Mobile Fidelity Analog Vinyl Controversy

[DSJR]

I did read that 'production masters' or at least the digital dubs of these, were stored elsewhere and it was the original studio session tapes of many famous artists that were destroyed... One artist complained that they could no longer go back to their multi-tracks and re-mix them now.

 

[bkatbamna]

It would be a terrible tragedy if MoFi got taken to the cleaners by scummy class action lawyers for this.

 

[krabapple]

By definition if it remastered, then the original master is no longer the source. Remastering should go back to the multi track recordings and remixes them.

No. This isn't true at all.

Back in the day you could not (or only rarely could) simply transfer a recorded source -- like the original mixdown master tap -- to a consumer medium without any adjustments for the peculiarities of that medium. So a source is 'mastered' for a particular release medium. That is the origin of 'mastering'. From the original recording, you create a 'master' copy that is suitable for production of vinyl, or whatever. This could be a lacquer , or it could another tape, capturing all the tweaks necessary to cut a good lacquer -- a 'cutting master' or a 'production master' tape.

Not to be confused with 'original master tape' (OMT), which *should* refer to the original mixdown tape(s) for a track(s). The OMT is a result of *mixing*, not mastering.

Arguably the advent of CD should have meant that 'mastering' for release would simply be 'flat' digital transfer of source signal (the OMT) to a CD master. No tweaks, just OMT playback from a well-set up reel to reel into a good ADC , then onto a CD metal master disc. But no, mastering engineers still found work 'tweaking' master tape signals so they would 'sound better' on CD. Or in latter days, tweaking it so it would sound good on earbuds in public or in a car (loudness wars). There are of course cases where maybe the master tape itself simply doesn't sound that great. Maybe the engineer and producer were coked out of their heads; maybe crummy studio speakers were used. These do need 'tweaking'.

A remaster *should* mean going back to the source tape -- original mixdown master -- and creating from it a new digital master for release, rather than using a previous digital master. It *could* also now mean going back to a 'flat' digital transfer of the source tape, and creating a tweaked digital copy to use as a new master.

Remixing is an entirely different thing distinct from remastering. Though of course by definition a remix will generate a new master, hence, a remaster.

 

[krabapple]

Once the analog master tape has been digitized, why not wear it out? The digital copy is perfect, right? So who cares about what happens to the analog original?

Digital files need to be regularly transferred to new storage devices....and, possibly, new formats if an old format goes entirely obsolete. (Digital does have an advantage that multiple perfect copies can be made. ) If all of that fails, you'll need that analog tape.

Analog tape has its own danger of someday being unplayable, either due to deterioration or extinction of playback hardware.

If you are planning for a worst case/maximum future proofing scenario, you want to archive both physical and digital media. (Assuming the recording was analog in the first place. Though early original digital recordings are or tape too, not hard drives.)

 

[krabapple]

You're ignoring breakthroughs such as the Plangent Process. If an analog original master is digitized then chucked in the trash, then the flutter and wow removal capability of the Plangent Process would be impossible. This is because this process uses the latent bias signal embedded in the original analog tape as a stable timing reference. There is always the possibility that other processes in the future could come into being which allows retrieval of more information from an analog tape than can be currently done. These are very good reasons to archive the original analog masters.

If the digital archival copy was transferred at a high enough sample rate, that bias signal was captured in the digital master.

This is really an argument for high SR archiving. Which DSD fulfills.

 

[krabapple]

You're kidding, right? I'm sure someone has taken a perfect digital photo copy of the Mona Lisa, so why not just chuck the original in the trash?

The analogy doesn't hold. A 'perfect' photo cannot capture everything about the Mona Lisa offers to the eye...including its texture, which plays in to how Mona 'looks' from different viewpoints. Most paintings are 3D objects. And of course we lose whatever forensic data could be gleaned from the object itself (e.g. underpainting)

A high resolution capture of an audio tape, on the other had, captures everything the physical object (the tape) can offer to the ear. What we'd lose in tossing out the tape, is any forensic data we could get from the tape itself (brand of tape, condition of tape, composition of tape...)

 

[krabapple]

I remember when CD's were supposed to be "Perfect Sound Forever." Now each time there's a new digital format it's like a brand new technology. New detail is revealed from the originals. Happened with HDTV and then 4k and 8k video transfers from 35mm film.

I saw the Norman Rockwell 100th Anniversary Exhibit. I was stunned at the realism of the originals.

They aren't really comparable.

Video was far, far behind approaching the limits of human vision. But digital audio began with 44/16, right at the limit of hearing. Video began with 'standard definition'. So while video had improved leaps and bounds since the start of the TV/film era, digital audio hardly has.

