The Master Flat-Transfer Thread

Why do you say this? Do you know something we don't know? Except the few duophonic tracks, it seems reasonable to me that they were mastered from flat copies of the master tapes.

 

I guess I was confusing "operator error" ( ) with inferior technology!

I any event, almost all digital recordings I have heard made with the early Soudstream and 3M machines sound great. For example, Maazel and The Cleveland Orchestra's Pictures at an Exhibition was recorded with a Soundstream in 1978 and it sounds wonderful--probably because it is completely unfutzed with.

 

Here's what really happened:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=41717

 

I've found the same thing, Eric. Some of my earliest discs made with Soundstream sound great, not just Telarcs, but others as well.

 

Exactly, don't blame an engineer's misuse of Digital Noise Reduction on the tool itself either.

Derek

 

The Toto IV Stereo Only SACD

 

I'd also like to say the aforementioned "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" mastering is top notch!

Finally, a mastering that isn't so bright you have to wear shades.

I don't think our friend Dennis Drake masters anything Flat. That's not saying anything against him.

He's an awesome engineer. He's very good at handling the knobs in such a way that the listener is tricked into thinking that they're listening to the master tape.

Same with Steve, although he has mastered many things straight from the tape. Plus he has all that beautiful analog gear to work with.

 

I suppose that's true. But if I feel a recording has enough hiss to merit my time in trying to improve it, it's probably not misuse. That said, if you try to improve it, and it sounds like crap, it's best to leave it alone.

I realize you are completely against the use of NR, and I'm one of the only advocates of digital NR at the forum, but I'm convinced the problem is due to two things:

1) Engineers who are not trained how to properly use Digital Noise Reduction. Documentation for these products is quite sketchy, and there aren't even many books on DNR theory available either for those who want to take a deeper dive into the algorithms used. I think most people have learned through trial and error.

2) Use of only one software company's NR products. There is a huge difference in the capabilities of the software. For example, Company XYZ may have a great NR plug in, but their declicker sucks. If the only software you own is XYZ's package, you're out of luck.

Derek

 

One of the best posts I've read in quite a while.

 

The regular CD is no slouch! In fact, this album, and the ones before it, sound exceptional! They sound very transparent! Definately audiophile quality!

 

As for Keith Johnson, i don't want a flat transfer from his tapes.
I have the "Reference Classics First Sampling" (RR-S1CD) cd.
I have to do loads of restauration work on Pachelbel (tracks 2 & 3)
Raise the level, remove clicks and de-emphasize the whole track .
Now it sounds perfect!!!
Keith Johnson a reference?
Not for me.......

 

Hi 16/44.1,

I'm not familiar with that particular record so I can't speak of it.
And of course, maybe we both hear his work differently.

I happen to think Keith's work is exemplary and it gets better with each new recording of his I hear. From the past few years, John Rutter's "Requiem" and Eije Ouje's traversal of "The Rite of Spring" and "The Firebird" are sonic reference discs for me.

Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi Derek,

Perhaps we hear this one differently. Nothing wrong with that. ;-}

I'd never use any of the digital noise reduction I've heard to date.
(It always seems to steal "air". Never heard it do otherwise.)

Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Thank you! I only wish everyone applied your philosophy.

 

According to Sckott in this post, the standard MCA CD of Joe Walsh's The Smoker You Play, The Drinker You Get is a flat transfer.

 

I think you are confusing and conflating conflating two different concepts.

The term "flat transfer" seems to be derived from a notion that the EQ is run "flat" during the process--i.e., no adjustments up or down in level are performed on the original tape so that the transfer is, tonally, what was contained on the tape that was flat-transferred. Of course, the concept is a bit more complicated than this, but the general idea is that a flat transfer has not been mucked around with in the EQ, compressed, and other areas.

Now, in theory any tape can be flat transferred. For example, when you dub a casette tape to another cassette tape in your boombox and you do not apply any EQ or additional the processing, that is a "flat transfer." Of course, that is not what we mean here on this board when we talk about the term "flat transfer," but again, it is lossely within the concept of dubbing a tape without added EQ and processing.

