[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