT for a particular format -- e.g. LP But I'm being told that #2 and #3 aren't separate; that the two-track mixdowns *are* the original masters. I'm trying to get a handle on what is meant by the term 'original master tapes'. Are these these the same as two-track mixdown tapes made from multitrack masters? Or has further processing been done to them? And what is the difference between the original masters, and a 'production master'? And what exactly is 'pre-mastering'? Is there an original master tape for each track, or is the entire album contained on one or two original master tapes? -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: Can someone here please list the steps in a typical recording for me, and clear up some terminology? I had thought it was something like 1) multitracking 2) mixing to two-track -- the 'raw' stereo version 3) mastering of the two-track -- the 'reference', original master tape(s) 4) subsequent copying and re-mastering of the OMT for a particular format -- e.g. LP But I'm being told that #2 and #3 aren't separate; that the two-track mixdowns *are* the original masters. SPARS had a whole set of catagories of recordings with descriptions. Maybe it's on their web site. Back when "mastering" was what was done with a cutting lathe, we had the "Multitrack Master" and the "Stereo Master" tapes, which were your #1 and #2. There was often a "Production Master" which was a copy of the stereo master that's been edited, perhaps had some EQ applied, levels balanced, etc. That's sort of what we call "mastering" now, but it was almost always done in the studio, not outside by a guru. The production master was usually what was sent off for replication. Nobody worried too much that it was third generation or further because recording equipment was in general better than the end listener's playback equipment and getting the work done was more important than getting the lowest noise or distortion. How times change. g So, when a reissue of a CD has been sourced from 'original master tapes', what are they talking about? The 'stereo master' or the 'production master'? Here's why this came up in the first place. For years now we've been used to seeing 'from the original master tapes' as a promise (not always fulfilled) of best-quality sourcing. Reently it was announce dthat Brian Eno's 70's catalog woudl be re-released on CD, but it was specifically noted that they'd be sourced from *production* masters: // (from http://www.musicangle.com/shownews.php?id=43) Eno "Original Masters"CD Series Coming June 1st Astralwerks/Virgin Records Ltd. announced newly remastered editions of Brian Eno's four classic 1970's albums. Here Come the Warm Jets, Taking Tiger Mountain (By Strategy), Another Green World and Before and After Science have been remastered from the original masters?as delivered by Brian Eno. No re-equalization or other revisionist alterations have been made in the transfer process. Reissue engineer Simon Heyworth: "What I quickly learnt was that many of the EQ'd production masters at the time were absolutely 'spot on', and why shouldn't they be when you think about it, this was the end of a long artistic endeavor and are we saying that they didn't get it right at that point? This is nonsense of course because if it was a landmark recording and sold lots of albums it must have been right! The artist and producer all decided at the time that this was 'it'. Should we be tampering with that piece of art-after all we don't go around saying let's re-master a great painting." An ATR analog mastering deck with Aria Reference Series class A discrete electronics by David Hill was employed for playback, plus the "highest quality" DSD A/D conversion?the very same equipment that was used for the Rolling Stones ABKCO reissues. While the digital master will be DSD, for the time being only red book CDs will be issues, with SACDs perhaps coming at a later date. There may be vinyl as well. // Heyworth's logic raises the question for me, why do people bother going back to the original masters *at all*, if the 'production masters' have the sound that was on the LPs -- and the LPs are what people heard and fell in love with in the first place? WHy not just do straight digital transfers of the production masters? Though isn't just what record companies did in the Bad Old Days of the early CD era? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: Can someone here please list the steps in a typical recording for me, and clear up some terminology? I had thought it was something like 1) multitracking 2) mixing to two-track -- the 'raw' stereo version 3) mastering of the two-track -- the 'reference', original master tape(s) 4) subsequent copying and re-mastering of the OMT for a particular format -- e.g. LP But I'm being told that #2 and #3 aren't separate; that the two-track mixdowns *are* the original masters. SPARS had a whole set of catagories of recordings with descriptions. Maybe it's on their web site. Back when "mastering" was what was done with a cutting lathe, we had the "Multitrack Master" and the "Stereo Master" tapes, which were your #1 and #2. There was often a "Production Master" which was a copy of the stereo master that's been edited, perhaps had some EQ applied, levels balanced, etc. That's sort of what we call "mastering" now, but it was almost always done in the studio, not outside by a guru. The production master was usually what was sent off for replication. Nobody worried too much that it was third generation or further because recording equipment was in general better than the end listener's playback equipment and getting the work done was more important than getting the lowest noise or distortion. How