So what is exactly is the new release of "Time Fades Away" mastered from?

TFA was recorded by Elliot Mazer. David Briggs wasn't involved at all, if I remember correctly. For the TFA and CSNY 1974 recordings, recently released, Elliot Mazer used the same equipment. His Master's Wheels Mobile truck is now home of the mastering studio of John Nowland at The Broken Arrow Ranch.

 

I suspect this means it has been REmastered diferently from the first time it was mastered for vinyl, as opposed to TFA which seems to be saying it has been mastered for the first time from that tape.

 

So in other words, they just striped a track alongside the music with some type of time code to keep it in sync and data to change mixer parameters?

Automated mixing would have allowed him to go direct to disk without worrying about someone missing a cue on a fader or something, so if that is indeed what the machine was doing ( as I understand it) everything could be mixed in advanced and then just ran onto the master, which would explain why they bypassed having a 2 track master. They obivously did it just because they could.

 

Correct.

 

So the new TFA can never match the original LP cutting/pressing for quality. THAT is the difference.

 

Why would you say that?

 

Because as it has just been said (which I already knew), we are another generation down the line with the new pressing compared to original.

 

So? Since when is tape generation the sole determination of quality?

 

When the original is notably exceptional.

Remember that Who's Next US pressing from The Mastering Lab? They never topped it on vinyl imo.

My opinion is also that the CD test which was pressed up and not issued of TFA sounded dull, flawed to my ears. That is why I guessed it was pulled.

 

Then no vinyl is that great, since it isn't amazing.

My point still stands.

 

(I don't know this album at all)

Can't the CompuMix instructions be converted and used on or against the multitrack the same way today?

 

And my point stands as well, it won't match the original. It could top it(?), but that is also unlikely with the originals being well done.

 

It certainly could match it. No reason why it couldn't.

 

They could mix on automatic board right to cutting head and get really close. It depends on the multitrack's condition. The CompuMix instructions might not have been saved, might not have been able. The hardware might be gone too, long gone.

 

They are stored on the multitrack.

 

It says it was a digital signal in the audio frequency range. It had to be relatively simple. If that and documentation of it exists, it can be reverse engineered. If CompuMix documentation doesn't exist, the CompuMix track could still be reverse engineered virtually perfectly, I believe.

 

No. It isn't really another generation down the line, because copies of the original 2 track would have been used to make vinyl from normally.
This time instead of making a master, they made the lacquor and a 2 track at the same time, so the vinyl master was moved one step back, as was the tape.
Even if it was another generation, given what digital technology can do now I doubt you would be able to tell the difference. With one generation there would have been little degradation, the only real problem would have been added tape hiss. Which again, digital technology can now deal with that.
In reality, what a CD of it should sound like from the 2 track the have would be more in line with what would have happened had they created a 2 track master to begin with.

 

Presumably there's a working CompuMix system somewhere that could be put into service.

A bigger problem could possibly be the outboard gear used, including echo. And the console itself. CompuMix controlled the levels, but there was still quite a bit outside of its control. Even if you got that working, there would still be lots of ways to stray from the sound of the original.

 

If the multitrack is intact, then the instructions are still there.
They probably wouldn't need it. A good engineer could listen to the 2 track they have and use it as a guide. Modern automated mixers could do the same thing again.

They might do well to remix it. The original mix was ok, but it was nothing to send up fireworks over.

 

It wouldn't matter if it was out of the audio range. SMPTE time code can be striped onto analog tape, much of the signals of that are likely above what you can hear. It was obviously within the range that original mutlitrack tape was capable of.

 

From the one sentence description of it above, the CompuMix track had to be a relatively simple "recording". Even though it was called "digital", in 1971 that probably meant: sixteen "analog" frequencies, or tones, with levels of 0-255 or 0-63 or 0-15 to control the "faders". Then possibly modified/overridden by the "second" CompuMix track if there is one (which was probably summing the two CompuMix tracks to "mono" with the "second" track in reverse phase).

You could figure it out exactly just by looking at the waveforms in a PC wave editor (audio editor).

