Rt66indierock Posted July 22, 2017 Author Share Posted July 22, 2017 4 hours ago, mansr said: The regular and MQA versions of The Nightfly on Tidal are clearly from different masters. Comparing track 2, there are a number of differences: The sample rates differ, 44.1 kHz vs 48 kHz for the MQA version. The MQA version is 7 seconds longer. The MQA version is 2 dB louder, even clipping a few times. The polarity of the MQA version is inverted. The actual speeds don't quite match. In other words, they are not simply different digital downsamples from a common source. The speed difference fluctuates throughout the track. I'd be inclined to say these two versions came from different tape transfers, except it's an all-digital production. Actually there is tape in the middle. Thanks for posting this while I'm on the road. Link to comment
mansr Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: Actually there is tape in the middle. Oh, do elaborate. This could explain a lot. Link to comment
Digital Assassin Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 31 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: Actually there is tape in the middle. Thanks for posting this while I'm on the road. ...as will all so called early "digital" rock recordings...Rush, Dire Straits, Peter Gabriel, etc. Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted July 22, 2017 Author Share Posted July 22, 2017 1 hour ago, mansr said: Oh, do elaborate. This could explain a lot. The output was to 1 inch tape running 45 ips. Link to comment
mansr Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 29 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: The output was to 1 inch tape running 45 ips. The final mix? And this was then digitised for the CD release? Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted July 22, 2017 Author Share Posted July 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, mansr said: The final mix? And this was then digitised for the CD release? It was vinyl and cassette in late 1982. The CD came later in 1984. Link to comment
mansr Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 44 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: It was vinyl and cassette in late 1982. The CD came later in 1984. What I'm getting at is whether the digital releases are sourced from analogue tape. Link to comment
soxr Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 19 minutes ago, mansr said: What I'm getting at is whether the digital releases are sourced from analogue tape. Those old CD's are typically from analog tape, but was it ADD or AAD ? Reminds me of SPARS code:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted July 23, 2017 Author Share Posted July 23, 2017 20 minutes ago, mansr said: What I'm getting at is whether the digital releases are sourced from analogue tape. They the first CDs were really messed up. They sounded very strange compared to the vinyl. Eventually they made some decent ones with fourth or fifth generation masters. Link to comment
Jud Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Discogs shows first CD versions in 1983. I counted 36 digital versions (albeit these were mostly just different countries), but still, there have been at least several versions, so good luck trying to figure out the provenance of these. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted July 23, 2017 Author Share Posted July 23, 2017 35 minutes ago, Jud said: Discogs shows first CD versions in 1983. I counted 36 digital versions (albeit these were mostly just different countries), but still, there have been at least several versions, so good luck trying to figure out the provenance of these. 1984 was the first one good enough to buy. I think it was 1986 when I got one good enough to tune live events. Link to comment
mansr Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: 1984 was the first one good enough to buy. I think it was 1986 when I got one good enough to tune live events. That's all well and good. You still haven't given a clear answer to my question. The album was supposedly recorded digitally using some 3M equipment. Multiple tracks and overdubbing were involved. Somehow this was turned into a stereo mix that ended up on various formats including CD. Are you saying the authoritative master is an analogue tape? At the time, that would certainly be reasonable. Link to comment
Jud Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 8 minutes ago, mansr said: That's all well and good. You still haven't given a clear answer to my question. The album was supposedly recorded digitally using some 3M equipment. Multiple tracks and overdubbing were involved. Somehow this was turned into a stereo mix that ended up on various formats including CD. Are you saying the authoritative master is an analogue tape? At the time, that would certainly be reasonable. Roger Nichols, the engineer: From rogernichols.com 3M Digital Mastering System The Ry Cooder Bop Till You Drop album was the first digitally recorded pop album. It was recorded on the 3M 32-track digital recorder at Amigo studios in North Hollywood California. We booked the Village Recorder in 1981 to cut tracks for Nightfly and decided to try the 3M digital machine. We ran a Studer A-80 24-track analog machine in parallel with the 3M for the test. After the band laid down a take we performed an a-b-c listening test. The analog and digital machines were played back in sync while the band played along live. We could compare the analog machine, the digital machine, and the live band. The closest sound to the live band was the 3M digital machine. We re-aligned the Studer and gave it one more chance. The 3M was the clear winner. We rolled the Studer out into the street, (just kidding) and did the rest of the recording on the 3M 32-track machine. When it came time to mix, we mixed to the 3M 4-track machine. The 3M 