IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Mastering Vinyl, Myths, questions, discussion
Axon
post Sep 9 2008, 02:56
Post #1





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



This is a split of a discussion Hancoque and I had, which desperately needs to be elaborated on.

First of all, I've dumped my thoughts on the matter into the Wiki: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...Vinyl_Mastering. Please comment on it.

A couple of the points there are explicitly worth starting this topic off:
  • There is no consistent, unambiguous way to identify the provenance of a vinyl master. Most methods - but most of all, the zoomed-out waveform plot - are inaccurate in one way or another. Visual examination of clipped samples is fairly telling, but not applicable or effective in all cases. How can a vinyl master be accurately observed as being the same or different as a CD master?
  • Even if a difference exists, whether or not it is audible is another question entirely. IIRC, brickwall limiting of 3-4db, correctly applied, may not be audible. If so, Hancoque's Slayer waveforms might not mean anything, because his peaks are all within 4db of the CD peaks. What audibility thresholds exist for clipped signals?
That said, I may be eating a hearty dinner of crow tonight, as I just examined one of the records I thought was of the same master as the CD (Battles - Mirrored), and I was able to observe pretty strong differences in clipping between the vinyl and CD versions. I'll reply later with some visual examples.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
botface
post Jul 7 2010, 15:19
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 355
Joined: 14-January 08
Member No.: 50483



Nice idea usernaim but trying to generalise like that is pretty meaningless. At any given point in time the equipment used in pressing plants was not standard. So a wide variety of equipment of varying levels of quality and sophistication were in use across the industry. I'm talking about up to the end of the 80's when I left the industry, maybe it's more straight-forward now - and say, since the 90's - with volumes being lower and pressing plants fewer.
Also, while cutting a lacquer is a bit of a black art a cutting engineer would never "sum bass to mono", apply eq, compression or anything else without the OK from the artist or producer. The last thing you want is for your test pressings to be rejected and have to re-cut. Any "preparation for production" like that would usually have been done by the mastering engineer who produced the tape from which the lacquer was cut. That would invariably be a different person, probably working in a recording studio or simlar rather than a record manufacturing plant, though it was not unheard of for last minute adjustments to be requested by the artist or producer at the cutting stage.

Edit : for clarity (hopefully)

This post has been edited by botface: Jul 7 2010, 15:22
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
splice
post Jul 7 2010, 22:24
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 23-July 03
Member No.: 7935



QUOTE (botface @ Jul 7 2010, 06:19) *
Also, while cutting a lacquer is a bit of a black art a cutting engineer would never "sum bass to mono", apply eq, compression or anything else without the OK from the artist or producer. The last thing you want is for your test pressings to be rejected and have to re-cut. Any "preparation for production" like that would usually have been done by the mastering engineer who produced the tape from which the lacquer was cut. That would invariably be a different person, probably working in a recording studio or simlar rather than a record manufacturing plant, though it was not unheard of for last minute adjustments to be requested by the artist or producer at the cutting stage.)


Cutting engineer? Mastering engineer? They used to be the same person. Strictly speaking, they still are.
Reflect a moment on the LP production process, and from what part the "mastering" engineer took his name.
If you were in the business pre 1980, I'd have thought you'd remember that. Or maybe you're like me - Memory is the second thing to go with age. I forget what the first one was... smile.gif


--------------------
Regards,
Don Hills
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
botface
post Jul 8 2010, 09:32
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 355
Joined: 14-January 08
Member No.: 50483



QUOTE (splice @ Jul 7 2010, 22:24) *
QUOTE (botface @ Jul 7 2010, 06:19) *
Also, while cutting a lacquer is a bit of a black art a cutting engineer would never "sum bass to mono", apply eq, compression or anything else without the OK from the artist or producer. The last thing you want is for your test pressings to be rejected and have to re-cut. Any "preparation for production" like that would usually have been done by the mastering engineer who produced the tape from which the lacquer was cut. That would invariably be a different person, probably working in a recording studio or simlar rather than a record manufacturing plant, though it was not unheard of for last minute adjustments to be requested by the artist or producer at the cutting stage.)


