How comes most record companies aren't retroactively digitizing their multitrack tapes?

[KG10]

I heard about how SW gets the record companies to transfer and bake the multitrack tapes at 96/24 for any album he's working on.

This leaves me wondering why they don't really have a digital archive for them?

I know the answer is going to be of course money and costs but it would have much cheaper and convenient if they had done it when the tapes wore in a much better shape and not required to be baked.

 

[stoopid]

I know the answer is going to be of course money and costs...

You're asking a business to be proactive on THEIR dime?

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Listen sometimes I forget to archive my stuff and I have just four albums of multitracks to manage right now...I can't even imagine hundreds and thousands...

 

[4-earredwonder]

I heard about how SW gets the record companies to transfer and bake the multitrack tapes at 96/24 for any album he's working on.

This leaves me wondering why they don't really have a digital archive for them?

I know the answer is going to be of course money and costs but it would have much cheaper and convenient if they had done it when the tapes wore in a much better shape and not required to be baked.

My understanding is that 'suspect' analogue tapes CAN ONLY BE BAKED ONCE and must be transferred immediately to a digital medium. And not all analogue tapes, especially if stored properly in a climate controlled environment, need any baking at all.

SONY has been systematically transferring their analogue tapes for years via their proprietary DSD process .....don't know about the other major companies like UMG and Warner ...but I would suspect they're utilizing PCM 192/24 for their analogue>digital transfers.

And to do it RIGHT, all the multi tracks associated with a particular recording have to be digitized and that can be a daunting process!

 

[steelydave]

As of 20 years ago, UMG held something like 3,000,000 "assets" (and Sony somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000,000). If even only half of UMGs assets were tapes that you wanted to digitize, and each tape only took you 30 minutes to successfully transfer, you're still looking at 85 man years of labor to complete the task. I think Warner tried to digitize their entire library of mixed masters some years back but paused the work amongst budget cuts, and those only represent a fraction of their overall holdings.

With this kind of thing you're also running into questions of "when is good enough good enough?" What do you digitize to, 192/24 PCM? Single, double or quadruple-rate DSD? What happens if digital technology improves audibly 10 or 20 years from now, or someone invents a Jules Verne-ian breakthrough technology for tape playback that can digitally scan or read analog tape with a laser akin to the ELP laser turntable? Surely it would obsolete everything you've done before, and you'd have to start again - I don't think labels want to get into a 'painting the Golden Gate Bridge' situation where it takes so long to do something that you start over again every time you finish, either.

Labels are in the business of spending money on things they can make money off selling - it would be nice if they did digitize everything, but there aren't enough hours in a lifetime for them to complete it, and not enough benevolent shareholders that would support the idea.

 

[4-earredwonder]

As I surmised, Dave, a daunting process!

For the past few years when MoFi and SONY Japan release their reissues on either Stereo or QUAD/5.1 SACD they ARE thankfully utilizing DSD 256 [QUAD oversampling] from the original analogue masters resulting, IMO, in better sonics.

For instance, compared to SONY's original DSD 64 transfer of Carole King's TAPESTRY, I did much prefer Sony Japan's DSD 256 5.1 reissue as I felt it offered better clarity.

But if SONY were to upgrade or redo all their existing DSD 64 transfer to DSD 256 imagine the manpower and expense and as you say the future in digital technology will only improve and bring newer refinements to the process!

Meanwhile, those analogue masters ain't getting any younger and in time will be unplayable which begs the question ..... will they pick and choose what is worthy and what is not? Another conundrum.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

Listen sometimes I forget to archive my stuff and I have just four albums of multitracks to manage right now...I can't even imagine hundreds and thousands...

Afternoon, get to work! Archive those companies' multitracks!

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Afternoon, get to work! Archive those companies' multitracks!

Listen I haven't ever gotten a single response from my cold emails...I don't know the right people

 

[esimms86]

Well, I’m at least thankful that Giles Martin and company digitize the multitracks to Beatles recordings before remixing in surround. And hats off to Steven Wilson for all that he does for surround enthusiasts.

 

[barfle]

Just as an example, you can see my LP collection in my avatar (just about). It’s around 1200-1300 discs, each running roughly 45 minutes. While I enjoy listening to (most of) them, setting up the computer to digitize them, splitting the files into songs, typing in all the metadata… Nah, sometimes I need to take the time to pee.

 

[stoopid]

As of 20 years ago, UMG held something like 3,000,000 "assets" (and Sony somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000,000)...

This is the key in this discussion. These "assets" are worth as much untouched as they are prepped for future redistribution/repackaging as new products. If anything, they're worth more because the time expended to digitize is a sunk cost until a new release is created from those new digital masters, and all that takes even more money and time to accomplish with no guarantee of profit at the end ("will we make enough to justify all this time and expense?"). Obviously the biggest artists, if their material has survived and the band/management are agreeable, are worth this investment. Rush is another example of a band who sold much of their back catalog and the label is actually trying to generate revenue from it. I'm guessing they're having a harder time doing that than originally projected.

