CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS
Lobby => Music and Recordings => Topic started by: LFF on September 10, 2012, 05:21:56 PM
-
Old argument...perhaps new to many people who visit here.
Is high resolution always better? Is a direct DSD rip better than standard 16/44.1 resolution?
The answer I always give is the following: It depends on the mastering and the chain!
Was the recording taken from the proper master tape? Was it transferred correctly? Was it mastered correctly? These are all questions that come into play.
Recently I have undertaken the task of building a dac that can playback native DSD files. These are the same files that are present on SACD's (aka HIGH RES!). While playing back some of the DSD files I have, I noticed that once again, the same questions come into play. facepalm
Take the following example. I have a native DSD rip of "Brother In Arms" by Dire Straights.
Immediately upon playback I notice that it is indeed taken from the master tape BUT it was not mastered correctly. It's loud and contains distortions that can be easily fixed. Just to verify, I pulled up the waveforms and saw the following.
SACD:
(http://i745.photobucket.com/albums/xx92/FirePhoenixAudio/YLT-SACD.jpg)
My remaster:
(http://i745.photobucket.com/albums/xx92/FirePhoenixAudio/YLT-LFF.jpg)
While you might not be able to A/B it by ear....the difference should be obvious. poo
Why....WHY would a mastering engineer choose to push the levels that high on a master whose resolution should be used for good and not for the loudness wars?! facepalm Here we have the chance to get something close to the master tape and instead we get something MUCH WORSE than the first CD release. facepalm poo
Always be careful where you spend your hard earned money. Higher resolution copies (which tend to be more expensive too!) aren't always better! :)p2
-
It's of my understanding that SACD when downconverting to redbook are indistiguishable in a blind test. Any thoughts on this?
-
It'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.
-
There's theory and then there's practice. I'm not sure that anything more than 20-bits is really necessary, but I have digitized vinyl that extends past 50Khz so clearly the engineers at Sony and Philips were wrong when they decided that 44.1 was good enough for anybody. The whole idea of 32-bit audio is just stupid. The sigma-delta DACs can't process it, and anything actually recorded at resolutions that high would be so big as to be utterly impractical for storing or transferring. We're talking about a double-layer Blu-ray disc worth of capacity for a stereo album.
I suppose it would be a way to combat piracy though. Even people with fiber connections would be unlikely to pirate 100GB albums, and even if they would, who has the hdd space to put them anywhere? It would also bring the multi-disc changer back from the grave.
In practice, anybody can ruin anything. I have redbook discs that sound absolutely fantastic - DCC, MFSL, and AP golds, XRCDs, K2 CDs, and SHMs. I've also heard (and have owned) lousy sounding SACDs, DVD-As, and 180 and 200g vinyl.
It's absolutely the mixing and mastering engineers that make the sound, NOT the medium.
-
For me the biggest problem is knowing the quality of a recording BEFORE purchasing.
There's http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ which I try to contribute to, but still.... it's not a comprehensive list of everything.
The high res versions of CDs I already own sound better to my ears - but is that the high res? Or is that a different master of the same tracks, re-released as high res?
I buy most of my music from www.qobuz.com, but even still there's some pretty crappy stuff on there.
-
I guarrantee to it's the better mastering on the hi-res version.
-
With vinyl the source is even more important than with high resolution digital formats. There's a big difference between "cut from the original master tapes", cut from an analog 1:1 copy of the master tapes, and cut from a 24/96 file that was created from the master tapes. Then there's the guys that cut their vinyl from redbook masters - those guys are known as assholes.
-
LFF, I thought there was no master "tape" for BIA (one of the first full digital recordings in rock history) ???
I agree this SACD is poo (except for the quieter MCH mix), especially since the original CD had tremendous DR!
When done properly (i.e. with good masters), SACD have a more organic (close to vinyls) sound than redbook disc IMOHO.
Recent Dire Straits SACDs are hit and miss, depending on the mastering.
It's sad to see so many great mastering engineers like Bob Ludwig doing crappy brickwalled, treble-boosted remasters.
As for BIA, I have yet to find a master, original CD and vinyls included, that doesn't sound bright and clinical, as if the bass was shelved in the original mix.
Luis, do you have any EQ tips to make it sound warmer, less clinical?
-
LFF, I thought there was no master "tape" for BIA (one of the first full digital recordings in rock history) ???
