|
|
Post by novisnick on Nov 5, 2018 22:40:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Nov 5, 2018 22:51:56 GMT -5
Lets see, original Master Tape sliced and diced into bits. Yeah 32 of them. Sure, if you believe that, then I got this bridge I can sell you. Might sound great still, but I am betting the Master tape will smoke this Digital approximation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Nov 6, 2018 0:10:13 GMT -5
It depends on the quality of the tape, how many inches/second it was recorded at, the quality of the deck, the skill of the recording engineer, how well the tape was archived and protected over the years. So yeah, lots of variables. 1959 is pre-Dolby, so it's just going to be the dynamic range of the tape and the deck. I think that the fastest professional decks of the day could record at 30 inches/second which could yield a very good frequency response. Oh, and the deck, you really do need to know which deck was used manufacturer, model, year, in order to back out its frequency non-linearities ... so let's also remember to toss in the skill of the remastering engineer and the equipment available for this process.
All of which is to say that you can get some great results, but there are a lot of variables.
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Nov 6, 2018 1:31:13 GMT -5
Recent experience, I bought Vol 1 and Vol 2 of Frankie Valley and the 4 Seasons. About 60% of the way though Vol 2, where the recordings are dated 1964 to 1968, they sound pretty crappy, tinny, no depth or dynamic range. The very next track is dated 1973 and the quality is noticeably better, like really noticeable. What I do recall is that around 1969 to 1971 the recording industry moved to recording on 16 track on 2" wide tape and then 24 track on 3" wide tape. Related trivia, in 1967 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was recorded on 2 x 8 track machines. In the early 70's digital recording, as in PCM, became available with 32 tracks. So my guess is the early 4 Seasons tracks are 8 track analogue recordings and the later ones are 16/24 track analogue or 32 track digital. That's why they sound so much better.
On topic, so I doubt that in 1959 Dave Brubeck would have had access to anything other than 4 track recording (let alone 8 track) hence limiting the quality, no matter what's been done to it.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by graphic on Nov 6, 2018 3:14:14 GMT -5
Gary,
Dawn (go away) was the first Four Seasons recording on an eight track machine at Atlantic Records in early 1964. The early hits like Sherry, Big Girls don’t cry were done for the VeeJay (VJ) label and recorded at Universal in Chicago on 4 track gear. Universal was a favorite of Crosby and Sinatra in the day and later moved west and became Gold Star, where Brian Wilson, Phil Spector and others became legends. I don’t know the dates the Four Seasons went to 16 or more tracks, as Bob Crewe used many different venues. Most of the Four Seasons master tapes have been missing for decades; some sources say as far back as the early 70s. Bob Crewe, who recently died, was rumored to have some of the original multi tracks, but nothing has appeared to date. Bob Gaudio and Frankie Valli ( the legal Four Seasons business entity) seem content to rest on their Jersey Boy billions so there is little hope in fandom for any deluxe packages from original tapes, outtakes or remixes that we enjoy from other groups of the era.