times change. g So, when a reissue of a CD has been sourced from 'original master tapes', what are they talking about? The 'stereo master' or the 'production master'? Here's why this came up in the first place. For years now we've been used to seeing 'from the original master tapes' as a promise (not always fulfilled) of best-quality sourcing. Reently it was announce dthat Brian Eno's 70's catalog woudl be re-released on CD, but it was specifically noted that they'd be sourced from *production* masters: // (from http://www.musicangle.com/shownews.php?id=43) Eno "Original Masters"CD Series Coming June 1st Astralwerks/Virgin Records Ltd. announced newly remastered editions of Brian Eno's four classic 1970's albums. Here Come the Warm Jets, Taking Tiger Mountain (By Strategy), Another Green World and Before and After Science have been remastered from the original masters?as delivered by Brian Eno. No re-equalization or other revisionist alterations have been made in the transfer process. Reissue engineer Simon Heyworth: "What I quickly learnt was that many of the EQ'd production masters at the time were absolutely 'spot on', and why shouldn't they be when you think about it, this was the end of a long artistic endeavor and are we saying that they didn't get it right at that point? This is nonsense of course because if it was a landmark recording and sold lots of albums it must have been right! The artist and producer all decided at the time that this was 'it'. Should we be tampering with that piece of art-after all we don't go around saying let's re-master a great painting." An ATR analog mastering deck with Aria Reference Series class A discrete electronics by David Hill was employed for playback, plus the "highest quality" DSD A/D conversion?the very same equipment that was used for the Rolling Stones ABKCO reissues. While the digital master will be DSD, for the time being only red book CDs will be issues, with SACDs perhaps coming at a later date. There may be vinyl as well. // Heyworth's logic raises the question for me, why do people bother going back to the original masters *at all*, if the 'production masters' have the sound that was on the LPs -- and the LPs are what people heard and fell in love with in the first place? WHy not just do straight digital transfers of the production masters? Though isn't just what record companies did in the Bad Old Days of the early CD era? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: So, when a reissue of a CD has been sourced from 'original master tapes', what are they talking about? The 'stereo master' or the 'production master'? You can't tell. And sometimes they don't even know themselves. Good documentation wasn't the strong suit of every studio or record company. Besides, what difference does it make? Either it sounds good or it doesn't - and there are a lot of first generation recordings that don't sound good. Here's why this came up in the first place. For years now we've been used to seeing 'from the original master tapes' as a promise (not always fulfilled) of best-quality sourcing. Not a promise, a marketing term. Eventually people learn not to take too much stock in this. Well, could a higher-generation tape be of better quality, assuming the 1st gen isn't damaged? AIUI the implicit promise isn't that a crummy recording will sound good if the OMT is used...it's just that it will be the best *available*. Reently it was announce dthat Brian Eno's 70's catalog woudl be re-released on CD, but it was specifically noted that they'd be sourced from *production* masters: That's probably a second generation "tweaked" copy of the 2-track mixes. So again, are the 'original master tapes' simply the two-track mixdown from the multitracks, or are they also 'tweaked' after the mixdown? And then copied again with more 'tweaks' for production purposes? Example: my understanding is the compression and bass-summing were sometimes applied to *production* (2nd gen) masters intended as sources for vinyl releases, in order to accomodate the limitations of vinyl and most home LP playback setups. To use these tapes for CD would give you the 'LP' sound, but they they wouldn't be taking advantage of digital's wider dynamic range and bass-handling capabilities. There's also be another layer of noise. This, IIRC, was the generally advertised reason for going back the to original master tapes...the 'best' you could do wihtout going back another step to the multis, and doing a full remix. Reissue engineer Simon Heyworth: "What I quickly learnt was that many of the EQ'd production masters at the time were absolutely 'spot on' That's why they make them. An ATR analog mastering deck with Aria Reference Series class A discrete electronics by David Hill was employed for playback, plus the "highest quality" DSD A/D conversion?the very same equipment that was used for the Rolling Stones ABKCO reissues. At least they're following the doctrine "First, do no harm." Heyworth's logic raises the question for me, why do people bother going back to the original masters *at all*, if the 'production masters' have the sound that was on the LPs -- and the LPs are what people heard and fell in love with in the first place? Because sometimes the production masters aren't as good as what an engineer with today's tools (and the good taste to not hype up the production) can do. A good production will take the earliest generation recordings they can fine, often going back to the original multitrack source or maybe a safety copy, and using the final released product as a reference, try to do what the original mixers did only better. But going back to multitracks means a remix as well as a remaster, right? Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't, and sometimes the best they can do is nail the original sound and spirit but with less noise and distortion introduced by further generation analog copies. A low budget production will take whatever's available, digitize it, and go to press, for better or worse (between which they may not have any basis for differentiating). -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: So, when a reissue of a CD has been sourced from 'original master tapes', what are they talking about? The 'stereo master' or the 'production master'? You can't tell. And sometimes they don't even know themselves. Good documentation wasn't the strong suit of every studio or record company. Besides, what difference does it make? Either it sounds good or it doesn't - and there are a lot of first generation recordings that don't sound good. Here's why this came up in the first place. For years now we've been used to seeing 'from the original master tapes' as a promise (not always fulfilled) of best-quality sourcing. Not a promise, a marketing term. Eventually people learn not to take too much stock in this. Well, could a higher-generation tape be of better quality, assuming the 1st gen isn't damaged? AIUI the implicit promise isn't that a crummy recording will sound good if the OMT is used...it's just that it will be the best *available*. Reently it was announce dthat Brian Eno's 70's catalog woudl be re-released on CD, but it was specifically noted that they'd be sourced from *production* masters: That's probably a second generation "tweaked" copy of the 2-track mixes. So again, are the 'original master tapes' simply the two-track mixdown from the multitracks, or are they also 'tweaked' after the mixdown? And then copied again with more 'tweaks' for production purposes? Example: my understanding is the compression and bass-summing were sometimes applied to *production* (2nd gen) masters intended as sources for vinyl releases, in order to accomodate the limitations of vinyl and most home LP playback setups. To use these tapes for CD would give you the 'LP' sound, but they they wouldn't be taking advantage of digital's wider dynamic range and bass-handling capabilities. There's also be another layer of noise. This, IIRC, was the generally advertised reason for going back the to original master tapes...the 'best' you could do wihtout going back another step to the multis, and doing a full remix. Reissue engineer Simon Heyworth: "What I quickly learnt was that many of the EQ'd production masters at the time were absolutely 'spot on' That's why they make them. An ATR analog mastering deck with Aria Reference Series class A discrete electronics by David Hill was employed for playback, plus the "highest quality" DSD A/D conversion?the very same equipment that was used for the Rolling Stones ABKCO reissues. At least they're following the doctrine "First, do no harm." Heyworth's logic raises the question for me, why do people bother going back to the original masters *at all*, if the 'production masters' have the sound that was on the LPs -- and the LPs are what people heard and fell in love with in the first place? Because sometimes the production masters aren't as good as what an engineer with today's tools (and the good taste to not hype up the production) can do. A good production will take the earliest generation recordings they can fine, often going back to the original multitrack source or maybe a safety copy, and using the final released product as a reference, try to do what the original mixers did only better. But going back to multitracks means a remix as well as a remaster, right? Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't, and sometimes the best they can do is nail the original sound and spirit but with less noise and distortion introduced by further generation analog copies. A low budget production will take whatever's available, digitize it, and go to press, for better or worse (between which they may not have any basis for differentiating). -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: So, when a reissue of a CD has been sourced from 'original master tapes', what are they talking about? The 'stereo master' or the 'production master'? You can't tell. And sometimes they don't even know themselves. Good documentation wasn't the strong suit of every studio or record company. Besides, what difference does it make? Either it sounds good or it doesn't - and there are a lot of first generation recordings that don't sound good. True, but the promise isn't that using the OMT of itself will make a crap recording sound good. It's that it will be the *best available* source, unless you go back to the multitracks and do a remix. (This is assuming the OMTs aren't damaged in some way). Here's why this came up in the first place. For years now we've been used to seeing 'from the original master tapes' as a promise (not always fulfilled) of best-quality sourcing. Not a promise, a marketing term. Eventually people learn not to take too much stock in this. Again, though, unless the OMTs are damaged, wouldn't they be the best starting point, barring a remix? Reently it was announce dthat Brian Eno's 70's catalog woudl be re-released on CD, but it was specifically noted that they'd be sourced from *production* masters: That's probably a second generation "tweaked" copy of the 2-track mixes. OK, so my question is still, are original master tapes simply two-track mixdowns, or are they also 'tweaked'? My understanding is that the OMTs are what the artists/producer/engineer team intends as the final word. The subsequent production masters generated for vinyl were a necessary