What exactly is a 'transfer' of old jazz?

[Haydn]

I mentioned this in another thread, but it wasn't the main question. Forgive my ignorance on this one please.

Can someone explain what a transfer is? I know that the transfers are important, and that the quality of the transfer it a major factor in the quality of a CD re-issue of old music, but I haven't seen an explanation of what a transfer actually is. I'm talking about transfers of old jazz originally recorded in the 1930s and 1940s.

[jeffcrom]

"Transfer" refers to the process of copying the source material (78 RPM records, acetate masters, metal stampers or "mothers,", etc.) to the digital realm (or to tape in earlier days) and mastering for reissue. A good transfer is one that has good fidelity to the source, with low noise and distortion. Some transfers are done with a "minimal" approach, with little or no EQ, others have filtering, processing (like reverb), and noise reduction involved to some degree. Obviously, the worse the condition of the source (like some rare Paramount records that have only survived in one copy), the more processing is going to be needed to make the transfer listenable. The worst case transfers are those done for LP issues in the late fifties and sixties that are very unatural sounding due to the use of too much EQ, reverb, and even fake stereo.

The Chronological Classics series is usually considered to be mediocre in terms of transfers - they often didn't have access to the best source materials, and many of the tracks are kind of noisy. As has been mentioned here many times, the King Oliver Off the Record/Archeophone reissue is famous for being having outstanding transfers, revealing details that many of us had never heard before, like the fact that the two cornets are trading off the melody at the beginning of "Canal Street Blues."

Does this make sense, or have I confused you more?

[J.A.W.]

Wikipedia's description of mastering (for what it's worth)

[Haydn]

"Transfer" refers to the process of copying the source material (78 RPM records, acetate masters, metal stampers or "mothers,", etc.) to the digital realm (or to tape in earlier days) and mastering for reissue. A good transfer is one that has good fidelity to the source, with low noise and distortion. Some transfers are done with a "minimal" approach, with little or no EQ, others have filtering, processing (like reverb), and noise reduction involved to some degree. Obviously, the worse the condition of the source (like some rare Paramount records that have only survived in one copy), the more processing is going to be needed to make the transfer listenable. The worst case transfers are those done for LP issues in the late fifties and sixties that are very unatural sounding due to the use of too much EQ, reverb, and even fake stereo.

The Chronological Classics series is usually considered to be mediocre in terms of transfers - they often didn't have access to the best source materials, and many of the tracks are kind of noisy. As has been mentioned here many times, the King Oliver Off the Record/Archeophone reissue is famous for being having outstanding transfers, revealing details that many of us had never heard before, like the fact that the two cornets are trading off the melody at the beginning of "Canal Street Blues."

Does this make sense, or have I confused you more?

Thanks - that's a great explanation

Edited June 18, 2009 by Haydn

[BruceH]

Very nice explication, jeffcrom. A pleasure to read.

[Chuck Nessa]

Easier answer - moving information from source to new medium.

[Brad]

Great answer Jeff. I'm sure that none of the Classics had access to the masters; I'm sure they just copied from a LP. Not complaining: it's better than nothing!