I agree this SACD is poo (except for the quieter MCH mix), especially since the original CD had tremendous DR!
When done properly (i.e. with good masters), SACD have a more organic (close to vinyls) sound than redbook disc IMOHO.
Recent Dire Straits SACDs are hit and miss, depending on the mastering.
It's sad to see so many great mastering engineers like Bob Ludwig doing crappy brickwalled, treble-boosted remasters.
As for BIA, I have yet to find a master, original CD and vinyls included, that doesn't sound bright and clinical, as if the bass was shelved in the original mix.
Luis, do you have any EQ tips to make it sound warmer, less clinical?
LOL...you're right. I always call masters, master tapes even if they aren't actual "tapes".
As for EQ tips...which song from the album do you want to EQ?
-
The 24/96 SACD remasters of The Who's "Tommy" were a travesty of over limiting. I downloaded the FLAC versions from that HDAudio place. Not recommended. I didn't bother with "Quadrophenia".
It doesn't matter what sample rate or word length you use, if either the song writing is shit, the source recording is shit, the mix is shit, or the mastering is shit. GIGO :)
-
As for EQ tips...which song from the album do you want to EQ?
Well, all of them, of course :)p13
I know the snare from "So far Away" is painful to my ears. And guitars from "Money For Nothing" sound thinny, very different from Knopfler's usual sound.
I think the Vertigo 1st pressing CDs of other albums are very good (much better than the 1996 remasters) but compared to good vinyl rips (I love the Simply Vinyls) they sound a little bit less musical. Is it because of the limitation to 44 KHz of redbook?
-
As for EQ tips...which song from the album do you want to EQ?
Well, all of them, of course :)p13
I know the snare from "So far Away" is painful to my ears. And guitars from "Money For Nothing" sound thinny, very different from Knopfler's usual sound.
I think the Vertigo 1st pressing CDs of other albums are very good (much better than the 1996 remasters) but compared to good vinyl rips (I love the Simply Vinyls) they sound a little bit less musical. Is it because of the limitation to 44 KHz of redbook?
I have the 1st japan issue by Nippon Phonogram Co. Ltd. Tokyo Japan. If you want, you can upload a part of a song and we can all follow along in a mastering workshop.
-
Luis, I'd love to have a mastering workshop :P.
But beware: I'm a total noob (have barely started Bob Katz book) :-[.
Have you listened to the recent Warner/Rhino DS vinyls remastered by Bernie Grundman?
What do you think of them?
Does the Japanese 1st sound like the XRCD?
-
I'm trying to understand audio a bit more, is this a good book on the subject?
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Digital-Audio-Sixth-Edition/dp/0071663460/ref=pd_ybh_5
-
I'm trying to understand audio a bit more, is this a good book on the subject?
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Digital-Audio-Sixth-Edition/dp/0071663460/ref=pd_ybh_5 (http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Digital-Audio-Sixth-Edition/dp/0071663460/ref=pd_ybh_5)
See this thread here:
http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,481.0.html
-
I'm trying to understand audio a bit more, is this a good book on the subject?
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Digital-Audio-Sixth-Edition/dp/0071663460/ref=pd_ybh_5 (http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Digital-Audio-Sixth-Edition/dp/0071663460/ref=pd_ybh_5)
See this thread here:
http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,481.0.html
seriously awesome, all my questions answered. thank you
-
I'm trying to understand audio a bit more, is this a good book on the subject?
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Digital-Audio-Sixth-Edition/dp/0071663460/ref=pd_ybh_5
It's actually THE reference regarding digital audio, however, it is a very academical point of view and more aimed at an electronics engineer than anything else.
-
Curtis Roads "The Computer Music Tutorial" does a better job of explaining it all with nicer diagrams for the layman, although it's much bigger, heavier, and more expensive. I have both and prefer the Roads text, although the 6th edition of Pohlmann is way more up to date wrt things like Blu-Ray etc. The Bob Katz text is always well worth a read too.
-
It'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!
-
It'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.
-
Actually, except that I find that most CDs are a little rougher than vinyls, I have no pre-conceived opinion regarding the sampling rate subject (I already have accepted that 16 bits are enough for DR).
I am just wondering, from a practicle point of view, why should the music industry bother with anything above 16/44 if these playback files already contain more info than we can hear. If 16/44 is more that enough, 24/96 (and beyond) are then wasted bandwidth and storage space. They sould concentrate on giving us better masters via first-rate digital transfers and top-rate mastering.
