Production/engineering/etc podcast

[geoff]

Interesting radio interview on Production. In Abbey Road section towards
the end describes how converter technology was an immediate major
improvement heard in transcription for The Beatles remastering over the
original 1987 CD releases.

Also lots more of interest.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/201831218/dave-eringa-and-guy-massey-the-producers

geoff

[JackA]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 6:42:40 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> Interesting radio interview on Production. In Abbey Road section towards
> the end describes how converter technology was an immediate major
> improvement heard in transcription for The Beatles remastering over the
> original 1987 CD releases.

What, are they electronic engineers? No. So?

They did what I do, digitally enhance.

Jack

>
> Also lots more of interest.
>
> http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/201831218/dave-eringa-and-guy-massey-the-producers
>
> geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>Interesting radio interview on Production. In Abbey Road section towards
>the end describes how converter technology was an immediate major
>improvement heard in transcription for The Beatles remastering over the
>original 1987 CD releases.

Not just converter technology, though. Actually using tape machines with
the correct head configuration and alignment made a big difference on those
too.

People forget how badly bungled the '87 transfers really were. And information
lost in the transfer process, either due to converter issues or playback
issues, is information lost that isn't going to magically get created again
later in the chain.
--scott

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

[geoff]

On 31/01/2017 12:02 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>> Interesting radio interview on Production. In Abbey Road section towards
>> the end describes how converter technology was an immediate major
>> improvement heard in transcription for The Beatles remastering over the
>> original 1987 CD releases.
> Not just converter technology, though. Actually using tape machines with
> the correct head configuration and alignment made a big difference on those
> too.
>
> People forget how badly bungled the '87 transfers really were. And information
> lost in the transfer process, either due to converter issues or playback
> issues, is information lost that isn't going to magically get created again
> later in the chain.
> --scott
>
If there was any 3kHz lost you can always randomly inject lots of that.
Try telling that to these supposed 'experts' and they just laugh at you.

geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 7:43:11 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 31/01/2017 12:02 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > geoff > wrote:
> >> Interesting radio interview on Production. In Abbey Road section towards
> >> the end describes how converter technology was an immediate major
> >> improvement heard in transcription for The Beatles remastering over the
> >> original 1987 CD releases.
> > Not just converter technology, though. Actually using tape machines with
> > the correct head configuration and alignment made a big difference on those
> > too.
> >
> > People forget how badly bungled the '87 transfers really were. And information
> > lost in the transfer process, either due to converter issues or playback
> > issues, is information lost that isn't going to magically get created again
> > later in the chain.
> > --scott
> >
> If there was any 3kHz lost you can always randomly inject lots of that.
> Try telling that to these supposed 'experts' and they just laugh at you.
>
> geoff

RIP: Mike Connors :(

Mannix (personally audio enhanced for your listening pleasure/excitement)...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/tvtheme.mp3

I can't keep up with them, they are dropping like flies!!

Jack

[Trevor]

On 31/01/2017 10:02 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>> Interesting radio interview on Production. In Abbey Road section towards
>> the end describes how converter technology was an immediate major
>> improvement heard in transcription for The Beatles remastering over the
>> original 1987 CD releases.
>
> Not just converter technology, though. Actually using tape machines with
> the correct head configuration and alignment made a big difference on those
> too.
>
> People forget how badly bungled the '87 transfers really were. And information
> lost in the transfer process, either due to converter issues or playback
> issues, is information lost that isn't going to magically get created again
> later in the chain.
> --scott

Yes sad to think how little care was put into the original CD issues
considering how long Beatles fans had already waited for them, and how
many were likely to be sold, and were.

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 31/01/2017 07:21, Trevor wrote:

> Yes sad to think how little care was put into the original CD issues
> considering how long Beatles fans had already waited for them, and how
> many were likely to be sold, and were.
>
> Trevor.
>
>
I suspect the marketing department were thinking along the lines that
anything better than the cassettes that most of the fans were listening
to would be sellable, so why spend real money doing as decent job on the
conversions? Plus, in 1987, CD's were still NEW!!!! and SHINY!!!!, so
would, at least initially, sell easily, no matter what their real
shortcomings were.

Don't forget, the company doing the '87 reissues had very little
connection with the performers, so were unlikely to have them or even
George Martin on the phone moaning about the quality of the remastering
until it was too late.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 31/01/2017 10:07 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 31/01/2017 07:21, Trevor wrote:
>
>> Yes sad to think how little care was put into the original CD issues
>> considering how long Beatles fans had already waited for them, and how
>> many were likely to be sold, and were.
>>
>>
> I suspect the marketing department were thinking along the lines that
> anything better than the cassettes that most of the fans were listening
> to would be sellable, so why spend real money doing as decent job on the
> conversions? Plus, in 1987, CD's were still NEW!!!!

Not so. CD's had been around for years and fans bemoaning the fact that
the most popular band ever were not available long after reissues from
most other artists.


> would, at least initially, sell easily, no matter what their real
> shortcomings were.

And they did of course. That was never in doubt! Which is why any extra
cost in doing it properly would add cents at the most to each copy sold.
Sadly the record companies are always more interested in how many more
times they can sell the same music to the same fans. :-(


> Don't forget, the company doing the '87 reissues had very little
> connection with the performers, so were unlikely to have them or even
> George Martin on the phone moaning about the quality of the remastering
> until it was too late.

As if the record companies ever care what the artists think. :-(

Trevor.