How did they do it before DAW?

[wado1942]

#1, The mix engineer generally spliced the songs together in order with leader tape in between to gap the songs. Crash editing a sequence wasn't common until digital audio on U-Matic or DAT became common, where you couldn't hand splice it, but you could make theoretically lossless copies.

#2, The destination medium depended on the medium for which you were mastering. Generally, the mastering engineer had to have two of everything if making lacquer masters for vinyl. You would listen and tweak one EQ, compressor or whatever and write down the settings. You listen to the next song, tweak and mark the settings. When it came time to cut the disk, you'd play through one set of equipment while setting up the other, identical rack for the next song. During the splice between songs, you'd flip a switch to toggle to the other rack. At that time, you set the alternate rack for yet another song. Disk cutting had to be done on the fly, so there was no other way unless you were lucky enough for the mixes to all be consistent enough to turn whatever knobs you needed in the 3-4 seconds between songs.

Making a master for cassette or open-reel tape is a bit easier. It doesn't require everything being done in a single pass and isn't as demanding of a medium, so you can get away with stopping the master tape recorder, set up the next song and restart. You had to have a good machine, though, to avoid glitches when you restarted. The last thing I mastered this way was luckily consistent enough that I only needed to make minor adjustments like raising the gain for one song, so I did it on the fly. It was really an efficient way to work unless you made a mistake.

One more thing, "bouncing" has been a term used pretty much solely for say, filling all the tracks of an 8-track machine, then recording a submix to two tracks on another 8-track to add yet more tracks. Thank Digidesign for taking a term that means one thing and using it to mean something else what we already called "mixing" or "dubbing" depending on what you were doing.

[Nonlinear]

Originally Posted by wado1942

One more thing, "bouncing" has been a term used pretty much solely for say, filling all the tracks of an 8-track machine, then recording a submix to two tracks on another 8-track to add yet more tracks. Thank Digidesign for taking a term that means one thing and using it to mean something else what we already called "mixing" or "dubbing" depending on what you were doing.

Actually, that's exactly what I used to do on my 8-track machine!

Maybe I used the wrong term but to me "bouncing" simply means moving something from one place to another, sometimes modified, sometimes directly.

The "old way" of mastering sounds like it required a lot of fancy footwork and was probably nowhere near as intricate as we now sometimes get. Of course in those days most everything was recorded in big studios - not bedrooms - so the mix quality in most cases was probably really good to start with.

[tpad]

Sony Compact Disk Mastering System: PCM-1630 processor, multiple DMR-4000 master recorders (or BVU-800DB videocasette recorders), DAE-1100 Digital Audio Editor and a lot of time and patience!

Wado, how is your CATV audio lately?

[wado1942]

One may argue that the Sony editors were a primitive form of DAW.

I don't pay any attention to CATV, but the on-air audio is the same as always.

[David Castell]

Originally Posted by wado1942

#2, The destination medium depended on the medium for which you were mastering. Generally, the mastering engineer had to have two of everything if making lacquer masters for vinyl. You would listen and tweak one EQ, compressor or whatever and write down the settings. You listen to the next song, tweak and mark the settings. When it came time to cut the disk, you'd play through one set of equipment while setting up the other, identical rack for the next song. During the splice between songs, you'd flip a switch to toggle to the other rack. At that time, you set the alternate rack for yet another song. Disk cutting had to be done on the fly, so there was no other way unless you were lucky enough for the mixes to all be consistent enough to turn whatever knobs you needed in the 3-4 seconds between songs.

Not only did the mastering engineer have to juggle all that but he also had to control the cutting lathe. The length of an album's side determined the groove depth which is why shorter records tended to sound better and be a bit more durable. If a master had any serious phase issues the stylus would begin to heat up (because a needle can't go in two directions at the same time) so the mastering engineer had to watch a temperature gauge as well!

[Fabmaster]

^misinformed perpetuating misinformation.

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by David Castell

Not only did the mastering engineer have to juggle all that but he also had to control the cutting lathe. The length of an album's side determined the groove depth which is why shorter records tended to sound better and be a bit more durable.

Actually length of the side is determined not by depth of cut (which gives you vertical motion for the uncorrelated information - i.e. the Side or Differential channel) but by the amount of lateral space needed (correlated information for side to side motion of the cartridge - giving you mono information or the Mid aka Sum channel).

If a master had any serious phase issues the stylus would begin to heat up (because a needle can't go in two directions at the same time) so the mastering engineer had to watch a temperature gauge as well!

Actually uncorrelated stereo information does not cause the cutter head coils to heat up - but instead high amplitudes of high frequencies do. This is why there often were high frequency limiters (also known as acceleration limiters) placed into the signal path.

Styli in most professional systems were deliberately heated separately and independently of the cutter head via a couple of wires cemented to the jewel in order to soften the lacquer to enable a cleaner sounding cut.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[NoVi]

Originally Posted by Nonlinear

Working with audio in digital format makes many things easy. So, as a "youngster", I wonder - how did they master albums BEFORE DAW?

For example:

1) How did they sequence the songs? Did they physically splice all the different song tapes together or did they bounce from sub-master decks to a third "master" deck? Was the "master tape" one contiguous piece of tape or full of splices?

2) How did they come up with an overall EQ and dynamics balance for the album - and apply what was needed to align each individual song? Was it all tweaked by hand while bouncing to a "master" deck?

Maybe it was routine at the time but seems difficult today. How did they do this back then?

I've always loved this article on Songs in the Key of Life which describes an even harder process: making a continuing set of songs with one song fading out into the next one.

CLASSIC TRACKS: Stevie Wonder 'Pastime Paradise'

[Fabmaster]

^ Accurate information bestowed upon you by the knowledgeable.
............Up one).

[David Castell]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

Actually length of the side is determined not by depth of cut (which gives you vertical motion for the uncorrelated information - i.e. the Side or Differential channel) but by the amount of lateral space needed (correlated information for side to side motion of the cartridge - giving you mono information or the Mid aka Sum channel).



Actually uncorrelated stereo information does not cause the cutter head coils to heat up - but instead high amplitudes of high frequencies do. This is why there often were high frequency limiters (also known as acceleration limiters) placed into the signal path.

Styli in most professional systems were deliberately heated separately and independently of the cutter head via a couple of wires cemented to the jewel in order to soften the lacquer to enable a cleaner sounding cut.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Thanks, Steve. Sorry for the bad info. I had the pleasure of attending exactly one mastering session involving a cutting lathe and it was many years ago. I could have sworn that the engineer told me that phase problems caused the temperature to climb but it was along time ago (1983 I believe).
Thanks again.

[David Castell]

Originally Posted by Fabmaster

^ Accurate information bestowed upon you by the knowledgeable.
............Up one).

Yes. Thanks again, Steve.

[SMARTGUY]

Great thread!!!

[Fabmaster]

David Castrell "Mastering"

I don't think so.

[leddy]

Originally Posted by Fabmaster

I don't think so.

The correction was made. What's the point of insults?

[Fabmaster]

The integrity of the mastering profession has been
diluted............ saturated with people sitting behind mixing consoles
"mastering" songs for $50.00 a pop disseminating bad information
using an authoritative tone.

[huejahfink]

Originally Posted by leddy

The correction was made. What's the point of insults?

agree.