Eno reissue news: someome explain this to me, please

[krabapple]

OK, so, we've gone from , CDs released from any old vinyl production master at hand (80's)
to CDs released from original master tapes (80-90s) to CDs produced from OMTs but compressed.maximized to death (90s) to 'hi rez' releases from OMTs, to....CDs produced from LP production masters

http://www.musicangle.com/shownews.php?id=43


what

the

fuck?

One thing's virtually a given: Fremer will cream himself over them.

[krabapple]

forgot to add... "but he'll say the original LP pressings still sound better"

[Rspaight]

Yeah, I saw that in ICE this month. I'm beginning to imagine the outlines of a business plan for needle-dropping old LPs and selling them as audiophile reissues. The more surface noise there is, the more I'll charge. ("Oh, wow, listen to that *warmth*!" --crackle, pop, hiss-- )

Ryan

[lukpac]

I'll admit I never quite understood what was *wrong* with using those production masters. I mean, if they weren't done well, they weren't done well. But if they sound good and the EQ was right, why not use them?

[krabapple]

I'll admit I never quite understood what was *wrong* with using those production masters. I mean, if they weren't done well, they weren't done well. But if they sound good and the EQ was right, why not use them?

It's a legit question. After all, if you fell in love with the way a record sounded in the LP era, logically, the thing you'd want to hear on CD is a digital trasnfer of the LP production tape.
These were generally EQ'd specifically to accomodate the characteristics of the vinyl medium.
But the original master tape is the 'ideal' -- the way the producers/artists/engiineers concluded the recording *should* sound. The LP production tape was , AIUI, a compromise.
Guys like Hoffman aare always going on abot how they try to 'stay true to the master'.

Now, maybe a far-seeing genius like Eno made his OMTs specifically with the intention of 'improving' them during the LP production step...but I find that hard to believe. If there's something great about the LP production tapes, why wasn't it simply applied to the OMT in the first place?

If I were still an active member of SHtv, I'd ask about the philosophy behind all this, noting that more than a few 80's era CDs were struck from the same tapes used to produce the LPs that members rave about.

[lukpac]

Well, as is my understanding, engineers certainly had to work *within* the limits of vinyl, but the basic purpose of "mastering" was (at it is today) to make the recording sound as good as possible.

As for the master tape sounding "ideal", if that were the case, why would we have mastering engineers at all? An artist would submit the mixdown master to the record company and they would transfer it to digital (if it weren't already) and make a CD.

If you think about this, it really isn't any different from, say, choosing between a master tape or an analog copy Hoffman would make during master (with all of the EQ and such present). In the future, why take that original master and reinvent the wheel when that copy has all of that "breath of life" mastering there already?

Now, that's by no means saying all production masters are good. Some may have been copied using poor equipment (Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed are good examples). Some may have excessive EQ/compression/etc. Or they just may sound bad, period. But I think saying that using a production master is always a bad thing is dumb. Why is our mastering today necessarily better than what they did back then?

[krabapple]

Well, as is my understanding, engineers certainly had to work *within* the limits of vinyl, but the basic purpose of "mastering" was (at it is today) to make the recording sound as good as possible.

As for the master tape sounding "ideal", if that were the case, why would we have mastering engineers at all? An artist would submit the mixdown master to the record company and they would transfer it to digital (if it weren't already) and make a CD.

Luke, the original masters *are* mastered. It's not the same as simply producing a mixdown; after mixdown, a mastering engineer will apply tweaks that affect overall sound -- to make the thing sound like a coherent whole, for example. And then for LP, they are mastered *again*, to produce 'production masters' suitable to vinyl. Again, if this *weren't* true, why would *re-mastering* engineers like Hoffman et al strive to 'stay true to the original master'?

If you think about this, it really isn't any different from, say, choosing between a master tape or an analog copy Hoffman would make during master (with all of the EQ and such present). In the future, why take that original master and reinvent the wheel when that copy has all of that "breath of life" mastering there already?

Sorry, I don't get what you're dirivng at here. Certainly if Hoffman creates a new digital master, to which he has *added* 'breath of life', he's probably going ot want to use that in the future too. But others might not...they would go back to the original MT.

Now, that's by no means saying all production masters are good. Some may have been copied using poor equipment (Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed are good examples). Some may have excessive EQ/compression/etc. Or they just may sound bad, period. But I think saying that using a production master is always a bad thing is dumb. Why is our mastering today necessarily better than what they did back then?

Except, I *didn't* say using a production master is always a bad thing.
Sometimes , it's all you have.

But a tape mastered for vinyl is almost certainly not going to have been mastered with digital capabilities in mind...and because compression etc may wellhave been applied, there's no way you can 'fix' that. Whereas with an OMT, you may well have the option of exploiting digital's capabilities more fully (e.g. dynamic range, bass reproduction) to capture what the artists actually intended..and heard in the studio.

