Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site olivee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!hplabs!oliveb!olivee!greg
From: greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Re: Digital Remastering
Message-ID: <363@olivee.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-May-85 13:10:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: olivee.363
Posted: Tue May 28 13:10:44 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 01:27:45 EDT
References: <356@lcuxc.UUCP>
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 47

> I fail to see how taking an analog master tape, digitizing it, and then
> re-converting the digitized version to analog to cut an LP master will
> produce higher quality results than a careful transfer to LP of the
> original analog master tape (like those done by Mobile Fidelity) - and
> they then have the gall to charge digital prices for the results!
...
> Bill Mitchell ({ihnp4!}lcuxc!wjm)

This wouldn't make much sense if that were all that's involved.  If,
in fact, an LP master were actually cut directly from the "master tape",
it would, as you said, be adding an extra, unnecessary link into the
reproduction chain.

Since only two channels can be cut on a standard stereo LP (forgetting
about the now-obsolete CD-4 format), you need to have a two-channel
medium as input to the master.  This, as I undertstand, was even the
case with the so-called "4-channel matrix" (SQ and QS) discs.  However,
there are very few stereo master tapes that are actually only two-channel.
Even the early stereo Mercury and RCA recordings from the 50's were done
on 3 tracks, and currently it's not extraordinary to have a master tape with
24 or more separate tracks.  This means that at least one mixing/copying
step is required to produce the tape that will, in turn, be used for the
disk master.

Since at least one copy must be made prior to disk mastering, and since
the digital process supposedly results in a more perfect copy (I'm not
saying it does or doesn't - that's a whole different topic), it makes
some sense to use digital equipment to produce that copy.  

This does beg the question of why we are also seeing "digital remastering"
of mono recordings whose master tapes are single channel and wouldn't 
thoeretically require the mixing/copying process.  Again,
my understanding (and I'd be happy if someone who knows otherwise would
say) is that in these cases it is also standard to use a copy, rather
than the master tape itself, to produce the disk master.  The reason
for this can be questionable - it's often a chance to "enhance" the
sound by means of various EQ tricks, producing fake "stereo", etc.
which would be probably better left undone.

Charging "digital prices" is yet another matter.  I feel it was a sneaky
way of raising standard LP prices to begin with and certainly don't find
it justified for reissues.  At least the EMI/Angel reissues I've seen that
involved digital remastering and the DMM disk mastering process have been
at a lower price than their "standard" series.


	- Greg Paley