"Cut from the original master tapes"

Hi,
I'd go with most that's been said above, if not a little voice tells me:
How is it, that often more then one party claims they used THE master tape?!

And how about, that there often are 2 - 3 claims of being in possession of the master?

I have a notion, that those are 'secondary masters' cut from some original that's long gone. And in any way THE master is often a jumble of bit and pieces collected during a recording sessions. (Reading about how S.D. 'Katie Lied' was done gives some insights)

The politics of marketing must play the usual roll, because WHO is to disprove those claims: "Cut from the original master tapes" in the first place?

Greetings,
Axel

only 'one' disc is actually cut 'directly' from the original master tapes, and the term 'original master tapes' is almost never spelled out. if it sounds good, it doesn't matter.

I think it is possible to have more than one Master. This is achieved simply by sending the signal from the console to more than one tape machine simultaneously. Each of these Masters would theoretically have identical sound quality as long as identical tape machines with identical set up were used. Each of these tapes would correctly be labeled first generation.

Is the standard a 16-track "master" tape? Did many studios routinely record more than one master tape simultaneously? Commcat, it sounds like you have some experience with recording, and have actually heard a master tape played back. I hope I have that opportunity some day.

No serious recorder ever used a 16 track tape. These are for multi track mono pop recordings where each musician comes in separately and lays down a track. In this case the concept of a "MASTER" is meaningless, there is NO original performance, only sounds to be mixed and manipulated.