Date:         Sun, 7 Jan 2007 18:03:17 -0600
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         phillip holmes <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: early CD bashing
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <001001c732b6$e9fe1cd0$6a01a8c0@TOMOFFICE>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

I don't think the incompetence was purposeful.  I think the screwed 
up/missing/wrong tape situation was just a continuation of LP era 
practices.  Most first pressings sound better than reissues because they 
were usually mastered from a decent tape.  There are more awful sounding 
LPs than CDs. 
On the other hand, fitting 40 minutes on a CD, then reissuing it a 
couple years later with bonus tracks IS suspect.
Phillip

Tom Fine wrote:
> Hi Phillip:
>
> All of what you said is true, but many if not most very early CD's 
> were mastered poorly, often not from the original master tapes. 
> Remember that the very first generation of CD's came from Japan and 
> Germany, because that was where manufacturing plants were. Many 
> masters were made from whatever master tape existed in-country, which 
> was often not the original. I've been told numerous stories about what 
> was used, and also how sloppy the mastering was in a rush to get as 
> much product on the market as quickly as possible.
>
> When the Mercury Living Presence reissue project started, it was 
> definitely NOT the norm to track down original master tapes, play them 
> back on restored original equipment (or an excellent, well-adjusted 
> and skillfully-maintained modern substitute), and use a very direct 
> chain from the tape to the digital master. And, requesting 
> quality-control samples from every manufacturing line at the plant was 
> unheard of. The rock and jazz guys felt much more free to turn knobs 
> and adjust everything from EQ to dynamics between the tape and the 
> digital master. Furthermore, they were content to master right into 
> Sonic Solutions, which was not the practice for the MLP CD's (in all 
> cases except where Sonic was absolutely necessary to fix various 
> problems, they were mastered  Tape [Ampex 300-3]  >> 3-2 mixdown 
> console [Westrex custom board] >> A-D converter [brand escapes me but 
> it's British and I believe is 3 letters] >> Sony 3/4" digital 
> mastering system). When this careful method of remastering paid big 
> dividends from healthy returns on investment, other companies took 
> notice and this became more the norm.
>
> Yes, for sure, a few careful people had been doing this or something 
> akin all along, but most of the big label folks were just sloppily 
> rushing product to market. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but one 
> could argue this was a calculated strategy to get a double-dip out of 
> the CD medium -- do it really quick and dirty the first time and then 
> go back 10 years later and do a "deluxe remaster" at a higher price 
> point. I could rattle off a long list of albums for which this was 
> done! In fact, I was just today comparing an original issue (1984) Led 
> Zep CD with a recent reissue done right by Jimmy Page himself. The 
> difference is amazing. The original CD sounded much worse to my ears 
> than the original-era LP (dead-sounding, noisy, not enough bass, bad 
> dynamics). All of that was fixed in the recent reissue and Page was 
> still hearing-OK enough not to "toothpaste" the remaster with 
> over-compression.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "phillip holmes" 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 5:48 PM
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] early CD bashing
>
>
>> I've had recent experiences where 20 year old CDs, that originally 
>> sounded like glass being ground up in a blender, sound just fine.  
>> I'm talking about CDs mastered in the mid '80s.  Many early CD 
>> players had resolution closer to 14 bits than 16.  That was coupled 
>> with brick wall filters that introduced phase shift in the audible 
>> spectrum (brick wall filters are dumb) and they had lots of jitter.  
>> Also, most were built with the same awful op-amps and 
>> tantalum/electrolytic coupling caps that the cheapest consumer 
>> receivers used.  It's no wonder that folks damned the CD as an awful 
>> medium.  It was at the time.  They were auditioned against four 
>> figure vinyl front ends through ultra-fi preamps and amps that will 
>> show any shortcomings.  Many used ribbon tweeters (I have Magnapans 
>> that use a 3' long true ribbon tweeter and it reveals mistracking and 
>> distortio--ruthlessly).  But even cheap modern players can get decent 
>> sound out of those old CDs. I have a friend who still has a modified 
>> Magnavox player from the late '80s.  The op-amp output was replaced 
>> with discrete FETs and the power supply was modded with lower ESR 
>> caps and bypassed with polypropylene caps.  It still plays fine and 
>> sounds nearly as good as my cheap combi-player. Phillip
>>
>
>
>