So, in this case, I don't get what the Eno strategy is for. Do the production masters actually sound better than the OMTs, for some reason? If so, why not say so. What advantage are we getting here that we couldn't get from a good digital mastering from OMTs?

[Rspaight]

If I were still an active member of SHtv, I'd ask about the philosophy behind all this, noting that more than a few 80's era CDs were struck from the same tapes used to produce the LPs that members rave about.

I thought that those 80s CDs were highly sought after amongst the SH.tv crowd (you know, flat transfer/target/smooth-sided jewel case/hiss and all that) for exactly that reason -- they sound more like the old LPs.

There's nothing wrong with using well-preserved LP tapes, *if* the goal is replicating the sound of the LP. Then, though, you start shimmying down the whole "way it was meant to be" slippery slope. Which came first, the "artist's intention" chicken or the "compromised for vinyl limitations" egg? Is the original mixdown tape the Platonic ideal of the album, or is the original vinyl issue the ultimate expression of intent? Beats me. Pretty soon you're wondering if Brian Wilson would have used surround sound on Pet Sounds if it had been available to him, and that way lies madness (as Brian found out).

Ryan

[lukpac]

Luke, the original masters *are* mastered. It's not the same as simply producing a mixdown; after mixdown, a mastering engineer will apply tweaks that affect overall sound -- to make the thing sound like a coherent whole, for example. And then for LP, they are mastered *again*, to produce 'production masters' suitable to vinyl. Again, if this *weren't* true, why would *re-mastering* engineers like Hoffman et al strive to 'stay true to the original master'?

They don't necessarily (Steve uses EQ all the time, for example), and no, that isn't the case. The recording/mixing/mastering process goes something like this:

1) record to multitrack
2) mix each song to stereo
3) edit the individual mixes together into a "master". THIS is the "original master tape" so highly prized these days. There's no additional "mastering" applied yet.
4) play this tape back while cutting an LP with EQ/compression, etc. This is the mastering step. During playback, record a copy of the output with all of the effects. THIS is the "production master", so in the future when re-cuts are needed, this tape just has to be played back flat.

There are always exceptions, but in the strictest sense, the "original master tape" is a collection of all the mixdowns, edited together.

Again, if it were as simple as everything being already mastered on the master tape, people like Steve would be out of a job.

But a tape mastered for vinyl is almost certainly not going to have been mastered with digital capabilities in mind...and because compression etc may wellhave been applied, there's no way you can 'fix' that. Whereas with an OMT, you may well have the option of exploiting digital's capabilities more fully (e.g. dynamic range, bass reproduction) to capture what the artists actually intended..and heard in the studio.

Well, compression doesn't have to be bad. Compression is a tool, and if used correctly, it can make things sound better. Mind you, I'm sure there are plenty of LP masters out there that are compressed to death and have terrible bass response. But I'm sure there are plenty of others that sound great, too. There are plenty of great sounding LPs out there, aren't there? Why would production tapes of those not sound good?

So, in this case, I don't get what the Eno strategy is for. Do the production masters actually sound better than the OMTs, for some reason? If so, why not say so. What advantage are we getting here that we couldn't get from a good digital mastering from OMTs?

I think the point would probably be "we have a mastered tape that sounds good (to our ears), why try to do it all over again?"

[krabapple]

Luke, the original masters *are* mastered. It's not the same as simply producing a mixdown; after mixdown, a mastering engineer will apply tweaks that affect overall sound -- to make the thing sound like a coherent whole, for example. And then for LP, they are mastered *again*, to produce 'production masters' suitable to vinyl. Again, if this *weren't* true, why would *re-mastering* engineers like Hoffman et al strive to 'stay true to the original master'?

They don't necessarily (Steve uses EQ all the time, for example), and no, that isn't the case.

Well, yes, but they are *re*mastering archival tapes, whihc often involves a degree of restoration. If the production of the original master tape isn't 'mastering', then what is it?

AIUI, in the old days, it simply wasn't possible to transfer a master tape straight to LP without risking unplayability on most TT setups. Hence (re)mastering from the OMT , for a specific format...resulting in 'production masters'.

The recording/mixing/mastering process goes something like this:

1) record to multitrack
2) mix each song to stereo
3) edit the individual mixes together into a "master". THIS is the "original master tape" so highly prized these days. There's no additional "mastering" applied yet.

You may be right, but this is not my understanding -- AIUI, processing can and is applied during this step, beyond simply stitching the stereo tracks together, all of which together is a form of *mastering*. I've passed the issue along to rec.audio.pro, for clarification.

4) play this tape back while cutting an LP with EQ/compression, etc. This is the mastering step. During playback, record a copy of the output with all of the effects. THIS is the "production master", so in the future when re-cuts are needed, this tape just has to be played back flat.