Now, you can do a flat transfer of the original analog master, which may or may not be equalized and processed compared to what was contained on the mixdowns. Or, you can go back to the workparts and do a flat transfer of them and bypass any EQ work that was done to the original analog master. This is probably the preferable way to do it if you can.

 

David,

no offense intended, but a CD mastered flat from a flat copy tape is still a flat transfer. Th eq and tonality was not changed, and there was no digital processing involved. However, a couple of transfers sound unstable, as you rightly say, which is more of a technical fault than a choice of mastering.

 

I understand the concept. My point is - and perhaps it's the point being made by others - is that in theory you could call a 10th-generation cassette dub of something a "flat transfer" if, in fact, at every copying stage, no EQ was applied. But who the heck would want that at all?

And as others - including the professionals on this thread - have pointed out, even the concept of a "flat transfer" is a falacy, since simply using a different tape machine than the original is automatically going to introduce some variations in the tonal quality - let alone other factors such as tape quality and speed, type of equipment (tube, solid state) A/D converter characterisitcs (if applicable), etc.

My point is, for each generation removed from the original, regardless of how careful a copy you try to make (digital or analog), there's always going to be elements that affect the overall sound. And at least in my mind, you can't really consider something a "flat transfer" if you're talking about something that's, at minimum, a second-generation removed from the mixdown tape (as is the case with the Pastmasters discs). But that's just me. (And, apparently, only just me.)

 

I definitely see where you are coming from. I agree with you that in general it is preferable to use the lowest generation tapes possible. However, sometimes a lot of what we would call "production" work is performed on the master which is not present on the mixdowns or workparts. In extreme cases of this, there are overdubs on the master which are not present on the mixdowns or workparts (or are no longer available on any tapes except for the master). Pet Sounds, for example. If you go down to the workparts in those cases then you are not really getting what the artist originally intended. My $.02.

 

If you've done "production" work on something (especially overdubs), then I would consider that tape the newest first-generation workpart/mixdown tape. That's where I'd restart my "generation" count, since it's the last stage at which something "creative" (no offense to our mastering engineers!) was done to the recording, whether it be an overdub or mixing decision.

An example: There was a discussion here a few months ago about the mono mix of the Beach Boys' "Drive-In." Steve claimed that the mono mix was simply a fold-down of the stereo mix, which would explain why the mono mix sounds so awful compared to the other mono mixes from All Summer Long. However, I (and others) noticed that Mike Love's spoken parts on that song are double-tracked (and mixed hard left/right) in the stereo mix, but only single-tracked in the mono version, which would imply the mono is a unique mix. Or, quite possibly, that it's still a fold-down, but that someone faded out one of the channels of the stereo mix during those sections, thus creating a single-track vocal. I would argue that, even though it's technically a fold-down of a stereo mix, that mono version would still be considered a new "mix," since some form of (primitive) creativity was involved that affected the performance. Therefore, even though that new mix is technically two generations removed from the original multitrack (as opposed to just one, if it had been an original mix), I would still call that tape the "first generation" mixdown tape.

By the way, I'm not sure I know of any examples of additional overdubs being performed at the actual album mastering stage. I know of plenty being done at the mixing stage (the solos on "Help Me, Rhonda," the radio transmission on "I Am the Walrus," etc.), and I know of examples of editing being done at the mastering stage (removing the intro to "Maxwell's Silver Hammer"), but no cases of actual overdubs.

 

The Who My generation is an example--guitar recorded directly onto the master, not present on the three tracks. Brian Wilson's double-tracked vocal on You still belive in Me has been noted as a possible example of this. The vocal bridge on Wouldn't it be Nice was physically spliced into the master since it had been re-recorded on the multi's. Etc. There are many examples of this, where the master is the only source for the original version of the song.

Some other sorts of "artistic" decisions made at the mastering stage are fades. For example, the recent remaster of Drama foregoes a fade-up. Another example is a mastering move which Steve corrected on the DCC Venus and Mars--he didn't cut the volume during the segue between Venus and Mars and Rock Show, and the song is much better for it. On the original LP release, there is slight volume cut between the songs. On the original CD release, there is also a slight volume cut. On Peter Mew's remaster, there is a major drop in volume which does not sound good. However, on the original promo edit 45, there is no drop in volume. Steve's version basically restores the song to how it was originally played on radio!