Believe it or not, I don't really care. Those decisions are made on a different level. When they are made, I'm hired to do some work. I am comfortable mastering for vinyl, CD, SACD or whatever. What I would like to see doesn't matter a hill o' beans. Besides, I think that DSD was invented about 10 years too late. No one at any record company will support a higher rez format now. Every thing is going the other way (sorry to say) and they are in the business of making money, not losing it.
I read once that Roy Hallee did the same sort of thing - using 2 eight-track machines synched, plus two or four other "wild tracks" "flown in" when recording and mixing The Boxer and supposedly that is why the Bridge Over Troubled Water album was not remixed in the digital era . . .
Luke, As men of the world we know that one does not do extra work on a whim...... The real story is.. (shrugs).
Shure M44 Green stylus. Worked great. Played back on a big transcription table. A few parts were pretty mangled up so I had to transfer at 1/2 speed so the arm wouldn't bounce all over the place.
Don Lipskin edited out every pop by hand from the 15 ips analog tape transfers using splicing tape and a razor blade.
But I'm not sure it would be "extra work" - take the digital transfer and sum it to mono. Not much "work". Besides, how could they fix the production so quickly if those mono tapes had not already been mastered?
Agreed on the method of recording, but keep in mind the whole album *was* remixed to quad back in the day. They managed back then...
Your rambling in this thread saves me the trouble of flying to Los Angeles and standing on your doorstep and begging you to ramble!!!!!
Not to veer too far off topic, but I want also to nominate this album for the "Astonishing Sounding Reissue" Hall of Fame. Steve, you blew me away - again - with this one. Well, this is on topic. Did you do your "presence enhancing breath-of-life stuff" wayyyy back in your MCA days, or was that all later? I ask because this S.O.T.P. album has "bloom" out the yin-yang.
Steve, I think it's a question of scale. With a boutique label, you can keep costs down and produce something to higher quality. I don't mind Sony or Universal doing limited SACD releases but why not make money licensing them (the hirez rights) to boutiques? Seems to me that way everyone wins and there is certainly enough grass roots support for Super Audio in both jazz and classical. And while we are on the subject, why is Universal sitting on DSD transfers of the Steely Dan catalog? Why not release them? Seems a lot can be done and keep the shareholder AND serious music fan happy.
I think the reason they didn't remix this album was the fact that the master wasn't trashed due to the better tape stock used in the original mix.
Steve, I have a question regarding digital recordings. You have mentioned in the past that digital compression sounds bad, adding nothing to the mix. You've also said that you don't like the sound of digital EQ. But with a lot of bands recording straight to digital nowadays, they would have to use these tools unless they want to go back and forth between analog and digital. Anyway, my question is, would the use of digital processing make digital recordings inherently inferior to analog ones?
Digital is digital (it is what it is). Some bands bump to analog for EQ, etc. and then bump back to their Sonic. Whatever it takes I guess. Digital processing is so common now and we are so used to the sound that we don't even notice how unmusical it can sound when abused. So, what can you do? Go with what you got I guess. Did I answer your question? Not sure if I did...
Interesting, I worked with Roy on several albums in the late 70's and he recorded those in a rather unique matter that I've never seen anybody else do. These records were all done on a 2" 24 track Studer, but what he did that seemed so odd to me was the way he set his levels. Before each session, we were instructed to set up the monitor section of the console with tones. We would put a test tape on the machine and set every track one at a time by bring it's fader up until we hit a certain level on the stereo meters. I can't remember what that actual level was, but notes were taken as far as panning positions. As an example, a track that was to be in the middle might be set to hit -4 on both left and right meters. A track panned left of center might be set for -2 on the left meter and -6 on the right meter. Once all tracks were setup this way, he just played the tape and the mix was pretty close to what he wanted to end up with. As he recorded additional tracks, he'd set their levels by fitting them into the mix. This seemed so bizarre to me at the time. Most engineers would set each level not based on it's level in a mix, but to optimize the recording parameters. In other words, if a track was to be not very loud in the mix, this technique could result in a low signal to noise ratio on that track. Roy did many things like this which seemed so unusual to me, but the bottom line is that he made some great sounding records. Say what you will about this technique, but it sure did allow a rough mix to be put up quickly. I only worked with him in 77 and 78, so I can't say for sure how much he used this technique throughout his career.
Actually it could be great news for some in the audiophile community. I bet vinyl and SACD labels will prosper if the majors abandon hirez altogether because I believe there is always a niche that wants the best possible sound quality. Maybe in 10 years, we will have the new web and can buy hirez tracks via download on our Macs >> different sonic quality at different price points...
Steve, I have a related question for you. (all else being fine) If you have your choice of sources do you prefer analog tape, DSD, 16/44 or 24/96? ...or does the original recording quality or performance matter more to you? My guess is that having better quality sources might be easier to work with or is the opposite true and your work shines even more with lousy quality source tapes?
Choice of sources? Not my choice. If I'm remastering Bad Company it's analog. No choice in the matter. Or I don't understand your question. Would I rather work with analog tape or digital? Analog tape. If a recording is digital, I'll work with that, no problem. WB wanted me to do an LP cutting of DIRE STRAITS "BROTHERS IN ARMS" but not from the digital original but some upsampled re-mastered hi-rez file. Of course we passed.
In the Classic Records 45rpm multi-disc version of BOTW, you can clearly hear tracks being inserted in and then removed from the original mix. Suddenly an instrument or effect will appear, play for a while, and then suddenly disappear. This is not handled seamlessly and you can hear changes in the ambience of the recording as tracks are "flown in" and out. This is particularly true in "The Boxer." IMO this detracts from the music, and distracts from some fine vocal performances.