compromise due to the medium's limitations. Example: my understanding is that vinyl production masters often had added compression and bass summing, compared to the OMTs. Using this as a source for a CD release will give you the 'LP' sound but it won't be taking advantage of the dynamic range and bass handling capabilities of digital...these being two of the advertised reasons for using OMTs. (Let's leave aside today's 'hyped' production, in response to the 'loudness wars' -- the 'back to the original masters' movement predates that). Also, it will remove one layer of noise. I'm not being purist, btw -- I have made several CDRs for myself directly from LPs, and they sound fine to me. I'm just trying to understand what these terms mean in theory and practice. Reissue engineer Simon Heyworth: "What I quickly learnt was that many of the EQ'd production masters at the time were absolutely 'spot on' That's why they make them. An ATR analog mastering deck with Aria Reference Series class A discrete electronics by David Hill was employed for playback, plus the "highest quality" DSD A/D conversion?the very same equipment that was used for the Rolling Stones ABKCO reissues. At least they're following the doctrine "First, do no harm." Heyworth's logic raises the question for me, why do people bother going back to the original masters *at all*, if the 'production masters' have the sound that was on the LPs -- and the LPs are what people heard and fell in love with in the first place? Because sometimes the production masters aren't as good as what an engineer with today's tools (and the good taste to not hype up the production) can do. A good production will take the earliest generation recordings they can fine, often going back to the original multitrack source or maybe a safety copy, and using the final released product as a reference, try to do what the original mixers did only better. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't, and sometimes the best they can do is nail the original sound and spirit but with less noise and distortion introduced by further generation analog copies. That sounds more like a remix than a remaster. But by extension, then, Heyworth is saying he doesn't think he can do better than what's already on the LP production tapes? A low budget production will take whatever's available, digitize it, and go to press, for better or worse (between which they may not have any basis for differentiating). -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: So, when a reissue of a CD has been sourced from 'original master tapes', what are they talking about? The 'stereo master' or the 'production master'? You can't tell. And sometimes they don't even know themselves. Good documentation wasn't the strong suit of every studio or record company. Besides, what difference does it make? Either it sounds good or it doesn't - and there are a lot of first generation recordings that don't sound good. True, but the promise isn't that using the OMT of itself will make a crap recording sound good. It's that it will be the *best available* source, unless you go back to the multitracks and do a remix. (This is assuming the OMTs aren't damaged in some way). Here's why this came up in the first place. For years now we've been used to seeing 'from the original master tapes' as a promise (not always fulfilled) of best-quality sourcing. Not a promise, a marketing term. Eventually people learn not to take too much stock in this. Again, though, unless the OMTs are damaged, wouldn't they be the best starting point, barring a remix? Reently it was announce dthat Brian Eno's 70's catalog woudl be re-released on CD, but it was specifically noted that they'd be sourced from *production* masters: That's probably a second generation "tweaked" copy of the 2-track mixes. OK, so my question is still, are original master tapes simply two-track mixdowns, or are they also 'tweaked'? My understanding is that the OMTs are what the artists/producer/engineer team intends as the final word. The subsequent production masters generated for vinyl were a necessary compromise due to the medium's limitations. Example: my understanding is that vinyl production masters often had added compression and bass summing, compared to the OMTs. Using this as a source for a CD release will give you the 'LP' sound but it won't be taking advantage of the dynamic range and bass handling capabilities of digital...these being two of the advertised reasons for using OMTs. (Let's leave aside today's 'hyped' production, in response to the 'loudness wars' -- the 'back to the original masters' movement predates that). Also, it will remove one layer of noise. I'm not being purist, btw -- I have made several CDRs for myself directly from LPs, and they sound fine to me. I'm just trying to understand what these terms mean in theory and practice. Reissue engineer Simon Heyworth: "What I quickly learnt was that many of the EQ'd production masters at the time were absolutely 'spot on' That's why they make them. An ATR analog mastering deck with Aria Reference Series class A discrete electronics by David Hill was employed for playback, plus the "highest quality" DSD A/D conversion?the very same equipment that was used for the Rolling Stones ABKCO reissues. At least they're following the doctrine "First, do no harm." Heyworth's logic raises the question for me, why do people bother going back to the original masters *at all*, if the 'production masters' have the sound that was on the LPs -- and the LPs are what people heard and fell in love with in the first place? Because sometimes the production masters aren't as good as what an engineer with today's tools (and the good taste to not hype up the production) can do. A good production will take the earliest generation recordings they can fine, often going back to the original multitrack source or maybe a safety copy, and using the final released product as a reference, try to do what the original mixers did only better. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't, and sometimes the best they can do is nail the original sound and spirit but with less noise and distortion introduced by further generation analog copies. That sounds more like a remix than a remaster. But by extension, then, Heyworth is saying he doesn't think he can do better than what's already on the LP production tapes? A low budget production will take whatever's available, digitize it, and go to press, for better or worse (between which they may not have any basis for differentiating). -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1085169999k@trad... Nobody worried too much that it was third generation or further because recording equipment was in general better than the end listener's playback equipment and getting the work done was more important than getting the lowest noise or distortion. Who exactly was this "nobody?" Everybody I knew took extraordinary measures to minimize generation loss going to vinyl. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1085169999k@trad... Nobody worried too much that it was third generation or further because recording equipment was in general better than the end listener's playback equipment and getting the work done was more important than getting the lowest noise or distortion. Who exactly was this "nobody?" Everybody I knew took extraordinary measures to minimize generation loss going to vinyl. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry for the double reply-post, btw...I thought the first one had been lost in the aether. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry for the double reply-post, btw...I thought the first one had been lost in the aether. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Olhsson wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1085169999k@trad... Nobody worried too much that it was third generation or further because recording equipment was in general better than the end listener's playback equipment and getting the work done was more important than getting the lowest noise or distortion. Who exactly was this "nobody?" Everybody I knew took extraordinary measures to minimize generation loss going to vinyl. Yes, but you weren't working for K-Tel, Bob. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Olhsson wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1085169999k@trad... Nobody worried too much that it was third generation or further because recording equipment was in general better than the end listener's playback equipment and getting the work done was more important than getting the lowest noise or distortion. Who exactly was this "nobody?" Everybody I knew took extraordinary measures to minimize generation loss going to vinyl. Yes, but you weren't working for K-Tel, Bob. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah Bob, tell us about those K-tel dates, where you got "every song you
ever wanted to hear" on one record. I heard that when they tried to press them, the biskets went on strike, and this is why we have CD's. Tom "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Bob Olhsson wrote: "Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1085169999k@trad... Nobody worried too much that it was third generation or further because recording equipment was in general better than the end listener's playback equipment and getting the work done was more important than getting the lowest noise or distortion. Who exactly was this "nobody?" Everybody I knew took extraordinary measures to minimize generation loss going to vinyl. Yes, but you weren't working for K-Tel, Bob. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah Bob, tell us about those K-tel dates, where you got "every song you
ever wanted to hear" on one record. I heard that when they tried to press them, the biskets went on strike, and this is why we have CD's. Tom "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Bob Olhsson wrote: "Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1085169999k@trad... Nobody worried too much that it was third generation or further because recording equipment was in general better than the end listener's playback equipment and getting the work done was more important than getting the lowest noise or distortion. Who exactly was this "nobody?" Everybody I knew took extraordinary measures to minimize generation loss going to vinyl. Yes, but you weren't working for K-Tel, Bob. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: Well, could a higher-generation tape be of better quality, assuming the 1st gen isn't damaged? Yes, but often you don't know whether it's damaged or not because nobody can find it. AIUI the implicit promise isn't that a crummy recording will sound good if the OMT is used...it's just that it will be the best *available*. Sorry, I can't understand you. Speak with fewer abbreviations. AIUI? OMT? As I Understand It. Original Master Tapes. So again, are the 'original master tapes' simply the two-track mixdown from the multitracks, or are they also 'tweaked' after the mixdown? And then copied again with more 'tweaks' for production purposes? Well, sonny, back in MY day, we made the best mix we could from the multitrack master and didn't assume that it was going somewhere else to be tweaked. OK, so what was involved in mixing, back in the day? Was it *only* the process of mixing each multitrack down to