Question on Lineage

[Michael Lombo]

I need to know what is better;
This is all analog:

A show gets recorded on a multi track, it gets mixed down to a Master and then it goes two ways:

A) A 1st gen copy is made from the master and then a 2nd gen from 1st gen

B) The master is played on FM radio which is recorded(1st gen copy)

Which is better to have the 2nd gen copy or the FM 1st gen copy?

[rspencer]

IMO the 2nd gen is better than the FM, since FM is usually heavily compressed.

EDIT TO ADD:

Can you listen to each to see which you think sounds better?

[Michael Lombo]

Originally Posted by rspencer

IMO the 2nd gen is better than the FM, since FM is usually heavily compressed.

EDIT TO ADD:

Can you listen to each to see which you think sounds better?

At the moment I can't, but somebody that has said they couldn't tell the difference

[paddington]

depends on how the FM station decided to broadcast it.. sight unseen, though... it's hard to say. If the azimuth wasn't adjusted properly when dubbing the 2nd gen, the FM broadcast could likely sound much better.

if they didn't adjust the azimuth making the 1st gen copy, it won't matter either way.

[Five]

probably the 2nd gen is better.

if you're involved, get your friend to put two versions of the same song, one from each source on rapidshare or similar & listen. If they sound the same to you as well maybe you could post it here if you want some more opinions.

FM has heavy dynamics compression, as in when the quiet parts come they're just as loud as the loudest parts. And FM is also missing everything above about 15kHz but that will also be the case with cassettes unless they were duplicated using the very best decks and media.

[Seth01]

Why that's easy...the one that sounds the best, of course!

Yeah, Five and the others really said it best. The answer is probably the 2nd gen tape but it's awfully hard to say without more details. If you can get a frequency analysis done on it it may help your decision. Also, can you get a bit more info about the FM...for instance is it possible that it's pre-FM? How about the tape dubbing...how was that done? etc.

Best of luck,
Seth

[splumer]

Normally I'd vote for the 2nd gen copy because of FM compression, but that assumes high-quality gear was used to copy the tapes (i.e., little tape hiss, etc.). Also, FM broadcasts sometimes (well, frequently) cut out parts of a show to make it fit into a time slot better.

[willndmb]

Originally Posted by Michael Lombo

I need to know what is better;
This is all analog:

A show gets recorded on a multi track, it gets mixed down to a Master and then it goes two ways:

A) A 1st gen copy is made from the master and then a 2nd gen from 1st gen

B) The master is played on FM radio which is recorded(1st gen copy)

Which is better to have the 2nd gen copy or the FM 1st gen copy?

if the "master" is played on FM and you record it, you actually have the "master ", the master copy of the show from fm
NOT 1st gen
1st gen would come if the fm station copied theirs directly for you or you copy your master for yourself or someone
your thinking is right, just bump everything up 1 gen imo

as for the talk about 2nd gen is better then master from radio because its compressed
i have always said and will continue to say...
99% of the people can not tell the difference between a radio show and the "true" master
lots of people here get all up tight about the generation of the recording
personally i got by my ears not the text file

a better example to use then a radio show is this...
you have a master recording where the mics were inside the bathroom of the venue
vs
you have a mp3 copy from the sbd
here the mp3 sbd copy would be "bad" in most people opinions
where i can place money on it that the mp3 sbd copy would sound much better then the uncompressed master from the bathroom

so imo as a whole people need to stop getting so up tight over the source and lineage and use your eyes and ears to judge quality

THATS NOT TO SAY IF A BETTER SOURCE IS OUT THERE WE SHOULDN'T USE IT

[Five]

Originally Posted by willndmb

as for the talk about 2nd gen is better then master from radio because its compressed
i have always said and will continue to say...
99% of the people can not tell the difference between a radio show and the "true" master
lots of people here get all up tight about the generation of the recording
personally i got by my ears not the text file

99% of ppl can't tell the difference between wav and average mp3 so that's kind of a moot point imo

I fully agree that how it sounds is most important. I would hate to see the best choice chosen solely on the basis of SA/FA but never listened to. But that having been said, the txt file can give some clues as to how it sounds you can't deny that.

[Five]

also good point splumer

in the case that one sounds better than the other and the worse-sounding one is missing content then both are important to collectors until somebody with the talent adjusts them to run at the same speed and splices together and ultimate version.

ps downloading some warez does not turn you into an experienced and talented audio engineer, just like buying a paint set does not mean you are Michelangelo (should go without saying but I just said it anyways).