Confusion about generations and masters etc.

[Dylz]

Hey, I'm relatively new to the world of getting correct source and lineage info and I have a few questions about generations.

for example an audience MD recording
Is this correct?

MASTER = original data from MD (WAV on computer)
CDR(1) = 1st gen. Burnt directly from the master WAVs on computer
CDR(2) = 2nd gen. copied of CDR(1)
etc....

or is this correct?

MASTER = original data from MD (WAV on computer)
MASTER CLONE = Burnt directly from the master WAVs on computer
CDR(1) = 1st gen. Burnt directly from the master clone cdr
CDR(2) = 2nd gen. Copied of CDR(1)
etc....

I am confused.

Is there such thing as CDR(O)

Please help me.
Thanks

-Dylz

[AAR.oner]

some folks use slightly different styles for this.

for in stance of you taped a show on MD, the actually minidisc would be yer minidisc master, or MD(M)...if you then transferred it to yer comp as a .wav, and burned a "Audio CD", that would be CDR(0) [aka a Master Clone]...if that disc was extracted with EAC and then the wavs re-burned, CDR(1)...etc etc.

hope that helps

[Karst]

I would just indicate the digital transfer ie MD>Cooledit Pro>WAV>FLAC (level 5). The MD remains the raw master and any CD burned of the WAV will be a clone unless there has been some substantial editing. Now - that is in my book - maybe ask Five what the general requirements here are.

[joshd]

Originally Posted by Dylz

Hey, I'm relatively new to the world of getting correct source and lineage info and I have a few questions about generations.

for example an audience MD recording
Is this correct?

MASTER = original data from MD (WAV on computer)
CDR(1) = 1st gen. Burnt directly from the master WAVs on computer
CDR(2) = 2nd gen. copied of CDR(1)
etc....

or is this correct?

MASTER = original data from MD (WAV on computer)
MASTER CLONE = Burnt directly from the master WAVs on computer
CDR(1) = 1st gen. Burnt directly from the master clone cdr
CDR(2) = 2nd gen. Copied of CDR(1)
etc....

I am confused.

Is there such thing as CDR(O)

Please help me.
Thanks

-Dylz

I've seen people do it both ways, and it is kind of confusing, but the second way is more correct imo.

Basically I think of it like tapes. The first tape is not the first gen. It's the master. When you make your first copy to another tape, *that's* the first gen.

If you have MD(master) > CPU, and you then burn the wavs onto a CDR, that's a CDR(m) or CDR(0) to me.

CDR(1) tells me that there was another set of CDRs before this one. Just like the tapes, the first CDR set is not the first gen. The CDR set that is copied from the first CDR set is the first gen.

It's also like with decades/centuries etc. The first year is not year 1, it's year 0.

[AAR.oner]

Originally Posted by Karst

I would just indicate the digital transfer ie MD>Cooledit Pro>WAV>FLAC (level 5). The MD remains the raw master and any CD burned of the WAV will be a clone unless there has been some substantial editing. Now - that is in my book - maybe ask Five what the general requirements here are.

this would be sufficient to seed here, but i'd add MD(M) so folks know its the orig MD. here's the FAQ on audio seeds http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/...item#faq_rules

to really please the purists you could put:
MD(M) > *whatever transfer method you use -- mini-to-? or optical-to-?* > CoolEdit Pro [or Audacity or whatever recording program] > .wav > *program used to encode to .flac* > .flac

Originally Posted by Dylz

MASTER = original data from MD (WAV on computer)
MASTER CLONE = Burnt directly from the master WAVs on computer
CDR(1) = 1st gen. Burnt directly from the master clone cdr
CDR(2) = 2nd gen. Copied of CDR(1)
etc....

It is confusing. Partly because there is no standard notation.

Remember, unless you transfer your minidisc optically (digitally) to your computer, that ain't no "master clone". Going line in to your soundcard adds an analog generation.

[Five]

I agree, it is confusing. then there's the old technology like that digital beta thing, I think it was called PCM (not PCM WAV!! ).

As for masters, let's set the record straight here.

