Is fade out in digital domain better?

[Nono]

I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade outs should be
performed in the digital domain with an audio editing software opposed
to doing the fade out on my analog console while recording to digital
two-track (DAT).
I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find anything on the
subject on the net, so I'd appreciate it if someone could explain the
difference to me, besides it better being left to the mastering guy
etc.

Thanks in advance,
Norman.

[Mike Rivers]

Nono wrote:
> I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade outs should be
> performed in the digital domain with an audio editing software opposed
> to doing the fade out on my analog console while recording to digital
> two-track (DAT).

That seems to be the way that people prefer it nowadays since nearly
everything is delivered in digital form. But unless you have a hardware
fader controller for your DAW, it may be more difficult to do an "artistic"
fadeout than by putting your finger on the fader and moving it while you're
listening to what you're doing. But routine fadeouts are a snap in a DAW
and they really fade to silence, not residual hum.

> I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find anything on the
> subject on the net

Did you try it? Why waste all day on the net when you could make
a decision yourself in about 15 minutes? I think you'll find that if you
do fades on the recording that you deliver to a mastering house, they'll
usually ask if you want them to clean them up, and most people do. But
if there's a fade there, at least they'll know where you want it to
start and
how long you want it to be. Left on his own if there's no fade and he
has to create on, he may or may not do it with the same artistic judgment
that you would. He may be right, too. or not.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:29:56 -0700 (PDT), Nono
> wrote:

>I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade outs should be
>performed in the digital domain with an audio editing software opposed
>to doing the fade out on my analog console while recording to digital
>two-track (DAT).
>I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find anything on the
>subject on the net, so I'd appreciate it if someone could explain the
>difference to me, besides it better being left to the mastering guy
>etc.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Norman.

Don't do anything but record while you are recording. Do everything
later and you won't find you have made an unrecoverable goof. Only
play live games when you absolutely have to.

d

[Richard Crowley]

Don Pearce wrote:
> Don't do anything but record while you are recording. Do everything
> later and you won't find you have made an unrecoverable goof. Only
> play live games when you absolutely have to.

Absolutely. Furthermore, digital "black" is absolute while analog
"black" still could have noise. One major reason to begin and end
a track at digital zero is so that there will be no audible click when
the player mutes and un-mutes. That rason by itself is sufficient to
always do fades (in and out) in the digital domain.

[Scott Dorsey]

Nono > wrote:
>I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade outs should be
>performed in the digital domain with an audio editing software opposed
>to doing the fade out on my analog console while recording to digital
>two-track (DAT).
>I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find anything on the
>subject on the net, so I'd appreciate it if someone could explain the
>difference to me, besides it better being left to the mastering guy
>etc.

A long time ago it was quite the opposite, that there was audible zipper
noise when you did it in the digital domain.

These days it doesn't really matter technically, but leaving it to the
mastering guy gives him more freedom to adjust the pacing of the album,
which is good.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Randy Yates]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

> Nono > wrote:
>>I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade outs should be
>>performed in the digital domain with an audio editing software opposed
>>to doing the fade out on my analog console while recording to digital
>>two-track (DAT).
>>I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find anything on the
>>subject on the net, so I'd appreciate it if someone could explain the
>>difference to me, besides it better being left to the mastering guy
>>etc.
>
> A long time ago it was quite the opposite, that there was audible zipper
> noise when you did it in the digital domain.

Also there may have been dither issues (i.e., a lack thereof) back in
the digital dinosaur age.
--
Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
Digital Signal Labs % ... What is it worth?"
% 'Mission (A World Record)',
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % *A New World Record*, ELO

[David Gravereaux]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> But routine fadeouts are a snap in a DAW
> and they really fade to silence, not residual hum.

Sorry to hear that the consoles you tend to work on are noisier than
digital black.

--



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrXyhoACgkQlZadkQh/RmGYygCfSrQ+jsbnAky7phZXE/I9ZhyN
qZkAoOGStX9RIqqq5lqwweGdnUwd/wSO
=XHCX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[David Gravereaux]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> Absolutely. Furthermore, digital "black" is absolute while analog
> "black" still could have noise.

