DCC Archive Known (noticeable) flaws in tapes used for DCC discs??

Doobies - Listen To The Music has serious high frequency problems in the left channel.

J Tull, Original Masters - Thick As A Brick has a pause/silence in the middle between mix takes. This was corrected on all previous releases, but Steve didn't want to change the edit on the master tape (which hadn't been used before). There are also some small problems here and there...

Hwy 61 - Around 0:24 or so (if memory serves - I'd have to pull it out) one channel drops a bit, pulling the balance off briefly. All other versions either used a tape without this problem (possibly a dub of the master before it developed the problem) or have corrected it.

Straight Up - Big click in the right channel of Baby Blue, LP mix, right in the intro. It's on the Apple CD as well, so it must be a master problem.

All I can think of now...

 

Uh, guys? What are you saying? Peter Mew and No-noise to the rescue?

Are you TRYING to make DCC use a Sonic Solutions workstation on their next releases?

COOL IT!

 

Angel,

Don't fret. Fact is, many master tapes have inherint problems, and trying to futz with them would not mean something good.

It's only a curious thing, nothing else. People here concentrate on the music. They also concentrate on every little thing too. That doesn't worry Steve a bit, and it wouldn't me either.

Our philosophy, as I speak in kind with no means of speaking for all of us, is that we'd like to hear the warts on the master, if and when they exist. If we choose to fix them at home, then that's that. Steve is well aware of this, and we've made it clear that we'd like it if more engineers could understand the simple things.

Only for example, if I come off really picky, I only want the passion of what I enjoy in the music to come forth. There are things about the sound of the master tape that may take someone mere moments to YEARS to finally appreciate, when they have an attentive ear open. Sadly, people aren't so attentive at average, and even this kind of pickyness is a glint of light, not to be confused with the immortality of the music itself.

 

****, how did you find this out?!?! I asked Steve about this *exact* thing the other day, and he didn't remember it. There are a few other spots on Dreamboat Annie that are flakey, e.g. track 6, from 3:47 on, left channel.

No, this is not a suggestion to 'fix' these problems, but it is interesting trivia. It's actually a testament to DCC that you can hear the flaws so clearly.

 

Jefferson Starship - "Red Octopus" - "Fast Buck Freddie".

 

Leon Russell "A Song For You" . I don't have the disc handy but there is a weird click towards then end of the song which is real noticable with headphones. One of the channels fades out at that same point as well. Steve said it's a master flaw. I wouldn't mind having it corrected. It kinda ruins a very tender song at a very tender moment.

 

I really don't think that's true. Removing the silence in Thick As A Brick is *not* "futzing" with the master - it's fixing a problem that shouldn't be there in the first place. The same could be said if DCC mastered "This Boy" - that big gap should *not* be there, but somebody was lazy and didn't do a good edit. No reason not to correct that.

Now, Wheels Of Fire has a *lot* of clicks, and they aren't that loud - in that case it's probably not worth it to try and "fix" them. With Baby Blue, on the other hand, there's one big click in the intro (which is only on one of the mixes, in fact). Fixing that would be easy and would make everything a lot nicer...

Sorry, I don't buy the "it's on the master, leave it alone" argument. If that were the case, mastering engineers wouldn't exist - we'd just play all tapes back flat. We don't, though, as we know that in some cases things can be done to make them sound better...

 

There's a tick (or pop) about 20 seconds into "You gave me the answer" on the DCC version of Paul McCartney's Venus and Mars, that's not present in the other versions I have heard of that album (the 1992 Euro remaster and 2000 Japanese mini sleeve). Nothing bad or even distracting, really.

 

If I remember correctly there was some distortion on Jim Croce "24 Karat Gold in a Bottle". I can't remember which track(s) but it seems like it sounded like oversaturation on the tape.

On the topic of fixing small problems...

I would rather keep the minor problems if it means that the music has to be sent through some kind of digital workstation. There are plenty of "stock issue" CDs out there that can be easily had if that is your cup of tea. I think it is very interesting to hear the master tapes "warts and all". I haven't heard anything on any of the DCC gold discs that I thought should have been repaired.

Just my opinion.

Tony

[ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: Tony Caldwell ]

 

Yes, I'm with Tony on this too. Since most audiophiles will never have access to any master tapes, and IMHO this allows us to "test our meddle" on making fixes if we feel so moved. If we screw it up, it's not a problem, as we can always go back to our "master" tape (i.e. the DCC CD/LP). If Steve were to fix the warts, and for some ungodly reason we didn't like his fix, then we would be stuck with his interpretation of said fix. I'm sure Steve make tons of fixes that we never know of, but it seems that he leans towards the conservative side. I like that. Capitol takes the master tapes, and "fixes" them all of the time. What they create is mostly unlistenable, but they go to bed each night secure in the feeling that they have added value...

