The Master Flat-Transfer Thread

Why do you say that?

 

I believe Traffic's Smiling Phases is a flat transfer.

 

It sounds like there are several types of "flat".

1. There's putting up the tape on a machine, letting her rip into a computer and burning discs off it. This is the kind of "flat" we got on a lot of early discs.

2. There's the same procedure, only with a little tweaking here, from head alignment to some minor "restorative" EQ, enough to "sweeten" but not enough to rethink the original.

3. There's one, often with the artist present (sounds good at first, but not in my experience) where things are finally "done right" - "better" than we did them under the budget, technological and time limitations of the original release.

4. 3-plus, and this was a big trend after audiophiles and their publications trashed early CD, there is additional tweaking done with predictive engineering in order to minimize digitization.

5. The original artist was a creative genius, but didn't know how to record (or was saddled with lesser technical help) and I (remastering engineer) can fix it with my newer and better toolkit.

Both one and two and effectively be called flat transfers, and as others have acknowledged, it's impossible to know except by ear/conjecture, which one is which.

Meanwhile, I'm making a good list of discs to obtain given my respect for most forumers' ears.

 

I hear plenty of hiss on this, especially in the break just before Lennon sings "over me."

Andy Zax, who produced the reissue of Paris 1919 for Rhino recently, said on this forum that he did a flat transfer of the master tape for that John Cale CD.

Jason

 

Do you know if other titles in this series are flat transfers? Heart's "Dreamboat Annie" from around '90 is also part of this series (CD21-6080)

 

I think you mean CP21-6080 don't you PW? Now I'm curious if it's the same mastering as the CP32. It never ends.

 

According to Steve it is and it certainly sounds that way to me.

 

So which of the above happened causing the less than optimal sound (if those first 4 albums were "flat" transfers)?

 

Yup. My mistake. CP21-6080 (11/8/89). I'm gonna get me one.

 

It doesn't have to be any of those four things. Might simply be that the "flat" tapes needed work that they didn't get.

Everyone seems to forget that "flat" is not necessarily the optimal way that these tapes need to be presented for best sound. And yet it's a common misconception on this forum that flat is always "best."

 

I think "flat" is mistakenly being confused with "balanced" sometimes.

 

So, what you are saying is that we should retire the concept of a "flat transfer"? If so, it sounds reasonable to me.

 

Steve uses the word "flat" frequently so it definitely means something. I think that people who haven't heard the master tape shouldn't be allowed to judge whether it's a flat transfer or not. We should retire such people, instead of retiring a perfectly sensible word.

 

I understand what you and Rob are saying. What I was taking as flat in this thread is that no eq'ing was done. My memory about Who's Next is confirmed here. I remember him saying something like the master does not sound all that great, hence the hf boost. My apologies Steve, if I'm mistating.

 

IIRC,

1. Stereo playback deck used with improper azimuth alignment to play back the mono tapes, resulting in phase problems and muddiness.
2. Solid-state board used, totally different sounding than the tube-based electronics originally used to master the LP's.

and probably lots of other problems.

 

Also IIRC, the first generation of 3M, Soundstream, and Sony A/D converters sounded really good, while the second and third generation of Sony A/D converters which became ubiquitous sounded terrible.

 

That's correct. According to engineer Mike Jarratt, noise gates and filters were used (not digital NR).

Derek

 

It may be true that the Beach Boys Pastmasters discs were "flat" transfers of some set of master tapes, but they definitely weren't the original mixdown mono and stereo master tapes. They were most likely taken from EQ'd and banded LP tapes (presumably sent over to Japan for vinyl pressings in the Sixties or Seventies). The fact that the Pastmasters discs have duophonic versions for tracks on otherwise-stereo albums would confirm this.

They certainly sound good (though, in my opinion, a bit "muddy"), but they're definitely not from the original mixdown tapes - not as good as Steve's masterings of the same material, or the MFSL gold Surfin' USA/Surfer Girl, all of which were from the original masters.

 

Hi Billy,

My experience was different. To my ears, Sony's later A-D converters, especially once coupled with Apogee filters sounded considerably better (i.e. more transparent) than the first generation.

But that was way back when. Nowadays, we've got much better converters, from diverse sources, than ever. And once you get into the hi-res variety (24 bit and high sampling rates), they start to get competitive with the best analog.

Perhaps some folks believe the later generations of those old converters sounded bad because that is around the time the Loudness Wars started getting under way and CDs became more and more "canned" sounding. Can't blame the tools for what the engineer does with them. ;-}

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi Grant,

In my experience, a "flat transfer" means nothing was done to the original. Hence, if someone compresses while making a copy but applies no EQ or other processing at all, it is most definitely not a flat transfer.

Rob raises some good points regarding how the original playback is set up for the transfer. Ultimately, one could have 100 engineers make a "flat transfer" of the same master and come up with 100 different sounding copies. I'm not sure I would retire the term because of this though. These same variables, whether analog playback alignment, cabling, analog or digital signal path in general, etc., etc. still come into play in any mastering (or copying) situation.

Even the same engineer, with the same gear might come back with two (at least slightly) varying copies on some occasions. How long the gear was on that day (cold start or warmed up), wear on components, clean-ness of the AC power, maybe even what they had for breakfast that day (!) could alter the results.

Perfection (whatever that is) may not be attainable but I'm a firm believer in continually striving for it.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

I meant that some of the songs like the title track are in several segments, at different speeds (15 ips, 7 1/2 ips) and need to be joined together correctly, etc. I got this from Bill Levenson who was tearing his hair out over the complexity of the album. And this was just the two-track mixes. I'll spare you the multi-track sagas.

I would love at some point to hear the multi track sagas...

 

Well said, Barry. Thanks for the insight!

 

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com barry, you're right, about not being able to duplicate the sound of a flat transfer. I have come very close too, but there is always some sort of difference, even you can barely hear it. I guess I just get a bit annoyed when people talk about flat transfers like it's a holy grail or something.

 

I agree. Besides, if the consumers here had never heard the phrase "flat transfer", it would never have occured to them to seek out supposedly "flat CDs". They could have continued simply trying to find the good-sounding ones.

 

Well, if the original is really a high quality recording (I've heard a few), a flat transfer would then, in my view, be the best way to master it.

On the other hand, if you consider the way most records are made, the types of mics, where they're placed and the sad state of monitoring in most (99% of the ones I've visited) studios, most records need EQ.

For the work of engineers like Keith Johnson, I wouldn't want anything but a flat transfer. But sadly, he's part of what to my ears, is a very small minority.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com