Cutting engineer? Mastering engineer? They used to be the same person. Strictly speaking, they still are.
Reflect a moment on the LP production process, and from what part the "mastering" engineer took his name.
If you were in the business pre 1980, I'd have thought you'd remember that. Or maybe you're like me - Memory is the second thing to go with age. I forget what the first one was... smile.gif

Well, where I used to work a tape would arrive in the cutting room that had already been mastered elsewhere. The cutting engineer would then cut the lacquer from that tape. The "mastering engineer" was so-called because he produced the master tape. Maybe you called the cutting engineer the mastering engineer because he produced the master disc - well, he didn't really it was actually grown by electrolysis from the lacquer but maybe that's spitting hairs
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
splice
post Jul 8 2010, 23:30
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 23-July 03
Member No.: 7935



QUOTE (botface @ Jul 8 2010, 00:32) *
Well, where I used to work a tape would arrive in the cutting room that had already been mastered elsewhere. The cutting engineer would then cut the lacquer from that tape. The "mastering engineer" was so-called because he produced the master tape. Maybe you called the cutting engineer the mastering engineer because he produced the master disc - well, he didn't really it was actually grown by electrolysis from the lacquer but maybe that's spitting hairs


You weren't at the "master plant", then.

Step 1: Recording (tracking), with optional processing (eq, compression).
Step 2: Mixdown to stereo, with optional processing at track and bus levels.
These two steps were often done by the same engineer. For big productions, there could be separate tracking and mixdown engineers.

Step 3: Cut to lacquer (and process as required to make it cuttable and trackable).
Step 4: Make several copies of the tape with cutting processing included and distribute to other plants.
Step 5: Each plant would then cut from the tape, make a safety copy and pass the tape on to the next plant in the chain.

(But what often happened was that the plant would keep the original and pass down the safety copy. Several generations later, the result at the end of the chain often sounded nasty.)

Note that the processing in Step 3 had to be done using a lathe. It was an iterative process - set up the processing via best guess and experience, cut, examine the result. If not satisfactory, adjust the processing and try again. Some mixdown engineers did have a good understanding of what was needed and could deliver a tape that required little or no processing.




--------------------
Regards,
Don Hills
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Jul 9 2010, 01:23
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 3797
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (splice @ Jul 8 2010, 18:30) *
Step 1: Recording (tracking), with optional processing (eq, compression).
Step 2: Mixdown to stereo, with optional processing at track and bus levels.
These two steps were often done by the same engineer. For big productions, there could be separate tracking and mixdown engineers.

Step 3: Cut to lacquer (and process as required to make it cuttable and trackable).
Step 4: Make several copies of the tape with cutting processing included and distribute to other plants.
Step 5: Each plant would then cut from the tape, make a safety copy and pass the tape on to the next plant in the chain.


To clarify:

Step 1: Recording (tracking). Sometimes eq and/or dynamics processing would be applied here, but usually not so much.
Step 2: Mixdown to stereo, with optional processing (eq, dynamics) at track, bus and stereo mix stages of mixing. Create stereo mixdown master, evaluate, tweak.
Step 3: Create cutting master by applying additional eq and/or dynamics processing to ensure cuttability and tackability

Step 4: Check cutting master to see if it requires additional tweaking to correct problems that only showed up after cutting the lacquer. If needed, go back to step 3
Step 5: Tested cutting masters are duplicated at the central production facility. Safety copy is kept there and other duplicates get sent to pressing plants.
Step 6: Cutting masters are used to cut laquers at pressing plants as they are needed.

none of this is cut into stone, but this is the baseline path from which everybody deviaated if they deviated.


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
analog scott
post Jul 9 2010, 15:39
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 332
Joined: 26-July 09
Member No.: 71796



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Jul 9 2010, 02:23) *
QUOTE (splice @ Jul 8 2010, 18:30) *
Step 1: Recording (tracking), with optional processing (eq, compression).
Step 2: Mixdown to stereo, with optional processing at track and bus levels.
These two steps were often done by the same engineer. For big productions, there could be separate tracking and mixdown engineers.

Step 3: Cut to lacquer (and process as required to make it cuttable and trackable).
Step 4: Make several copies of the tape with cutting processing included and distribute to other plants.
Step 5: Each plant would then cut from the tape, make a safety copy and pass the tape on to the next plant in the chain.


