Q for Steve about using digital copies instead of original tapes

[Matt]

I was reading about the Replacements being remastered, and according to some of the guys working on it, the master tapes were pretty worn. So, when they remastered the albums, they made digital copies of the tapes and worked with those.

Is there any real advantage to doing this?

[Grant]

Simple, to avoid further wear/damage to the tapes. I guess many people now believe that digital has evolved enough to do this, not like back in the 80s when the Steely Dan tapes were converted to digital.

[Todd Fredericks]

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I usually am) but isn't that the process that's used by most mastering houses no matter what the condition of the tapes? Throw the audio onto a digital workstation and play pac-man with it and afterwards it sounds nothing like the master?

Todd

[Grant]

The more sarcastic might say that. But, we don't know what happens in all cases. They don't usually like to talk about it, maybe because they are loading up everything into DAWs.

DAWs aren't bad, it's just how you get the music into them and what you do to it after it's there that may be the problem.

Well, Steve doesn't like them, anyway...

[MikeT]

If record companies, recording artists, etc. had the forethought to store all their analog tapes correctly from the beginning maybe this wouldn't even be so much of a concern.

I think it is only recently that large record companies understand that keeping thier master tapes secure and in controlled environments makes real good sense.

On the other hand, I think alot of record producers and engineers think nothing of transferring tapes to 96/24 digital 24 track recorders, and they think it is a positive thing. On the DVD-Audio disc of The Eagles - Hotel California there is an interview with Bill S. and he seems very proud of the fact that they had to take the master tapes, bake them, and then transfer them to 96/24 digital to produce the DVD-Audio disc. I guess in the case of producing a DVD-Audio disc it makes sense to work in 96/24 (since that is what the surround DVD-Audio disc is presented in), but if anyone wanted to produce a quality analog vinyl pressing of Hotel California today from the analog tapes, they might not be so lucky.

[Steve Hoffman]

Originally posted by MikeT
....but if anyone wanted to produce a quality analog vinyl pressing of Hotel California today from the analog tapes, they might not be so lucky.

Why not? I did.

[Grant]

We must not forget circumstanses that had nothing to do with storage, like the sticky-shed syndrome caused by a bad tape formulation commonly used in the 70s and 80s.

[GMav]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman


Why not? I did.

And Steve..........you did an EXCELLENT job.

[MikeT]

Question for Steve Hoffman:

You responded to my example of Hotel California, with a Why Not? I did.

I am sorry for my ignorance - as it skipped my mind that you did, in fact, re-master Hotel California - but then I do have a question.

Did you have to prepare the master tapes by baking them? Did you do your mastering from the 2-channel masters?

I guess I should have been clearer, that Bill S. stated the original multi-track masters (and not the 2-channel masters) were in bad shape and needed to be baked and transferred to 96/24 digital in order to create the all new surround sound re-mix.

If you did use the multi-track masters and didn't need to do anything out of the ordinary to create your remaster, then why do you suppose they needed to be baked in 2001 to create a DVD-Audio surround mix?

Thanks in advance for your insight.

[Jeff H.]

Originally posted by MikeT
Question for Steve Hoffman:



If you did use the multi-track masters and didn't need to do anything out of the ordinary to create your remaster, then why do you suppose they needed to be baked in 2001 to create a DVD-Audio surround mix?

Thanks in advance for your insight.


Mike, what happens with tapes that have to baked in order to play them back, is that baking only stablizes the tape temporarily. Once baked the tape remains playable for a couple of weeks or up to a month before it becomes sticky and unplayable again. Fortunately master tapes like "Hotel California" have been baked several times for remastering and transferring and still sound great inspite of the sticky shed problems those tapes have.

[Steve Hoffman]

Every Ampex and Scotch tape from 1974 on has to be baked. Fact of life. All of them.

I never would cut a record from the multi-track work parts. Those are unmixed.

I would only use the master mix to cut a record.

Bill S. had to dump everything to digital to do a new mix. Just easier that way. But, he could have used the old analog reels to mix with if he had to. Since it was going to end up on 24/96 anyway, why not do a digital mix? Saves wear and tear on the old reels.

[MikeT]

Thanks for the reply and information. It is very much appreciated.

Yes, I would guess, as I stated in my original post, that since the DVD-A was going to be 96/24 PCM why not mix in that format.

[Steve Hoffman]

Mike T.,

Some old guys (like me), like to mix in analog. Something about the natural tape saturation of analog tape makes certain mixes sound great.

In order to mix in digital, one has to use a bunch of digi-eq's, limiters, etc., which sound nothing like good old fashioned analog processing gear.

So a lot of us hesitate to mix on anything but analog tape, if the original multi-tracks are also analog.

[petzi]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
Every Ampex and Scotch tape from 1974 on has to be baked. Fact of life. All of them.


Steve, what about BASF and Agfa tapes ?

Thanks,

Michael

[Grant]

The BASF and Agfa tapes are just fine! They used a different formulation.

Its just that Ampex and 3M (Scotch) used a then new tape backing that shed and/or decomposed over a short period of time. The binder can be saved on some of these tapes by baking them. With some tapes, they have to be subjected to a humidifier.

[Holy Zoo]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
Every Ampex and Scotch tape from 1974 on has to be baked. Fact of life. All of them.


"1974 on"... does that mean they never fixed the problem, and new analog tapes, say - from the 1990's - have (or will have) the same problem in 20 years?

And just because I'm a curious cat: when did they first discover the problem? I presume that The Eagles master didn't need to be baked in, say, 1979? Or did it?

[John Oteri]

The shelf life of any modern tape is just 10 years. That's it, including digital tapes.

Crappy, isn't it?

The problem cropped up in 1983.

[Grant]

They identified the analog tape problem in the mid 80s.

Digital tape problems exist as well, as John points out. No one gets out of here alive!

[Bob Lovely]

All,

My AMPEX reels from the mid 80's to about 1990 are still playing just fine. In 1990, I switched to BASF and I have not experienced any problems with degredation. My 3M reels from the early 80's (Scotch 250) are still playing very well. I guess I am lucky!

Bob ;)