AF to do Simon & Garfunkel's Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Khojem, Dec 26, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. George P

    George P Notable Member

    Location:
    NYC
    :agree:
     
  2. Mike D'Aversa

    Mike D'Aversa Senior Member

    Sorry, Bob, but that is about as vague as vague gets...
     
  3. Bender Rodriguez

    Bender Rodriguez RIP Exene, best dog ever. 2005-2016

    IMO, AF is setting themselves up for more of these issues by the way they handle customer service.
    It seems as though when there is an issue with one of their releases (and there seem to be issues more often than not), questions are met first with silence. Eventually, when enough of a commotion has been raised, a half-hearted response/apology/evasion is issued (usually coming from Marshall) that doesn't really address the matter or answer the question.
    If AF wants to keep the faith of its existing customer base, it will answer directly whether or not the original master tapes have been used. Refusal to answer can only be seen a a response in the negative, for if the original master tapes had been used there should be no reluctance in issuing an affirmative response. Moreover, if the original master tapes were not used, a resonable explaination as to why not should be offered. To continually evade questions and make vague assertions as to how much work went into the production will only serve to lose them customers and to cast doubt onto the production methods used for each and every one of their future releases.
     
    Derp likes this.
  4. vintage_tube

    vintage_tube Enjoying Life & Music

    Location:
    East Coast
    I'm trying awfully hard Mike to be optomistic and gave the benefit of the doubt to KG.

    Bob
     
  5. johnny33

    johnny33 New Member

    Location:
    usa

    How do we know it really did? I find interesting that the beginning sentence in first person states that he(Kevin) has been getting emails. Really? Somebody here wrote Kevin? Who? Don't believe everything you read and half of what you hear. And as it was pointed out his comments didn't even make sense. Don't you think a mastering engineer of his stature would know basic information such as what he (supposedly Kevin) deals with everyday? That combined with whovever wrote that letters avoidance of answering the basic question of where the master tapes used or not leaves it suspect imo. Did the letter really come from Kevin? It's possible but not conclusive.
     
  6. Javimulder

    Javimulder New Member

    Location:
    Spain
    I'm glad the CD sounds great (judging from forum members' reviews and reports, I don't have it yet) and I'm willing to believe it very well may be the best this title has ever sounded (like Kevin mentions), but that's not the point... The whole point is: if it's not from the original master tapes, then don't advertise it as such... Nothing more, nothing less...

    How the CD sounds is an altogether different matter...
     
  7. J.A.W.

    J.A.W. Music Addict

    This is pure speculation and it is going a bit far in my view. I have no reason to believe that Marshall lied to me about the message coming from Kevin.
     
  8. LeeS

    LeeS Music Fan

    Location:
    Atlanta
    Given Kevin's comments, I am curious to try the disc.
     
  9. johnny33

    johnny33 New Member

    Location:
    usa

    It's just as possible that it didn't as it is that it did. I think post 659 is pretty clear that either Kevin doesn't know what he is talking about or that aint Kevin. I don't see Kevin making such a simple mistake as that was mentioned in post 659. A mastering engineer with his experience? I don't know,seems odd to say the least.
     
  10. kevinsinnott

    kevinsinnott Forum Coffeeologist

    Location:
    Chicago, IL USA
    Is it true that two analog source tape machines cannot spend an album's length, say 35 minutes or so, effectively locked in sync? I have no experience with that high-end an audio machine. We used to start two video machines in sync and they would stay locked for an hour, non-digital of course.

    I only ask because a large part of doubt appears to rest upon the premise that two waveforms won't match unless they originate from the same analog playback.

    Anyone know?
     
  11. therockman

    therockman Senior Member In Memoriam




    But what about post #653? :help:
     
  12. therockman

    therockman Senior Member In Memoriam





    Thank you for asking this insightful question in a well articulated way. I also am curious to the answer. :righton:
     
  13. JacksonGrey

    JacksonGrey New Member

    Location:
    UK
    With respect, he'd hardly be the first mastering engineer to confuse the facets of analogue and digital production. If it were an electronic engineer making that comment, I'd take your point, but this is not the case.

    My personal opinion: When 'master tapes' and 'dubs' are discussed, often the implications for sound quality are vastly overstated. A contemporary copy, and even a digital transfer from the late 80s, should be sufficient unless something seriously wrong occurred during the transfer. You'll forgive my objectivism, but I doubt many people could tell the difference between the two.

    So for me, then, the provenance of this and many other releases is not of particular concern. What should be of concern to customers though, is the description of the product. Whether the consensus is that Audio Fidelity are being economical with the truth, or whether this is an outright deception, such inaccuracy is surely unacceptable of any product. This is particularly true of a product that charges such a high premium for this very (if I might add, embellished) production feature. :sigh:
     
  14. ivan_wemple

    ivan_wemple Senior Member

    I am skeptical that they would "stay locked" in the fashion that Jamie referred to when he mentioned the digital synching.

    I believe Jamie implied that the 2 CD segments in question remained "in sync" from sample-to-sample-to-sample-etc., for their entire duration, which I also find implausible if independent digital transfers were employed.
     
    lukpac likes this.
  15. ivan_wemple

    ivan_wemple Senior Member

    Sorry, this is just not correct. Why do you think Steve always makes such a big deal about the A/D conversion hardware and process?