Yes, it's absolute in terms of a numerical value, but in terms of
equipment, the best D/A converters these days have 119dB of dynamic
range at 24-bit (theoretically 140 something). Any world-class analog
console would beat that.

16-bit is 96dB of DR, so that puts the mix buss noise it has to beat at
less than -76dBv or so assuming 16 over headroom for 0dBFS. That isn't
hard to beat.

Converting from dig to analog back to dig just to use a fader is kinda
silly to me, though. But don't underestimate analog gear. Do question
a Mackie or an Allen&Heath.

--



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrX5lQACgkQlZadkQh/RmGYeACdE+Bp5m267pCiDOq2+dPNw90i
YFcAoOZrHgv9yQStPZ/r5Nth9puFk2cp
=4NU1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[david correia]

In article >,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> Nono > wrote:
> >I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade outs should be
> >performed in the digital domain with an audio editing software opposed
> >to doing the fade out on my analog console while recording to digital
> >two-track (DAT).
> >I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find anything on the
> >subject on the net, so I'd appreciate it if someone could explain the
> >difference to me, besides it better being left to the mastering guy
> >etc.
>
> A long time ago it was quite the opposite, that there was audible zipper
> noise when you did it in the digital domain.
>
> These days it doesn't really matter technically, but leaving it to the
> mastering guy gives him more freedom to adjust the pacing of the album,
> which is good.
> --scott



I tell my mastering clients to do their fades when they mix. There can
be a real magic to it.

And of course it can be totally subjective. IMO save time and money and
do it yourself and be sure to get it the way you really like it.



David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Nono]

On 16 okt, 08:50, david correia > wrote:
> In article >,
> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Nono > wrote:
> > >I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade outs should be
> > >performed in the digital domain with an audio editing software opposed
> > >to doing the fade out on my analog console while recording to digital
> > >two-track (DAT).
> > >I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find anything on the
> > >subject on the net, so I'd appreciate it if someone could explain the
> > >difference to me, besides it better being left to the mastering guy
> > >etc.
>
> > A long time ago it was quite the opposite, that there was audible zipper
> > noise when you did it in the digital domain.
>
> > These days it doesn't really matter technically, but leaving it to the
> > mastering guy gives him more freedom to adjust the pacing of the album,
> > which is good.
> > --scott
>
> I tell my mastering clients to do their fades when they mix. There can
> be a real magic to it.
>
> And of course it can be totally subjective. IMO save time and money and
> do it yourself and be sure to get it the way you really like it.
>
> David Correiawww.Celebrationsound.com- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Exactly!
I have some fade outs that to me are part of the artistic performance.
Sometimes it takes several tries before I get it just the way I want
it.

The question, however, was if a fade out in the digital domain would
better or not, in terms of sonic quality, apart from eventual noisy
analog gear, hum, clicks, etc.
The thing that I remember reading was some advice to record as hot as
possible into digital for the best resoultion and that, due to the
lowering volume in the fade out, there would be less digital
resolution on the digital recorder and this resulted in less audio
definition / quality.
But my question is; doesn't the same apply when doing this fade out in
the digital domain as well?

Regards,
Norman.

[Mike Rivers]

Don Pearce wrote:

> Don't do anything but record while you are recording. Do everything
> later and you won't find you have made an unrecoverable goof.

Better yet, just don't goof. But then, we have AutoTune.

[Scott Dorsey]

Nono > wrote:
>
>The question, however, was if a fade out in the digital domain would
>better or not, in terms of sonic quality, apart from eventual noisy
>analog gear, hum, clicks, etc.

Not really.

>The thing that I remember reading was some advice to record as hot as
>possible into digital for the best resoultion and that, due to the
>lowering volume in the fade out, there would be less digital
>resolution on the digital recorder and this resulted in less audio
>definition / quality.

This isn't 1980 any more. We don't have to deal with the massive low level
nonlinearity that digital systems back then had.

>But my question is; doesn't the same apply when doing this fade out in
>the digital domain as well?