Sorry, it’s the middle of the night here in the US. Sherry was not recorded in Chicago, the later VJ LPs, which sound pretty good for 1962 or 1963, were. The “Folknanny” album sounds very good, too bad there weren’t better songs available.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Nov 6, 2018 5:58:15 GMT -5
Gary, Dawn (go away) was the first Four Seasons recording on an eight track machine at Atlantic Records in early 1964. The early hits like Sherry, Big Girls don’t cry were done for the VeeJay (VJ) label and recorded at Universal in Chicago on 4 track gear. Universal was a favorite of Crosby and Sinatra in the day and later moved west and became Gold Star, where Brian Wilson, Phil Spector and others became legends. I don’t know the dates the Four Seasons went to 16 or more tracks, as Bob Crewe used many different venues. Most of the Four Seasons master tapes have been missing for decades; some sources say as far back as the early 70s. Bob Crewe, who recently died, was rumored to have some of the original multi tracks, but nothing has appeared to date. Bob Gaudio and Frankie Valli ( the legal Four Seasons business entity) seem content to rest on their Jersey Boy billions so there is little hope in fandom for any deluxe packages from original tapes, outtakes or remixes that we enjoy from other groups of the era. Sorry, it’s the middle of the night here in the US. Sherry was not recorded in Chicago, the later VJ LPs, which sound pretty good for 1962 or 1963, were. The “Folknanny” album sounds very good, too bad there weren’t better songs available. Thanks for that, much appreciated. I was searching for reasons for the big jump in sound quality which happened between the track with the last average sound recorded in 1968 to the much better sound of the next track recorded in 1973. It coincided with the substantial technology jumps in recording equipment, which may be nothing more than a coincidence. More than likely the recording venue also has something to do with it. I’ve seen Jersey Boys in both Sydney and in Chicago where Bob and Frankie were in the audience and joined the cast on stage at the end of the performance to multiple standing ovations. As good as the cast members are, the originals IMHO are still the best. Maybe one day we will get the opportunity to listen to them fully restored from the original master tapes. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Nov 6, 2018 8:34:23 GMT -5
It depends on the quality of the tape, how many inches/second it was recorded at, the quality of the deck, the skill of the recording engineer, how well the tape was archived and protected over the years. So yeah, lots of variables. 1959 is pre-Dolby, so it's just going to be the dynamic range of the tape and the deck. I think that the fastest professional decks of the day could record at 30 inches/second which could yield a very good frequency response. Oh, and the deck, you really do need to know which deck was used manufacturer, model, year, in order to back out its frequency non-linearities ... so let's also remember to toss in the skill of the remastering engineer and the equipment available for this process. All of which is to say that you can get some great results, but there are a lot of variables. Casey Actually Dolby A came onto to the scene in the late 60s. But even still a properly aligned Ampex 350 or Scully was nothing to sneeze at. What tape they might have used? Don't know but Mastering machines back then still made great music. It was up to the producer, engineer to make sure they got the most out of their machines to give us the most in the music. Les Paul help start the revolution of multi-track. He and Ampex did allot for us. Later came Studer 3M and MCI/Sony and much more. Otari was/is in the mix. The mighty MTR-90 and the Studer 820 and 824 just to drop a few more names. Today at the Cash Cabin. Yeah Johnny Cash fame here in Hendersonville TN. They will master to an Ampex ATR-100 for you. 2 track master of the Gods. Digital makes a great package and is easy to work with. Portable and shareable no end. Marketing BS to keep a company going is what the OG Post shows. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,095
|
Post by klinemj on Nov 6, 2018 9:16:45 GMT -5
The recording cannot get better. But a digital approximation can. Is this one better than the one I have? Don't know! Have not heard it.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 6, 2018 10:00:50 GMT -5
Recent experience, I bought Vol 1 and Vol 2 of Frankie Valley and the 4 Seasons. About 60% of the way though Vol 2, where the recordings are dated 1964 to 1968, they sound pretty crappy, tinny, no depth or dynamic range. The very next track is dated 1973 and the quality is noticeably better, like really noticeable. What I do recall is that around 1969 to 1971 the recording industry moved to recording on 16 track on 2" wide tape and then 24 track on 3" wide tape. Related trivia, in 1967 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was recorded on 2 x 8 track machines. In the early 70's digital recording, as in PCM, became available with 32 tracks. So my guess is the early 4 Seasons tracks are 8 track analogue recordings and the later ones are 16/24 track analogue or 32 track digital. That's why they sound so much better. On topic, so I doubt that in 1959 Dave Brubeck would have had access to anything other than 4 track recording (let alone 8 track) hence limiting the quality, no matter what's been done to it. Cheers Gary Gary, Dawn (go away) was the first Four Seasons recording on