 

Well, if that were the case, we should just get flat transfers of every master tape. Which *isn't* what Steve gives us. Why should Steve be able to fix the overall sound with EQ, but *not* be able to remove a tic or a pop?

 

Luke, I suspect you know the answer to this question - these are not comparable things.

And, even more obvious, how can one remove transient noises while remaining in the analog domain? Take a RAZOR to the master tape?

SCENARIO: "Thanks very much for letting me use the Thick As A Brick master tape I put all those annoying little extra bits in a separate envelope." :-O

 

How so? Both are changing the sound of the master tape...

Who says you have to? Where it is written that all digital editing changes the sound of things? Read what other people have to say. Do tests yourself. Don't simply say "oh, digital editing is bad because Steve told me it is".

"Think for yourself"

 

I work in both analog and digital and I understand where you're coming from Luke. That said, Steve Hoffman has already said what his philosophy about remastering is. We may not agree with his reasoning (i.e. not removing a tick because of the belief that going to a digital workstation would necessarily damage the sound), but the fact that he has any philosophy at all, any ethic, any morals when it comes to mastering this stuff is something that I respect and am willing to let him have the playpen for it. He gets good results. Digital done right can be warm, beautiful, clear and all the stuff you get from good analog. It's just that few people (including me) know how to do it right there are lots of fun distractors that make it fun to do it wrong (No noise/noisegating, compression used inappropriately, etc, etc).

 

Well, the problem I have is when people say "oh, you can't do that because it would involve using a digital workstation". Now, yes, in most cases I'll agree with Steve - doing EQ, level adjustments, etc on workstations is not a good idea (unless you can't help it - ie, are a home user and don't have tons of analog equipment). However, I *don't* agree that simply dumping to a workstation causes problems.

 

Neither do I, but adding any more steps into the process does add more POTENTIAL for problems. If someone is great at analog but not so knowledgeable about Mark of the Unicorn or Protools or whatever they're using, then the end product could be compromised. But I agree with your point.

 

Whoa, Luke, calme toi!

My previous post was mostly a reference to the DCC Gold CD mastering sequence that we have come to know and love - all-analog, all-tube, no copying, no screwing around, just get it set and let it run.
Close to Heaven. As good as things get.
Are you disagreeing? Nah.

---

As for my "taking Steve's word for it", Luke, well, spank me for it, but the MAIN REASON that I read this forum is because of what Steve shares with us in here.

IMNSHO, the following facts are important and worth remembering, even though they might sound a little embarrassing when stated as directly as this:

Mr Hoffman is a person gifted with the ability to _hear_ what he listens to, and he has used his gift wisely.
He's honest about what he hears, he's not easily fooled, and he seems to have no hidden agenda.
He's intelligent and experienced, and his name on a release speaks for itself.
And we are _very_ fortunate to have his participation in this forum.

Y'know, it often seems to me that Steve is THE ONLY PERSON in the reissue busness who is NOT full of **** when they talk about the sound of vintage recordings and equipment;
his observations are UNIQUELY INSTRUCTIVE because the things that he says always turn out to be right.

Yep, within the modest bounds of _my_ wisdom and experience,
I can humbly attest that whatever I have heard Mr Hoffman say about "the sound of a thing",
his description has ALWAYS turned out to be accurate, without exception, when I heard it for myself.

Amazing, but true!

---

So, Luke, if you want to "know" whether digital manipulation worsens the sound of something, please don't ask me, because my answer should be obvious - OF COURSE it does.

In the digital domain, anything more than cutting and pasting is theoretically risky, isn't it?
FWIW, I won't even change the volume of a wavefile in the digital domain on my pc, because when I do, the original "sound" just falls apart and is -- gone.

I still want to believe that fancier workstations might have less of an effect, but until I hear them for myself, I can only rely on other users' reports.
And if Mr Hoffman has found that they change the sound, then how can I argue with him? He's almost certainly right. (see mini-tribute, above)

---

As always, this is really just MHO, and what is written above is not intended to be the definitive word on any of these issues.

After all, I'm one of those listeners who seldom finds that 2 "identical" cds sound the same! What a dilemma!

 

ditto