Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

"Sonnova" <sonnova@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fpigha02o8g@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:15:35 -0800,
> dpierce.cartchunk.org@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote (in article
> <fpg2g7021ju@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
>> On Feb 17, 5:41 pm, Sonnova
>> <sonn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in
>>> another post, the things over which the mastering
>>> engineer has direct control are on the mechanical end
>>> of the process, not on the signal side. And those
>>> things are unlikely to affect the sound in any way from
>>> disc to disc or day to day.
>>
>> Well, you might want to, then argue the meaning of
>> "mastering" with Bob Katz. See, the second edition of
>> his book "Mastering Audio: The Art and Science" was just
>> published and maybe 99%
>> of the book deals with stuff that has nothing to do with
>> the "mechanical end of the process." Indeed, most of
>> what he deals with have DIRECT effect on the way the
>> final disk sounds.
>
> I don't doubt it. But all of those things are done
> because of the mechanical limitations of the process, not
> of the source material.

That's not always the case. Subjective tastes are usually addressed at the

same time. No matter what you have heard, the process is not entirely 
automated. Yes, some automated equipment may be used, but as a rule the 
operational parameters of some or all of the equipment are set by ear.

>> Though you might dispute the point with Mr. Katz, had I
>> the op****tunity to wager on the outcome of said dispute,
>> you, hopefully, won't take offense on who I might choose
>> to
>> place my bet on.

> Place your bet on who you like. There is little that one
> can do in the chain between the master tape and the
> record master that would alter the sound of similar
> master tapes from master disc to master disc.

Sure there is - all of the equipment that is in that chain has
adjustements 
that can audibly affect sound quality.

If you are so sure of what you know, name the equipment that would be used

in that application, and show that it lacks operator adjustments that can 
affect sound quality.

>  I have mastered more than my share of records in my time, I know
> what would affect the sound of the finished disc and what
> wouldn't. Almost all of the things that would affect the
> sound of a record have to do with the limitations of disc
> cutting and transferring sound from a medium with a
> greater dynamic range than the final disc, and these are
> pretty much the same from disc to disc.

"pretty much the same" is a very vague statement and allows for changes
that 
would cause audible differences.

The whole reason why recorders that are remastered are advertised as such,

is because remastering with a different operator and different equipment
can 
reasonbly be expected to cause audible differences.

>  Now the tapes may
> be wildly different, but that's another story. I suspect
> that Rudy Van Gelders master tapes sounded very similar
> from artist to artist.

The obviously sounded different because they involved different artists. 
What you seem to be saying is that there was a "Van Gelder Sound" that was

never audibly different. If it was never audibly different, then there
were 
never any adjustements to the equipment that was used during the mastering

phase, and if that were so, why would Mr.Van Gelder's services be needed
if 
the equipment was unchanged?