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

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








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



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

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








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



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

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.

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.

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.

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).


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

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

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

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

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

"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

"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

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

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

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."

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."

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?

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. When records were mastered, some things had to be
adjusted to make the cutter work right. Often a tape was made of the
"adjustments" so a new master (lacquer disk) could be cut that sounds
just about like the first one when the metal spamping parts wear out
and they need a new master to plate.

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.

No, they were applied to accommodate the limitations of the cutter
head.

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.

They wouldn't really give you the LP sound either because the CD you
make from them wouldn't have the losses of an LP. A vinyl production
master (or a radio production master, for that matter) isn't tweaked
to sound fabulous in the control room, it's tweaked so that the LP
pressed from the stampers that were made from the mother that was made
from the lacquer master sounds great.

But going back to multitracks means a remix as well as a remaster, right?

Right. And sometimes they even go back to the original mixing engineer
or producer to mix the tracks. That way they get the benefit of the
original ideas plus the benefit of better tools.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

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?

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. When records were mastered, some things had to be
adjusted to make the cutter work right. Often a tape was made of the
"adjustments" so a new master (lacquer disk) could be cut that sounds
just about like the first one when the metal spamping parts wear out
and they need a new master to plate.

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.

No, they were applied to accommodate the limitations of the cutter
head.

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.

They wouldn't really give you the LP sound either because the CD you
make from them wouldn't have the losses of an LP. A vinyl production
master (or a radio production master, for that matter) isn't tweaked
to sound fabulous in the control room, it's tweaked so that the LP
pressed from the stampers that were made from the mother that was made
from the lacquer master sounds great.

But going back to multitracks means a remix as well as a remaster, right?

Right. And sometimes they even go back to the original mixing engineer
or producer to mix the tracks. That way they get the benefit of the
original ideas plus the benefit of better tools.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

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.

That's the easy way, because you have the benefit of making a
recording of what the tweaking was optimizing. But for some reason
(probalby because of the 'generation fear') people go back to tape
rather than disk because at least it doesn't have any ticks and pops
in it. Those are easy enough to remove, and the reality is that you
MIGHT actually get better results by cleaning up a good LP copy than
trying to un-fudge a production master tape. But people are going to
do what looks best to someone who reads the liner notes.

But by extension, then, Heyworth is saying he doesn't think he can do
better than what's already on the LP production tapes?

That may very well be true. But he should be able to duplicate it if
he's really good. On the other hand, someone else might actually be
able to make something that sounds better to new audiences who are
going to hear it for the first time on CD or DVD and not compare it to
a vinyl record, or worse, their 20 year old memory of what the record
sounded like.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

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.

That's the easy way, because you have the benefit of making a
recording of what the tweaking was optimizing. But for some reason
(probalby because of the 'generation fear') people go back to tape
rather than disk because at least it doesn't have any ticks and pops
in it. Those are easy enough to remove, and the reality is that you
MIGHT actually get better results by cleaning up a good LP copy than
trying to un-fudge a production master tape. But people are going to
do what looks best to someone who reads the liner notes.

But by extension, then, Heyworth is saying he doesn't think he can do
better than what's already on the LP production tapes?

That may very well be true. But he should be able to duplicate it if
he's really good. On the other hand, someone else might actually be
able to make something that sounds better to new audiences who are
going to hear it for the first time on CD or DVD and not compare it to
a vinyl record, or worse, their 20 year old memory of what the record
sounded like.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

"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?"

The listeners who weren't audiophiles and were playing next-generation
cassettes on their Walkman players. By far the majority. Just like the
majority of people recording today are doing it with an equipment and
skill budget around 10% of where things were when you started in
business.

Of course engineers always cared about quality, but they work for the
people who make the money and sell the records. And there were a lot
of "remasterd" CDs from 10 or more years ago that were made by interns
who did little but the tape equivalent of dropping the needle, not
skilled or caring engineers. A lot of that deep catalog work is being
redone now by people who care, for people who care.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

"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?"

The listeners who weren't audiophiles and were playing next-generation
cassettes on their Walkman players. By far the majority. Just like the
majority of people recording today are doing it with an equipment and
skill budget around 10% of where things were when you started in
business.

Of course engineers always cared about quality, but they work for the
people who make the money and sell the records. And there were a lot
of "remasterd" CDs from 10 or more years ago that were made by interns
who did little but the tape equivalent of dropping the needle, not
skilled or caring engineers. A lot of that deep catalog work is being
redone now by people who care, for people who care.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

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."

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."

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

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

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.

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 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

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

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/

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/

"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

"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

In article writes:

I just couldn't be the only one who sees this as a blowhard
condescending comment.

HEYYYYYYY ! ! ! ! I got the "C" word again this week. I believe I'm
the newsgroup champ. Will someone please do a Google search and see if
I've been called "condescending" more than anyone else around here?

You get the "A" word. Enjoy your prize.

Please tell us about all the big hits you
recorded and mixed and mastered back in YOUR day.

Why should that matter? But you can check allmusic.com.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

I just couldn't be the only one who sees this as a blowhard
condescending comment.

HEYYYYYYY ! ! ! ! I got the "C" word again this week. I believe I'm
the newsgroup champ. Will someone please do a Google search and see if
I've been called "condescending" more than anyone else around here?

You get the "A" word. Enjoy your prize.

Please tell us about all the big hits you
recorded and mixed and mastered back in YOUR day.

Why should that matter? But you can check allmusic.com.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

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?

Same as it is today. Whatever it takes. They just didn't have as many
tools back.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

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?

Same as it is today. Whatever it takes. They just didn't have as many
tools back.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

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