two-tracks, or was any processing then applied to the two-tracks, such as EQ, reverb, noise reduction, etc? -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: Well, could a higher-generation tape be of better quality, assuming the 1st gen isn't damaged? Yes, but often you don't know whether it's damaged or not because nobody can find it. AIUI the implicit promise isn't that a crummy recording will sound good if the OMT is used...it's just that it will be the best *available*. Sorry, I can't understand you. Speak with fewer abbreviations. AIUI? OMT? As I Understand It. Original Master Tapes. So again, are the 'original master tapes' simply the two-track mixdown from the multitracks, or are they also 'tweaked' after the mixdown? And then copied again with more 'tweaks' for production purposes? Well, sonny, back in MY day, we made the best mix we could from the multitrack master and didn't assume that it was going somewhere else to be tweaked. OK, so what was involved in mixing, back in the day? Was it *only* the process of mixing each multitrack down to two-tracks, or was any processing then applied to the two-tracks, such as EQ, reverb, noise reduction, etc? -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
Well, sonny, back in MY day, we made the best mix we could (snip) I just couldn't be the only one who sees this as a blowhard condescending comment. Please tell us about all the big hits you recorded and mixed and mastered back in YOUR day. -- I'm really an old fat jerk ) I don't have a life and have never done anything of note and that's why I'm always here running my mouth off. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
Well, sonny, back in MY day, we made the best mix we could (snip) I just couldn't be the only one who sees this as a blowhard condescending comment. Please tell us about all the big hits you recorded and mixed and mastered back in YOUR day. -- I'm really an old fat jerk ) I don't have a life and have never done anything of note and that's why I'm always here running my mouth off. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
I just couldn't be the only one who sees this as a blowhard
condescending comment. Then again you just might. Please tell us about all the big hits you recorded and mixed and mastered back in YOUR day. Please tell us how big hits relate to audio quality or credibility in the community of audio professionals. Scott Fraser |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
I just couldn't be the only one who sees this as a blowhard
condescending comment. Then again you just might. Please tell us about all the big hits you recorded and mixed and mastered back in YOUR day. Please tell us how big hits relate to audio quality or credibility in the community of audio professionals. Scott Fraser |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Passin' Through wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: Well, sonny, back in MY day, we made the best mix we could (snip) I just couldn't be the only one who sees this as a blowhard condescending comment. Please tell us about all the big hits you recorded and mixed and mastered back in YOUR day. Idiot!! Mike has done more for the music industry than you can ever hope to achieve. The only way you could do as much for the industry would be for you to leave it. Harvey Gerst Indian Trail Recording Studio http://www.ITRstudio.com/ |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Passin' Through wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: Well, sonny, back in MY day, we made the best mix we could (snip) I just couldn't be the only one who sees this as a blowhard condescending comment. Please tell us about all the big hits you recorded and mixed and mastered back in YOUR day. Idiot!! Mike has done more for the music industry than you can ever hope to achieve. The only way you could do as much for the industry would be for you to leave it. Harvey Gerst Indian Trail Recording Studio http://www.ITRstudio.com/ |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... Yes, but you weren't working for K-Tel, Bob. I happen to know some of the folks who DID work for K-Tel and they took care to minimize generations too! -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... Yes, but you weren't working for K-Tel, Bob. I happen to know some of the folks who DID work for K-Tel and they took care to minimize generations too! -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Passin' Through wrote in message ...
Mike Rivers wrote: Well, sonny, back in MY day, we made the best mix we could (snip) I just couldn't be the only one who sees this as a blowhard condescending comment. Please tell us about all the big hits you recorded and mixed and mastered back in YOUR day. -- I'm really an old fat jerk ) I don't have a life and have never done anything of note and that's why I'm always here running my mouth off. I think the statement could have just been facetious. Upon closer inspection we usually find there was no "Good Old Days." The good old days included recording like "Gary US Bonds" stuff which was so distorted it is unbelievable. And in fact I think the attitude early on for pop music was it didn't require attention to quality. I think that is practiced heavily right up through the early 70's. (that doesn't mean more and more pop records weren't being done with high quality engineering as time went on). And of course remember the good old days were also back when black people could be hosed down with firehoses for expecting rights of other citizens and you could bee black balled for being a commie and a few other little details. Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com |