The Nightfly: original digital source question

I was looking at Donald Fagen's The Nightfly MFSL LP, with its "Original Master Recording" banner. Being that it's a digital recording, what exactly are the masters, or what was the music recorded on? They're not on reel-to-reel tapes (that would be analog), so physically, what masters are they using? DAT tape? If it's some type of computer file, does it even matter the source? In a general way, how does this work? Thanks!

 

Dat didn't exist in 81,recorded on some type of early 3M digital recorder, details as always are available through net search.

 

From the liner notes
Recorded and mixed entirely on 3M digital 32 track and 4 track machines at Soundworks Digital Audio/Video Recording Studios, N.Y., Village Recorders, L.A. and Automated Sound, N.Y.
Original Mastering: at Masterdisk, N.Y.C.

 

Sorry for being naive (hey, its a Hoffman forum, and we all need to be informed , but it looks like it was recorded onto tape, but the console was digital? So when Mofi came by, they took the tape reels? Yes? No?

 

Since digital recording was in its' infancy back then, I'm curious if they ran analog backup tapes?

 

whatever the source the DVDA sounds great

 

I'll tell you this, the MFSL lp is the best sounding pressing I've heard. I compared it to the recent reissue and an original U.S. on two different stereos, and the mofi was the clear winner. As for the recording, I looked up a Google image of the 3M recorder and there's tape reels in the center. This is from 1978, so I assume its the same:

 

There seems to be conflicting information on this one. I posted this last year:

And Pinknik posted this:

While I know we should probably trust Nichols on this, Fagen tends to have very good recall on stuff like this (and he was very specific on the Lopate show about it).

 

Well, the 32 track was mixed to stereo on a 3M 4 track which would be the 1st gen stereo master. I assume the dub to 1610 for CD replication was probaby done analog from one digital recorder to the other. Cue comical trombone sound: wah-wah!

 

Thanks!! I'm still trying to decipher all this.
My copy reads JH/2.

 

So when MFSL took the "masters" they took U-Matic video cassettes, or the reel to reels shown on the 3M pic?

 

Whatever the case, if the final master was digital tape on a reel or on a cart, my question is, wouldn't it be possible to use one of the original machines to transfer this data bit for bit as it exists on the tape, to a more manageable hard drive based format such as wav?
The DACs in the old machines were so primitive, but by playing back the same data on newer equipment I bet new magic could be drawn out of those ancient bits.

 

My guess would be the analog tapes for the MFSL. Ricker does digital 1/2 speed now, but I thinks it's a relatively new developement.

 

I think you're right, but I wonder if they did that for the dvd-a, for instance. Would make sense.

 

I doubt there are many 3M DMS recorders functioning out there. It is a rare bird. I bet 1630 U-Matics or files got exchanged.

 

It's actually much easier than cutting from analog as you only have to deal with the EQ on the cutting end of things and not have to worry about custom tape playback electronics... Just play back at half the sample rate, can be done with about two clicks of the mouse.

 

Roger Nichols wrote about this, somewhere. Actually, just sucking the digital data off the tapes - while possible - is the worst thing you could probably do. That's because the early A/D converters had all sorts of linearity issues, and had to be carefully paired with matching D/A converters on each channel with complementary linearity issues, so they'd cancel out! When he did the surround mix of The Nightfly for DVD-A he had to haul out the 3M deck it was recorded on, tune it up, and playback all 32-channels analog to a 32-track digital 24/192 recorder. It was mixed from there.

My assumption is when Steely Dan transferred their back catalog to digital in the early '80s they used the same 3M decks to copy the analog stereo masters. The analog stereo masters have since badly deteriorated, leaving the digital copies the best remaining copies of the 2-channel original masters. But if that's the case you might get the best performance out of them by playing those tapes back on the original decks and re-digitizing the analog output at 24/192...

It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of other analog 2-channel masters have undergone similar deterioration, leaving digital copies made in the '80s the best remaining copies of those masters, even if they're "only" 16/44.1 (or 16/50, which I think a bunch of early digital stuff was). Might explain why so many forum residents prefer a lot of those '80s releases over subsequent "remasters".