A master is a master is a master. It is the original media used by the taper. In the case of studio outtakes it is the original analog/digital mixdown reel that is the master. So this and only this gets the (m). The exception is FM. With FM, there's two kinds of masters (yes, wtf, but that's the way it is): (a) the first media used to store a mixdown recorded by a radio station itself, and then there's (b) the original media used by a taper. MD is not allowed for taping FM, so that leaves CASS, ANA (which often means open reel, but also states "unknown analog media"), DAT, soundcard > WAV, CDR from a standalone burner. So, something could be FM > Sony Receiver > Aiwa AD-F810 3-Head Cassette Deck (recording) > CASS(m) > Aiwa AD-F810 (transfer) > Audiophile2496 soundcard > Adobe Audition v1.5 (recording, tracking and cutting) > FLAC frontend v1.1.2a (verify enabled, level 6) > FLAC

now if you burned that to a CDR, then it would be CDR(0), e.g.: FM > Sony Receiver > Aiwa AD-F810 3-Head Cassette Deck (recording) > CASS(m) > Aiwa AD-F810 (transfer) > Audiophile2496 soundcard > Adobe Audition v1.5 (recording, tracking and cutting) > FLAC frontend v1.1.2a (verify enabled, level 6) > FLAC > EAC v0.95 beta 2 (write offset corrected) > CDR(0)

but nobody really does this without keeping the original data as a backup, right? So you usually wont see a lineage like that last one I posted show up re-extracted to FLAC. The only way this would be if the CDR could be extracted with no errors whatsoever to the point where SHNtool cmp, st5s et al. are all identical to the original FLACs. So this means, its important to read & write with your offsets corrected. The funniest thing is, after a couple hours spent trying to get your computer to make a perfectly accurate audio cdr until you finally succeed gives you a distrust for the audio CDR format. So when I've got a real technophobic friend who's computer illiterate (we all know one), I'll burn him/her a CDR(0) and tell them that if they meet somebody who wants to trade anything similar to send them to me 'cause I might be able to help to trade for a couple more. Then when it comes to that trade, I try to get talking FLAC as soon as possible, altho sometimes I end up getting audio cdrs anyways (oldschool). Most ppl will take the FLACs so long as there's a computer in their house. I'll tell them about foobar2k & flac frontend then they're pretty much okay.

So, in the case of Studio Reel > DAT(1) > CDR(0) > EAC (secure, offsets corrected) > FLAC The CDR becomes 0 providing it is a digital dump, however if it is analog then it becomes CDR(1) which is also confusing because then it looks like maybe there's been two audio CDRs instead of one. It's confusing as hell. The best solution to this is to make mention of how the heck it got from DAT > CDR, like the tapers elite who always list their equipment in a cryptic stew of abbreviated company names and model numbers (jargon).

There's also the Source/Transfer method of writing lineage, where the "source" describes the recording process and the "transfer" describes the encoding process. This format is used almost exclusively by tapers and imo is the best of all.

So when I get a show I will examine the audio closely and add to the lineage only things I am 99% certain about, and often make notes about the pervious lineage (as it was written) at the bottom with the date included. And of course .st5 with all things lossless audio.

Oh, come to think of it a pressed wwo cdr (not silver!) could be considered to be CDR(m) but to make it clear it is best to write it like this "wwo pressed CDR(m)"

okay I'm really rambling now does anybody really read posts like this?

[AAR.oner]

Originally Posted by Five

There's also the Source/Transfer method of writing lineage, where the "source" describes the recording process and the "transfer" describes the encoding process. This format is used almost exclusively by tapers and imo is the best of all.

this is the method i use now for tapes i've recorded. i think its more easily read when broken into the Source and then the Transfer. here's an example of a recent show i just transferred.

SOURCE: SP C4s [FOB] > Edirol UA5 [Oade DigiMod] > Sony PCM-M1 > DAT(M) @ 16bit44.1kHz
TRANSFER: DAT(M) > Sony PCM-M1 > Edirol UA5 [Oade DigiMod] > usb > Audacity [recording/editing] > .wav > xACT > .flac

[Five]

that's it I'm switching!

Originally Posted by Five

So, in the case of Studio Reel > DAT(1) > CDR(0) > EAC (secure, offsets corrected) > FLAC The CDR becomes 0 providing it is a digital dump, however if it is analog then it becomes CDR(1) which is also confusing because then it looks like maybe there's been two audio CDRs instead of one.

That is an interesting way of numbering CDr copies, however I've never seen it used in that fashion. Mostly because only a very few people copy CD's via analog connection.