The leap from CD rate to 'high def' audio is perceptually small (and benefits realized mainly in recording and production) compared to standard def video vs 720p vs 1080p vs ....
there has been nothing in audio like it since the move from analog to digital itself.

 

[krabapple]

I remember reading about that several years ago but I'd forgotten about it. Sony and Ampex used bias frequencies over 400khz. That would take ultra specially designed electronics and ADC to playback and capture that. Some smart engineer will always discover a better way to do something. Successive generations of ADC's get better too. That's why analog tapes must preserved.

400 kHz was rare.

 

[RammisFrammis]

The analogy doesn't hold. A 'perfect' photo cannot capture everything about the Mona Lisa offers to the eye...including its texture, which plays in to how Mona 'looks' from different viewpoints. Most paintings are 3D objects. And of course we lose whatever forensic data could be gleaned from the object itself (e.g. underpainting)

A high resolution capture of an audio tape, on the other had, captures everything the physical object (the tape) can offer to the ear. What we'd lose in tossing out the tape, is any forensic data we could get from the tape itself (brand of tape, condition of tape, composition of tape...)

Except for the case of the Plangent Process (which I used as an example above, which you apparently didn't read) which is an example of an ability to extract more information from a master tape than was previously possible. There might be other processes down the road which we haven't thought of to extract more signal.

Sorry you didn't like my Mona Lisa analogy. I will punish myself in the harshest manner possible.

 

[RammisFrammis]

If the digital archival copy was transferred at a high enough sample rate, that bias signal was captured in the digital master.

This is really an argument for high SR archiving. Which DSD fulfills.

NO! The bias signal of a typical Ampex master tape machine of the period was 100kHz. The Planget Process relies on a special playback head which can resolve that frequency from the tape. The playback head used in a typical digitization, even on the finest machines, would not be able to pick up a signal at 100kHz efficiently because of the gap length being too wide and not optimized to resolve a 100kHz wavelength on tape (150 micro inches). Later machines used even higher bias frequencies. Playback heads are not optimized only for high frequency extension, but must balance the requirements of signal to noise ratio among other things. Because, physics of magnetic recording, which is complicated.

Please stop throwing up straw men when you obviously know nothing about the topic.

 

[Labjr]

400 kHz was rare.

Ampex ATR-100 series seemed to be pretty popular at the time. Hard to say how many units were made, where they were used or how many master tapes were made on those machines.

 

[krabapple]

NO! The bias signal of a typical Ampex master tape machine of the period was 100kHz. The Planget Process relies on a special playback head which can resolve that frequency from the tape. The playback head used in a typical digitization, even on the finest machines, would not be able to pick up a signal at 100kHz efficiently because of the gap length being too wide and not optimized to resolve a 100kHz wavelength on tape (150 micro inches). Later machines used even higher bias frequencies. Playback heads are not optimized only for high frequency extension, but must balance the requirements of signal to noise ratio among other things. Because, physics of magnetic recording, which is complicated.

Please stop throwing up straw men when you obviously know nothing about the topic.

Indeed? I'd wager I've written more posts on the Plangent process across audio forums in my lifetime than you. Including citing it as a reason to keep the original tapes. And Howarth, going back a decade, has always emphasized the essential role of wideband capture on the digital side. But I'm happy to be reminded of what I've forgotten, especially by a master of the obvious like you.

 

[RammisFrammis]

Indeed? I'd wager I've written more posts on the Plangent process across audio forums in my lifetime than you. Including citing it as a reason to keep the original tapes. And Howarth, going back a decade, has always emphasized the essential role of wideband capture on the digital side. But I'm happy to be reminded of what I've forgotten, especially by a master of the obvious like you.

You obviously forgot the skill of explaining yourself instead of throwing out blanket one liners with no backup whatsoever. I may not be an expert on everything, but I am an expert on analog magnetic tape recording with decades of specialization on the subject.

 

[rdenney]

Sticky shed syndrome was a failure not of the Mylar base material, but of the binder formulation which held the oxide and back coating in suspension. It was the 'glue' which held the oxide and back coating to the base Mylar. The Mylar was just fine, and in no way at fault. The binder formula became hydroscopic over time which softened it, basically turning it to goo. Baking the tape drove enough of the moisture away from the tape to allow the tape to be played a few times. This was mostly a problem with Ampex tapes, and unfortunately Ampex Grand Master 456 tape was the most popular tape in the USA at the time. All these masters fell victim to sticky shed. I used Scotch 250 during this period, and these tapes never developed a problem.