32-track used 1” digital tape and the 4-track used 1/2” digital tape. They both ran at 45 ips. I guess 3M wanted to sell you lots of tape. The digital audio was recorded at 50kHz 16bits. There were no 16bit converters in 1981, so the 3M system used a 12 bit Burr-Brown converter and 4bits of an 8bit converter as gain-ranging to produce the 16bit results. The “brick wall” analog filters on the 3M machine hand-wound coils and took up most of a circuit board. They sounded good. The biggest drawback to the 3M system was the minimal error correction. After a couple of months working on the same piece of tape, the error count started to rise above the correctable level. There were adjustments on the front of the machine to fine tune the decoding of the data recorded on tape. You could adjust each track for the least amount of correctable errors and then transfer the tape digitally to another 3M machine. You now had a clean error-free tape to work on for a couple of months. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted July 23, 2017 Author Share Posted July 23, 2017 37 minutes ago, mansr said: That's all well and good. You still haven't given a clear answer to my question. The album was supposedly recorded digitally using some 3M equipment. Multiple tracks and overdubbing were involved. Somehow this was turned into a stereo mix that ended up on various formats including CD. Are you saying the authoritative master is an analogue tape? At the time, that would certainly be reasonable. Yes the 32 track digital 3M machine only had analog outputs. 31 minutes ago, Jud said: Roger Nichols, the engineer: From rogernichols.com 3M Digital Mastering System The Ry Cooder Bop Till You Drop album was the first digitally recorded pop album. It was recorded on the 3M 32-track digital recorder at Amigo studios in North Hollywood California. We booked the Village Recorder in 1981 to cut tracks for Nightfly and decided to try the 3M digital machine. We ran a Studer A-80 24-track analog machine in parallel with the 3M for the test. After the band laid down a take we performed an a-b-c listening test. The analog and digital machines were played back in sync while the band played along live. We could compare the analog machine, the digital machine, and the live band. The closest sound to the live band was the 3M digital machine. We re-aligned the Studer and gave it one more chance. The 3M was the clear winner. We rolled the Studer out into the street, (just kidding) and did the rest of the recording on the 3M 32-track machine. When it came time to mix, we mixed to the 3M 4-track machine. The 3M 32-track used 1” digital tape and the 4-track used 1/2” digital tape. They both ran at 45 ips. I guess 3M wanted to sell you lots of tape. The digital audio was recorded at 50kHz 16bits. There were no 16bit converters in 1981, so the 3M system used a 12 bit Burr-Brown converter and 4bits of an 8bit converter as gain-ranging to produce the 16bit results. The “brick wall” analog filters on the 3M machine hand-wound coils and took up most of a circuit board. They sounded good. The biggest drawback to the 3M system was the minimal error correction. After a couple of months working on the same piece of tape, the error count started to rise above the correctable level. There were adjustments on the front of the machine to fine tune the decoding of the data recorded on tape. You could adjust each track for the least amount of correctable errors and then transfer the tape digitally to another 3M machine. You now had a clean error-free tape to work on for a couple of months. Thanks for putting in the shootout. Live, analog and digital won. Not something I could do. Roger was a mentor in audio for me. I'm certain I'm biased. Link to comment
esldude Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 I haven't found any info saying the Nightfly was anything except digital all the way. There were for various releases different masters. Donald Fagen supposedly made aware of this decided on the master which was used on subsequent DVD stereo and multichannel releases. Obviously we are all getting our info second, third or sixth hand. I have never seen anything indicating analog tape was part of the process for any digital releases. I think people are confusing the 1 inch 45 IPS digital tapes with being analog. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted July 23, 2017 Author Share Posted July 23, 2017 20 minutes ago, esldude said: I haven't found any info saying the Nightfly was anything except digital all the way. There were for various releases different masters. Donald Fagen supposedly made aware of this decided on the master which was used on subsequent DVD stereo and multichannel releases. Obviously we are all getting our info second, third or sixth hand. I have never seen anything indicating analog tape was part of the process for any digital releases. I think people are confusing the 1 inch 45 IPS digital tapes with being analog. The one I was around and used only had analog outputs. I know the difference. Link to comment
