Quote from: Babaluma on October 02, 2012, 11:47:16 AMQuote from: FrenchChemist on October 02, 2012, 10:33:00 AMQuote from: LFF on September 10, 2012, 06:03:29 PMQuote from: wiinippongamer on September 10, 2012, 05:55:15 PMIt's of my understanding that SACD when downconverting to redbook are indistiguishable in a blind test. Any thoughts on this?If you take the DSD and downconvert to redbook with a good algorithm, then it should be indistinguishable in a double-blind test. This converts the bit rate and sample rate but the mastering stays the same.As I said...it's all in the mastering.Then what's the point of SACD and 24/96 files, besides charging you more for the same music? Are there realy no improvement in 24/96 playback files over 16/44.1?Why do RB usually sound slightly less smooth than vinyl rips? Just the mastering?Should I downconvert all my 24/96 files to 20(16?)/44.1 and therefore save HDD space? I know I'd love to!Agree with French Chemist.I can often tell 16/44 from 24/96 lossless files in a blind ABX listening test with some material (quality recordings and mixes with decent dynamic range). Not always though. Lady Gaga sounds as bad at 16/44 as she does in 128kbps mp3. It can be very subjective, I know, but I tend to notice it in the feeling of "space" (not necessarily just the reverb cues/tails and stereo width), and the "deep black wall" upon which the music is projected.And you don't "downconvert to Red Book". The Red Book standard is a physical media authoring standard, of which 16 bit word length and 44.1kHz sample rate are just parts.And mastering CAN make a huge difference, that's true, but on good source files I'd say it's usually only about the final 2% icing on the cake. A good mastering engineer knows when to leave well enough alone, and when processing is required. If it's a great source and will end up on CD, then all that's to do is top and tail, gap, perhaps volume match or SRC if needed, dither down to 16 bit, author the DDP, upload it for the artists/pressing plant and be done with it. No audio processing needed.You can often tell a difference because high res is often mastered better than the CD releases. 2% icing on the cake? You really need to pick up a good book on mastering and read it.While it can be true that an excellent source might need very little mastering the truth of the matter is that we rarely ever get an excellent source that needs little to no mastering. For example, the RHC P "Californication" original source files sound amazing and have great dynamic range but thanks to shitty mastering, the vast majority of people will never know that and still...those excellent source files still need mastering. Now imagine a shitty source like John Lennon's Imagine. That thing is so bad it needs a lot of dedicated work to get it to sound good. The HiFi labels even gave up on the original and just went for a remix which, IMHO, still sounds like shit. Mastering isn't the icing on the cake. Mastering is the master chef that bakes it and decorates it.Even though it's the same ingredients with little variety from cake to cake, the chef determines whether you get this:or this:Even a diamond needs polishing.
Quote from: FrenchChemist on October 02, 2012, 10:33:00 AMQuote from: LFF on September 10, 2012, 06:03:29 PMQuote from: wiinippongamer on September 10, 2012, 05:55:15 PMIt's of my understanding that SACD when downconverting to redbook are indistiguishable in a blind test. Any thoughts on this?If you take the DSD and downconvert to redbook with a good algorithm, then it should be indistinguishable in a double-blind test. This converts the bit rate and sample rate but the mastering stays the same.As I said...it's all in the mastering.Then what's the point of SACD and 24/96 files, besides charging you more for the same music? Are there realy no improvement in 24/96 playback files over 16/44.1?Why do RB usually sound slightly less smooth than vinyl rips? Just the mastering?Should I downconvert all my 24/96 files to 20(16?)/44.1 and therefore save HDD space? I know I'd love to!Agree with French Chemist.I can often tell 16/44 from 24/96 lossless files in a blind ABX listening test with some material (quality recordings and mixes with decent dynamic range). Not always though. Lady Gaga sounds as bad at 16/44 as she does in 128kbps mp3. It can be very subjective, I know, but I tend to notice it in the feeling of "space" (not necessarily just the reverb cues/tails and stereo width), and the "deep black wall" upon which the music is projected.And you don't "downconvert to Red Book". The Red Book standard is a physical media authoring standard, of which 16 bit word length and 44.1kHz sample rate are just parts.And mastering CAN make a huge difference, that's true, but on good source files I'd say it's usually only about the final 2% icing on the cake. A good mastering engineer knows when to leave well enough alone, and when processing is required. If it's a great source and will end up on CD, then all that's to do is top and tail, gap, perhaps volume match or SRC if needed, dither down to 16 bit, author the DDP, upload it for the artists/pressing plant and be done with it. No audio processing needed.