To clarify:

Step 1: Recording (tracking). Sometimes eq and/or dynamics processing would be applied here, but usually not so much.
Step 2: Mixdown to stereo, with optional processing (eq, dynamics) at track, bus and stereo mix stages of mixing. Create stereo mixdown master, evaluate, tweak.
Step 3: Create cutting master by applying additional eq and/or dynamics processing to ensure cuttability and tackability

Step 4: Check cutting master to see if it requires additional tweaking to correct problems that only showed up after cutting the lacquer. If needed, go back to step 3
Step 5: Tested cutting masters are duplicated at the central production facility. Safety copy is kept there and other duplicates get sent to pressing plants.
Step 6: Cutting masters are used to cut laquers at pressing plants as they are needed.

none of this is cut into stone, but this is the baseline path from which everybody deviaated if they deviated.


And which particular masterings of which particular titles can we actually cite as having gone through this specific pathology? Can we name any specific titles? Recording engineers with first hand accounts of the eq and/or dynamics processing? First hand accounts of the creation of the cutting master? First hand accounts of the duplication of the cutting masters at a specific central production facility? Any first hand accounts of duplicate cutting masters being stocked and used to cut masters at pressing plants as needed? What about the equipment used? What specific equipment was used with any specific titles we can trace? These are the questions that need to be answered if we are going to say anything about how any particular LP was mastered. One can find a lot of info in the dead wax that will tell much of the story but even then we need a lot of info from the mouths of the proverbial horses to even begin to know what processes went into the mastering.

And of course many of these questions are just as relevant to a vast number of CDs out there. I highly recomend the Dennis Drake paper about the work that went into the mastering of the Mercury Living Presence CDs he mastered with Wilma Cozart back in the nineties.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 9 2010, 18:55
Post #8





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (analog scott @ Jul 9 2010, 07:39) *
These are the questions that need to be answered if we are going to say anything about how any particular LP was mastered.

Do you have any evidence to suggest Arnold is not right in saying:
QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Jul 8 2010, 17:23) *
this is the baseline path from which everybody deviaated if they deviated.
???

To me it seems you're just trolling again.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 9 2010, 18:55


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
analog scott
post Jul 9 2010, 19:40
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 332
Joined: 26-July 09
Member No.: 71796



QUOTE (greynol @ Jul 9 2010, 18:55) *
QUOTE (analog scott @ Jul 9 2010, 07:39) *
These are the questions that need to be answered if we are going to say anything about how any particular LP was mastered.

Do you have any evidence to suggest Arnold is not right in saying:
QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Jul 8 2010, 17:23) *
this is the baseline path from which everybody deviaated if they deviated.
???

To me it seems you're just trolling again.


1. Why would you ask for evidence for something I have not asserted? Axon was talking about getting "down and dirty" in citing the differences one can find in mastering. Remember this from Axon? " Regardless, I think it's very important to explain to people the down and dirty of what goes on in the vinyl signal chain, precisely because of misapprehensions from both sides of the debate - some people think that there's any sort of purity in what goes on in cutting a record, and others think it's some ridiculously dirty sausage-grinding fest that is wholly unsuitable for the reproduction of audio. The truth is obviously well away from both, and I think that even if only a subset of detailed differences are discussed, all readers will benefit."

So my point isn't to question the baseline path Arny has outlined. My point is to try to make some connection between that outline and what actually went into mastering real world LPs. If one really wants to get "down and dirty" then one has to get specific and gather actual facts. Axon does talk about "detailed differences." What is the connection between this baseline path and the detailed differences in mastering of any real world LP? Without some attempt to make that connection we are not addressing that which Axon is trying to cover in his wiki article.


Now I can actually give you fact filled pathologies of the mastering of several hundred of my own LPs. For the most part there is a substantial disconnect between the actual pathologies of the mastering of those LPs and Arny's baseline path. But that is not meant to say that this baseline path is not the path that many other LPs have followed. Most of the LPs which have a well documented pathology of mastering are of the audiophile/audiophile reissue flavor. Many of the others are from various labels that have gained favor among audiophiles and as a result have been well documented through out the years. I am talking about labels like the Mercuries, London Deccas and RCAs of the golden age of classical recording and other labels like Blue Note and other notables in Jazz. At least we can get "down and dirty" with facts surrounding their mastering and maybe make some corolation between their sound and the mastering that went into them. How can we do that just with Arny's baseline path? If you want to get down and dirty you have to get down and dirty and disect these things individually based on gathered reliable intel. As it is, Arny's baseline path really tells us nothing about the mastering process of any given LP.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 9 2010, 19:47
Post #10





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (analog scott @ Jul 9 2010, 11:40) *
If one really wants to get "down and dirty" then one has to get specific and gather actual facts.