There are always exceptions, but in the strictest sense, the "original master tape" is a collection of all the mixdowns, edited together.

Again, that is not my understanding, but I'll check into it.

[krabapple]

If I were still an active member of SHtv, I'd ask about the philosophy behind all this, noting that more than a few 80's era CDs were struck from the same tapes used to produce the LPs that members rave about.

I thought that those 80s CDs were highly sought after amongst the SH.tv crowd (you know, flat transfer/target/smooth-sided jewel case/hiss and all that) for exactly that reason -- they sound more like the old LPs.

There's nothing wrong with using well-preserved LP tapes, *if* the goal is replicating the sound of the LP.

But time and again vinylphiles claim that the old CDs did *not* replicate that sound..even though soem of those CDs seem to ahve been straight digital transfers. So, either the digital trasnfer process was imperfect, or LP/turntable/stylus systems add something to the sound (that would only be caputred digitally using a direct feed from a turntable output).

[Rspaight]

(that would only be caputred digitally using a direct feed from a turntable output)

Hence my brilliant business plan. I could call it RK Records (for the Rice Krispies background noise).

By the way, are these Eno records any good? I'm only familiar with his ambient stuff.

Ryan

[lukpac]

Well, yes, but they are *re*mastering archival tapes, whihc often involves a degree of restoration. If the production of the original master tape isn't 'mastering', then what is it?

Well, just that - "the production of the original master tape".

AIUI, in the old days, it simply wasn't possible to transfer a master tape straight to LP without risking unplayability on most TT setups. Hence (re)mastering from the OMT , for a specific format...resulting in 'production masters'.

Who said anything about straight to an LP? The (un-EQ'd) master tape would be played back WITH EQ and cut. At that same time that EQ'd output would be sent to a copy tape - the "production master".

And I wouldn't assume that cutting LPs always meant reducing the bass. Magic Bus (stereo mix, anyway) would be a great example of just the opposite - the original mix is thin on the bottom end, while the LP itself is fairly full.

You may be right, but this is not my understanding -- AIUI, processing can and is applied during this step, beyond simply stitching the stereo tracks together, all of which together is a form of *mastering*. I've passed the issue along to rec.audio.pro, for clarification.

The biggest exception I can think of would be taking individual mixes and crossfading them, for live albums and such. In general, though, the master tape is a collection of mixes edited together. People like Steve and Bob Irwin have mentioned this a lot in the past, as well as that the "master tape" contains the mixes, not a copy of them...

[lukpac]

But time and again vinylphiles claim that the old CDs did *not* replicate that sound..even though soem of those CDs seem to ahve been straight digital transfers. So, either the digital trasnfer process was imperfect, or LP/turntable/stylus systems add something to the sound (that would only be caputred digitally using a direct feed from a turntable output).

Well, I think it could be a number of things:

1) We have no way of knowing if those were "flat transfers" or not. I've heard stories of lots of added top end to CDs, mainly because it could finally be done. That didn't mean it had to sound good, though.

2) Some CDs could actually use the original "flat" masters, or copies thereof, which simply may not sound that good flat. Just because something is from a copy tape doesn't necessarily mean EQ was added.

3) Even if the copy tape had EQ on it, it didn't necessarily sound good in other respects.

4) The LP (at least the "good" one that was the basis of comparison) may not have come from the same generation of tape that the CD did. The LP may have been cut from a first generation tape (see above), while the CD was cut from the production master (ie, a bad one), or even a copy of said production tape.

5) Some "vinylphiles" are deaf.

I think there's a lot of assumptions on both sides of the argument that simply don't hold up. I think if you were to go in a time machine and find out exactly what was being done back then, a lot of the assumptions ("all flat transfers", "from crappy copy tape", etc) would be proven as untrue.

[Rspaight]

The biggest exception I can think of would be taking individual mixes and crossfading them, for live albums and such. In general, though, the master tape is a collection of mixes edited together. People like Steve and Bob Irwin have mentioned this a lot in the past, as well as that the "master tape" contains the mixes, not a copy of them...

I think at least in modern terms there's quite a bit that goes on beyond just sticking the mixes together. This is from a status e-mail sent out during the making of the new Marillion album:

The mastering process is where all the tracks are put together in the running order we want. At the same time the overall sound of each track can be enhanced to get the "maximum pleasure" (the right amount of volume, overall EQ, etc.) from each song so it all sounds great (and "even") when you put it on your stereo. Any songs we to run together - fading from one song as the next fades up - is also done at this time. The big debate with us is always how long to leave the gaps between the songs! This all might sound a bit trivial, but is something that has to be considered.

I would argue that the final tape after all that "sweetening" is done is the "original master," while the previous generation is most accurately called the "original mixdown tape."

Ryan