Quote from: LFF on September 10, 2012, 06:03:29 PMQuote from: wiinippongamer on September 10, 2012, 05:55:15 PMIt's of my understanding that SACD when downconverting to redbook are indistiguishable in a blind test. Any thoughts on this?If you take the DSD and downconvert to redbook with a good algorithm, then it should be indistinguishable in a double-blind test. This converts the bit rate and sample rate but the mastering stays the same.As I said...it's all in the mastering.Then what's the point of SACD and 24/96 files, besides charging you more for the same music? Are there realy no improvement in 24/96 playback files over 16/44.1?Why do RB usually sound slightly less smooth than vinyl rips? Just the mastering?Should I downconvert all my 24/96 files to 20(16?)/44.1 and therefore save HDD space? I know I'd love to!
Quote from: wiinippongamer on September 10, 2012, 05:55:15 PMIt's of my understanding that SACD when downconverting to redbook are indistiguishable in a blind test. Any thoughts on this?If you take the DSD and downconvert to redbook with a good algorithm, then it should be indistinguishable in a double-blind test. This converts the bit rate and sample rate but the mastering stays the same.As I said...it's all in the mastering.
It's of my understanding that SACD when downconverting to redbook are indistiguishable in a blind test. Any thoughts on this?
Quote from: LFF on October 03, 2012, 12:10:10 AMQuote from: Babaluma on October 02, 2012, 11:47:16 AMQuote from: FrenchChemist on October 02, 2012, 10:33:00 AMQuote from: LFF on September 10, 2012, 06:03:29 PMQuote from: wiinippongamer on September 10, 2012, 05:55:15 PMIt's of my understanding that SACD when downconverting to redbook are indistiguishable in a blind test. Any thoughts on this?If you take the DSD and downconvert to redbook with a good algorithm, then it should be indistinguishable in a double-blind test. This converts the bit rate and sample rate but the mastering stays the same.As I said...it's all in the mastering.Then what's the point of SACD and 24/96 files, besides charging you more for the same music? Are there realy no improvement in 24/96 playback files over 16/44.1?Why do RB usually sound slightly less smooth than vinyl rips? Just the mastering?Should I downconvert all my 24/96 files to 20(16?)/44.1 and therefore save HDD space? I know I'd love to!Agree with French Chemist.I can often tell 16/44 from 24/96 lossless files in a blind ABX listening test with some material (quality recordings and mixes with decent dynamic range). Not always though. Lady Gaga sounds as bad at 16/44 as she does in 128kbps mp3. It can be very subjective, I know, but I tend to notice it in the feeling of "space" (not necessarily just the reverb cues/tails and stereo width), and the "deep black wall" upon which the music is projected.And you don't "downconvert to Red Book". The Red Book standard is a physical media authoring standard, of which 16 bit word length and 44.1kHz sample rate are just parts.And mastering CAN make a huge difference, that's true, but on good source files I'd say it's usually only about the final 2% icing on the cake. A good mastering engineer knows when to leave well enough alone, and when processing is required. If it's a great source and will end up on CD, then all that's to do is top and tail, gap, perhaps volume match or SRC if needed, dither down to 16 bit, author the DDP, upload it for the artists/pressing plant and be done with it. No audio processing needed.You can often tell a difference because high res is often mastered better than the CD releases. 2% icing on the cake? You really need to pick up a good book on mastering and read it.While it can be true that an excellent source might need very little mastering the truth of the matter is that we rarely ever get an excellent source that needs little to no mastering. For example, the RHCP "Californication" original source files sound amazing and have great dynamic range but thanks to shitty mastering, the vast majority of people will never know that and still...those excellent source files still need mastering. Now imagine a shitty source like John Lennon's Imagine. That thing is so bad it needs a lot of dedicated work to get it to sound good. The HiFi labels even gave up on the original and just went for a remix which, IMHO, still sounds like shit. Mastering isn't the icing on the cake. Mastering is the master chef that bakes it and decorates it.Even though it's the same ingredients with little variety from cake to cake, the chef determines whether you get this:or this:Even a diamond needs polishing. And right back at you! I completely stand by my original point, "With great source files, mastering is usually only about the 2% icing on the cake". The rest is the technical preparation of the album with volume matching, fades, track ordering, spacing, and DDP authoring etc. What's not to understand here? Should a mastering engineer feel he or she has to impose his or her stamp on a piece of music, if it already sounds amazing? Unfortunately, of course, this is rarely the case with the tracks I receive for mastering. I'd say only a few of my regular clients provide me with consistently excellent