Do you have any reason to believe that the information provided to you by splice and Arnold (two people I believe are far more intimately associated with the music business than either you or I) about how masters for vinyl were typically created is not actual fact?

QUOTE (analog scott @ Jul 9 2010, 11:40) *
Now I can actually give you fact filled pathologies of the mastering of several hundred of my own LPs. For the most part there is a substantial disconnect between the actual pathologies of the mastering of those LPs and Arny's baseline path.

Then why not provide us with a typical example from your vast wealth of information to move the discussion along?

QUOTE (analog scott @ Jul 9 2010, 11:40) *
At least we can get "down and dirty" with facts surrounding their mastering and maybe make some corolation between their sound and the mastering that went into them.

So what is keeping you?

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 9 2010, 19:53


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
analog scott
post Jul 12 2010, 22:03
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 332
Joined: 26-July 09
Member No.: 71796



QUOTE (greynol @ Jul 9 2010, 19:47) *
QUOTE (analog scott @ Jul 9 2010, 11:40) *
If one really wants to get "down and dirty" then one has to get specific and gather actual facts.

Do you have any reason to believe that the information provided to you by splice and Arnold (two people I believe are far more intimately associated with the music business than either you or I) about how masters for vinyl were typically created is not actual fact?

QUOTE (analog scott @ Jul 9 2010, 11:40) *
Now I can actually give you fact filled pathologies of the mastering of several hundred of my own LPs. For the most part there is a substantial disconnect between the actual pathologies of the mastering of those LPs and Arny's baseline path.

Then why not provide us with a typical example from your vast wealth of information to move the discussion along?

QUOTE (analog scott @ Jul 9 2010, 11:40) *
At least we can get "down and dirty" with facts surrounding their mastering and maybe make some corolation between their sound and the mastering that went into them.

So what is keeping you?



here is something from a few sources about the mercury Living Presence LPs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Records

In 1955, Mercury began using 3 omni-directional microphones to make stereo recordings on 3-track tape. The technique was an expansion on the mono process—center was still paramount. Once the center, single microphone was set, the sides were set to provide the depth and width heard in the stereo recordings. The center mike still fed the mono LP releases, which accompanied stereo LPs into the 1960s. In 1961, Mercury enhanced the three-microphone stereo technique by using 35 mm magnetic film instead of half-inch tape for recording. The greater emulsion thickness, track width and speed (90 feet per min or 18 ips) of 35 mm magnetic film increased prevention of tape layer print-through and pre-echo and gained in addition extended frequency range and transient response. The Mercury 'Living Presence' stereo records were mastered directly from the 3-track tapes or films, with a 3-2 mix occurring in the mastering room. The same technique—and restored vintage equipment of the same type—was used during the CD reissues. Specifically, 3-track tapes were recorded on Ampex 300-3½" machines at 15 IPS. 35 mm magnetic film recordings were made on 3-track Westrex film recorders. The 3-2 mixdown was done on a modified Westrex mixer. For the original LPs, the mixer directly fed the custom cutting chain. At Fine Recording in NY, the Westrex cutter head on a Scully lathe was fed by modified McIntosh 200W tube amplifiers with very little feedback in the system. Older mono records were made with a Miller cutter head. For the CD reissues, the output of the Westrex mixer directly fed a DCS analog-to-digital converter and the CDs were mastered on Sony 1630 tapes. No digital enhancement or noise reduction was used.

The original LP releases of the classical recordings continued through 1968. The Mercury classical music catalogue is currently managed by Decca Music Group through Philips Records, which reissued the recordings on LP and then CD.

In 2003 Speakers Corner Records began issuing 180 gram audiophile quality LP reissues. The LPs are mastered from 2-track tapes made at the time of the original LP mastering, thus one generation removed from the edited session master used to produce the original LP master and the CD master."

