[tilomagnet]

adding a little bit....

Originally Posted by ZosoPlayer

Lineage#1:

Source: Audience
48kHz DAT Master > DAT clone > Audio DVD
AUD recording using DAT <this would be labeled DAT(M)>. Than made an exact copy of the DAT <the clone is still considered DAT(M)?>. Then burned an Audio DVD <this would be labled Audio DVD(0)>? Only thing really missing in this lineage is how he got from DAT to DVD, correct?

The term "clone" is sometimes used when labelling DAT copies, because DAT > DAT is, when done properly with a digital connection (optical or coaxial) between playback and recording deck, a completely lossless way of copying. However any transfer, that involves an analog step can never be completely "lossless". So even DAT > analog connection > DAT is not lossless, since it involves a Digital > analog step and an analog > digital step. Thus the resulting copy cannot be considered a clone.

Originally Posted by ZosoPlayer

Lineage#2:
Source: Audience
1st Gen Cassette>DAT3>CDR4>eac>wav>flac
A tough one... 1st gen casette implies that it came from XXX(0) which came from a XXX(M). We are missing the 2nd generation here, but then it was transfered to a DAT, to a CDR, etc. I would imagine this is questionable quality due to the multiple generations and gaps in the lineage? Not sure if I really got this one.

I don't understand your statement here. "1st gen cassette" is equivalent to 'Analog master (cassette or reel) > cassette'.

Originally Posted by ZosoPlayer

Lineage#3:

original silver CDs -> EAC (V0.95 prebeta 4) -> wav ->
FLAC frontend (V1.7.1 Etree edition) -> FLAC
The original silver CD means that this was someone's bootleg, most likely a purchased professional bootleg. Than converted to wav via EAC and then converted to flac using frontend <not sure if I understand what frontend is, but made an educated guess>. These flac files should sound exactly (or close to it) like the original silver. No generation loss. Only thing that is missing is the lineage of the original silver bootleg.

"Generation loss" when talking about CDR copying is something different than "generation loss" when dubbing analog sources, for example cassettes. When copying cassette > cassette the actual sound is degraded (loss of detail, loss of high frequencies etc.) However even when CDRs are getting copied improperly (for example burning "on the fly" or using an extractor without error correction) the sound itself won't be degraded, but digital errors, such as clicks, pops or gaps at the track transitions may be introduced into the recording.

Originally Posted by ZosoPlayer

Lineage#4:
Souce: Audience
Master>DAT>CDR
This one confuses me a little as well. Does "Master>DAT" mean that the original taper recording the show on a DAT <making it DAT(M)> or that the master was another source and then converted to a DAT <making it DAT(0)>? If the DAT is a DAT(M), than the CDR would be CDR(0). If the DAT is a DAT(0), then the CDR is a CDR(1), correct?

Not sure if I passed or not

"Master > DAT" does indeed mean that the (analog) master was transfered to DAT at some point and not that the recording was initially recorded on DAT. Once a recording is transfered from one format to another, the resulting copy is called 'zero gen' of the new format. For example Analog master > DAT(0). If the DAT, that the analog master was transfered to, later gets transfered to CDR, the resulting copy is called 'CDR(0)', since it was transfered to an alltogther different format (although it's both digital). Hope that helps.