 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, well, masters were of course invented by Robin Masters and lie under the care of Jonathan Higgins who keeps them in a vault protected by a Magnum.
I couldn't help it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a good topic and maybe someone could help? lk
|
|
|
|
|
|
My vacation ended today (which is why I've been able to post a lot), but I will start the ball rolling later tonight.
Mike M.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glad Lukas is around so maybe he can chime in accordingly. Those of us who've worked with the various formats know what the patterns are while also knowing to expect the unexpected.
For sanity's sake I'd suggest starting by completely separating analog from digital... and we'll start with analog and reduce things to the basics:
Prior to 1953 we mainly have 35mm optical tracks as the element on which music is saved. For the most part this is monaural material but at Fox, for example, we've had the good fortune of having "long shot" and "close shot" separations saved on many titles, allowing for the creation of a stereo sound when they are combined together.
In 1953 we enter the stereophonic era and music is recorded to 35mm magnetic film in a three-track "left-center-right" configuration. Mixes were often saved on multiple 3-track 35mm mags that subsequently have to be aligned together... usually 2 or 3, but sometimes as many as 4 or 5 if there are overlays or effects.
Once we get into the '70s we start finding two things...we start seeing that multi-track scoring masters, on 2" 24-track tape, might survive (sometimes with 3-track mixes already on them), but on the other end of the spectrum we find that 1/4"or 1/2" mix-downs might be all that exists. Those would all be second or third generation sources.
1/2" is a 4-track format (often just 3-track + sync) but 1/4" can only be stereo. 1/4" in the analog era is what was used for "album masters" into the mid-'80s. It was also used, randomly, for the preservation of old optical elements.
Toward the late '70s and into the '80s we find 1-inch analog 3-track exists on certain titles, such as [i[Alien and Dragonslayer.
What elements survive depends on the particular title and studio, and while there are tendencies toward certain methodologies there is really no true consistency. The level of degradation is also inconsistent. For instance, at Fox we've found that 35mm mag from the '50s is generally in better shape than mag from the '60s. It's a matter of the quality of the stock and how it's stored and it also varies by studio. An example from the John Williams canon: the 35mm mag for None But the Brave at Warner Bros. was pristine, while the Fox material on How To Steal A Million from the very same year was full of wow and flutter.
So that pretty much sums up the various analog elements, but there is relatively little consistency in terms of what survives and what doesn't. There are always anomalies. For example, the musicians' union strike in 1958 resulted in scores being recorded in Europe and lot of changes in how things were done (if you search the boards you'll find this has been discussed). You find "holes" in the catalog here as well as variations in how things were mixed and saved.
It all comes down to finding what exists... 1/4", 1/2", 1", 2", 35mm (mag or optical) and then figuring out how to work with it to make soundtrack albums. If there's already been an album you might have to combine an album master with some other element of previously unreleased material.
That's a very basic start, one restricted to the analog world and leaving out a ton of variables (dare we get into acetate records?). Happy to clarify or discuss any points on this before we move on to the digital world.
Mike M.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/2" is a 4-track format (often just 3-track + sync) but 1/4" can only be stereo.
Wow (no pun intended), thanks Mike. This is all very informative. One question: I don't have the booklets in front of me, but I recall LLL's Star Trek TOS set being mastered from 1/4" mono. Assuming this is right, can you please explain this difference?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/4" can be stereo at best. Naturally it can also be 2-track mono.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I suspected. Thanks. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/4" can be stereo at best. Naturally it can also be 2-track mono.
Or full-track mono, which is sometimes overlooked and transferred to digital using a two-track head stack.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 1, 2015 - 9:24 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
I was recently listening to mp3 connected via USB to my more able Windows 7 PC (quadcore), which was itself connected to my Panasonic mini-stack system via it's music port. The computer uses the realtek AC97 interface, not the bees-knees as far as interfaces go, yet still capable of 24-bit studio sound output/playback. I was also only using the default Microsoft realplayer software to take it in turn to listen to loads of stuff on a spur-of-the-moment mammoth session lasting hours. I just happened to be in the mood at the time.
One of the scores upon which I focused was LLL's Dragonslayer. It has, of all the soundtracks I have in possession, the best sound reproduction of them all, I think. It is pristine and clear and isn't prone to that phenomenon where silences cause the hiss to "balloon" in intensity during intervals on a track where there is a break between instrumentals. One of the worst was Return Of The Jedi, 2nd Edition - it has a lot of bloated hiss intervals. The even earlier Star Wars, A New Hope, sounds much better by comparison. All in all, with the odd exception, the task of getting the best sound quality from a soundtrack seems to be an uphill thing, fraught with problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is great!
I think what will help it out immensely is PICTURES of these different formats!
Who can help with that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
OP, would you mind retitling the thread to something that's a bit more suggestive of its content? It's a great topic and changing the title to suit it will make it easier to find later and/or keep discussion going. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was not aware that HOW TO STEAL A MILLION had wowing and fluttering. Since I own a copy of this score I did not notice, which speak volumes of praises for your skill in eliminating them. Now I'm going to have to sit down and listen carefully for them. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would you kindly change it back to something respectable, and drop my name from it (especially if it's not going to be spelled correctly) so that others with experience can contribute? My availability for posting will be decreasing as I get a jump start on some 2016 titles before breaking for the holidays.
Mike M.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