Sadly, I used 456 through the 90’s. I don’t know whether this 8-track master will be playable, even if I regain access to a Tascam 80-8 like the one that recorded it.



The half-track mixdown stereo master (on Maxell tape) is fine, though I’ve had to replace the splices. I need to get that digitized immediately if not sooner, while my Teac deck is working well. But I was hoping to have the pinch roller rebuilt first.

Rick “need to get that package to Terry” Denney

 

[RammisFrammis]

Rick “need to get that package to Terry” Denney

I'd send it to Terry sooner than later. He's apparently suffering from long Covid and not working full time. In the meantime, I've had fair luck with Rubber Renue. Not as good as a new roller, but sometimes the only option.

 

[Sal1950]

A remaster *should* mean going back to the source tape -- original mixdown master -- and creating from it a new digital master for release, rather than using a previous digital master. It *could* also now mean going back to a 'flat' digital transfer of the source tape, and creating a tweaked digital copy to use as a new master.

In recent years music lovers have been very lucky to have a few people like Steven Wilson and the BluRay media around.
Many of our classic rock albums have been remastered by him and having the luxury of BD's size, releases have been done to include things like the original flat master, original flat master of a quad release, a tweaked and remastered 5.1 mix, and now even Atmos. No matter your preference, it was included if possible.

It would be a terrible tragedy if MoFi got taken to the cleaners by scummy class action lawyers for this.

I agree. I have no use for vinyl, but over the years MoFi has done a stellar job going back into the classic rock and jazz catalogs and bringing us the best possible copy of those old analog masters on a CD. I have purchased many, now stored on SSD's, that I just love listening to. Y'all can argue over the "perfect sound forever" bit but having these copies of the original masters was the dream of every audiophile in the pre-CD days. Using the best we could get in vinyl and RtoR tapes, we wondered over what it would be like to actually have the master tapes in our home to hear. The CD brought us that and people like MoFi went back to the original tapes and did everything they could not only to clone the sound, but remaster many to improve on any weaknesses they thought possible.
Now a small group wants to burn them at the stake for not revealing a digital step in the process due to myth and lies spread by audiophools. They did nothing to hurt the sound but also maybe improved it, what a shame.

 

[Sal1950]

Sadly, I used 456 through the 90’s. I don’t know whether this 8-track master will be playable, even if I regain access to a Tascam 80-8 like the one that recorded it.

Are you sure Rick, I keep being told here those tapes never fail?

 

[RammisFrammis]

Are you sure Rick, I keep being told here those tapes never fail?

Dude, were you paying attention at all to all that I've written about this subject? I plainly said that tapes like Ampex 456 were a notable exception, and failed due to poor decisions made at the time to binder formulas. Maybe you just have an exceptionally short memory, or you like to keep pushing on some personal agenda which seems pointless. In any event, please stop doing it.

 

[Sal1950]

Dude, were you paying attention at all to all that I've written about this subject? I plainly said that tapes like Ampex 456 were a notable exception, and failed due to poor decisions made at the time to binder formulas. Maybe you just have an exceptionally short memory, or you like to keep pushing on some personal agenda which seems pointless. In any event, please stop doing it.

 

[rdenney]

Are you sure Rick, I keep being told here those tapes never fail?

I'm not sure these have failed, to be honest. The oxide seems find on them by visual inspection. But I don't have the machine to test them. So, no, I'm not sure.

The mix-down master tape is 30 years old and the only part that failed was one splice, and those are just adhesive tape. After, we made a cassette master, but that didn't require any adjustment. A vinyl master would have been further EQ'd to insert the RIAA curve if nothing else, when being cut. The group (after I left it) made a CD from the cassette master, but did so poorly. I want to do better, but I'm the only one who does so there's no real hurry. I can make a very decent CD from this master tape, considering that the group comprises instruments that do not venture above about 1200 Hz in any overtone It's very easy to record tubas and euphoniums if one has the right room.

The only confirmed case of sticky shed I've suffered was from a NOS Radio Shack tape from the 70's that my father had bought. His open-reel activity was older than that, but the tape was the black color that I read was a later Radio Shack product. (All their tape was just cheap crap bought from whoever was cheap that year.) That tape was still in its shrink wrap (with the $2.95 price tag affixed thereto) and an attempt wind through it ground the machine to a halt. Lots of cleaning followed and that tape went into the trash. But the tapes my father made of live lectures during the late 60's and early 70's are still in pretty good shape considering that he recorded one lecture in the left channel, another in the right channel, and both at 1-7/8. But those will be digitized, too. I don't need a pristine pinch roller for that project.

Rick "can't read any of his digital storage systems from before 1995, except for CD's" Denney