New Releases

[Ras]

Pardon, but how on earth does baking a tape at high temps for a number of hours restore its integrity?  Any idea what the theory behind this is?
PD

You know how a new phenomenon sometimes gets an old name?
During the 4 minutes and 33 seconds I managed to shut John Cage's mouth I heard two sound technicians discuss whehter the new baking technique should be called: "Sim-sala-bim" or "Abra-ca-da-bra".

And that was not a joke! 0:)

[Daverz]

Pardon, but how on earth does baking a tape at high temps for a number of hours restore its integrity?  Any idea what the theory behind this is?

Yes, it's a commonly used technique to deal with some kinds of tape deterioration.

http://tape-baking.com/

[vmartell]

They made a high-resolution transfer 25 years ago for this set.



which, as I recall, displeased some people because they used the Cedar noise reduction system during mastering. The most recent Decca release is (I believe) based on the same transfer without the Cedar system. No need to use tapes that are falling apart when a high-resolution transfer was done an an easier stage. It's part of the remastering fetish.

sheesh... was it 25 years ago? Man, feels like yesterday when I picked up at the Tower Records Classical Annex... NO WAIT! It was the Tower Records store over at Westwood Village! OH!

Oh man yeah, 25 years ago... :-(

Anyways - that transfer was a 48/24 transfer with speed problems on Rheingold... The recent release removes the Cedar de-noise step AND fixes the speed problem, but indeed it is the same transfer as you can confirm if you own the Bluray Audio - the audio on that release it is indeed 48/24. 

I see nothing wrong  with doing a new transfer and master. Technology has moved on. It makes sense to update your backup (that is, the digital transfer) to the latest tech (that is, 192/32) while doing it right (that is, avoiding the speed issue instead of fixing it in the digital realm with DSP). Fetish? NO - it's  common sense. And if you are gonna update your transfer, why not make it available for those who want it? After all, it is also common sense for recording companies to try to sell... well, recordings...

[ Edit: I went from memory re: the pitch problems in the 1997 remaster. It seems the information regarding that issue has been lost in the fog of time. I do remember it vividly, since it is not only very significant,  but also, to be fair I did not notice it and I know most people did not either.  There is a mention of it here:

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/the-complete-decca-solti-ring-recordings-in-blu-ray-audio-with-some-more-goodies.290420/page-5

but I could not find a more authoritative source, probably due to the 1997 time frame. In the interest of being fair and accurate, please feel free to dismiss my comment re: pitch problems are merely hearsay. THAT SAID, I think the gist of my comment is valid. To desire to update the digital transfers of one of the most important recordings in the history of recorded music is not fetish, but common sense. Also nothing wrong with making it available. People are free to purchase it. Or not!  ]


v

[Que]

I see nothing wrong  with doing a new transfer and master. Technology has moved on. It makes sense to update your backup (that is, the digital transfer) to the latest tech (that is, 192/32) while doing it right (that is, avoiding the speed issue instead of fixing it in the digital realm with DSP). Fetish? NO - it's  common sense.

It's common sense that whatever you can retrieve from the original source with the latest technology is at some point not an improvement anymore because of the irreversible decay of the magnetic tapes.

You cannot drink from a poisoned well. Once the source is corrupted beyond a certain point,  it's game over.
25 years, that's a lot of additional decay. That they had to "bake" the tapes to be able to use them at all, speaks volumes...

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Thank you all for the further comments regarding baking of the tapes.  Quite interesting!

PD

[Spotted Horses]

sheesh... was it 25 years ago? Man, feels like yesterday when I picked up at the Tower Records Classical Annex... NO WAIT! It was the Tower Records store over at Westwood Village! OH!

Oh man yeah, 25 years ago... :-(

Anyways - that transfer was a 48/24 transfer with speed problems on Rheingold... The recent release removes the Cedar de-noise step AND fixes the speed problem, but indeed it is the same transfer as you can confirm if you own the Bluray Audio - the audio on that release it is indeed 48/24. 

I see nothing wrong  with doing a new transfer and master. Technology has moved on. It makes sense to update your backup (that is, the digital transfer) to the latest tech (that is, 192/32) while doing it right (that is, avoiding the speed issue instead of fixing it in the digital realm with DSP). Fetish? NO - it's  common sense. And if you are gonna update your transfer, why not make it available for those who want it? After all, it is also common sense for recording companies to try to sell... well, recordings...