an eight track machine at Atlantic Records in early 1964. The early hits like Sherry, Big Girls don’t cry were done for the VeeJay (VJ) label and recorded at Universal in Chicago on 4 track gear. Universal was a favorite of Crosby and Sinatra in the day and later moved west and became Gold Star, where Brian Wilson, Phil Spector and others became legends. I don’t know the dates the Four Seasons went to 16 or more tracks, as Bob Crewe used many different venues. Most of the Four Seasons master tapes have been missing for decades; some sources say as far back as the early 70s. Bob Crewe, who recently died, was rumored to have some of the original multi tracks, but nothing has appeared to date. Bob Gaudio and Frankie Valli ( the legal Four Seasons business entity) seem content to rest on their Jersey Boy billions so there is little hope in fandom for any deluxe packages from original tapes, outtakes or remixes that we enjoy from other groups of the era. Sorry, it’s the middle of the night here in the US. Sherry was not recorded in Chicago, the later VJ LPs, which sound pretty good for 1962 or 1963, were. The “Folknanny” album sounds very good, too bad there weren’t better songs available. How do you guys know all this?! |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 6, 2018 10:13:59 GMT -5
The original tracks were almost certainly recorded on tape. In most cases, those tracks would also have been mixed down, and the results stored on a "master tape". That master tape was then used to create metal masters that were used to create the LP discs (after more adjustments and EQ changes). There are lots of steps involved in between that each introduce some opportunity for variation. And the technology used to perform most of those steps has improved over the years. And, of course, many decisions are made by various human beings along the way, many of which have a major effect on the final result. If they simply created a new digital transfer from the master mix tape, they could have done a better job, or used better performing equipment. And, with some re-masters, the original tracks are entirely re-mixed, which both offers opportunities for better equipment to be used, and for the engineer who makes the new mix to make different choices. There are also opportunities, at various steps along the way, to make modifications and "adjustments" to the sound itself, which you may or may not find to be an improvement. For example, there are modern processes which can be used to reduce the background noise on the master tapes. Depending on the starting quality, and how they're applied, many of these "improvements" can make a positive difference, or they can cause more harm than good. (And some of us may find that tape hiss to be an awful distraction - while others may not even notice it.)
Some of those processes can be applied anywhere along the signal chain. But others work quite well when applied to original tracks, but not so well when applied to a final mix. The short answer is that it is POSSIBLE for the re-issue to be spectacularly better than older releases... However, it's also possible that there will be very little difference, or even that you will find it less pleasing... I would be inclined to say that most specific claims, like "32 bit mastering", are marketing hyperbole. (There's no specific reason why a "32-bit master" will necessarily sound better than the original.) However, there are definitely plenty of opportunities for them to have improved the sound in various ways. You really need to judge each release on its own merits.
The recording cannot get better. But a digital approximation can. Is this one better than the one I have? Don't know! Have not heard it. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Nov 6, 2018 12:07:55 GMT -5
Not to mention most of the 32 bits is not likely used and also the dynamic range it might promise would not necessarily be realized by most anyway. Oh amI going to make the crowd unhappy? Possibly.
|
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Nov 6, 2018 13:20:38 GMT -5
What do your ears tell you?
|
|
|
|
Post by geeqner on Nov 6, 2018 13:51:26 GMT -5
In converting from Analog Masters to Digital -
Can they make multiple high-res digital recordings from SEPARATE PASSES of the Masters
Then "Average" the passes together using a common time-base?
I would assume that they would want to play-back the Master on the same equipment used to record it as stated earlier (or at least a "Head" with identical impedance and mechanical alignment), in order to retrieve "whatever is there" as faithfully as is practical.
Something like that could null-out random noise due to the tape machine and produce a "cleaner" output that emphasizes the Signal and minimizes certain types of noise.
(But it COULD also emphasize noise that is in the recording and is non-random.)
Not a Recording Enginerd, but I'm curious, and I also know that they use a similar technique in brain-mapping where they do a fast, "real-time average" of data from an array of EEG sensors.
(Would most Archives even ALLOW a new Recording Company to make multiple passes of their valuable masters? Do they typically charge "per-pass"? How carefully managed is this sort of stuff?)
I also know that Magnetic Tape has a tendency to "bleed" (STRONG magnetized spots tend to magnetize adjacent media particles over time, which can mask / de-grade the overall quality of the tape). The higher the feed-speed of the original tape, the farther apart such "strong spots" are and the longer it will take to de-grade.
