 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.130.29.193
In Reply to: RE: AFAIK copying an analog tape to digital is a transfer, not remastering. posted by magiccarpetride on May 09, 2017 at 10:29:39
It takes no special manipulation to digitize a master tape. It is simply a straight transfer. You play the tape and record it with a digital recorder exactly in same way that I play a vinyl LP and record it with my digital recorder. The digital copy comes out sounding just like the tape or just like the record.
In another sense, it really shouldn't be a whole lot more difficult to make a master lacquer from a master tape. There really shouldn't be a need for a great deal of manipulation. It should be as simple as playing the master tape while sending the signal through an RIAA amplifier to the cutting head. The RIAA amplifier should provide the required manipulation to put the music correctly onto the master lacquer. Of course, if the master lacquer doesn't sound the same as the master tape, then further equalization will be required to make corrections. However, if the cutting lathe produces correct frequency response, it should be as simple as playing the master tape and sending the signal through the RIAA amplifier to the cutting head. The only other caveat is the use of a special tape recorder with a preview head to control groove spacing.
Think about how direct-to-disc records are made. Any required manipulation or additional equalization must be accomplished ahead of time because when the cutting lathe begins, it is simply receiving the signal from the live microphones after being sent through the RIAA amplifier including any additional equalization and on to the cutting head. It seems like a very straight forward process to me.
I think the most difficult part is doing what it takes to make a master tape that pleases everyone. However, once you have a master tape that sounds the way everyone wants it to sound, it should be a straight forward process of making digital copies as well as making vinyl records. The mastering process should be the work involved in making the master tape that everyone likes. After that, it should require nothing more than a transfer whether the transfer is to digital or to lacquer.
Best regards,
John Elison
Follow Ups:
I think the most difficult part is doing what it takes to make a master tape that pleases everyone. However, once you have a master tape that sounds the way everyone wants it to sound, it should be a straight forward process of making digital copies as well as making vinyl records. The mastering process should be the work involved in making the master tape that everyone likes. After that, it should require nothing more than a transfer whether the transfer is to digital or to lacquer.That was exactly how I envisioned the whole process. But then I started hearing different opinions coming from professionals who know these things much better than I do. Hence my confusion.
As I mentioned in my previous reply, I am not interested in discussing how does the master tape get produced. One way or another, we eventually end up holding the master tape in our hands. Now we want to use it as a blueprint to mass produce the sound carrier that can be sold on the market -- be it an LP, a CD, or a digital download/streaming to subscribers.
I can only compare it to how I am producing music. I have a home recording studio, where I record, overdub, mix, and master my music. I have a fairly good pair of ears, and I know what kind of a sound am I aiming for when producing my albums. I use all the usual suspects when I'm mastering my mix-down stereo tracks -- EQ, compression, limiting, the works. Eventually I get to the point when I am satisfied with how my material sounds. I listen to it on my big stereo, on my iPhone, in the car, etc. I want to reach a compromise where the songs sound good enough in various circumstances. You can call that process 'sweetening' or 'compromising' or anything else, doesn't matter.
Finally, when I'm done with the sweetening of the master 'tape' (in this case it's a digital file), I am ready to cut the CD. And like you said, cutting a CD simply means burning it on a blank CD I pop into the CD burner. No magic, no chanting during full moon, simply pressing the "Burn" button will do.
When the CD gets produced that way, it does not sound any different from how the original digital file sounds. If I take that CD to a friend's house and ask them to play it, the CD will sound approximately the same as it sounds in my house etc.
So here is where I get confused: what is this 'mastering for the CD' mumbo-jumbo I keep hearing? Why would 'mastering for the CD' be any different than regular mastering? Obviously, when you produce a master file, it gets faithfully burned onto the CD. I don't see any point in doing anything else 'after the fact'.
Help me out here -- what am I missing?
Edits: 05/10/17 05/10/17
"Finally, when I'm done with the sweetening of the master 'tape' (in this case it's a digital file), I am ready to cut the CD. And like you said, cutting a CD simply means burning it on a blank CD I pop into the CD burner. No magic, no chanting during full moon, simply pressing the "Burn" button will do.When the CD gets produced that way, it does not sound any different from how the original digital file sounds. If I take that CD to a friend's house and ask them to play it, the CD will sound approximately the same as it sounds in my house etc.
So here is where I get confused: what is this 'mastering for the CD' mumbo-jumbo I keep hearing? Why would 'mastering for the CD' be any different than regular mastering? Obviously, when you produce a master file, it gets faithfully burned onto the CD. I don't see any point in doing anything else 'after the fact'.
Help me out here -- what am I missing?"
What you are missing is this,
If you had the money you would want to take your digital master file to a professional mastering engineer for further sweetening. There is a good chance that the changes he would make to your master file would be viewed by you as improvements.