[ Edit: I went from memory re: the pitch problems in the 1997 remaster. It seems the information regarding that issue has been lost in the fog of time. I do remember it vividly, since it is not only very significant,  but also, to be fair I did not notice it and I know most people did not either.  There is a mention of it here:

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/the-complete-decca-solti-ring-recordings-in-blu-ray-audio-with-some-more-goodies.290420/page-5

but I could not find a more authoritative source, probably due to the 1997 time frame. In the interest of being fair and accurate, please feel free to dismiss my comment re: pitch problems are merely hearsay. THAT SAID, I think the gist of my comment is valid. To desire to update the digital transfers of one of the most important recordings in the history of recorded music is not fetish, but common sense. Also nothing wrong with making it available. People are free to purchase it. Or not!  ]


v

Interesting, I think I have both the 1997 box and the recent white box ripped. Maybe at some point I'll listen to see if the pitch is different.

In any case, when I've listened to 96/24 and 44.1/16 versions of the same recording I've not been able to perceive a difference. For my purposes a transfer from 1997, when they had resolved the problems of early ADCs, is fine and I can't imagine that a super high resolution transfer will of a tape which (as they describe) disintegrates during the transfer is going to be an improvement.

Makes me wonder. If those 1958 Rheingold tapes are beyond use, how did they release Mono titles that were never on CD before for the Paray Edition? Maybe Mercury used different tape stock, or stored them better than Decca?

[Todd]

Makes me wonder. If those 1958 Rheingold tapes are beyond use, how did they release Mono titles that were never on CD before for the Paray Edition? Maybe Mercury used different tape stock, or stored them better than Decca?

It may depend on the definition of "original source".  The analog tapes may have been transferred to digital decades ago, but never released.  Remastering could then be performed on the original digital transfers.  Eloquence may respond to inquiries. 

[Que]

It may depend on the definition of "original source".  The analog tapes may have been transferred to digital decades ago, but never released.  Remastering could then be performed on the original digital transfers.  Eloquence may respond to inquiries.

Quite. Even before the advent of digital technology it was common practice to make "fresh copies" of old tapes.

[Spotted Horses]

It may depend on the definition of "original source".  The analog tapes may have been transferred to digital decades ago, but never released.  Remastering could then be performed on the original digital transfers.  Eloquence may respond to inquiries.

The press release for the Paray Mercury Masters contains the claim "remastered from the original sources by Thomas Fine," the son of Wilma Cozart and Richard Fine. But, as you say, "original source" is not entirely well defined and could include an existing digital copy of the source tapes. There are YouTube videos of Fine talking about this, particularly about the production of new Mercury LPs. I didn't have the patience to watch them.

[71 dB]

It makes sense to update your backup (that is, the digital transfer) to the latest tech (that is, 192/32)

No, it doesn't make sense. In consumer audio 44.1/16 is already transparent (perfect for human ears). In music production 44.1/24 (pure music) and 48/24 (video sound) are enough giving plenty of safety margin in dynamic range. 96/24 is the highest bitrate that makes any sense. 192/24 is crazy overkill. 192/32 is lunacy for people who do not understand digital audio and properties of human hearing.

For archival purposes DSD is the best format, because of its immunity to bit errors.

[vmartell]

It's common sense that whatever you can retrieve from the original source with the latest technology is at some point not an improvement anymore because of the irreversible decay of the magnetic tapes.

You cannot drink from a poisoned well. Once the source is corrupted beyond a certain point,  it's game over.
25 years, that's a lot of additional decay. That they had to "bake" the tapes to be able to use them at all, speaks volumes...

You are looking at it from the wrong point of view -  the one thing about backups is that they have to be RETRIEVABLE. While of course technically, the 48/24 1997 transfer might still be retrievable and usable, but it is a best practice to bring backups up to date so they are retrievable with the latest technology.  Put that together with the fact that while it sounds extreme, baking the tapes is not THAT rare - you can get great transfers out of baked tapes. The engineers at Decca are probably satisfied. Again, if you do that, why not make it available, specially if you get to redo without the Cedar system that was so commonplace back in the 90s? 

You are of course free to keep your 1997 release and not give Decca (Universal) your dough - there is no law to compel you to buy the new master, much less a law to make you love it or a law to make you find it an improvement. I am keeping my 1997 too... I love that packaging.  However I am also getting the new one.  I am over the the moon to have the chance to get it at more reasonable cost on SACD without having to pay Esoteric $1200 for the SACD of the 1997 transfer... 

BTW, I am also an skeptic and an objectivist, when it comes to audio... I am fully aware that I might NOT be able to hear the difference between the 1997 Redbook (CD) version and the new SACD...  I just want it. Despite that. That's my prerogative too!


Again, weird to me to hold it against recording companies the fact they are trying to sell... recordings...

v

[vmartell]

No, it doesn't make sense. In consumer audio 44.1/16 is already transparent (perfect for human ears). In music production 44.1/24 (pure music) and 48/24 (video sound) are enough giving plenty of safety margin in dynamic range. 96/24 is the highest bitrate that makes any sense. 192/24 is crazy overkill. 192/32 is lunacy for people who do not understand digital audio and properties of human hearing.

For archival purposes DSD is the best format, because of its immunity to bit errors.