[Likewise, the distance between adjacent "Tracks" - maybe some old 2 or 4-track may be better than 8 or more on the same tape width due to better physical separation of the tracks?]
I would assume that in some cases, over the years "valuable" Masters were probably duplicated onto higher-grade magnetic material that is less prone to do this (remember the different Casette Tapes basic FeO2 --> Metal?). Or are the "virgin" Original Masters still usually regarded as "best".
With ALL of these variables and the personal taste of the Artist and Recording / Mastering Engineers - it's half a miracle that we can hear ANYTHING remotely good...
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 6, 2018 15:52:09 GMT -5
It's an interesting idea.... but probably not very practical. First off, it would only help if you had multiple copies of the master tape. I would expect tape noise to far exceed electrical noise caused by the playback tape machine.
Both tape noise, and noise caused by the recorder, are going to be the same for a given tape.... and should be mostly the same on each of multiple playings of that same tape. There is also an interesting relationship between the head gap width and frequency response. Recording actually occurs at the trailing edge of the head gap; because of this, even tape heads with relatively wide gaps can still record high frequencies. HOWEVER, playback is related to the overall width of the head gap. The bottom line is that, since the frequency response of the recording isn't limited by a wide head gap, but the frequency response of the playback is... you can often get better frequency response by playing a tape back on a BETTER quality deck than the one on which it was recorded. (And, if the original quality was limited by poor head azimuth alignment, then using the original model, unless it is the actual original machine, isn't going to help much.)
There's also the issue that tapes tend to stretch and become uneven over time... which make sit difficult to "line up" multiple copies precisely enough to average them together. In many situations, where multiple copies are available, but of varying or dubious quality, individual songs, or even individual parts of songs, may be "picked" from different versions.
And, yes, many were re-dubbed onto higher quality media over time... But, with analog media like tape, there is also an inevitable loss of quality every time a copy is made...
These days there are also a variety of more powerful options for "reconstructing" and "improving" audio quality. They range from simple things like frequency-selective filters and noise gates to algorithms designed specifically to fix certain problems. (For example, software that automatically recognizes and removes record ticks and pops.)
In one recent example of an excellent restoration (the 24/192k remaster of the Grateful Dead Studio Recordings).....
A novel process was used to correct for speed variations due to tape stretch.
The record bias signal, which is used as part of the recording process to allow the tape to accept sound, is usually a very high frequency sine wave on professional machines. Some of the original Grateful Dead studio master tapes were found to have significant speed issues. However, it was also found that a tiny amount of the original 80 kHz record bias signal remained, and could be read with specially designed tape equipment. The company that restored them used special software to "lock onto" that 80 kHz signal, treat it as a sort of servo reference signal, and use that reference to correct speed variations in the recording. Of course, as usual, some of these techniques work far better than others, or only work under very specific circumstances. And many can easily cause an extremely unnatural sound if used improperly or excessively. (And some work really well - but only if a lot of time is dedicated to operating and adjusting them by hand.)