I also have several TB of music files and resampling my 24/96 files to 16/44 would greatly reduce my storage problems and allow me to back-up the files :P.
-
I'm trying to understand audio a bit more, is this a good book on the subject?
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Digital-Audio-Sixth-Edition/dp/0071663460/ref=pd_ybh_5
It's actually THE reference regarding digital audio, however, it is a very academical point of view and more aimed at an electronics engineer than anything else.
thank you.
-
It'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? facepalm
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:
(http://thedishtoweldiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/bad-cake.jpg)
or this:
(http://michelejustmarry.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/cake-1.jpg)
Even a diamond needs polishing. ;)
-
The Production Advice blog can also be a help to budding mastering engineers. http://productionadvice.co.uk/ (http://productionadvice.co.uk/)
-
LFF, though you didn't directly answered my questions :D, I gather that if I don't intend to do any mastering job on an audio file and just want to play it, 16/44.1 should be enough for my ears.
That's good new for my HDD.
How do you downconvert 26/96 to 16/44 without loosing any relevant audio info ?
What (free?) software and settings should I use?
-
If you want to be anal about it you can use SoX (http://sox.sourceforge.net/SoX/Resampling).
-
If you want to be anal about it you can use SoX (http://sox.sourceforge.net/SoX/Resampling).
As an interesting aside, you're undoubtedly familiar with the (in?)famous "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback" study, which compared hi-res content to content downsampled in real time. The part that less people are aware of is that (AFAIK) they didn't ever bother dithering when they converted from hi-res to 16/44...and still nobody noticed a difference!
-
Yep.
Likely not necessary, but when you're OCD and it doesn't cost you anything but time you might as well go overkill though.
-
Yep.
Likely not necessary, but when you're OCD and it doesn't cost you anything but time you might as well go overkill though.
Oh, absolutely, especially with modern CPUs...
-
It'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? facepalm
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:
(http://thedishtoweldiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/bad-cake.jpg)
or this:
(http://michelejustmarry.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/cake-1.jpg)
Even a diamond needs polishing. ;)
Where might one come across the original Californication source files?
-
Internets...
-
Where might one come across the original Californication source files?
Nope...not the internet.
There is an ALTERNATE mix on the internet but it's not the Californication that's on the album. I'm talking about the actual multi-tracks.
-
Ah ok, I just recall seeing "unmastered" copies floating around.
-
Ah ok, I just recall seeing "unmastered" copies floating around.
Yup...that's the alternate mix.
-
I just "Acquired" the alternate mix version, it's certainly much better than the retail CD, recording quality seems about average though, and there's still significant compression (not too bad, DR10). Makes me curious to hear the unmastered version, but lack the ninja skills to obtain them :( .
-
Out of interest, as far as Californication is concerned, would this (http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/479/caliw.jpg) be even vaguely comparable to the multi-tracks? It's apparently different again to the alternate mix knocking around...
-
Out of interest, as far as Californication is concerned, would this (http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/479/caliw.jpg (http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/479/caliw.jpg)) be even vaguely comparable to the multi-tracks? It's apparently different again to the alternate mix knocking around...
VERY COOL!
That is the actual sleeve of the alternate mix. The timings match the alternate mix.
Unfortunately, the alternate mix does not sound much like the multi-tracks...then again...it depends how you mix the multi-tracks. :)p2
-
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. :)p3
-
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. :)p3
Yup...a lot actually are....
http://doublethumb.bandcamp.com/track/midnight-lover-2 (http://doublethumb.bandcamp.com/track/midnight-lover-2)
and 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. :)p3
Yup...a lot actually are....
http://doublethumb.bandcamp.com/track/midnight-lover-2 (http://doublethumb.bandcamp.com/track/midnight-lover-2)
and some are free...
http://www.testtone.net/mixes.html
First 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!