None of this applies at all any more.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Nono]

On 16 okt, 15:15, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Nono > wrote:
>
> >The question, however, was if a fade out in the digital domain would
> >better or not, in terms of *sonic quality, apart from eventual noisy
> >analog gear, hum, clicks, etc.
>
> Not really.
>
> >The thing that I remember reading was some advice to record as hot as
> >possible into digital for the best resoultion and that, due to the
> >lowering volume in the fade out, there would be less digital
> >resolution on the digital recorder and this resulted in less audio
> >definition / quality.
>
> This isn't 1980 any more. *We don't have to deal with the massive low level
> nonlinearity that digital systems back then had.
>
> >But my question is; doesn't the same apply when doing this fade out in
> >the digital domain as well?
>
> None of this applies at all any more.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Thank you very much,
That's what I needed to know.

Regards,
Norman.

[Wecan do it]

On 16 okt, 15:15, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Nono > wrote:
>
> >The question, however, was if a fade out in the digital
> >domain would
> >better or not, in terms of sonic quality, apart from
> >eventual noisy
> >analog gear, hum, clicks, etc.
>
> Not really.
>
> >The thing that I remember reading was some advice to record
> >as hot as
> >possible into digital for the best resoultion and that, due
> >to the
> >lowering volume in the fade out, there would be less
> >digital
> >resolution on the digital recorder and this resulted in
> >less audio
> >definition / quality.
>
> This isn't 1980 any more. We don't have to deal with the
> massive low level
> nonlinearity that digital systems back then had.
>
> >But my question is; doesn't the same apply when doing this
> >fade out in
> >the digital domain as well?
>
> None of this applies at all any more.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."




Hi Norm:
I think the problem you are thinking of could be what happens
when some people (not K system people like us) use the
computers digital volume control to adjust their monitors SPL
in the room.

In that case one could begin with a 0dBfsd signal in their
program and then reduce the effective bit usage sent to the
DAC by using the computers digital output control to lower the
listening level.

If the listener turned up the gain on the monitoring system
the same amount you faded the program, (effectively
eliminating the fade heard in the room) you would get the
noise your are warned about.

But since we are fading out here as Scott suggests, you will
have no problems.

[philicorda[_7_]]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:29:56 -0700, Nono wrote:

> I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade outs should be
> performed in the digital domain with an audio editing software opposed
> to doing the fade out on my analog console while recording to digital
> two-track (DAT).
> I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find anything on the
> subject on the net, so I'd appreciate it if someone could explain the
> difference to me, besides it better being left to the mastering guy etc.

I would leave it for the mastering guy. The reason being that if they are
compressing and limiting the mix, your fade outs can go a bit wonky as
the compression pulls the gain up during the fade. This can sometimes
make the end of a fade seem to cut off suddenly. Also, sometimes fade
outs need to be tweaked a bit when you are hearing them in the context of
running into the next song on an album, rather than as individual tracks.

If there are any artistic decisions, like a fade out on a repeated
chorus, then I give timings or even make a mock up version to show how it
should sound. Most of the time I just leave it up to the discretion of
the mastering guy though.

>
> Thanks in advance,
> Norman.

[Nono]

On 16 okt, 16:06, "Wecan do it" > wrote:
> On 16 okt, 15:15, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Nono > wrote:
>
> > >The question, however, was if a fade out in the digital
> > >domain would
> > >better or not, in terms of sonic quality, apart from
> > >eventual noisy
> > >analog gear, hum, clicks, etc.
>
> > Not really.
>
> > >The thing that I remember reading was some advice to record
> > >as hot as
> > >possible into digital for the best resoultion and that, due
> > >to the
> > >lowering volume in the fade out, there would be less
> > >digital
> > >resolution on the digital recorder and this resulted in
> > >less audio
> > >definition / quality.
>
> > This isn't 1980 any more. We don't have to deal with the
> > massive low level
> > nonlinearity that digital systems back then had.
>
> > >But my question is; doesn't the same apply when doing this
> > >fade out in
> > >the digital domain as well?
>
> > None of this applies at all any more.
> > --scott
>
> > --
> > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> Hi Norm:
> I think the problem you are thinking of could be what happens
> when some people (not K system people like us) use the
> computers digital volume control to adjust their monitors SPL
> in the room.
>
> In that case one could begin with a 0dBfsd signal in their
> program and then reduce the effective bit usage sent to the
> DAC by using the computers digital output control to lower the
> listening level.
>
> If the listener turned up the gain on the monitoring system
> the same amount you faded the program, (effectively
> eliminating the fade heard in the room) you would get the
> noise your are warned about.
>
> But since we are fading out here as Scott suggests, you will
> have no problems.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