This web page has an amazing wealth of information on the Mercury recordings and mastering of the original LPs
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html

Some information about how the original LPs were cut including citation of George Piros as the mastering engineer

"With minimal editing, the session tape was mastered for LP pressing by the redoubtable George Piros. Using the highest cutting levels he could get by with, Piros found several ways to get cutting levels up and distortion products down. His use of something called "variable groove spacing", proved especially useful in reducing distortion prone inner groove problems. In addition, all details of the cutting process were re-analyzed. The in-house tweaked cutting head boasted a heated cutting stylus and was driven with a custom-designed McIntosh Labs cutting amplifier which allowed higher drive current to the cutting head with lower distortion. Predictably, the variable pitch cutter drive, combined with superb lathes and specially formulated cutting lacquers yielded magnificent results. "

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue4/pearsall.htm

Some information about dead wax matrix codes and how they relate to the mastering of the LPs

http://microgroove.jp/mercury/Matrix6.shtml
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Axon   Mastering Vinyl   Sep 9 2008, 02:56
- - Hancoque   I have to admit: You are right. The vinyl version ...   Sep 9 2008, 21:49
|- - Glenn Gundlach   QUOTE (Hancoque @ Sep 9 2008, 12:49) I ha...   Sep 10 2008, 05:46
- - Axon   Bump for massive schadenfreude at Gearslutz, where...   Jun 22 2010, 01:13
- - analog scott   QUOTE (Axon @ Sep 9 2008, 02:56) This is ...   Jun 22 2010, 13:22
- - analog scott   "There's this idea floating around that v...   Jun 22 2010, 13:27
- - 2Bdecided   Axon, The wiki page says "The CD and vinyl m...   Jun 23 2010, 12:19
- - analog scott   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jun 23 2010, 12:19) Ax...   Jun 23 2010, 23:12
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (analog scott @ Jun 23 2010, 18:12)...   Jun 26 2010, 10:43
- - 2Bdecided   Please read the page we're discussing. This de...   Jun 27 2010, 00:20
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jun 26 2010, 19:20) Pl...   Jun 27 2010, 10:25
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Jun 27 2010, 10...   Jun 28 2010, 11:05
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jun 28 2010, 06:05) QU...   Jun 28 2010, 11:25
- - analog scott   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Jun 26 2010, 11...   Jun 27 2010, 09:13
- - Axon   QUOTE (analog scott @ Jun 22 2010, 07:27)...   Jun 28 2010, 20:07
|- - analog scott   QUOTE (Axon @ Jun 28 2010, 21:07) QUOTE (...   Jun 29 2010, 08:10
||- - cliveb   QUOTE (analog scott @ Jun 29 2010, 08:10)...   Jun 29 2010, 08:39
||- - doctorcilantro   QUOTE (analog scott @ Jun 29 2010, 08:10)...   Sep 2 2010, 05:32
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (Axon @ Jun 28 2010, 15:07) QUOTE (...   Jun 30 2010, 11:48
- - analog scott   QUOTE (cliveb @ Jun 29 2010, 08:39) QUOTE...   Jun 29 2010, 10:20
|- - cliveb   QUOTE (analog scott @ Jun 29 2010, 10:20)...   Jun 29 2010, 11:55
- - analog scott   Since you are looking for comments and the thread ...   Jun 29 2010, 10:51
- - 2Bdecided   I think it's a waste of time to argue that thi...   Jun 29 2010, 10:51
- - analog scott   >> How do you know if a vinyl master is audi...   Jun 29 2010, 11:16
- - analog scott   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jun 29 2010, 11:51) I ...   Jun 29 2010, 11:25
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (analog scott @ Jun 29 2010, 11:25)...   Jun 29 2010, 13:20
- - analog scott   QUOTE (cliveb @ Jun 29 2010, 12:55) QUOTE...   Jun 29 2010, 14:06
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (analog scott @ Jun 29 2010, 09:06)...   Jun 30 2010, 14:06
- - analog scott   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jun 29 2010, 14:20) QU...   Jun 29 2010, 14:10
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (analog scott @ Jun 29 2010, 14:10)...   Jun 29 2010, 14:57