-
It'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? facepalm
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:
(http://thedishtoweldiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/bad-cake.jpg)
or this:
(http://michelejustmarry.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/cake-1.jpg)
Even a diamond needs polishing. ;)
And facepalm 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://prorecordingworkshop.lefora.com/forum/category/the-mastering-room-hosted-by-dave-collins/)
http://repforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/board,30.0.html (http://repforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/board,30.0.html)
At 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! :)
-
It'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? facepalm
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:
(http://thedishtoweldiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/bad-cake.jpg)
or this:
(http://michelejustmarry.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/cake-1.jpg)
Even a diamond needs polishing. ;)
And facepalm 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://prorecordingworkshop.lefora.com/forum/category/the-mastering-room-hosted-by-dave-collins/)
http://repforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/board,30.0.html (http://repforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/board,30.0.html)
At 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! :)
facepalm
Agree to disagree. :D
It seems we follow different schools of thought even though we have been mastering for about the same amount of time and probably within the same environments and people. Your school of thought is definitely the standard the industry seems to follow. You're also not the first person to laugh at my school of thought/advice.
I've actually pulled away from a lot of award winning mastering professionals, even the big-headed butt sniffers/kissers who live vicariously through them. You know the ones I am talking about. ;) :)p13 I no longer keep up with the forums or "state of the industry" as I frankly don't care enough about it anymore. Even the guys who write the books can't practice what they preach and that deserves no respect IMHO.
As for the bold part...that's where I call bullshit. True, it's a service industry but if they are coming to me, then it's because of my expertise in the matter and they will respect that. I don't barge into a doctors office and tell him how to do his job just because I am paying him. Likewise, I expect the same kind of respect. If my potential client disagrees, then I have no problem referring them to other mastering engineers...even Grammy award winners. It's a free world and if someone doesn't like my work, they can easily find the door.
I was recently on the phone a few days ago discussing a recent release that was brickwalled and was given the same excuse by the guy who did some of the work. The release was brickwalled and the EQ was off...way off! Why was the vocal EQ so off? Same excuse. I honesty feel that the whole excuse of "I just give them what they want..." is what is fucking up the music industry. I know we need to pay rent, buy equipment, ads, etc but shit...have some balls and take a stand. Is this how little we value our talent and listening skills?
This isn't a question of ego but rather one of ethics and professional responsibility. Most mastering engineers KNOW their stuff. If 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 then why the hell are engineers giving into the loss of fidelity by making things so damn loud? Be a fucking artist and don't do it!! When you give in to stupid requests like that...that's when it stops being art and becomes an offensive craft and WE are the ones who allow it to happen or not. Again...I understand that some people's priority is making money rather than remaining faithful to the arts.
I won't name drop here but I am more than happy to put up my masters up against some of these more famous pros. In fact, those who know me here are well aware that I often do exactly just that and they can comment on my work versus other work by bigger names. The feedback I get is usually enough to keep me happy and working. It's also a reason why my rates are so high.
Anyway...it is true...we are the final QC check but do we really ever get GREAT source files? I've done over 4,000 projects since I started and I can count the number of times I did NOTHING (excluding the usual volume matching, fades, track ordering, spacing, and DDP authoring, FTP uploading, etc) on ONE hand. I have no problem sending back a shitty mix to the mix engineer to re-do it. On many an occasion, I have done the re-mix work myself to save the client money. It could be I'm just too picky but I rather be picky than let stuff fall through the cracks because it's "good enough". If my clients want good enough...I refer them to Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs.
-
I think we actually agree on most points! Depends a lot on the genres you are working in too. I get a lot of electronic dance music and industrial projects in, but I also have a reputation for being "pro sound quality", i.e. "anti loudness war", so I am lucky that a lot of my clients respect the fact that I don't automatically crush everything that comes through the door. But not all of them! ;)
As for making money vs. making art, well that's a big issue for another thread, but I always try to do both if possible! :) I've also turned down some projects because the client wouldn't understand or accept my approach. But yes, we have to eat too!
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.
How are you getting the unmastered mix files from the artists for you to work on, vs. the "more famous pros" you mention, if you don't mind me asking? I'd love to hear a comparison! Not sure what your rates are, do you have a web site?
Yes, I do sometimes get great source files where I have to do very little, maybe nothing at all on a few tracks. But you're right, it's the exception, not the norm, mainly due, I think, to inadequate monitoring. My main point was that with great source files you may not need to do anything, and you seemed to be disagreeing with that, which I still don't really understand. So like I said, I think we actually agree on most things!
Not sure who Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab are, will look them up.
-
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.
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?
(http://www.head-fi.org/content/type/61/id/648347/)
-
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.
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?