 

This was not a normal mix, it was a mix to cutting head. The tape copy is in fact another generation down the line, and anything made from the 2-track is not same as the original cut vinyl.

The vinyl was not moved a step back.

There is not a CD planned as I see it at this time. The LP is what we are talking about not a CD issued had they decided to do it that way. They decided to cut from the mixing console. Any 2-track tapes were made for commercial tape dupes like reel, cassette, and 8-tracks.

I agree, lots of chances to stray from original mix. Plus condition of multis is unknown. What tape stock was used?

 

The vinyl was moved back a step. If the mix went right from the mixing console to the lacquer then they skipped getting the lacquer from a 2 track.
Instead of multitrack>2 track> lacquer, then it is multitrack>laquer/2track.

Which, if my understanding is right, the 2 track was made at the same time as the laquer, not from it.

 

Is it not possible to cut a new lacquer from a mint test pressing or something of that nature?

There was obviously something that was good enough to work from, and from all of the above discussions, I see three distinct possibilities:
1. It was cut from one of the "indifferent" 2 tracks that was made at the same time as the original lacquer was cut.
2. It was cut from the original multitrack tapes.
3. It was sourced from a clean vinyl.

As I see it, if the tapes (possibility 1) were good enough for re-cuts, then they are likely good enough to cut a re-issue from. If the multitrack tapes were still in good shape, they could have been used to produce a new master. The mix could theoretically be close, assuming it was possible to source a working CompuMix and that the encoded mixing info was preserved... but Phil also has this to say:

"We used our chambers for echo and used some board EQ and things like that. It could be remixed and qould maybe come out better but not the same. And I'll bet the 16 tracks are pretty worn out. The MM1000 we used was hard on tape. "

So... although the faders were automated, there was other mixing involved...

Could option 3 produce something approaching the quality of the original?

At any rate... we need someone to do an A/B comparison, or post some needle drops of an original pressing and the re-issue. I'm checking my matrix numbers when I get home. I've got an original Us pressing with the black on the inner sleeve, but I've never checked the matrix numbers to see if they're from early stampers or not.

 

Thanks for that.

Interesting to note that the David Briggs note was added to the Wikipedia entry in 2005, along with all kinds of other unsourced information, and I have not yet seen anything that provides a source: everything seems to just copy and past what was on Wikipedia. And there's stuff like this:

"A mistake? – hardly, but Young had further compounded the unsettling experience by insisting on recording the album live to 16 track using the new and highly questionable Quad-8 CompuMix, the first digital mixing soundboard. CompuMix was not so fondly referred to by all concerned as Compu****, so unsatisfying were the results derived. This may have been where Neil first developed his well-known aversion to digital sound."

Never mind that Compumix would have been used during *mixing*, not recording, and it has nothing to do with "digital sound".

Looking now, it appears the original mention may have been in Shakey...in relation to Tonight's the Night, *not* Time Fades Away:

"Although Young had told audiences that the Tonight's the Night album would be coming out in January 1974, he continued to fiddle with it, much to the annoyance of David Briggs, who considered the project finished. "After we stopped recording I gave the tape to Neil. I said, 'Here's the record.' It was done. It was a masterpiece.

"Then we go into Neil's studio with whatever kind of pathetic console Elliot Mazer convinced him to buy, and I tried to mix Tonight's the Night with and without Neil, and he tried to mix it with and without me - but it was always through the Compumix." The Compu****, as Briggs dubbed it, was the first computerized mixing console - an expensive, unwieldy piece of technology that had caused major problems on Time Fades Away. "That thing almost ruined Tonight's the Night," said Briggs. "What a ****in' nightmare.

"This went on for months, for ****in' months, and every time I'd do a mix I'd say, 'Man, this sounds like ****, what's the ****in' matter here? Something's wrong here.' Finally I said, 'Hey, we gotta get outta here. Your studio sucks and your consoles suck. We'll go down to Heider's and mix the ****ing thing.' Now, neither he - or especially me - had it in us at all to mix it again.""

Of course, no mention of exactly what "major problems" it caused on Time Fades Away, nor how it almost ruined Tonight's the Night.