YES, it was something about effective bit usage, like you say, indeed.
But I'm glad that I need not worry about that as you and Scott say.

As you may have noticed I'm learning a lot from you guys and as my
understanding of things increases I tend to go back to the things that
I had heard or read before that I could not fully understand at that
time.

It's so nice that you're so patiently willing to share your knownedge.

I'll go sit quietly in my corner again to keep learning.

Thanks,
Norman.

[Nono]

On 16 okt, 18:29, philicorda >
wrote:

> I would leave it for the mastering guy. The reason being that if they are
> compressing and limiting the mix, your fade outs can go a bit wonky as
> the compression pulls the gain up during the fade. This can sometimes
> make the end of a fade seem to cut off suddenly. Also, sometimes fade
> outs need to be tweaked a bit when you are hearing them in the context of
> running into the next song on an album, rather than as individual tracks.

You make a good point there.

> If there are any artistic decisions, like a fade out on a repeated
> chorus, then I give timings or even make a mock up version to show how it
> should sound. Most of the time I just leave it up to the discretion of
> the mastering guy though.

This mock up version suggestion is good idea.

Thanks,
Norman.

[nebulax]

On Oct 15, 7:28*pm, Randy Yates > wrote:
> (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> > Nono > wrote:
> >>I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade outs should be
> >>performed in the digital domain with an audio editing software opposed
> >>to doing the fade out on my analog console while recording to digital
> >>two-track (DAT).
> >>I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find anything on the
> >>subject on the net, so I'd appreciate it if someone could explain the
> >>difference to me, besides it better being left to the mastering guy
> >>etc.
>
> > A long time ago it was quite the opposite, that there was audible zipper
> > noise when you did it in the digital domain.
>
> Also there may have been dither issues (i.e., a lack thereof) back in
> the digital dinosaur age.


We're still in the digital dinosaur age, hopefully.

-Neb

[Arkansan Raider]

nebulax wrote:
> On Oct 15, 7:28 pm, Randy Yates > wrote:
>> (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>> Nono > wrote:
>>>> I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade outs should be
>>>> performed in the digital domain with an audio editing software opposed
>>>> to doing the fade out on my analog console while recording to digital
>>>> two-track (DAT).
>>>> I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find anything on the
>>>> subject on the net, so I'd appreciate it if someone could explain the
>>>> difference to me, besides it better being left to the mastering guy
>>>> etc.
>>> A long time ago it was quite the opposite, that there was audible zipper
>>> noise when you did it in the digital domain.
>> Also there may have been dither issues (i.e., a lack thereof) back in
>> the digital dinosaur age.
>
>
> We're still in the digital dinosaur age, hopefully.
>
> -Neb
>

True, dat. I'm not lookin' forward to seeing a real live T-Rex in person
any time soon, thankyouverymuch.

---Jeff

[Richard Crowley]

"Arkansan Raider" wrote...
> nebulax wrote:
>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>> (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>>> Nono wrote:
>>>>> I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade outs should be
>>>>> performed in the digital domain with an audio editing software opposed
>>>>> to doing the fade out on my analog console while recording to digital
>>>>> two-track (DAT).
>>>>> I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find anything on the
>>>>> subject on the net, so I'd appreciate it if someone could explain the
>>>>> difference to me, besides it better being left to the mastering guy
>>>>> etc.
>>>> A long time ago it was quite the opposite, that there was audible
>>>> zipper
>>>> noise when you did it in the digital domain.
>>> Also there may have been dither issues (i.e., a lack thereof) back in
>>> the digital dinosaur age.
>>
>> We're still in the digital dinosaur age, hopefully.
>
> True, dat....