results, meaning it's a "straight transfer" with very little or no audio processing. I'm usually having to add some EQ, less often compression.Your well intentioned advice made me laugh. I have been mastering for over ten years, professionally for three, and as my sole source of income for the last year. I've read all the books numerous times. I think if you hung out with more mastering professionals (some of who have been Grammy nominated, or won Grammys), on places like PRW's "Mastering Room" and the REP "Mastering Dynamics" boards, you'd see that many of them (Bob Olhsson, Dave Collins, Glen Meadows, Brad Blackwood, Greg Calbi, etc.) are doing extremely little processing on many of their projects. The art is in knowing when NOT to process when not needed, as much as it is knowing when something does need doing, and exactly what to do to rectify it. Of course, they are probably getting a higher calibre of client than either your or I... Garbage In = Garbage Out, gilding the lily vs. polishing the turds etc.http://prorecordingworkshop.lefora.com/forum/category/the-mastering-room-hosted-by-dave-collins/http://repforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/board,30.0.htmlAt the end of the day it's also a service industry. If the client wants it louder, and we warn them of the loss of fidelity inherent in that decision, and they accept that, then is the mastering engineer really to blame?I'd say mastering was the last port of call for QC before pressing and distribution. Musically, the most important aspects are great talent with great songs, great players in a great room with great instruments/mics/outboard, a great engineer and producer, and a great mix engineer. These all come before mastering both literally and figuratively in terms of final sound quality, and overall musicality.Having said that, I agree that with poor source files to work with, you may have to get really deep and dirty in the mastering to pull out something that sounds even half decent. They are the most challenging projects!
Quote from: Babaluma on October 02, 2012, 11:47:16 AMQuote from: FrenchChemist on October 02, 2012, 10:33:00 AMQuote from: LFF on September 10, 2012, 06:03:29 PMQuote from: wiinippongamer on September 10, 2012, 05:55:15 PMIt's of my understanding that SACD when downconverting to redbook are indistiguishable in a blind test. Any thoughts on this?If you take the DSD and downconvert to redbook with a good algorithm, then it should be indistinguishable in a double-blind test. This converts the bit rate and sample rate but the mastering stays the same.As I said...it's all in the mastering.Then what's the point of SACD and 24/96 files, besides charging you more for the same music? Are there realy no improvement in 24/96 playback files over 16/44.1?Why do RB usually sound slightly less smooth than vinyl rips? Just the mastering?Should I downconvert all my 24/96 files to 20(16?)/44.1 and therefore save HDD space? I know I'd love to!Agree with French Chemist.I can often tell 16/44 from 24/96 lossless files in a blind ABX listening test with some material (quality recordings and mixes with decent dynamic range). Not always though. Lady Gaga sounds as bad at 16/44 as she does in 128kbps mp3. It can be very subjective, I know, but I tend to notice it in the feeling of "space" (not necessarily just the reverb cues/tails and stereo width), and the "deep black wall" upon which the music is projected.And you don't "downconvert to Red Book". The Red Book standard is a physical media authoring standard, of which 16 bit word length and 44.1kHz sample rate are just parts.And mastering CAN make a huge difference, that's true, but on good source files I'd say it's usually only about the final 2% icing on the cake. A good mastering engineer knows when to leave well enough alone, and when processing is required. If it's a great source and will end up on CD, then all that's to do is top and tail, gap, perhaps volume match or SRC if needed, dither down to 16 bit, author the DDP, upload it for the artists/pressing plant and be done with it. No audio processing needed.You can often tell a difference because high res is often mastered better than the CD releases. 2% icing on the cake? You really need to pick up a good book on mastering and read it.While it can be true that an excellent source might need very little mastering the truth of the matter is that we rarely ever get an excellent source that needs little to no mastering. For example, the RHCP "Californication" original source files sound amazing and have great dynamic range but thanks to shitty mastering, the vast majority of people will never know that and still...those excellent source files still need mastering. Now imagine a shitty source like John Lennon's Imagine. That thing is so bad it needs a lot of dedicated work to get it to sound good. The HiFi labels even gave up on the original and just went for a remix which, IMHO, still sounds like shit. Mastering isn't the icing on the cake. Mastering is the master chef that bakes it and decorates it.Even though it's the same ingredients with little variety from cake to cake, the chef determines whether you get this:or this:Even a diamond needs polishing.