- - analog scott   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jun 29 2010, 15:57) QU...   Jun 29 2010, 18:06
- - krabapple   Wow, can this get MORE silly? I think most of u...   Jun 30 2010, 06:56
|- - botface   QUOTE (krabapple @ Jun 30 2010, 06:56) Wh...   Jun 30 2010, 08:12
- - MichaelW   I was in my local, rather good, secondhand record ...   Jun 30 2010, 07:59
- - analog scott   QUOTE (krabapple @ Jun 30 2010, 07:56) Wo...   Jun 30 2010, 09:01
|- - greynol   QUOTE (analog scott @ Jun 30 2010, 01:01)...   Jul 1 2010, 01:11
- - greynol   I think all he's trying to say is that it...   Jul 1 2010, 00:57
|- - Axon   QUOTE (greynol @ Jun 30 2010, 18:57) I th...   Jul 1 2010, 02:54
||- - greynol   QUOTE (Axon @ Jun 30 2010, 18:54) PREFERE...   Jul 1 2010, 04:06
|- - MichaelW   QUOTE (greynol @ Jul 1 2010, 11:57) I thi...   Jul 1 2010, 05:37
- - Axon   Oh for f*cks sake people. I don't mind pedantr...   Jul 1 2010, 02:18
|- - cliveb   QUOTE (Axon @ Jul 1 2010, 02:18) OK - doe...   Jul 1 2010, 08:38
|- - 2Bdecided   OT-ish, but... QUOTE (Axon @ Jul 1 2010, 02...   Jul 1 2010, 09:37
|- - googlebot   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jul 1 2010, 10:37) ......   Jul 1 2010, 11:14
||- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (googlebot @ Jul 1 2010, 11:14) * I...   Jul 1 2010, 17:08
|- - botface   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jul 1 2010, 09:37) OT-...   Jul 1 2010, 11:28
- - Axon   Scott, all flaming aside, I would like to thank yo...   Jul 1 2010, 02:43
|- - analog scott   QUOTE (Axon @ Jul 1 2010, 03:43) Scott, a...   Jul 8 2010, 20:14
- - analog scott   QUOTE (Axon @ Jul 1 2010, 03:43) Scott, a...   Jul 1 2010, 14:21
- - analog scott   QUOTE (MichaelW @ Jul 1 2010, 06:37) QUOT...   Jul 1 2010, 14:40
- - analog scott   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jul 1 2010, 10:37) OT-...   Jul 1 2010, 14:55
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (analog scott @ Jul 1 2010, 09:55) ...   Jul 2 2010, 13:13
- - splice   Article in the NY Times about Tom Petty's ...   Jul 2 2010, 01:24
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (splice @ Jul 1 2010, 20:24) Articl...   Jul 2 2010, 13:55
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (splice @ Jul 2 2010, 01:24) Articl...   Jul 7 2010, 11:17
- - analog scott   For this title a "compressed" CD version...   Jul 5 2010, 16:28
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   Read what I said - my question what about producti...   Jul 6 2010, 20:26
- - analog scott   I read what you said Arny. Not sure how mastering ...   Jul 7 2010, 01:46
- - usernaim   I think it's important to keep the timeline of...   Jul 7 2010, 13:14
- - botface   Nice idea usernaim but trying to generalise like t...   Jul 7 2010, 15:19
|- - splice   QUOTE (botface @ Jul 7 2010, 06:19) Also,...   Jul 7 2010, 22:24
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (splice @ Jul 7 2010, 17:24) Cuttin...   Jul 8 2010, 00:43
|- - botface   QUOTE (splice @ Jul 7 2010, 22:24) QUOTE ...   Jul 8 2010, 09:32
|- - splice   QUOTE (botface @ Jul 8 2010, 00:32) Well,...   Jul 8 2010, 23:30
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (splice @ Jul 8 2010, 18:30) Step 1...   Jul 9 2010, 01:23
|- - analog scott   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Jul 9 2010, 02...   Jul 9 2010, 15:39
|- - greynol   QUOTE (analog scott @ Jul 9 2010, 07:39) ...   Jul 9 2010, 18:55
|- - analog scott   QUOTE (greynol @ Jul 9 2010, 18:55) QUOTE...   Jul 9 2010, 19:40
|- - greynol   QUOTE (analog scott @ Jul 9 2010, 11:40) ...   Jul 9 2010, 19:47
|- - analog scott   QUOTE (greynol @ Jul 9 2010, 19:47) QUOTE...   Jul 12 2010, 22:03
- - analog scott   QUOTE (botface @ Jul 7 2010, 16:19) Nice ...   Jul 7 2010, 15:44
- - greynol   You brought these papers up in a direct response t...   Jul 12 2010, 21:24
- - Axon   ..... I probably should be reading this thread, sh...   Jul 14 2010, 00:32
- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (Axon @ Jul 13 2010, 19:32) ..... I...   Jul 15 2010, 13:59


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd September 2014 - 02:22