Well, I can't think of a better example of a digital dinosaur than DAT.
Or, maybe the Sony PCM-1600. :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"nebulax" > wrote in message

> On Oct 15, 7:28 pm, Randy Yates > wrote:
>> (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>> Nono > wrote:
>>>> I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade
>>>> outs should be performed in the digital domain with an
>>>> audio editing software opposed to doing the fade out
>>>> on my analog console while recording to digital
>>>> two-track (DAT).
>>>> I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find
>>>> anything on the subject on the net, so I'd appreciate
>>>> it if someone could explain the difference to me,
>>>> besides it better being left to the mastering guy etc.
>>
>>> A long time ago it was quite the opposite, that there
>>> was audible zipper noise when you did it in the digital
>>> domain.
>>
>> Also there may have been dither issues (i.e., a lack
>> thereof) back in the digital dinosaur age.
>
>
> We're still in the digital dinosaur age, hopefully.

Why would you say that?

Do you think that we are struggling to get clean sound out of our digital
gear?

[Arkansan Raider]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Arkansan Raider" wrote...
>> nebulax wrote:
>>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>>> (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>>>> Nono wrote:
>>>>>> I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade outs should be
>>>>>> performed in the digital domain with an audio editing software opposed
>>>>>> to doing the fade out on my analog console while recording to digital
>>>>>> two-track (DAT).
>>>>>> I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find anything on the
>>>>>> subject on the net, so I'd appreciate it if someone could explain the
>>>>>> difference to me, besides it better being left to the mastering guy
>>>>>> etc.
>>>>> A long time ago it was quite the opposite, that there was audible
>>>>> zipper
>>>>> noise when you did it in the digital domain.
>>>> Also there may have been dither issues (i.e., a lack thereof) back in
>>>> the digital dinosaur age.
>>> We're still in the digital dinosaur age, hopefully.
>> True, dat....
>
> Well, I can't think of a better example of a digital dinosaur than DAT.
> Or, maybe the Sony PCM-1600. :-)
>
>

Nice. I was thinking along the lines of CGI, but DAT's going in a
different direction entirely. ;^)

---Jeff

[nebulax]

On Oct 22, 9:05*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "nebulax" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 7:28 pm, Randy Yates > wrote:
> >> (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> >>> Nono > wrote:
> >>>> I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade
> >>>> outs should be performed in the digital domain with an
> >>>> audio editing software opposed to doing the fade out
> >>>> on my analog console while recording to digital
> >>>> two-track (DAT).
> >>>> I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find
> >>>> anything on the subject on the net, so I'd appreciate
> >>>> it if someone could explain the difference to me,
> >>>> besides it better being left to the mastering guy etc.
>
> >>> A long time ago it was quite the opposite, that there
> >>> was audible zipper noise when you did it in the digital
> >>> domain.
>
> >> Also there may have been dither issues (i.e., a lack
> >> thereof) back in the digital dinosaur age.
>
> > We're still in the digital dinosaur age, hopefully.
>
> Why would you say that?
>
> Do you think that we are struggling to get clean sound out of our digital
> gear?


What I meant to say was that I hope that digital gear keeps improving,
and that today's state-of-the-art equipment will look positively
dinosauric by the standards of the future. If we had all been
satisfied with the way digital audio sounded back in say 1983, cd's
would still be mastered on Sony 1630's or DAT machines, and sourced
from whatever 5th generation cassette master was found in the vault
first.

-Neb

[Mike Rivers]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> Well, I can't think of a better example of a digital dinosaur than DAT.
> Or, maybe the Sony PCM-1600. :-)

There isn't anything left of dinosaurs besides bones and some oil. There
are still a lot of DAT and PCM tape recordings out there that deserve to be
preserved, so it's still necessary to keep the players alive. Remember,
recording
is only a little over 100 years old. Dinosaurs go back a little further.

