Old CD's on New Hardware

[Mart68]

It happened because titles were rushed to market. Sometimes the company grabbed the first tapes they could find and some of those tapes were back-up copies of back-up copies.

Yes I know that some CDs are from masters that are pretty far from the original, there was no option but to do that in the analogue days, but that's an issue on all formats.

I'm specifically interested in vinyl masterings being used for CD. Lots of people seem to think it happened. I don't see any good reason why it would have except due to a mistake.

That makes me think it's just one of those rumours that get started and becomes accepted knowledge just on the strength of repetition.

Happy to be corrected by some reference to a credible source for the assertion though.

 

[Robin L]

Yes I know that some CDs are from masters that are pretty far from the original, there was no option but to do that in the analogue days, but that's an issue on all formats.

I'm specifically interested in vinyl masterings being used for CD. Lots of people seem to think it happened. I don't see any good reason why it would have except due to a mistake.

That makes me think it's just one of those rumours that get started and becomes accepted knowledge just on the strength of repetition.

Happy to be corrected by some reference to a credible source for the assertion though.

Are you talking about needledrops, transfers that were disc to digital? Very little of that. There is a bit of that in "Oldies" and other reissues that only had disc sources. And, of course, there are transfers from 78, sometimes from a tape intermaster, sometimes from an LP from a tape intermaster, sometimes 78 to digital [the best, so far, for this stuff]. CDs derived from tapes sent to pressing plants for ultimately pressing LPs, slightly different from the true master and at least a generation away from the master tape? Yes. From LP sources? Rarely. Mostly in musical/ethical regions more vague than most.

 

[Mart68]

Are you talking about needledrops, transfers that were disc to digital?

No I'm not. I'm talking about taking the original master of an album, remastering it for vinyl, and then using that 'specially done for vinyl' remaster (possibly at a much later date) for the CD release.

 

[Robin L]

No I'm not. I'm talking about taking the original master of an album, remastering it for vinyl, and then using that 'specially done for vinyl' remaster (possibly at a much later date) for the CD release.

Oh yeah, using a tape intended for cutting an LP is what happened when the companies grabbed the first tape they could get their hands on. I'm not sure how different the copies sent out are from what you call a master, but a cutting master would be different from "the master", if only in that it's no longer first generation. I don't doubt that cutting masters would have reduced levels of bass from the actual master tape. This is one of the biggest advantages of working in digital, not having to worry about clipping in the bass on account of cutting limitations.

 

[mansr]

Regarding CD player FR

I measured a CD150 a while back:

 

[jsrtheta]

Is that why the Smashing Pumpkins "1979" sounds so distorted?

My friend didn't record that. I do know that Billy Corgan took the tapes with him every night - he didn't let anyone touch them. That might indicate he was extremely attentive to exactly was and wasn't on the finished product, but that's just a guess. I never personally met him, though I saw the band numerous times.

 

[jsrtheta]

Oh yeah, using a tape intended for cutting an LP is what happened when the companies grabbed the first tape they could get their hands on. I'm not sure how different the copies sent out are from what you call a master, but a cutting master would be different from "the master", if only in that it's no longer first generation. I don't doubt that cutting masters would have reduced levels of bass from the actual master tape. This is one of the biggest advantages of working in digital, not having to worry about clipping in the bass on account of cutting limitations.

Very true. They were jamming music on CDs as fast as they could, and they weren't particularly discriminating about it. There was a fortune to be made.

There was an addiction aspect, too. A lot of people at the beginning just wanted CDs, a lot, and bought a ton of them.

 

[escksu]

I don't know where your CDs are made, but mine go back to the '80s and sound the same today as they did then.

Michael Fremer tried to convince people of "CD rot", but we just pointed and laughed. And turned the volume up.

You never seen or heard of disc rot in your life or you are trolling??

 

[jsrtheta]

You never seen or heard of disc rot in your life or you are trolling??"

In the section you excerpted I clearly refer to Michael Fremer's statements, so obviously I have "heard" of "disc rot".

I've been listening to and collecting CDs for about 35 years. I have never heard nor seen actual "disc rot".

 

[Mart68]

In the section you excerpted I clearly refer to Michael Fremer's statements, so obviously I have "heard" of "disc rot".

I've been listening to and collecting CDs for about 35 years. I have never heard nor seen actual "disc rot".

me neither. That's because only the output of a couple of pressing plants was affected, for a short time, many decades ago now. It's not remotely an issue worthy of serious consideration.

 

[krabapple]

Read that. Good article. In that case though the tape was sent accidentally. Must check the matirix number on my 'Nightfly' CD.

Still not evidence or even anecdote about vinyl masters being used to make CDs though.

There's plenty, but I'm not going to seek them out for you. Many of them are in print media e.g. ICE magazine, that AFAIK have no online archive. That publication focused exclusively on the news, whys, and wherefores of new CD releases for over two decades 1987-2006, and featured many quotes from industry people overseeing various remasters.

I take it you're too young to have lived through that era?