What I'm trying to say is a professional mastering engineer will know how to further sweeten it just right and he will make it better than you could ever imagine.
But here's the thing, if you took it to 5 different professional mastering engineers for further sweetening you would get 5 different sounding mastered master files back but chances are you would view each one to be an amazing improvement over what you started with and you would have a hard time choosing which one to go with. Not a hard time hearing the difference but a hard time deciding which one is "best".
When we grow up with an original pressing of an album and then are presented with a re-mastered re-release, a lot of the time we prefer the original mastering job, the one we are accustomed to.
Again, every time a album gets re-mastered it will sound different, even between very good mastering engineers, because different mastering engineers have different ideas of what "sound good" is. They should all sound good, if done by professionals, but different.
That was my point at the beginning of this thread.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 05/10/17 05/10/17 05/10/17
What you are missing is this,If you had the money you would want to take your digital master file to a professional mastering engineer for further sweetening. There is a good chance that the changes he would make to your master file would be viewed by you as improvements.
What I'm trying to say is a professional mastering engineer will know how to further sweeten it just right and he will make it better than you could ever imagine.
But here's the thing, if you took it to 5 different professional mastering engineers for further sweetening you would get 5 different sounding mastered master files back but chances are you would view each one to be an amazing improvement over what you started with and you would have a hard time choosing which one to go with. Not a hard time hearing the difference but a hard time deciding which one is "best".
When we grow up with an original pressing of an album and then are presented with a re-mastered re-release, a lot of the time we prefer the original mastering job, the one we are accustomed to.
Again, every time a album gets re-mastered it will sound different, even between very good mastering engineers, because different mastering engineers have different ideas of what "sound good" is. They should all sound good, if done by professionals, but different.
That was my point at the beginning of this thread.
Point taken (and I think I heard and understood you the first time, but let's continue refining our dialogue ;)
If you'd recall, I did mention on more than one reply here something like "one way or another, you finally end up with a locked-down master tape" (or something to that effect). What I meant by that is regardless of whether you reached the final version of your master tape by relying on your own means, or by contracting a superstar hired gun, one way or another, you got yourself a good master tape. That much we all agree on, and that much we should all be clear on.
What I'm still not clear on is whether there is anything else, any other expertise that needs to intervene during the process of using that master tape to mass produce the sound carrier (be it LP, audio cassette, CD, or digital download)?
It would appear to me that if one is using the master tape to cut the lacquer for the vinyl pressing, one needs to MANUALLY preside over the cutting in order to adjust certain parameters. Why is that needed? Because of the LP geometry -- grooves are not the same length at the beginning of the LP than they are toward the end on an LP, so this geometry is very finicky.
So my question is: who is doing that, and what kind of a skill set is needed?
Furthermore, I will now comment on the need/recommendation to send your final tape to a professional mastering engineer for further sweetening. I'm not fully on board with that, for the simple reason that if I were to do that (assuming money is no issue, maybe this mastering engineer is a buddy of mine and offers to do it for free for me), I'd be in effect admitting that I basically don't really know what I'm doing. To me, when I set to produce my own track, I have a certain sound that I envision in my head, and I'm working toward achieving that particular sound. How can a professional mastering engineer know better than me what kind of a sound am I after?
If we were to concede to the know-how of professional engineers when creating our music, why should we stop there? Why not also hire professional musicians to perform and record that music? Heck, why not also hire professional songwriting team to write the music and the lyrics? In the end, it's not really our creation if we are to outsource everything to hired guns, no?
Edits: 05/11/17
Cutting a lacquer and pressing a vinyl record causes losses and those losses have to be compensated for. (I'm not referring to the RIAA curve, all records require this)
Originally this was the ONLY job of the mastering engineer, not sweetening.
Now to the issue of "professional mastering engineer for further sweetening".
Your point it taken but the fact is even the best of the best (producers, engineers, mixers) send their best efforts to a mastering engineer for further sweetening without having any problem "admitting that they basically don't really know what they're doing".(see what I did there?) :-)
As to the rest of it, in the 60's the instruments on most hit records were not played by the band but by "The Wrecking Crew".
On almost any hit song you can think of (I'm exaggerating here) with a piano, that piano was played by Leon Russell. All those great bass lines.....Carol Kaye.....etc.....
To some extent artists still do this. They have a touring band and a separate studio/recording band.
I guess we each draw the line somewhere.
I think you have a good handle on the subject now.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I think you have a good handle on the subject now.
Awesome, thanks :)
I guess you're missing the same thing I'm missing: Professional recordings are not done the way we would do them. ;-)
nt
They don't know what I know and that's all that matters to me.I don't master recordings for anyone other than myself. However, I obviously prefer to do it differently than they do.
To each his own!
Edits: 05/10/17
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
