Thread: IS SHM~SACD The Closest We've Come To The Master Tapes?

Posts: 424
Page: prev 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 ... 43 next

Post by rammiepie May 23, 2012 (261 of 424)
Espen R said:

The Stones (70's catalog) and Who tapes are located in the UK. And the SHM-SACDs are transfered from analogue-to-DSD in the UK from the original master tapes by FX Mastering studio and Close to the Edge Mastering studio, both located in the UK.

Thanks for that extremely good tidbit of info. I also have three of the Stevie Wonder SHM~SACDs and can confirm that they do sound awesome and of course the Stones SHM~SACDs are revelations compared to the ABKCO SACDs.

Hoping that Stevie Wonder's Music Of My Mind (just released as a Gold RBCD by Steve Hoffman) is going to be released as a SHM~SACD in the near future. Surely one of my personal favorites.

Post by Dave54321 May 25, 2012 (262 of 424)
Some people have misread what I quoted (direct from the SHM discs' own official blurb).

OK, I now accept there are exceptions that I had not realised (e.g. Stones), and *some* SHM discs are derived from the *master* tapes (and say so in the covers). But the vast majority of SHM SACDs state that they are derived from "original analog tapes" - NOT masters. Everyone in the industry knows what is meant by "master" (i.e. the original stereo tape mixed from the session tapes) and they would not omit the word if the genuine master had been used. So instead they tend to say "original UK analog tape" or "original Japanese analog tape" or whatever. But not "master"! In the case of the Stones, they do use the word "master" (as someone commented) so I have no problem accepting that is the case.

But yes, SHMs are (usually) converted straight to DSD from analogue, but these are not masters unless specifically stated. They throw in the word "original" because in a sense they are original - they are original tape dupes made for shipping overseas (and cross country to various mastering houses) for mass disc production. This has always happened, ever since the first vinyl records were made.

Stevie Wonder's Innervisions SHM is not from the master (as someone suggested) and doesn't claim to be (you won't see the word "master" anywhere). The only digital versions to exist that were copied from the original masters are the MFSL and the HDTracks.

As I said, if you are able to compare the SHM and HDTracks you will realise it is like night and day. It's like removing a layer of grime from a window you previously thought was perfectly clean... until you cleaned it! Don't take my word for it - check it out.

Post by rammiepie May 25, 2012 (263 of 424)
Dave, one has to really wonder what constitutes original master tapes...after all multi tracking has been around since the Beatles and since most releases were in stereo (and even mono in the early days) there had to be an eventual mixdown to those final stereo 'masters.'

Would AP, MoFi and even HDTracks be privy to those multi channel 'originals?" Seriously doubt it.

If an album was recorded direct to two track.....then it would be feasible for that original two track source to be an absolute master but in the case of so many pop/rock/jazz and classical recordings done on anywhere from 8 tracks to 48 tracks, the idea of parting with those ORIGINAL elements for a reissue seems impossibly naive.

Supposedly for AP's reissue of "Wish You Were Here" the tapes had to be 'baked' in order for them to be playable because of damage incurred by poor tape bindings back in the 70's....In that instance, I'm sure in the interest of preservation, the engineers were privy to the absolute original elements (sure sounds like it but have nothing to compare it with) but the term absolute masters, especially in this day and age, seems that the only ones being 'duped' are the consumers.

Those tapes are extremely valuable properties and remain tucked away in climate controlled vaults and to expect them to be moved around for a final spin is probably expecting a lot.....and are at best, 'mix~downs' from the absolute masters.

Post by Dave54321 May 26, 2012 (264 of 424)
"Dave, one has to really wonder what constitutes original master tapes."

In the analogue world, the "master" - for the purpose of remastering engineers - is simply the earliest carnation of the mix - also known as the "mix tape," mixed down from the multitrack session tapes. It is unique - there is only one master (unless the album was mixed down more than once). This master mixtape is the tape that the mastering engineer always seeks to use for "remastering" if available. Anything else is a compromise, but sometimes the master is either not available or too expensive to acquire (insurance costs can be massive). In these cases a 2nd generation tape or "safety copy" is the next best option. This is what Audio Fidelity's Kevin Gray used for his recent Stevie Wonder remasters because Universal would not license the masters (hence Audio Fidelity's usual phrase "from the original master tapes" is absent from the packaging).

When MFSL or Analogue Productions, Audio Fidelity or whoever refer to an album being "remastered from the original masters," they are referring to these 1st generation mixtapes. If the session was recorded directly to mono (as with Nat King Cole's "Around Midnight" for example) then the session tape and master tape are one-and-the-same (obviously there is no mixdown stage).

Analogue Productions have recently done remasters direct from three-track session tapes - mixing and mastering to DSD in one step. They did this with some Nat King Cole and Miles Davis albums with brilliant results. But this is not common - they will usually seek out the first generation mixtapes.

The point is, when the word "master" is missing from the blurb, then it means they didn't use the 1st-gen mixtapes. The word "master" carries a lot of prestige in the industry and of course with audiophiles, so no company would deliberately NOT use the word if they had really used those master tapes (plural because there's usually two - one for each side of the album).

As for baking tapes - all old tapes need to be baked prior to playback (the Beatles ones were too and the Beach Boys Pet Sounds) because the magnetic alloys degrade in a way that makes them come away from the tape - pieces actually rub off on the tape head when playing back. Controlled baking at a low temperature restores the tapes' stability temporarily (they inevitably need to be baked again after a period of time).

Small point: multitrack session tapes are not "absolute masters" although I do understand what you were driving at (i.e. the recording is direct from the microphone or whatever, as opposed to copied from another tape). But that's not the definition of "master tape" - that's the "session tape." You don't remaster from session tapes, you reMIX from session tapes (excepting the Analogue Productions examples I gave earlier which were remixed and remastered in one step direct from the session tapes).

Post by FunkyMonkey May 27, 2012 (265 of 424)
Total layman here, but in terms of digital preservation of the original master tapes, what would be the best method of digitisation?

Guess it would be DSD??? If so, what is the best out there?

Post by AmonRa May 27, 2012 (266 of 424)
Considering the audio content of the tapes anything over 16/48 is an overkill.

Post by rammiepie May 27, 2012 (267 of 424)
AmonRa said:

Considering the audio content of the tapes anything over 16/48 is an overkill.

Anything under 96/24 is ROAD KILL!

Post by raffells May 27, 2012 (268 of 424)
AmonRa said:

Considering the audio content of the tapes anything over 16/48 is an overkill.

So 16 bit is NOT a lossy encoding system as Sony and everyone with even half a brain has previously stated.
Its not even considered very accurate but "representative" at that level by technical people.It also depends upon the design of the A to D or D to A.
hey are not all the same even for low level CD. Areas like this are way beyond your rather childish over simplistic troll like comprehension.
The above remark is being kind to you.Beware, I may start responding in a manner you thoroughly deserve.
Obviously makes no difference to the deaf if music is cut up or left as a continuous stream.

Post by raffells May 27, 2012 (269 of 424)
rammiepie said:

Anything under 96/24 is ROAD KILL!

Rammie,
Does that include 88.2/20 ? Most DSD is only equal to that at its best.

Post by audioholik May 27, 2012 (270 of 424)
raffells said:

Rammie,
Does that include 88.2/20 ? Most DSD is only equal to that at its best.

88.2kHz is waaaay too slow to equal DSD impulse response. DXD comes close, but not 2fs pcm.

Page: prev 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 ... 43 next

Closed