SH Spotlight Recording and Mastering Questions---Answered here. Any more?

Problem is, "master" can mean a lot of things to different people. Nowadays, it is generally accepted as the final mixdown tape, ready for mastering and duplication.

 

If someone wanted to do an LP or CD of such a tape with everything spliced in, in most cases, I imagine they would have to do a LOT of EQ'ing and other stuff to make the tracks sit well together if they were all spliced together and were from different machines, studios, and different parameters. man! Mastering ain't easy!

 

Steve, do you have any comments on the Plangent Processes wow and flutter corrector? Seems like a highly useful invention for resurrecting badly shrunk mag film in particular.

Do analog tapes deteriorate just by sitting on the shelf? Not talking sticky shed but does a tape sound sonically poorer the longer it sits, assuming that it was wound and stored properly?

 

Steve, this probably applies mainly to you and a select few that do similar sorts of mastering.

When you receive a master that is digital (on DAT or in computer files), do you master it through analogue gear, or do you keep it digital all the way (use plug-ins, etc)?

 

Steve, my first CD of yours was "Bille Holiday: From The Original Decca Masters" which I bought around 20 years ago. "Lover Man" "Good Morning Heartache" and "Solitude" were transferred from glass discs. I searched the forum for a bit of info on the glass discs, but could you comment more about them? How common were they? Was there an advantage to recording on glass? How in the heck was it even done? (Wesson Oil??? Wow.)

 

What tapes are techniacly speaking called "Master" when the songs on an album blend into each other? For example, Santana's Abraxas. Is the mastertape always the mixdown tape from the multitracks or is the cross-fading considered as a part of the mixing process?

 

Not to beat a dead horse...but what generation from the EMI masters are the Vol 2 discs?? Or is this too esoteric to answer?

 

Is the application of EQ, compression, noise reduction (if used) usually limited to one part of the overall recording process, or is it done at the end on the master itself?

Does EQ include include setting overall gain/volume of a given multi or master or is it the adjustment of discrete portions of the sound spectrum?

 

Its amazing then that the Beatles masters aren't totally shot as well, given the millions of records pressed, probably more than the Byrds, Dylan, S&G combined.

How is it that they have stood up so well given the number of times they have been used, is that EMITAPE just really good hardwearing tape?

JJ

 

You mentioned earlier that with cassettes-- especially those with DBX-- would only sound good on the deck they were recorded on.

If it were practical or possible, would there be any sonic benefit if (analog we're talking about) all songs were all recorded and mixed in the same studio rather then vocals one place, guitars another, overdubs at a third, etc. Same about the mixdown. Would there be any noticeable benefit if you had the actual machine the master mixdown tapes were made on to master from or do professional machines sound uniform enough (tube vs. tube, solid state vs. solid state) that once they are set up properly with the tones that no one really notices any difference?

The short version of that question: Are part of your EQ or adjustments for the fact you aren't playing the master back on the deck it was made on or only for the sound of the tape itself since the machine is transparent.

 

One factor would be that the original masters would only be used for LPs cut at Abbey Road. With a population much smaller than that of the States even the best selling records here in the UK don't shift nearly the number of units you can shift in the States.

All the millions of Beatles records pressed and re-pressed in the States and around the world were made from copy tapes. Only the relatively small number (I said relatively!) of records pressed here in the UK were made from the masters. I imagine, for example, that the Byrds & S&G US pressed records cut directly from the original masters were made in much larger quantities requiring more recuts hence more tape wear.

 

To pull this back off track...do you hear any difference in compression?

Did anyone else listen?

 

I did. And you're right ... same amount of echo. Hmm. I based my earlier post on what I remember of the track on the Beatles '65 LP I used to have, and Joseph Brennan concurs: he says, "Capitol's stereo version has an unusually large amount of added echo even for them."

Brennan continues, "Late in the LP era (black label) a new master was made for Capitol with a version sounding like the UK version." I guess this means the Capitol Vol. 1 CD box contains the reissue version without added echo.

 

The other day I got an Odeon Beatles '65. I don't remember any added echo, but I'll have to listen again. Of course, they may have changed things around anyway, as I think I Feel Fine might be their unique longer version.

 

Here's a link for a site with information on baking. Scroll down about half way to an insert that is darker than the rest of the page...
http://www.masterdigital.com/24bit/analogtape.htm#anchor1163399

 

Q:

What determines what size and speed tape is used for the master? 1/4 inch or half inch and what speed: 15ips or 30 ips?