Not Fade Away (reprise) | 1971-08-05 | Grateful Dead

1:41:11
Rating:
6.00 / 4 ratings
Taper:
Harvey Kaslow and Craig Todd
Transferrer:
Matt Smith
SHNID:
gd1971-08-05.aud.smith.94260.sbeok.flac16
Source:
(FOB) Sony ECM-22P condenser mikes into a Sony 770 portable 7 '' reel deck @ 7 1/2 ips.
Lineage:
MAR (Harvey Kaslow)* @ 7 1/2 ips. > R @ 7 1/2 ips. (Will Boswell via Rob Bertrando) Maxell UD tape > R > Akai GX625 > apogee mini me (24/96) > apogee mini dac (monitoring) > Lynx One soundcard > wavelab 5.0 (dithered to 20/44) > CD ** > EAC > WAV (shntool confirms no sbes) > FLAC (TLH)
Taper Notes:
View NotesSource and Transfer Notes:
MAR (Harvey Kaslow)* @ 7 1/2 ips. > R @ 7 1/2 ips. (Will Boswell via Rob Bertrando) Maxell UD tape > CD  'loser' was missing on this reel but used Don Wolfe's MAR>R>R @ 3 3/4 ips copy...  One of the mics malfunctioned before the second set resulting in a mono recording on set 2

R copied @ 7.5 ips using a Revox A-77>A-77 --- Mastered to cd by Matt Smith --- Playback info: R > Akai GX625 > apogee mini me (24/96) > apogee  mini dac (monitoring) > Lynx One soundcard > wavelab 5.0 (dithered to 20/44) > CD ** > EAC > WAV (shntool confirms no sbes) > FLAC (TLH) 

Notes:
I want to thank Will Boswell & Matt Smith for this gem, and especially Matt for his generosity and friendship. 
8 5 & 6 1971 are legendary audience recordings. they simply sound great!

while I'm sure you're content if not ecstatic with what you already have, there are a few reasons to consider acquiring this dat-less version new to general circulation (and please understand this isn't a competition and I'm not trying to pit Charlie Miller against Matt Smtih).

the most recent version to circulate is the one Miller remastered:
http://db.etree.org/shninfo_detail.php?shnid=88859
>> the tape flip during the Other One in Miller's version doesn't seem to exist on this copy
>> the other repairs that were made seem consistent with a dat source not reels (drop outs and pitch correction)
>> this source seems to lack the cut Sugar Magnolia however and I have no idea why it's missing

there are a few reasons to put this source into general circulation:
1. it's important to preserve your right to choose 

you're the expert in this case and can decide what sounds best to you. you, the listener, should have the choice. it would be wrong of me to hoard this and rob you of your choice in other words. when it's this close I'm not going to arrogantly tell you what sounds better or best to you.

2. lowest hq generation sources should be available 

since we're dealing with hq sources in both cases, this source is technically the lowest generation we have seen and should be in circulation at a minimum. that should be a key goal to preserving the music we love so dearly, to make hq sources with the lowest generation available.

3. known transfer

another reason to add or prefer this source is we have no idea when or how Miller's most recent versions of these shows were transferred whereas we know Matt recently transferred this reel with professionally endorsed techniques and high end equipment. we simply know Miller received his DATs in 2000. As Miller explains, "I got my DAT of this show back in 2000. I have no clue as to how it was transferred. I'm sure Matt's A>D is better than the one in the deck used back in 2000." 

4. unedited hq seeds should circulated at a minimum

Miller's source was "remastered" which isn't always a good thing, especially if that's all we have. Raw, hq transfers, should circulate at a minimum and are the best was to preserve the music. Once these sources are available, then remasters may or may not be desirable. But since remasters can make irreversible changes, locking us into the subjective bias of the editor, we need these hq raw transfers before we should consider possible enhancements. In this case, pitch correction has proven to be tricky business. We've seen tech wizards debate whether or not it was done correctly. Since it's very easy to over or under correct, and even tech wizards often disagree, we can only go on what feels, sounds, or seems right. Because of this difficulty, we should make sure sources like this are available.

* Recorded By Harvey Kaslow and Craig Todd
(FOB) Sony ECM-22P condenser mikes into a Sony 770 portable 7 '' reel deck.

** For the purpose of archival documentation, here are additional notes on how this seed was made, and why it was made this way. As Matt explains:

"My basic approach to transferring/mastering is LESS IS MORE. The basic goal should be to attain the cleanest signal possible going TO digital. It all starts with analog Equipment in top condition.  I've had my equipment restored and even the tape heads aligned. I also clean all the heads/ect. every reel side I play which is also paramount. Audio cables are very important as well to get a good clean signal. There can be a big difference at times depending on whatever you are using which is a whole other chapter.  Now comes the most important part, the A/D conversion.  I personally use Apogees just because they are the best in our specific usage IMHO.  Apogee's are renowned for their 'UV22HR' dithering algorithm.  this specific algorithm is used in about 80% of all the mastering houses across the country and most of the stuff you hear commercially uses this.  Even if dithered down to 16/44 it 'sounds' like a 24/96 to put in simple terms.  So basically load in at 24/96 then dither down and you've got yourself a nice, clean file to work with.  Now the DAT thing.  DATS/CD recorders are great but that's really the 'end of the chain' so to speak.  I don't mean to be a name dropper but when I was struggling trying to learn the "what the hell's the difference??" debate Jeffrey Norman put it best, "the A/D converters in DATS and CD's are compromised since it's crammed with other equipment resulting in a loss of overall dynamics.  a stand alone A/D converter that was made specifically for that purpose before going to DAT/CD/DAW is always the way to go if done correctly"... This simple fact is mainly not even considered (or understood) by most people but still, the most vital part in the transfer chain without question.  There is no doubt to me (and others) there is more dynamic range or overall a more defined sound vs. something going into just a DAT/CD recorder from analog.  A nice fat(and clean) low end is also part of the result as well lots of times that DAT transfers are missing at times.  Proper monitors are also very important too!!  I have a Mini DAC hooked into a Hafler 550 watt power amp going to a pair a very nice Audix studio monitors.  One needs to HEAR the flat uncolored signal when editing anything IMHO.  Otherwise something can be ruined forever b/c some guy decides to NR/EQ and no one will know the difference 20 years from now!!  Original transfers should be treated with great care and that's what I basically try to do to the best of my ability.  When I get it all done I also have the unique luxury of owning Jerry's old McIntosh stereo system(MR77 tuner,C28 Pre and MC2105 power amp)"