[Arny Krueger]

"nebulax" > wrote in message

> On Oct 22, 9:05 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "nebulax" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 15, 7:28 pm, Randy Yates > wrote:
>>>> (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>>>> Nono > wrote:
>>>>>> I remember reading somewhere long time ago that fade
>>>>>> outs should be performed in the digital domain with
>>>>>> an audio editing software opposed to doing the fade
>>>>>> out on my analog console while recording to digital
>>>>>> two-track (DAT).
>>>>>> I spent all day today, unsuccesfully, trying to find
>>>>>> anything on the subject on the net, so I'd appreciate
>>>>>> it if someone could explain the difference to me,
>>>>>> besides it better being left to the mastering guy
>>>>>> etc.
>>
>>>>> A long time ago it was quite the opposite, that there
>>>>> was audible zipper noise when you did it in the
>>>>> digital domain.
>>
>>>> Also there may have been dither issues (i.e., a lack
>>>> thereof) back in the digital dinosaur age.
>>
>>> We're still in the digital dinosaur age, hopefully.
>>
>> Why would you say that?
>>
>> Do you think that we are struggling to get clean sound
>> out of our digital gear?

> What I meant to say was that I hope that digital gear
> keeps improving, and that today's state-of-the-art
> equipment will look positively dinosauric by the
> standards of the future.

At this point, all that can happen of significance seems to be that
practical tools may become smaller and cheaper and more capacious. I'd love
to have a 4 track Microtrack. 4 true full function tracks, no odd limits. 4
mic inputs, each with its own channel, phantom, good gain range, all the way
through.

> If we had all been satisfied
> with the way digital audio sounded back in say 1983, cd's
> would still be mastered on Sony 1630's or DAT machines,
> and sourced from whatever 5th generation cassette master
> was found in the vault first.

Hyperbole, no doubt.

I don't know too much about Sony 1630s, but I do know that some of the DAT
machines I have tested had pretty credible converters. The most obvious
problem with DAT was always the media and the transport.

There are often practical problems with technical tools, some amazingly
trivial. I've just discovered that the battery in my Microtrack is shot
after 3 years and will only hold a full charge for a few minutes. Well, off
to eBay for a iPhone battery ($8.95 delivered) and a date with a soldering
iron!

[Scott Dorsey]

nebulax > wrote:
>What I meant to say was that I hope that digital gear keeps improving,
>and that today's state-of-the-art equipment will look positively
>dinosauric by the standards of the future. If we had all been
>satisfied with the way digital audio sounded back in say 1983, cd's
>would still be mastered on Sony 1630's or DAT machines, and sourced
>from whatever 5th generation cassette master was found in the vault
>first.

I don't think the _recording_ stuff is going to improve much. I think it
has reached a plateau, much as tape recording did in the sixties, where it
is good enough that there isn't a huge demand to push the technology.

I sure hope digital editing and mixing improves, though. The user interface
designs of today's systems have a LONG way to go.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[nebulax]

On Oct 23, 6:52*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "nebulax" > wrote in message
>
> > If we had all been satisfied
> > with the way digital audio sounded back in say 1983, cd's
> > would still be mastered on Sony 1630's or DAT machines,
> > and sourced from whatever 5th generation cassette master
> > was found in the vault first.
>
> Hyperbole, no doubt.


Nope, no hyperbole. Some early cd pressings were made from cassette
masters. And by "cassette master", I'm talking about a 1/4" open reel
tape copy used as a production master in a cassette duplicating
facility, but *not* a master that was actually printed onto a cassette
tape. One of the reasons (besides lost original master tapes, and
corporate greed) that certain albums of artists like Miles Davis, The
Byrds, and Simon and Garfunkel, et al have been re-issued 3 or more
times is that the original versions were made from whatever tape copy
they could easily find at the time. In some cases, that tape was a
many-generations-away-from-the-original cassette production master,
that had been specifically EQ'ed to optimize playback fidelity on a
consumer cassette deck. Using this sort of master for making a cd with
contributed to a very bright and thin sound, which the early digital
processors then exaggerated, anyway.

I don't know the details on which master tapes were used for what
pressings on the various "Kind of Blue" editions, but by my count it's
been re-issued on cd at least 7 times - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kind_of_Blue#Release_history
..

-Neb