If you want to see some of the options available in commercial software, check out Izotope RX: (and, yes, free trials are available)
 In converting from Analog Masters to Digital - Can they make multiple high-res digital recordings from SEPARATE PASSES of the Masters Then "Average" the passes together using a common time-base? I would assume that they would want to play-back the Master on the same equipment used to record it as stated earlier (or at least a "Head" with identical impedance and mechanical alignment), in order to retrieve "whatever is there" as faithfully as is practical. Something like that could null-out random noise due to the tape machine and produce a "cleaner" output that emphasizes the Signal and minimizes certain types of noise. (But it COULD also emphasize noise that is in the recording and is non-random.) Not a Recording Enginerd, but I'm curious, and I also know that they use a similar technique in brain-mapping where they do a fast, "real-time average" of data from an array of EEG sensors. (Would most Archives even ALLOW a new Recording Company to make multiple passes of their valuable masters? Do they typically charge "per-pass"? How carefully managed is this sort of stuff?) I also know that Magnetic Tape has a tendency to "bleed" (STRONG magnetized spots tend to magnetize adjacent media particles over time, which can mask / de-grade the overall quality of the tape). The higher the feed-speed of the original tape, the farther apart such "strong spots" are and the longer it will take to de-grade. [Likewise, the distance between adjacent "Tracks" - maybe some old 2 or 4-track may be better than 8 or more on the same tape width due to better physical separation of the tracks?] I would assume that in some cases, over the years "valuable" Masters were probably duplicated onto higher-grade magnetic material that is less prone to do this (remember the different Casette Tapes basic FeO2 --> Metal?). Or are the "virgin" Original Masters still usually regarded as "best". With ALL of these variables and the personal taste of the Artist and Recording / Mastering Engineers - it's half a miracle that we can hear ANYTHING remotely good... |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Nov 6, 2018 16:29:22 GMT -5
Truth. Maybe BS.Decisions decisions 🤔
|
|
|
|
Post by geeqner on Nov 6, 2018 16:37:37 GMT -5
Wow! That's some pretty complex shyte!
Things are even MORE complex than most of us could have guessed.
Brings to mind Engineering school and talking about what happens with current-density at junctions of the leads to the Resistive Material within a simple resistor.
Intricacies of Tape-to-Head and vice-versa magnetic flux phenomenon and then top it off by encoding the results into a 3-dimensional scratch on a chunk-o-plastic.
Top it off by mechanically reproducing those scratches by squeezing a die into a flat plastic wad..
When you start to analyze the minutae that happens within almost even the SIMPLEST electronic components, it makes you wonder how ANYTHING works at all.
(Particularly when you stop to consider how "decent" this stone-age technology CAN sound under the right circumstances...;-P )
So, as for extracting something TRULY great / hi-fi from Tapes from 1959 - They're probably attempting to extract blood from a turnip
They MAY be able to "nibble around the edges" and provide some minor cleanup, but other than that She just ain'a gonna' happen... = B.S.
|
|
|
|
Post by graphic on Nov 6, 2018 16:54:12 GMT -5
Gar,
A LONG time fan, and there was an English ‘fan club’ that did remarkable work digging up all sorts of data. With blockbuster success of Jersey Boys, a lot of things started to emerge. Tommy DeVito had, arguably the ‘concept’ of Jersey Boys via an ‘unpublished manuscript’ which has languished in court for years. Bob Crewe was vastly undervalued as a producer. In addition to Frankie and the boys, he directed an amazing bunch of girl groups, soul groups and even disco! His name is on Lady Marmalade!!
|
|
|
|
Post by amped on Nov 6, 2018 17:28:18 GMT -5
I have had many iterations of this recording from an original press to what is now my favorite and that is Analogue Productions 45 version...By far the best recording of this recording by far...from original tapes.
|
|
|
|
Post by geeqner on Nov 6, 2018 17:48:42 GMT -5
I wonder if this one was ever done by MFSL on Vinyl and/or on their "gold" CDs?
In most cases, I found their "re-engineered" recordings to be pretty darned good
(but again, I may have fallen for at least partial BS in my younger days- at least the Gold CDs should be less prone to the metal layer corroding...)
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 7, 2018 11:04:03 GMT -5
I don't see any MFSL versions... but... there sure seem to be a lot of OTHER versions.... forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/166420/a-comparison-of-eleven-versions-of-dave-brubecks-time-outI've always like most of MFSL's releases... although some are quite different than the originals while others are not. While "CD rot" is absolutely a real thing I haven't actually ever seen it on more than one or two discs - and not on discs that were well stored and cared for. (However, it's easy enough to RIP CDs, so there's little reason for not keeping a backup copy on hard disc.) I wonder if this one was ever done by MFSL on Vinyl and/or on their "gold" CDs? In most cases, I found their "re-engineered" recordings to be pretty darned good (but again, I may have fallen for at least partial BS in my younger days- at least the Gold CDs should be less prone to the metal layer corroding...) |
|