As a member of Audio Science Review I the find the very basic and light explanation above insulting and condescending.  We all know that. It is not rocket surgery!
See my comment re: being an objectivist - you are preaching to the technologically educated choir

But, note the comment about formats, technology and specially, retrieve-ability. Even if you DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PROOF there is an AUDIBLE difference you have to update up to the latest, highest spec. It is simply best practice  - if you are in the business, you know to do that.

v

[Todd]

but it is a best practice to bring backups up to date so they are retrievable with the latest technology.

Isn't the latest technology capable of retrieving a 48/24 1997 transfer?

[Brian]

Just to warn you guys, I will be posting some new releases tomorrow afternoon 

[Todd]

Just to warn you guys, I will be posting some new releases tomorrow afternoon 

Hopefully all 24/192.

[vmartell]

Isn't the latest technology capable of retrieving a 48/24 1997 transfer?

While OF COURSE  technically, the 48/24 1997 transfer might still be retrievable and usable, but it is a BEST PRACTICE to bring backups up to date so they are retrievable with the latest technology. 

This is done out of due diligence. Now of course a system that can handle 192/32 can obviously handle 48/24 - that is NOT the issue - you need to think beyond that. What format does Cedar (or whatever backend - can't remember if Cedar is a full system or just the restoration part) store its files? Was it a dedicated box? Can Pro-Tools read it? For how long?
v

[Todd]

This is done out of due diligence.

Due diligence.  Hmm.

[vmartell]

Due diligence.  Hmm.

I that means what I think it means, well, I will bite one more time  then let it go -  sure - there is a combination of factors - is commerce one of the factors that drive the companies to revisit those tapes and do a new transfer? Sure. But there are also specific issues with the 1997 48/24 transfer (Cedar) not to mention the fact that it might be in a 1997 format. So it's in the best interest to do a new transfer. Does it matter what is the driving factor? No.

And it will be transferred to the highest possible spec. When technology advances, sample rates go up, new software/hardware comes out, it will happen again. Doesn't matter if a nobody on an internet forum thinks it's pointless. When the tapes are really ruined, and no more transfers are possible we will have the best possible transfer to just convert to the new formats.

When the new one comes out, you don't have to get it, like it, or approve. But then again that is just your opinion. It is not a universal truth.  All in all, I am looking forward to it.Will get it and display next to my 1997 ( which I love for how it plays with the original artwork) the 2012 and the 2022 and beyond. Hope I am alive for the 2032 one.

Anyway, tired of explaining - if you don't get it, you don't get it. No replies forthcoming no matter what it's said. Back to lurking.

v

[Spotted Horses]

The bottom line is that we don't know what Decca did, they are deliberately vague.

The 1997 issue does brag about using the CEDAR Dehisser DH-2.

https://www.cedar-audio.com/products/series2/series.shtml
https://www.cedar-audio.com/products/series2/dh.shtml

The thing is long extinct, but the material linked above says something about the thing being able accept 24-bit digital, as well as having its own ADCs and DACs.

If the people at Decca weren't idiots they would have run the tape with as high resolution ADC as they had and stored the raw audio. Then then would have run it through this monstrous thing. Then they could have tinkered with the DH-2 settings until they decided it was just right. I guess it's possible that they used this thing directly and never stored an unprocessed capture of the tape. The fact that that would have been an idiotic thing to do doesn't mean they didn't do it that way.

The more recent CD release I have (without CEDAR) just refers to a "high bit-depth transfer of the legendary recording, carefully remastered in 2012." Notice they don't refer to sample rate, only bit depth. Could be the 24-bit 48 kHz master referred to above. That suggest to me that they "remastered" the 1997 transfer.

So my guess is that they have a folder full of wav files that they created in 1997 and played with them to "remaster" the recordings in 2012. (That's how I stored the LP transfers I did with my audio CD recorder around the same time.)

Of course, they would be stupid not to try to run the tapes again, but I get the impression that the tapes are deteriorating faster than the technology is improving.

The bottom line is, I'm more interested in what they are doing to preserve my favorite Ring cycle, the Karajan/Berlin. And there are live recordings of the Karajan ring in Salzburg which (based on what I have heard, they were used for Karajan's film of Rheingold) are better than his studio cycle. Why is there no definitive edition of those? Why is no one baking those tapes?

[Todd]

I that means what I think it means

It means you are misusing already misused phrases to support the false notion that new, high res audio comes with some type of material benefit, either audible or archival. 

I understand why now outmoded major labels, absorbed into a decreasing number of companies, endlessly recycle their back catalogs.  Reissues are cheap and easy.  Exciting A&R is expensive and hard.  Fortunately, smaller labels have taken up the slack in the classical realm in solo and chamber music, and social media and fewer barriers to entry in terms of recording have resulted in an explosion of musical acts in other genres.