It would seem at the moment rights holders are content with shuffling those rights around in exchange for money. Or using the prior purchase of those assets as collateral to fund ongoing business (help fund future projects and 'keep the lights on'). It's like a collectible car -- look but only drive once a year to keep the juices flowing. The desired end result of any collector car is to sell for profit sometime down the line.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

I heard about how SW gets the record companies to transfer and bake the multitrack tapes at 96/24 for any album he's working on.

This leaves me wondering why they don't really have a digital archive for them?

I know the answer is going to be of course money and costs but it would have much cheaper and convenient if they had done it when the tapes wore in a much better shape and not required to be baked.

The companies are constantly digitising analogue tapes so they can be archived and reissued/remixed - there is a massive backlog of albums that labels such as Cherry Red and UMG want to revisit. It is a slow and careful process to ensure the best possible quality transfer and has to be handled by people who really know what they are doing - some tapes are in a very fragile state.

I think it is the interest and demand for reissued and collectible versions in particular that has created such a sudden panic - and yes I do agree that this should have received enormous attention years ago as the quality and resolution of digitising improved. But progress IS being made.

 

[esimms86]

Just as an example, you can see my LP collection in my avatar (just about). It’s around 1200-1300 discs, each running roughly 45 minutes. While I enjoy listening to (most of) them, setting up the computer to digitize them, splitting the files into songs, typing in all the metadata… Nah, sometimes I need to take the time to pee.

I know of a serious audiophile who has done needle drops of at least 2,000 LPs from his collection. He uses a high end turntable and cartridge(actually, one mono and one stereo), plus declick and other specialized software to do his needle drops. The one concession he makes to his required time investment is to have a separate file for each side of a given album(i.e., he doesn’t break the albums down track by track). I have needle drops of The Beatles In Mono vinyl box set that he has recorded in 24 192 FLAC. Sounds amazing.

 

[lukpac]

My understanding is that 'suspect' analogue tapes CAN ONLY BE BAKED ONCE and must be transferred immediately to a digital medium. And not all analogue tapes, especially if stored properly in a climate controlled environment, need any baking at all.

SONY has been systematically transferring their analogue tapes for years via their proprietary DSD process .....don't know about the other major companies like UMG and Warner ...but I would suspect they're utilizing PCM 192/24 for their analogue>digital transfers.

And to do it RIGHT, all the multi tracks associated with a particular recording have to be digitized and that can be a daunting process!

Not true. Tapes can be baked repeatedly without ill effects. And the longer tapes are baked the longer they can go without needed to be baked again.

Proper storage conditions can delay the effects of sticky shed syndrome, but generally baking older reels of affected tape stocks will be required regardless.

 

[barfle]

I know of a serious audiophile who has done needle drops of at least 2,000 LPs from his collection. He uses a high end turntable and cartridge(actually, one mono and one stereo), plus declick and other specialized software to do his needle drops. The one concession he makes to his required time investment is to have a separate file for each side of a given album(i.e., he doesn’t break the albums down track by track). I have needle drops of The Beatles In Mono vinyl box set that he has recorded in 24 192 FLAC. Sounds amazing.

He sounds obsessive. I've heard of people who play their records once in order to record them.

I have noise reduction equipment as well, not to mention pretty good cartridges, styli, cleaners, quad decoders, etc. The needle drops I've done are generally fine, but I sure don't feel the need to spend that much time. I wouldn't get anything else done. Ever.

 

[par4ken]

He sounds obsessive. I've heard of people who play their records once in order to record them.

I have noise reduction equipment as well, not to mention pretty good cartridges, styli, cleaners, quad decoders, etc. The needle drops I've done are generally fine, but I sure don't feel the need to spend that much time. I wouldn't get anything else done. Ever.

Obsessive! I like to do that. When I get a new (new to me) LP, I usually make a digital recording at the same time, then file away the LP. Well worth the effort in the end! At one time I used to wear out records! I'm not concerned to much about record wear now, with such a large collection I could run a single rotation that would last for years! I'm much more concerned about wearing out the stylus.

Declicking takes a bit of time, I like to remove the large ticks first and then use the automated process. CD Wave editor is great for splitting into tracks and then MP3Tag to do the tags and labeling, usually with just a few clicks of the keyboard. Before I knew about MP3Tag it would take me more time to label the tracks and do the tags than the actual recording!

I admit that I've only done a small fraction of my LP's so far. Time and effort is about the same as to rip a Blu-ray or SACD and then to convert tag and label the tracks!