Typically it would indicate the number of people or CDr copies between you and the taper/master. I am kind of against using (0) cause it's like a hidden generation. To avoid confusion you can just write it out. master cassette > CDr > CDr > CDr. which I would abbreviate as m>CDr(3) or m>C3, even though they are all copied digitally.

[freezer]

[quote=Five]As for masters, let's set the record straight here.

A master is a master is a master. It is the original media used by the taper. In the case of studio outtakes it is the original analog/digital mixdown reel that is the master. So this and only this gets the (m). {/QUOTE}

But what if the master reel is destroyed, as was in the case of the John Entwistle 7/18/79 Studio rough Mixes that were just seeded here. at TTD.

Would you then want to consider the 1G cassette the master now since you will not be able to trace the lineage further back any longer?

I would vote no, as I agree with Five, that a master is a master is a master. And that the master is unique and stays unique, even if it no longer exists.

Originally Posted by Five

The exception is FM. With FM, there's two kinds of masters (yes, wtf, but that's the way it is): (a) the first media used to store a mixdown recorded by a radio station itself, and then there's (b) the original media used by a taper. MD is not allowed for taping FM, so that leaves CASS, ANA (which often means open reel, but also states "unknown analog media"), DAT, soundcard > WAV, CDR from a standalone burner. So, something could be FM > Sony Receiver > Aiwa AD-F810 3-Head Cassette Deck (recording) > CASS(m) > Aiwa AD-F810 (transfer) > Audiophile2496 soundcard > Adobe Audition v1.5 (recording, tracking and cutting) > FLAC frontend v1.1.2a (verify enabled, level 6) > FLAC


now if you burned that to a CDR, then it would be CDR(0), e.g.: FM > Sony Receiver > Aiwa AD-F810 3-Head Cassette Deck (recording) > CASS(m) > Aiwa AD-F810 (transfer) > Audiophile2496 soundcard > Adobe Audition v1.5 (recording, tracking and cutting) > FLAC frontend v1.1.2a (verify enabled, level 6) > FLAC > EAC v0.95 beta 2 (write offset corrected) > CDR(0)

but nobody really does this without keeping the original data as a backup, right? So you usually wont see a lineage like that last one I posted show up re-extracted to FLAC. The only way this would be if the CDR could be extracted with no errors whatsoever to the point where SHNtool cmp, st5s et al. are all identical to the original FLACs. So this means, its important to read & write with your offsets corrected. The funniest thing is, after a couple hours spent trying to get your computer to make a perfectly accurate audio cdr until you finally succeed gives you a distrust for the audio CDR format. So when I've got a real technophobic friend who's computer illiterate (we all know one), I'll burn him/her a CDR(0) and tell them that if they meet somebody who wants to trade anything similar to send them to me 'cause I might be able to help to trade for a couple more. Then when it comes to that trade, I try to get talking FLAC as soon as possible, altho sometimes I end up getting audio cdrs anyways (oldschool). Most ppl will take the FLACs so long as there's a computer in their house. I'll tell them about foobar2k & flac frontend then they're pretty much okay.

OK, new can o’ woims here.

Last week I sent 3 shows to Five to be shared at TTD. These were from WWOZ-FM in New Orleans.

WWOZ broadcasts over 100 shows a year live, and that means live-as-it –happens, OR broadcasts pre-recorded shows and that ‘usually’ means recorded within the last 24 hours, OR live-in-the-studio and that means a spontaneous performance within the WWOZ broadcast studio.

(Yeah, I know there ain’t many radio stations still doing this type of broadcast anymore.)

However, WWOZ does NOT always archive their live broadcasts, particularly the spontaneous live in the studio shows.

And this wouldn’t be an issue, except that I just mailed Five a handful of shows that were captured direct to CDR from the FM.

And there is no “master copy” in existence at the radio station level. My CDR is a “master copy” (There are probably more master copies, but who knows for sure. I do know in one instance WWOZ did not archive one of the shows I sent to Five, because the musicians were on-line looking for a copy.)

I’m saying the lineage is like this:

WWOZ-FM>Marantz 2215>JVC 5010>CDR master(0)>CDR(1).

The CDR(1) is the copy I sent to Five.

In order to seed it, I assume he’ll add additional lineage.

But what about it, is the lineage I gave good enough?

In these cases you won’t be able to get a lower generation, it just doesn’t exist.

