Thanks for sharing.
Take care
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Are these three lineages equivalent?:
AUD > Master > Cassette > Cassette > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8)
AUD > Master > 2nd Gen Cassette > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8)
AUD > Master > Cassette (1) > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8)[/QUOTE]
It is pretty obvious that "Cassette (1)" and "2nd Gen Cassette" could not possibily mean the same. But which one correctly represents the first statement? It all depends on the media of the "master". If it was a cassette master, then the cassette used for the WAV transfer was indeed a second generation cassette and a "(2)" should be used instead of "(1)" in the third statement. If the master was another media (an open reel, for instance), then the second statement is wrong and should read "1st Gen Cassette". By the way, "master" is not a good way of describing the source - the lineage should definetely state media formats.
AUD > Master > Cassette > Cassette > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8)
AUD > Master > 2nd Gen Cassette > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8)
AUD > Master > Cassette (1) > WAV > CDR(x) > EAC > WAV > FLAC (Flac Frontend level 8)[/QUOTE]
It is pretty obvious that "Cassette (1)" and "2nd Gen Cassette" could not possibily mean the same. But which one correctly represents the first statement? It all depends on the media of the "master". If it was a cassette master, then the cassette used for the WAV transfer was indeed a second generation cassette and a "(2)" should be used instead of "(1)" in the third statement. If the master was another media (an open reel, for instance), then the second statement is wrong and should read "1st Gen Cassette". By the way, "master" is not a good way of describing the source - the lineage should definetely state media formats.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wilki Amieva wrote: [/QUOTENAME]By the way, "master" is not a good way of describing the source - the lineage should definetely state media formats.
[/QUOTE]
Only when that info is available, quite difficult especially when we talk about 60's/70's equipments.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wilki Amieva wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I have the ZOOM 2xCD (LLX-1/2) with the evening show, but 2xLP has the afternoon one, right?[/QUOTE]
That's right.
[/QUOTE]
Only when that info is available, quite difficult especially when we talk about 60's/70's equipments.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wilki Amieva wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I have the ZOOM 2xCD (LLX-1/2) with the evening show, but 2xLP has the afternoon one, right?[/QUOTE]
That's right.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wilki Amieva wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
It is pretty obvious that "Cassette (1)" and "2nd Gen Cassette" could not possibily mean the same. But which one correctly represents the first statement? It all depends on the media of the "master". If it was a cassette master, then the cassette used for the WAV transfer was indeed a second generation cassette and a "(2)" should be used instead of "(1)" in the third statement. If the master was another media (an open reel, for instance), then the second statement is wrong and should read "1st Gen Cassette". By the way, "master" is not a good way of describing the source - the lineage should definetely state media formats.[/QUOTE]
Correct. These lineages are equivalent:
1) AUD>Master Cassette>Cassette>Cassette>CDR
2) AUD>2nd gen cassette>CDR
3) AUD>Cassette(2)>CDR
As Wilki wrote, 2) and 3) are the same as 1) assuming the master was a compact cassette. IF the master had been an open reel, these lineages would be equivalent:
1) AUD>Master Reels>Cassette>Cassette>CDR
2) AUD>Reel(0)>Cassette(1)>CDR
It is pretty obvious that "Cassette (1)" and "2nd Gen Cassette" could not possibily mean the same. But which one correctly represents the first statement? It all depends on the media of the "master". If it was a cassette master, then the cassette used for the WAV transfer was indeed a second generation cassette and a "(2)" should be used instead of "(1)" in the third statement. If the master was another media (an open reel, for instance), then the second statement is wrong and should read "1st Gen Cassette". By the way, "master" is not a good way of describing the source - the lineage should definetely state media formats.[/QUOTE]
Correct. These lineages are equivalent:
1) AUD>Master Cassette>Cassette>Cassette>CDR
2) AUD>2nd gen cassette>CDR
3) AUD>Cassette(2)>CDR
As Wilki wrote, 2) and 3) are the same as 1) assuming the master was a compact cassette. IF the master had been an open reel, these lineages would be equivalent:
1) AUD>Master Reels>Cassette>Cassette>CDR
2) AUD>Reel(0)>Cassette(1)>CDR
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet... I get it now! Thanks everyone for the help.
Thank you very much for this concert!