 

[esimms86]

Did you say obsessive (not that there's anything wrong with it!)? I'm not at liberty to tell you the name of the audiophile in question but this is his signature on an online forum. We can only dream!:

Analog-VPIClas3,3DArm,LyraSkala+MiyajimaZeromono,Herron VTPH2APhono,2AmpexATR-102+MerrillTridentMaster TapePreamp
Dig Rip-Pyramix,IzotopeRX3Adv,MykerinosCard,PacificMicrosonicsModel2; Dig Play-Lampi Horizon, mch NADAC, Roon-HQPlayer,Oppo105
Electronics-DoshiPre,CJ MET1mchPre,Cary2A3monoamps; Speakers-AvantgardeDuosLR,3SolosC,LR,RR
Other-2x512EngineerMarutaniSymmetrical Power+Cables Music-1.8KR2Rtapes,1.5KCD's,500SACDs,50+TBripped files

 

[KG10]

Obsessive! I like to do that. When I get a new (new to me) LP, I usually make a digital recording at the same time, then file away the LP. Well worth the effort in the end! At one time I used to wear out records! I'm not concerned to much about record wear now, with such a large collection I could run a single rotation that would last for years! I'm much more concerned about wearing out the stylus.

Declicking takes a bit of time, I like to remove the large ticks first and then use the automated process. CD Wave editor is great for splitting into tracks and then MP3Tag to do the tags and labeling, usually with just a few clicks of the keyboard. Before I knew about MP3Tag it would take me more time to label the tracks and do the tags than the actual recording!

I admit that I've only done a small fraction of my LP's so far. Time and effort is about the same as to rip a Blu-ray or SACD and then to convert tag and label the tracks!

What ADC do you use?

My current turntable (PS-HX500) has a built-in dsd 128 ADC.

 

[KG10]

As of 20 years ago, UMG held something like 3,000,000 "assets" (and Sony somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000,000). If even only half of UMGs assets were tapes that you wanted to digitize, and each tape only took you 30 minutes to successfully transfer, you're still looking at 85 man years of labor to complete the task. I think Warner tried to digitize their entire library of mixed masters some years back but paused the work amongst budget cuts, and those only represent a fraction of their overall holdings.

With this kind of thing you're also running into questions of "when is good enough good enough?" What do you digitize to, 192/24 PCM? Single, double or quadruple-rate DSD? What happens if digital technology improves audibly 10 or 20 years from now, or someone invents a Jules Verne-ian breakthrough technology for tape playback that can digitally scan or read analog tape with a laser akin to the ELP laser turntable? Surely it would obsolete everything you've done before, and you'd have to start again - I don't think labels want to get into a 'painting the Golden Gate Bridge' situation where it takes so long to do something that you start over again every time you finish, either.

Labels are in the business of spending money on things they can make money off selling - it would be nice if they did digitize everything, but there aren't enough hours in a lifetime for them to complete it, and not enough benevolent shareholders that would support the idea.

That's fair enough as that kind of tech of directly ripping the signal of the tape has been done for vhs so I can see how compaies would be hesitant to transfer.

But what about for digital tapes where the audio is almost always identical due to the nature of it?

 

[KG10]

My understanding is that 'suspect' analogue tapes CAN ONLY BE BAKED ONCE and must be transferred immediately to a digital medium. And not all analogue tapes, especially if stored properly in a climate controlled environment, need any baking at all.

SONY has been systematically transferring their analogue tapes for years via their proprietary DSD process .....don't know about the other major companies like UMG and Warner ...but I would suspect they're utilizing PCM 192/24 for their analogue>digital transfers.

And to do it RIGHT, all the multi tracks associated with a particular recording have to be digitized and that can be a daunting process!

Unfortunately not even that can be done without costs becoming too high as SW said when mixing the seeds of love album in 5.1.

As I surmised, Dave, a daunting process!

For the past few years when MoFi and SONY Japan release their reissues on either Stereo or QUAD/5.1 SACD they ARE thankfully utilizing DSD 256 [QUAD oversampling] from the original analogue masters resulting, IMO, in better sonics.

For instance, compared to SONY's original DSD 64 transfer of Carole King's TAPESTRY, I did much prefer Sony Japan's DSD 256 5.1 reissue as I felt it offered better clarity.

But if SONY were to upgrade or redo all their existing DSD 64 transfer to DSD 256 imagine the manpower and expense and as you say the future in digital technology will only improve and bring newer refinements to the process!

Meanwhile, those analogue masters ain't getting any younger and in time will be unplayable which begs the question ..... will they pick and choose what is worthy and what is not? Another conundrum.

For the 5.1 DSD 256 version was it a new remix or a remaster that i guess was from a analogue 5.1 master tape?