| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 563.1 | It really can help!! | BOHR::CASSONE | Dom Cassone UPO1-3 DTN 296-4797 | Tue Dec 09 1986 13:33 | 38 |
| The sequence of events from the actual playing of the music to the
manufacture of the media. Here is a simplified view.
First, the musicians play in a studio and each insturment and voice
is typically recorded with (at least) its own microphone (except
of course in the case of a synphony orchestra). The output from
each microphone is recorded on its own channel on the master tape.
You now have a master tape with say 24 seperate tracks on it. If
the music was processed and put on the tape in digital fromat you
get the first "D", else you get an "A" for the first letter.
Now you have to take those 24 seperate inputs and mix them down
to a 2 track stereo master. If the equipment used to perform that
function is digital and the resultant tape is recorded digitaly
you get a "D" in the middle place, else you get an "A".
The last "D" is as you stated the actual media format. Hence, for
CD the last letter is always "D", and for LP it is always "A".
Now to answer your question, if the original studio recording was
made in analog format, and they took that tape and "Digitaly
Re-Mastered" it to the 2 track master used to make the CD, you get
ADD. What they mean is that the 2 track master that they had been
using to make the final media (LP, Casette) was an analog master,
but they went back and made another one in digital format before
they manufactured the CD.
This can lead to improved sound even though the 24 track (in my
example) master is of analog format. This is because each time
you transcribe the data you add the problem, that is you get more
tape noise etc. And since you can not go back to the studio and
re-record most of the music (it would be real tough to do "I Want
to Hold Your Hand" again) Digital Re-Mastering is the best you
can get.
Does this help?
Dom
|
| 563.2 | The Mixer gets another chance | SKYLAB::FISHER | Burns Fisher 381-1466, ZKO1-1/D42 | Tue Dec 09 1986 14:17 | 5 |
| I suppose since digitally remastering is really a remixing, that
the results could sound significantly different from the original
AAA due to different decisions by the mixer, huh?
Burns
|
| 563.3 | Let's hope it doesn't go to his head | BOHR::CASSONE | Dom Cassone UPO1-3 DTN 296-4797 | Tue Dec 09 1986 14:28 | 4 |
| Hi Burns!!!
I suspose that's true, but one hopes that the result is not too
much different from the sounds that we have grown to love!!
|
| 563.4 | Sometimes they can't leave well enough alone.... | BETHE::LICEA_KANE | | Tue Dec 09 1986 14:33 | 20 |
|
Yup, that's right. Nothing says that two people taking the same
masters are going to mix them down the same way.
I've wondered about what it would be called if the original master
was a two track digital. D-D? Or would it be -DD? I'm thinking
of the digital equivalent of direct to disk (direct to disc?).
And yet another controversy. Some "labels" are re-recording tracks
since the original masters are either deteriorating or just plain
bad.
Well, you can either re-record the track faithfully, or maybe you
decide to update it a little bit. You know, give an old Elvis
song a little more contemporary feel.
Yeesh. Colorized CDs.
-mr. bill
|
| 563.5 | | ASIA::MCLEMAN | Jeff McLeman, Workstations Dev | Tue Dec 09 1986 16:15 | 3 |
| Shefield Labs CD's ( or most of them) are two track sources and
then digitally mastered, hence missing the middle D.
|
| 563.6 | dreaming? | BISTRO::HEIN | Hein van den Heuvel, Valbonne. | Wed Dec 10 1986 04:13 | 4 |
| Isn't the mix information written back to the umpteen track source
media and thus available as input for the re-mastering process?
Hein.
|
| 563.7 | to botch it some more | QUOIN::BELKIN | Josh Belkin | Wed Dec 10 1986 13:12 | 11 |
| > -< The Mixer gets another chance >-
> I suppose since digitally remastering is really a remixing, that
> the results could sound significantly different from the original
> AAA due to different decisions by the mixer, huh?
Yup, like in the case of Sticky Fingers to roll off the bass 15 db.
arrrggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
|
| 563.8 | Mixers are artists too | SKYLAB::FISHER | Burns Fisher 381-1466, ZKO1-1/D42 | Mon Dec 22 1986 13:04 | 10 |
| I meant my question about the remastering not to be a "suspicious
question" (i.e. trying to blame the new mixers for screwing up).
Surely a mixer is an artist just as much as the performers. When
Deatht�ngue does "Breaking Up is Hard to Do", do we say that they
have screwed up if it does not sound exactly like Neal Sedaka?
(Hmmm this is beginning to sound suspiciously like a debate about
coloring "The Maltese Falcon").
Burns
|