Thank you very much
great version, thank you
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tilomagnet wrote: [/QUOTENAME]These lineages are equivalent:
1) AUD>Master Cassette>Cassette>Cassette>CDR
2) AUD>2nd gen cassette>CDR
3) AUD>Cassette(2)>CDR[/QUOTE]
Did you edit your post or something?
I thought "AUD>Cassette(1)>CDR" was equivalent to a second generation tape...
?
1) AUD>Master Cassette>Cassette>Cassette>CDR
2) AUD>2nd gen cassette>CDR
3) AUD>Cassette(2)>CDR[/QUOTE]
Did you edit your post or something?
I thought "AUD>Cassette(1)>CDR" was equivalent to a second generation tape...
?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tilomagnet wrote: [/QUOTENAME]These lineages are equivalent:
1) AUD>Master Cassette>Cassette>Cassette>CDR
2) AUD>2nd gen cassette>CDR
3) AUD>Cassette(2)>CDR[/QUOTE]
Did you edit your post or something?
I thought "AUD>Cassette(1)>CDR" was equivalent to a second generation tape...
?[/QUOTE]
No, I didn't edit anything at all.
The number in brackets indicates the generation for each media. Since the master of the Vienna show is/was apparently a cassette (and not an open reel), "cassette(2)" is equivalent to what you'd call a 2nd gen tape. As I stated above, if the master had been an open reel, this lineage:
Master reel > cassette > cassette > CDR
would be equivalent to this:
Reel(0) > cassette(1) > CDR
Another example: A cassette copy is made from a DAT master, i.e. DAT Master > Cassette
According to you, the resulting cassette copy would be called a '1st gen cassette' from the DAT master, right?
This is wrong however. "1st gen cassette from DAT master" would look like this: DAT master > Cassette > Cassette
with the first cassette in the lineage being called cassette(0)/cassette master/zero gen cassette. The second cassette in the lineage above is the actual "1st gen cassette copy" or cassette(1).
The difference of the DAT master lineage to the lineage of the Vienna show is that the DAT master got copied to another format, hence the resulting cassette copy is called zero gen of the new format. The Vienna recording only got copied onto the same format as the master was, therefore "2nd gen cassette" is equivalent to C(0/master) > C(1) > C(2) > CDR or just Cassette(2) > CDR
1) AUD>Master Cassette>Cassette>Cassette>CDR
2) AUD>2nd gen cassette>CDR
3) AUD>Cassette(2)>CDR[/QUOTE]
Did you edit your post or something?
I thought "AUD>Cassette(1)>CDR" was equivalent to a second generation tape...
?[/QUOTE]
No, I didn't edit anything at all.
The number in brackets indicates the generation for each media. Since the master of the Vienna show is/was apparently a cassette (and not an open reel), "cassette(2)" is equivalent to what you'd call a 2nd gen tape. As I stated above, if the master had been an open reel, this lineage:
Master reel > cassette > cassette > CDR
would be equivalent to this:
Reel(0) > cassette(1) > CDR
Another example: A cassette copy is made from a DAT master, i.e. DAT Master > Cassette
According to you, the resulting cassette copy would be called a '1st gen cassette' from the DAT master, right?
This is wrong however. "1st gen cassette from DAT master" would look like this: DAT master > Cassette > Cassette
with the first cassette in the lineage being called cassette(0)/cassette master/zero gen cassette. The second cassette in the lineage above is the actual "1st gen cassette copy" or cassette(1).
The difference of the DAT master lineage to the lineage of the Vienna show is that the DAT master got copied to another format, hence the resulting cassette copy is called zero gen of the new format. The Vienna recording only got copied onto the same format as the master was, therefore "2nd gen cassette" is equivalent to C(0/master) > C(1) > C(2) > CDR or just Cassette(2) > CDR
Thank you very much! Great show!!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tilomagnet wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The difference of the DAT master lineage to the lineage of the Vienna show is that the DAT master got copied to another format, hence the resulting cassette copy is called zero gen of the new format. The Vienna recording only got copied onto the same format as the master was, therefore "2nd gen cassette" is equivalent to C(0/master) > C(1) > C(2) > CDR or just Cassette(2) > CDR[/QUOTE]
OK... makes sense to me!
OK... makes sense to me!
Thank-you! :o)
Upload one more this concert, please...