In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


It's the norm for some little tin pot duplicating company to do this
sort of 'mastering'? I find that beggars belief.

Most mastering facilities have modern facilities with an "impressive"
array of equipment. Considerable investment has been made.

That may support the suspicion I describe below...


This begs the question: "Did anyone actually listen to the music?"

This whole mastering thing has always confused me (except for vinyl).
If a mix is produced in the studio that satisfies the client, why is
that messed with afterwards?

Indeed. A question I have been asking myself for many years.

My suspicion is that this is due to a combination of factors.

One is the mindless assumption this is "needed" and so applied without any
sign of thought.

The other is that competing companies may want to offer what *they* think
is the 'most attractive' service and give themselves a 'selling point'. In
this case, given the above assumption, that they can make a 'louder' (must
be 'better' in their mind) result than alternative disc makers.

So I'd guess they equate such mindless behaviour as them being "cheaper and
better" than their competitors. Perhaps a survival adaptation to a pop
music world where the faith is "louder is better".

Gus Dudgeon (producer for Elton John and David Bowie) whom I knew well
from my Decca days, summed it up nicey when he stated "whether we like
it or not, CD mastering has become an extension of the creative process"

In the end I assume that depends on who is paying.

And that's the difference, in a nut shell. The objectives are not the
same. In vinyl disc mastering the aim was to copy the information from
analogue tape as accurately as possible to acetate disc. Giving the
shortcomings of the medium, the results achieved were often amazingly
good.

I am less convinced that it was such a golden age for 'accuracy' in the 1:1
sense. :-)

Partly because so many of the LPs I bought back then were audibly
imperfect.

Partly because - as I recall - some people who 'cut' the discs traded on
having a reputation for making the result 'sound better' by tweaking it in
various mystical ways. If all that was needed was a careful flat transfer
I'm not clear how they did that. Although I appreciate that skill, care,
and experience are required to ensure the cutting goes correctly.

Again, the 'guru' disc cutters seemed to mainly be a feature of the 'pop'
world where they would scratch their sign on the land at the inner end of
the side. The master mason leaving his mark... they wished. :-)

So although I'd agree that many of the tapes leaving the classical studios
would have sounded excellent. I'm much less confident that the LPs would
have sounded the same. I can remember Golden Guinea, but not Golden Age.
;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html