Jump to content
The Computer Audiophile

The Day the Music Burned

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

So cool.

 

It's hinted in the article you linked and also briefly discussed in the video but the studios have a studio at the facility itself, to do digitising of analogue masters, so the masters don't have to leave the facility (risk of damage/theft).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I wonder if there is a major difference between labels that are / aren't public companies that need to hit quarterly numbers for shareholders. 

 

Disorganization is the way things are at labels. No matter the size.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

Some general conclusion - IMO the situation calls for a couple more music formats - MCQA (Master Copy Quality Authenticated), MCCQA (Master Copy Copy..) etc... and finally WTFKWTQA (Who The F..k Knows What's That but we authenticate our file's faithfulness to this source anyway)!  :D 

 

Yes, the fire aftermath has unwittingly made a mockery of MQA hasn't it!


Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure BIS doesn't allow their masters to just rot/wait for a fire.  But then, Robert von Bahr's policy of never letting any of his catalogue go out of print means that he has to revisit those recordings in order to reissue them constantly, so his company has to have a constant awareness of the state of their tapes and digital masters.  Hyperion and the other small labels I'm familiar with as a classical consumer have allowed the majority of their catalogues to go out of print, so they are probably in the same boat as the conglomerates, just on a smaller scale.  They should at least have better records of what is where, as they haven't gone through multiple acquisitions by various multinational entities over the decades, unlike the colossal mess of UMG and Warner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, firedog said:

Because, as the article notes, the labels are fanatic about protecting intellectual property and copyrights, even though they don’t show the same care for the masters themselves. In other words, “We won’t do what’s best and right, b/c it might compromise our ability to make a small profit at some time in the future”. 

 

We need some legislation to offer them a carrot, if not a stick.  Maybe ensure that they get $$ whenever a copy at the Smithsonian is accessed.  Micro-currencies could make this happen for online copies.  Certainly, being chosen to put something at the Smithsonian is a form of advertising.


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...