I do hope things have reached a literal "peak" in the loudness wars, and that we will see a return to more sane levels over the coming years. I am definitely seeing this in my studio, but that could just be the people that are choosing to work with me. I guess being your own boss is great as we can pick and choose the projects we work on.Not sure who Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab are, will look them up.
Quote from: Babaluma on October 07, 2012, 10:18:06 AMI do hope things have reached a literal "peak" in the loudness wars, and that we will see a return to more sane levels over the coming years. I am definitely seeing this in my studio, but that could just be the people that are choosing to work with me. I guess being your own boss is great as we can pick and choose the projects we work on.Not sure who Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab are, will look them up.What I am starting to see is that DR is ever so slightly creeping back up, from DR5 to DR6 and DR7. Very mild improvement, but better than nothing. What's NOT good is NO ONE is using limiters anymore. I don't understand how somebody can master an album like this and sleep at night, money or no. You've seriously never heard of MFSL?
Quote from: LFF on October 06, 2012, 10:00:19 PMQuote from: Anathallo on October 06, 2012, 09:55:31 PMLFF, are any of your masters actually available for purchase? You seem to talk about them a lot - and I'd love to be able to relate to what you're talking about. Yup...a lot actually are....http://doublethumb.bandcamp.com/track/midnight-lover-2and some are free...http://www.testtone.net/mixes.htmlFirst one's not my cup of tea, but I'm enjoying the Saturnine mix - thanks for sharing! Do you have a full list some place?P.S. DR over 9000!
Quote from: Anathallo on October 06, 2012, 09:55:31 PMLFF, are any of your masters actually available for purchase? You seem to talk about them a lot - and I'd love to be able to relate to what you're talking about. Yup...a lot actually are....http://doublethumb.bandcamp.com/track/midnight-lover-2and some are free...http://www.testtone.net/mixes.html
LFF, are any of your masters actually available for purchase? You seem to talk about them a lot - and I'd love to be able to relate to what you're talking about.
I don't know who you are, but you're right in that your statements are false. I own the rights in the master recordings for the song "Midnight Lover" you linked below. I also own 50% of the publishing copyright. Bandcamp traces for me users who click on my bandcamp profile and that's who I traced you. I reported you to moderator. Quote from: Anathallo on October 06, 2012, 10:14:53 PMQuote from: LFF on October 06, 2012, 10:00:19 PMQuote from: Anathallo on October 06, 2012, 09:55:31 PMLFF, are any of your masters actually available for purchase? You seem to talk about them a lot - and I'd love to be able to relate to what you're talking about. Yup...a lot actually are....http://doublethumb.bandcamp.com/track/midnight-lover-2and some are free...http://www.testtone.net/mixes.htmlFirst one's not my cup of tea, but I'm enjoying the Saturnine mix - thanks for sharing! Do you have a full list some place?P.S. DR over 9000!
Quote from: doublethumb on October 09, 2012, 11:06:20 PMI don't know who you are, but you're right in that your statements are false. I own the rights in the master recordings for the song "Midnight Lover" you linked below. I also own 50% of the publishing copyright. Bandcamp traces for me users who click on my bandcamp profile and that's who I traced you. I reported you to moderator. Quote from: Anathallo on October 06, 2012, 10:14:53 PMQuote from: LFF on October 06, 2012, 10:00:19 PMQuote from: Anathallo on October 06, 2012, 09:55:31 PMLFF, are any of your masters actually available for purchase? You seem to talk about them a lot - and I'd love to be able to relate to what you're talking about. Yup...a lot actually are....http://doublethumb.bandcamp.com/track/midnight-lover-2and some are free...http://www.testtone.net/mixes.htmlFirst one's not my cup of tea, but I'm enjoying the Saturnine mix - thanks for sharing! Do you have a full list some place?P.S. DR over 9000!Hi Val!LFF is me...Luis...same guy you have on Facebook. What he meant by masters was "mastering work". You own the actual masters...that's correct but I did the mastering on some of your songs...including your single "Hollow". I'm actually credited on them.
