Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!ron
From: ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Digital Remastering
Message-ID: <11175@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 30-May-85 20:12:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11175
Posted: Thu May 30 20:12:20 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 11:18:08 EDT
References: <356@lcuxc.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 24


>  Somehow,
> 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
A master is the last step before the record.  Typically, multitrack recorings
are done on 24 track machines.  It is then mixed down to two.  Every pass
through the analog/magnetic chain eats away at the S/N and frequency response.
Changing this to digital whenever possible will improve things

> they then have the gall to charge digital prices for the results!

Here you have a point.  Good digital equipment is cheaper than good
analog equipment.  Unfortunately, what a recording is worth is how
much someone will pay for it, not how much it costs to do.

> What digital remastering does, is take the analog master tape, digitize
> it, perhaps re-mix it, and produce a digital version.  This is then either

You can't remix a master tape except to mix up the two channels.  Masters
have not more channels than the final product.

-Ron