Originally Posted by Five

So, in the case of Studio Reel > DAT(1) > CDR(0) > EAC (secure, offsets corrected) > FLAC The CDR becomes 0 providing it is a digital dump, however if it is analog then it becomes CDR(1) which is also confusing because then it looks like maybe there's been two audio CDRs instead of one. It's confusing as hell. The best solution to this is to make mention of how the heck it got from DAT > CDR, like the tapers elite who always list their equipment in a cryptic stew of abbreviated company names and model numbers (jargon).

In the case of the Entwistle roughs, there was only cassette(1G)>JVC 5010>CDR(0). And since I sent a copy to a different friend for seeding at dime, both were cassette(1G)>JVC 5010>CDR(0)…but they’ll be different because they are 2 different digital transfers.

How would you lineage specialists deal with that?

Originally Posted by Five

okay I'm really rambling now does anybody really read posts like this?

It was easier to respond this way than to send you a private message about the lineage on the discs that are in the mail already……

Now you can get a consensus on how the lineage should be on LIVE FM shows, since you are about to be dealing with some soon.

[jcrab66]

Originally Posted by AAR.oner

this is the method i use now for tapes i've recorded. i think its more easily read when broken into the Source and then the Transfer. here's an example of a recent show i just transferred.

SOURCE: SP C4s [FOB] > Edirol UA5 [Oade DigiMod] > Sony PCM-M1 > DAT(M) @ 16bit44.1kHz
TRANSFER: DAT(M) > Sony PCM-M1 > Edirol UA5 [Oade DigiMod] > usb > Audacity [recording/editing] > .wav > xACT > .flac

thats pretty much how i do it although personally i wouldnt put the "DAT(M)" in the source field since its pretty friggin obvious that the tape thats in the M1 is the master, I would just leave the "(M)" out

[Five]

Originally Posted by freezer

WWOZ-FM>Marantz 2215>JVC 5010>CDR master(0)>CDR(1).

The CDR(1) is the copy I sent to Five.

In order to seed it, I assume he’ll add additional lineage.

But what about it, is the lineage I gave good enough?

In these cases you won’t be able to get a lower generation, it just doesn’t exist.

That's great. that will provide the source info. then I just add the transfer info, and it will look something like this (when I'm done):

Source: WWOZ-FM>Marantz 2215>JVC 5010>CDR master(0)>CDR(1)
Transfer: CDR(1) > EAC (secure, offsets corrected) > FLAC (verify enabled, level 8)
Taper: Freezer

Originally Posted by freezer

In the case of the Entwistle roughs, there was only cassette(1G)>JVC 5010>CDR(0). And since I sent a copy to a different friend for seeding at dime, both were cassette(1G)>JVC 5010>CDR(0)…but they’ll be different because they are 2 different digital transfers.
How would you lineage specialists deal with that?

The variants can be spotted by the .st5/.ffp variations. It will add some confusion because down the line somebody might collect both, number them, and post on some webpage which one is "preferred" (if either).

Originally Posted by freezer

It was easier to respond this way than to send you a private message about the lineage on the discs that are in the mail already……

Now you can get a consensus on how the lineage should be on LIVE FM shows, since you are about to be dealing with some soon.

What's tricky about live FM shows? It would be about the same, where's the catch?

[freezer]

Originally Posted by Five

What's tricky about live FM shows? It would be about the same, where's the catch?

The shows I sent you, two of them were definitely not archived by the station. (but they 'may' have been recorded by other collectors)

Are these shows "masters" OR "master copies" OR is there some other conventional terminology used?

Is this terminology in use only conventional for TTD?

Any confusion here stems from seeing "low gen" collectors call copies of 'commercial' bootlegs "master clones"...

[pmonk]

What I find funny is that the whole lineage thing is pretty stupid when you think about it.

When you look at the TTD policy forbiding the torrenting of shows where their is a CD-R generation between an "original silver" since as Mr. Freezer pointed out we have no idea where the lineage of the "original silver" is anyway??

I do understand the reason for this (i.e. cuts down on digital errors from bad rips and burns) but if you verify that its an error-free copy it shouldl be fine.

Now - when it comes to the analog world of cassette tapes obviously each generation means a deterioration of the sound (just like when making a xerox copy the copy is not identical of the original and if you make a copy of copy then the quality just gets worse and worse)

So, sound qualty wise a CD-R(3) should sound no different then CD-R(10) as long as ech copy is error free but a 2nd generation tape is going to sound much better then a 7th generation tape!