Regarding CD player FR - there are some players with an audible shelf in response. Off the top of my head I can think of one by Carver, can't recall if it had shelved up bass or rolled off top but it was blind-tested and was reliably distinguishable from a player with flat. It did have a button to turn the effect off.

That's a design choice.

You don't need much of a lift in dB to be audible if you do it across a wide enough band of frequencies, as I'm sure you know.

The minimal detectable lift -- the 'just noticeable difference' -- is pretty FR specific . It's in the midrange, where we are most sensitive -- the vocal range.

 

[Mart68]

There's plenty, but I'm not going to seek them out for you. Many of them are in print media e.g. ICE magazine, that AFAIK have no online archive. That publication focused exclusively on the news, whys, and wherefores of new CD releases for over two decades 1987-2006, and featured many quotes from industry people overseeing various remasters.

I take it you're too young to have lived through that era?

I ask because last time this came up on a forum I had a fair old search and found nothing tangible.

But if it's only in print that would be why.

Not sure what era you're talking about but I was born 1968.

 

[krabapple]

Yes I know that some CDs are from masters that are pretty far from the original, there was no option but to do that in the analogue days, but that's an issue on all formats.

I'm specifically interested in vinyl masterings being used for CD. Lots of people seem to think it happened. I don't see any good reason why it would have except due to a mistake.

It's already been explained how it could and did.

Production master tapes are what are used to press runs of LPs. You don't want to go back to the original master tape and do a new full-on mastering/cutting session for vinyl every time a stamper wears out. At the first session, you record the LP eq/cutting moves (e.g., summing bass to mono, riding the levels to adjust for outer versus inner grooves) to tape as they are created. So instead of having to go back to the OMT later, you simply cut from the production copy where those LP mastering/cutting moves are already recorded. Copies of production tapes could be shipped to LP production facilities around the world as needed. Original masters were typically put into storage, sometimes even marked 'DO NOT USE' . So production masters were the tapes most readily to hand 'on the shelf' when CDs were in very high initial demand. Basically record companies were lazy and more interested in profit than top sound quality. surprise!

 

[krabapple]

I ask because last time this came up on a forum I had a fair old search and found nothing tangible.

But if it's only in print that would be why.

Not sure what era you're talking about but I was born 1968.

The era where you would have been reading about these things happening. The late 80s and the 90s, mostly, which was the time of the first big wave of 'remastered from original master tapes' reissues.

Though if you pay attention over the year to audio hobby magazines, audio engineering publications, and forums where mastering engineers are quoted, you'll see occasional reference to the practice too.

You could e.g. go to the stevehoffman.tv forum and ask Hoffman himself about his experiences with this phenomenon.

 

[Mart68]

It's already been explained how it could and did.

Production master tapes are what are used to press runs of LPs. You don't want to go back to the original master tape and do a new full-on mastering/cutting session for vinyl every time a stamper wears out. At the first session, you record the LP eq/cutting moves (e.g., summing bass to mono, riding the levels to adjust for outer versus inner grooves) to tape as they are created. So instead of having to go back to the OMT later, you simply cut from the production copy where those LP mastering/cutting moves are already recorded. Copies of production tapes could be shipped to LP production facilities around the world as needed. Original masters were typically put into storage, sometimes even marked 'DO NOT USE' . So production masters were the tapes most readily to hand 'on the shelf' when CDs were in very high initial demand. Basically record companies were lazy and more interested in profit than top sound quality. surprise!

So you're saying the only available production master would be the vinyl master and so they used that because it was cheaper and more convenient than creating a new production master for CD?

Fair enough, I can see how that could happen.

 

[krabapple]

So you're saying the only available production master would be the vinyl master and so they used that because it was cheaper and more convenient than creating a new production master for CD?

Fair enough, I can see how that could happen.

Not quite.

Briefly:

Traditionally tracks were recorded and edited and mixed to tape(s*) to the artists & producers' satisfaction , by recording & mixing engineer(s).

Then that original mixdown master tape was further 'mastered' for LP, because the LP format (and playback technology at home) had certain physical constraints (e.g. end of side had different constraints than start) and because 'mastering' also involved such aesthetic mandates as making the tracks 'hang together' sonically as a group -- by adjusting level, stereo width, tweaking dynamics and more...and such trivia as putting the right-sized spaces between tracks. This was the purview of the 'transfer engineer', who evolved into the 'mastering engineer' (and to an extent, the cutting engineer). The result was a production master.

This practice was carried over to the digital era ....sources were 'mastered' for CD release, involving the creation of a digital master as the 'production master' for the CD*. Atlantic Records, for example, early on employed at least two CD mastering engineers (Barry Diament and Zal Schreiber) who were often not credited, but were responsible for mastering many of the 1st generation CD releases of, e.g., Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Yes, CSN&Y...

What I (and they) say is that the tape source THEY WERE PROVIDED WITH to create their CD master, was often (not always) an LP production tape, rather than the original (mixdown) master tape(s).

*e.g. plural as in splicing together tapes of finished tracks to create one tape per 'side'

(**it was/is of course possible to simply digitize an analog tape 'as is' (a 'flat transfer') to serve as the CD master. 'Mastering' then entails a more limited set of choices.)