    In fact, it's been a big selling point and asserted explicitly by Audio Fidelity... that is precisely why this is so controversial.
     
    drift likes this.
  16. Music Emporium

    Music Emporium Forum Resident

    Location:
    Spain
    MOFI advertised their lennon releases as coming from original master tapes when it's widely accepted that a digital remix was used........I think we should take these annoucememts with a grain of salt........even major labels are ambigous about their sources........the fact is that if AF is not using master tapes or analogue tapes why they don't release more appealing titles for younger audiences???? that's what disturbs me mostly
     
  17. JacksonGrey

    JacksonGrey New Member

    Location:
    UK
    Well, I'll let you speculate why. Empirically, the specification of A/D conversion is such that transparency should be maintained on both the technology of the late 80s and its contemporary equivalents. As I said previously, unless something seriously wrong occurred (or a mistake has been made) during transfer, I highly doubt anyone could successfully tell a modern transfer apart from its late 80s/early 90s predecessor.

    That said, they will not be exact replicas - that is the nature of the medium and the transferring process. Whether you can notice it or not is a different thing. Audio software is for more adept at objective comparison than you or I are, and having looked at the samples provided using the same software available to everyone, I can only conclude as previous posters have.

    I should expect that, assuming a suitable master tape is still available, and AF were provided with the DAT, procuring the master might have resulted in an extra cost, either in fee or lost time. Either that, or they were not given permission to use the master tape.
     
  18. czeskleba

    czeskleba Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    Remember that the issue is not just that the 80's transfer would not have been done on state of the art A/D conversion equipment, but that it would not have been sourced from the master tape, which was missing at the time. And it apparently was sourced from a copy tape with a notable flaw, the clipped intro to Homeward Bound.
     
    C6H12O6 and lukpac like this.
  19. Stefan

    Stefan Senior Member

    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    We're discussing post 653, which is Kevin's statement as forwarded by Marshall and posted by JAW. Notice as well that Kevin lumped both S&G releases together:

    I have no way of doing the comparison myself as I don't have the AF version, but I did follow Jamie's advice with a couple of the Led Zeppelin tracks where he made the same observation and I've done so since with All Things Must Pass tracks on last year's George Harrison compilation, comparing them to the 2001 remaster. The LZ tracks did stay in sync, whereas the Harrison tracks did not. John Davis confirmed that the LZ tracks were from the same digital transfer so it makes sense that they synced. As for the ATMP tracks, I imagine the machines at Abbey Road are of high enough quality and speed stability that if the master tape was played back twice and the speed will be as stable as Kevin suggests in his message, the tracks should stay in sync. Yet they do not. Anyone with the ATMP remaster and Let It Roll compilation can easily check this out for themselves.
     
  20. Music Emporium

    Music Emporium Forum Resident

    Location:
    Spain
    do you mean a trasnfer of 24/192 would attain the same results as one of 16/44 ???
     
  21. czeskleba

    czeskleba Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    In his original post, Jamie said that it's impossible for two separate digital conversions of the same analog tape to digitally sync up perfectly. Luke repeated this in post #659. If in fact Jamie is correct and the two CDs are in perfect digital sync, they have to be sourced from the same 80's-era digital transfer, regardless of what anyone might say to the contrary.
     
    ThePoodleBites, C6H12O6 and lukpac like this.
  22. JacksonGrey

    JacksonGrey New Member

    Location:
    UK
    I appreciate that '24/192' is a numerical buzzword for some, but the SNR of Redbook is more than sufficient to maintain transparency. On such an old tape, and even a contemporary one, there is no advantage to transferring at this resolution except for 'posterity'.

    Let us not forget, as someone just pointed out, this DAT may not have been a transfer from a master tape either. Bear in mind the effect this has on noise levels, too. Although minimal, we are talking figures far in excess of those introduced by digitisation.

    Let us also not forget that this was mastered for a CD. Whilst using software, it can be noted that dithering from 24 bit may be preferable to using a 16 bit transfer, again, we are talking figures too small to matter.

    In summary then: Ceteris paribus, a 24/192 transfer would attain the same practical results as a 16/44.1, particularly considering tape condition and that this has been mastered for CD, after all.
     
  23. ivan_wemple

    ivan_wemple Senior Member

    But analog playback is really important, too, and that's why I mentioned the "process"!

    Before it even gets to the "conversion", you gotta get some good 'A', and it takes some expertise to milk the best analog signal from a magnetic tape.
     
  24. JacksonGrey

    JacksonGrey New Member

    Location:
    UK
    Respectfully, I think you'll find the hardware involved should be sophisticated enough not to compel such expertise in the transfer. EQ tuning affects the end sound far far more than any marginal and inaudible improvement you might be after. :)
     
  25. Stefan

    Stefan Senior Member

    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    So then you're claiming that all advances in A/D and D/A converters in the past 2-3 decades have been a complete waste of time. Let's not turn this into another one of those endless debates on hires versus low-res, etc. There are lots of thread on this forum dealing with that topic.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine