| Author |
|
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 01 May 2008 at 12:46pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
My commercial 45 has a listed time of (3:58), but an actual time of (3:52).
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
edtop40
MusicFan
Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4996
|
| Posted: 23 July 2011 at 5:07am | IP Logged
|
|
|
my commercial 45 for the steely dan song "peg" issued as abc 12320 lists the run time as 3:58, and like jim's only runs 3:52.....if you fade out for 0:06 from 3:46 to 3:52 on the 3:56 "aja" cd verson you'll effectively re-create the true 45 version....
__________________
edtop40
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
crapfromthepast
MusicFan
Joined: 14 September 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2240
|
| Posted: 21 May 2015 at 7:02pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The short answer: I don't think there are any bad masterings of "Peg". (I haven't heard the Aja remaster that came out around 1999, though.)
There are endless threads on the Steve Hoffman board about the many different masterings of Aja. It's pretty brutal sorting them out, and frankly not worth your effort.
My copy of Aja has matrix number MCAD-37214-A8E, and I believe that it's a made in Japan-for-US disc released in 1984. (The peak level for "Peg", track 4 on the disc, is 88.7% - that helps tell the masterings apart) Almost all of the subsequent masterings I found use the same analog transfer as this mastering of Aja:- MCA's (Canadian?) Greatest Hits (copyright 1978, unsure when or where this was actually released) is digitally exactly 0.2 dB quieter
- Time-Life's Sounds Of The Seventies Vol. 10 1978 (1990) is a digital clone
- MCA's original pressings of A Decade Of (mastered by Bob Ludwig and Roger Nichols)
All of the above sound basically the same - same great dynamic range, same EQ, no evidence of noise reduction, same reassuring hiss on the fade. On Aja, the fade is technically truncated, but it's insignificant; the level drops abruptly from -70 dB to zero. The other discs make the transition to zero a little more gradual.
The version on the 4-CD Citizen box set (1993) uses the same analog transfer as my copy of Aja (not a digital clone), but with a significantly brighter EQ and evidence of a tiny, tiny amount of noise reduction (I hear a small whooshy effect around 3:51 on the fade.) "Peg" sounds pretty shiny and wonderful here - the brighter EQ really brings out the shaky percussion during the chorus. There's a digitally identical clone of Citizen on later pressings of A Decade Of (mastered by Glenn Meadows).
So to sum up, all of the above use the same analog transfer from the same two-track mixdown tape. Everything pre-1993 has no noise reduction. Everything 1993 and after has a brighter EQ that brings out the high end, but has a tiny amount of noise reduction. None sound bad. (All run at 117.0 BPM throughout with no drift - it's a live drummer playing to a click track.)
The only mastering of "Peg" that I have that uses a different analog transfer from the above is MFSL's gold disc of Aja (1988; UDCD 515). It sounds even brighter than the 1993 discs, and shows no evidence of noise reduction. I thoroughly approve. (Here, it runs at 117.3 BPM throughout.)
If you can't afford the MFSL gold disc, just know that the others also sound great and you won't be disappointed by any of them. (Again, I haven't heard the 1999 remaster of Aja.)
Edited by crapfromthepast on 22 May 2015 at 7:03am
__________________
There's a lot of crap on the radio, but there's only one Crap From The Past.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
crapfromthepast
MusicFan
Joined: 14 September 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2240
|
| Posted: 23 May 2015 at 3:47pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks to Dave, who sent me a file of "Peg" from the 1999 remaster of Aja.
I discovered that the 1999 remaster is digital clone of the mastering of Citizen (1993), but 1 dB louder, and possibly seems to widen the soundstage somewhat. It certainly doesn't sound that much different from Citizen.
Here's what I did:
I loaded the 1993 and 1999 versions into my multi-track editor, aligned them in time so that the samples line up, lowered the 1999 version by exactly 1 dB, and got partial cancellation - this tells me that the 1999 mastering is a digital clone of the 1993 mastering.
Then I noticed that the residual stuff left over in the partial cancellation sounded kinda weird, like the left and right channels were out of phase. So I mono'ed-out the residual stuff, and got complete cancellation down to -88 dB dithering noise. (Except for some occasional peaks that show clipping from the 1999 mastering - it's a tiny bit too loud.
I've never encountered this in the null tests before: Stereo null test gives partial cancellation, but null test mixing everything to mono gives complete cancellation.
I've been trying to figure out why the 1999 remasters actually do this, and it's not apparent. Does mixing a little bit of the left channel, with phase inverted, into the right channel widen the soundstage? I have no idea.
So thanks to Dave, I can report:- 1984 masterings of Aja have no noise reduction
- 1993 masterings have a brighter EQ and a tiny amount of noise reduction
- 1999 mastering has same EQ as 1993 masterings, is digitally exactly 1 dB louder than 1993 masterings, and mixes the left/right channels a little bit to (possibly?) widen the soundstage
All of the above use the same analog transfer of the same two-track mixdown tapes, which was done in 1984 or earlier. The MFSL gold disc is the only one that uses a different analog transfer.
Edited by crapfromthepast on 24 May 2015 at 9:18am
__________________
There's a lot of crap on the radio, but there's only one Crap From The Past.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LunarLaugh
MusicFan
Joined: 13 February 2020
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: 26 June 2020 at 2:04am | IP Logged
|
|
|
As someone who has amassed a large chunk of Steely Dan
CDs, I have to say that my favorite sounding disc for
most of their hits is 2006's Steely Dan: The Definitive
Collection.
This set was remastered by Sony's Joseph M. Palmaccio and
it's a night and day difference between all other CD
appearances of their best known songs. Best of all, no
noise reduction at all.
__________________
Listen to The Lunar Laugh!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
AndrewChouffi
MusicFan
Joined: 24 September 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1092
|
| Posted: 26 June 2020 at 7:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
To 'Crap' (Ron):
Could you please explain what you exactly mean by 'same
analog transfer' as opposed to 'same digital transfer'?
I have a good guess as to what you mean, but I'd like
your explanation of the terms as I'm not completely
sure.
Thank you!
Andy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
crapfromthepast
MusicFan
Joined: 14 September 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2240
|
| Posted: 26 June 2020 at 9:22am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Andy - Happy to explain.
When I talk about a particular analog transfer, I mean a specific playing of a two-track mixdown tape, and from that specific playing, capturing the analog audio in the digital domain with an A-to-D converter.
We can tell that the same analog transfer is used on various masterings by comparing the waveforms.
If we can get them to line up and remain in sync throughout, and we can get partial or total cancellation by inverting one of them, then we can say that one is a digital clone of the other (maybe with a level change, an EQ adjustment, and/or added compression/limiting).
If we can get them to line up but they drift slightly over the course of the song (and slightly means just a few samples), then we can say that both use the same analog transfer. This case occurs when the track is played from a digital source in the analog domain, maybe to adjust EQ etc., and captured back into the digital domain with another A-to-D converter. The clocks of the playback device and the A-to-D converter aren't perfectly synchronized, so there's always a small drift between them, hence the misalignment of a few samples.
Hope that helps.
__________________
There's a lot of crap on the radio, but there's only one Crap From The Past.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
AndrewChouffi
MusicFan
Joined: 24 September 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1092
|
| Posted: 26 June 2020 at 12:12pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thank you for the extra detail Ron!
But what puzzles me is why anyone
would futz with a track that was
already converted to digital in the
analog domain!
I am from the school that for optimum
quality one does not want to do more
than one analog to digital conversion.
Is my thinking outmoded?
Andy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
crapfromthepast
MusicFan
Joined: 14 September 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2240
|
| Posted: 26 June 2020 at 1:42pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Why? I have two ideas, neither of which is based on any facts.
First, I think the extra-analog-step cases may have predated digital workstations. It could be that a particular engineer wanted to mix on a particular console, and the only way to do that was to send the source material though it in the analog domain.
Second, I think some of the extra-analog-transfer cases may have been done inside the record company of the source material. For example, a tape librarian at the source record company might have done an analog dub of material to be sent to the compilation record company.
Just guesses. I've wondered about that quite a bit myself. I noticed that it also depends on who is mastering the compilation. Some mastering engineers work in the digital domain, so I see a lot of digital clones on their compilations. Others (likely) work in analog, so I see the same-analog-transfer tracks on theirs.
I guess I can defer to Mark, or any of the other engineers here who have worked on compilations. Any thoughts?
__________________
There's a lot of crap on the radio, but there's only one Crap From The Past.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
AndrewChouffi
MusicFan
Joined: 24 September 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1092
|
| Posted: 27 June 2020 at 9:21am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Ron,
Thanks for your responses!
I am looking for others input as well!
Andy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LunarLaugh
MusicFan
Joined: 13 February 2020
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: 28 June 2020 at 7:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Digital transfer technology was still in its infancy
when the transfer of analog recordings to CD were first
making strides in the early to mid 80s. A lot of these
old digital transfers were recorded to digital U-Matic
videotape (such as anything done on the JVC Digital
Audio Mastering System). U-Matic was considered a solid
format for archiving at the time, but later on it was
discovered that the digital storage on them (as well as
the equipment itself) could become corrupt with age and
thus would no longer be playable. That is one
contributing factor to another digital transfer being
created.
ALso, improvements in the tehnology made it possible
for them to achieve an even better transfer from the
get-go. With advancements like Apogee filters, custom
Neve consoles, Sony's SBM process and Microsoft's HDCD
process there was a lot of wiggle room for new
transfers to be made to show off the capabilities. Some
of it was just buzz and hype (as is evidenced by the
re-use of older transfers on newer releases) but in
other instances, there is some actual improvement made.
__________________
Listen to The Lunar Laugh!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Steely Dan-"Peg"
