[Audioarchivist]

There's a difference listening to a tape without applying any post processing (and I don't mean just EQ) and working some light touch remastering.

There's also a difference between a tape of some cd's or a live tape made without the best recording conditions and less than perfect mics.

Like I said before, I play stuff in very bright to minimize (or to overpower) line noise, etc. and work it back in the computer. I'm not just playing a tape and releasing it just like it sounds without fixing its flaws.

I release things like I'd like to listen to them. I remaster them for myself first and release those versions. I try and make a show sound like it did when I heard it for the first time - live. Live sound isn't the best, and these are not audiophile experiences we're talking about, they're bootlegs.

You should have heard how that Queen tape sounded off the master. Blah. I put out my 1gen tape to tape copy. I was not the original taper. I did make the copy myself. That's a bad example to use as what my method for my masters sounds like. That one's double noisy. Sorry. If you don't like it feel free to delete your copy.

I think if anyone has some infinite wisdom they should be sharing it here, not PMing each other with secret information on "how to really play a tape in" or whatever. I'd like to hear your tricks of the (tape) trade. Maybe you'll change MY mind!

The multi-band compressor is my best friend. I rarely do any eq besides some select mid cuts and low boosts. I don't really go for digi-nr. The mic I used for years had crap low frequency response, so almost none of my masters sound good flat.

These have been my results, and like I think I've said, your results may (and obviously do) vary. None of this stuff is foolproof rules. You can't say you can't ever listen to a tape without bias and dolby set "right" because you've never heard my tapes flat, and you're not taking into account what I do to them in the computer that fixes them more than dolby and chrome will do alone.