esldude Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: The one I was around and used only had analog outputs. I know the difference. Which in no way automatically means analog tape was involved. With 32 tracks it sounds like they kept it digital till near the end. Perhaps in some mixing on analog consoles it then had to see an ADC again. None of that is enough to tell us analog tape was anywhere in the chain. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 OK. Tracked onto 32-track digital at 16/50. Analogue out into an analogue desk for mixdown. Output of the mixdown onto 4-track digital at 16/50. Analogue out from that deck onto analogue tape at 15 or 30 ips for LP cutting, especially for copies to tape and LP plants around the world. Most likely from that analogue tape into an ADC at 16/44.1 for CD. Just possibly analogue out from the digital deck into the ADC for CD. So it's just possible that the original CDs might be one generation closer to the "definitive master" than the LPs, but unlikely. Most likely the analogue tape will be what we hear today. Does anyone have any hard info to indicate otherwise? Fokus 1 "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted July 23, 2017 Author Share Posted July 23, 2017 44 minutes ago, esldude said: Which in no way automatically means analog tape was involved. With 32 tracks it sounds like they kept it digital till near the end. Perhaps in some mixing on analog consoles it then had to see an ADC again. None of that is enough to tell us analog tape was anywhere in the chain. Take a look a picture of one. It had to be analog outputs. There weren't ways to make a record then without analog tape in 1982. Link to comment
esldude Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Don Hills said: OK. Tracked onto 32-track digital at 16/50. Analogue out into an analogue desk for mixdown. Output of the mixdown onto 4-track digital at 16/50. Analogue out from that deck onto analogue tape at 15 or 30 ips for LP cutting, especially for copies to tape and LP plants around the world. Most likely from that analogue tape into an ADC at 16/44.1 for CD. Just possibly analogue out from the digital deck into the ADC for CD. So it's just possible that the original CDs might be one generation closer to the "definitive master" than the LPs, but unlikely. Most likely the analogue tape will be what we hear today. Does anyone have any hard info to indicate otherwise? There are lists of people who worked on it, tales of what they used, and so and so forth. No one mentioned analog tape. My thinking was 32 mixdown to 4 track digital which may have been done digital. Some tales of how long the digital edits took and how frustrated the crew working on it became. In those days you pick your edits and hit enter and wait a few hours. Maybe mastered from 4 track thru a mixing desk to 2 track. May have gone thru an analog desk getting to 4 track. So maybe as little as two more trips thru analog desks and two more ADCs and no tape in the chain anywhere. But hey, just reading accounts by others here like all of us. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
esldude Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said: Take a look a picture of one. It had to be analog outputs. There weren't ways to make a record then without analog tape in 1982. I could care less what they made the cassettes and LP from. I was only interested in CDs and other digital versions. Do I remember rightly that Telarc used Soundstream's system to feed their mastered digital tapes to the cutter heads? If so that could have also been done with Nightfly though I don't know how it was done. I don't recall Telarc making an analog tape master for their LPs and they were making those from digital recordings as early as 1978. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Fokus Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Given the scarcity of the 3Ms at that time, and the proliferation of competing formats, it stands to reason that for worldwide distribution the one compatible format was used, i.e. Analogue tape. For the first CD releases (plural, because this was presumably a world wide event) they could have used such analogue tape(s), but also, if they were lucky, one of the original 3M masters. At any rate, all copying work was to be done in the analogue domain, as there were no digital interfaces nor sample rate converters. The only digital path existing was within the 3M system. Link to comment
esldude Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, Fokus said: Given the scarcity of the 3Ms at that time, and the proliferation of competing formats, it stands to reason that for worldwide distribution the one compatible format was used, i.e. Analogue tape. For the first CD releases (plural, because this was presumably a world wide event) they could have used such analogue tape(s), but also, if they were lucky, one of the original 3M masters. At any rate, all copying work was to be done in the analogue domain, as there were no digital interfaces nor sample rate converters. The only digital path existing was within the 3M system. S-1610 adapter So that users of the Sony PCM-1610 Digital Audio Processor could take advantage of Soundstream's editing system, the company developed the S-1610 Adapter. The adapter was a bidirectional two-channel format converter. Data from the Sony PCM-1610 were converted to the format used by the Soundstream DTR so that the data appearing at the input to the Digital Audio Interface looked to the DAI as if it had come from a DTR. Similarly, finished (edited) data in Soundstream format were restored to the Sony format by the adapter. Sony data were imported/exported at either of the two sample rates 44.1 kHz or 44.1/1.001 kHz. The DAI is Digital Audio Interface which is where editing was done. So it seems likely such an adapter would have been used when the CD version was released. Again I don't know how it was done. I see a paucity of data about analog tape being somewhere in the chain other than it was usually done that way at the time. Various versions of the Nightfly had the note: Digitally recorded, digitally mixed, and digitally mastered. I'll shut up now. Makes no difference anyway. The sound we can get from downloads or CDs is what it is regardless of how it got that way. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Fokus Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Sure. But we were discussing a 3M recording. Not Soundstream. Link to comment
esldude Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Deleted. Maybe it went from the digital 3M to one of these 3M machines. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now