(http://www.head-fi.org/content/type/61/id/648347/)
Nope, but just looked them up. Think I may have seen their page before. Fantastic website and I'll for sure be making some purchases of their recordings very soon!
NO ONE is using limiters any more? Are you sure? That's a bit of a blanket statement, and not true, cos I still use one! :) What a lot of people seem to be doing is using a combination of methods to achieve greater loudness. E.g. already starting with a mix where all the separate elements have been individually compressed and limited, and then hitting the ADC really hard (clipping) on the way back in, and then using software digital clippers and limiters after that to get it even louder.
When a client wants loudness, I have actually found that clipping some ADCs can be more transparent than using a software brick wall limiter (sometimes followed by a software limiter with the ceiling set at about -0.1 to -0.3dB to stop digital overs and ISPs, but in some cases, like you show, just BRICKED). But each track is different. I would be happy to upload some examples when I have the time.
Again, I'll say it's a service industry. I spend years building up a good working relationship with my clients. They know I am anti-loudness. But they will occasionally turn around and say to me, "a bit louder please, we want it to be 'competitive', in terms of this particular track in the same genre..." etc. And I can keep spouting the good book Katz at them until I am blue in the face, but if they want it louder then I'll make it louder. The client's wishes are ultimately more important to me than my personal notion of high fidelity sound. BTW I'm talking mainly about electronic dance and industrial music here, where for the past ten years or so, SLAMMED has been the norm. My masters have a much greater DR than most other tracks/albums in the genres mentioned though. I think it's not so much "sound quality vs. wanting to be paid", as it is trying to remain professional and maintain a good working relationship with clients. Some of you may think that's the same thing. :)
I try to educate, and as I said, I am seeing a slow return to more reasonable levels. There is absolutely no need for over compression or limiting when we can work in 32 bit float and 24 bit. It's a style and taste thing, so many people brought up on cheap ipads, mp3's and ear buds, grown up hearing the side-chain compressed/ultra limited sound etc., as I am sure has already been talked to death on here before. Tastes change, music changes, fingers crossed we are headed in the right direction! I'm sure the mid 90's to now period will be looked upon with utter shame in audio circles in the future, especially where artists don't keep, or loose the original unslammed mixes for any future HD remastering work. I mean, we see this kind of degradation in almost every popular genre now...
-
In the metal genre yes, nobody uses limiters anymore. Early to mid '00s releases were already DR6, but limiters were used to keep it slightly below or right at the 0dBFS limit without clipping. Now, nobody gives a shit. Digital clipping galore. What is good is the popular resurgence of vinyl means more vinyl editions, and more vinyl masters done by people who care about sound quality. Heavy metal at DR10+ is glorious.
-
Absolutely agree with you!
-
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.
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. :)p3
Yup...a lot actually are....
http://doublethumb.bandcamp.com/track/midnight-lover-2 (http://doublethumb.bandcamp.com/track/midnight-lover-2)
and some are free...
http://www.testtone.net/mixes.html
First 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!
-
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.
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. :)p3
Yup...a lot actually are....
http://doublethumb.bandcamp.com/track/midnight-lover-2 (http://doublethumb.bandcamp.com/track/midnight-lover-2)
and some are free...
http://www.testtone.net/mixes.html (http://www.testtone.net/mixes.html)
First 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. ;)
-
Ha ha ha!! Now I feel totally stupid!! :-) Luis, how the heck did I know? I did think it might be you, but from the other link I couldn't say...oh God I am BLUSHING!! :-) so to let everyone know this is the awesome engineer who mastered that track. And I am the most stupid person on the planet! :-)
Hire him. He is awesome!
enough....I am outta here before someone starts throwing rotten eggs or rotten tomatoes at me! :-)
Peace X
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.
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. :)p3
Yup...a lot actually are....
http://doublethumb.bandcamp.com/track/midnight-lover-2 (http://doublethumb.bandcamp.com/track/midnight-lover-2)
and some are free...
http://www.testtone.net/mixes.html (http://www.testtone.net/mixes.html)
First 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. ;)
-
Not at all! Great to see quality artist here! WELCOME! :)p5... an intro would be cool http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,302.0.html
-
That's a good show of effort!! The artist cares about his work and his copyright and his quality... :wheel:
-
Offered without comment. :&
http://www.audiostream.com/content/dsd-v-pcm-file-comparison-16441-2496-24192-64x-dsd-128x-dsd
-
Offered without comment. :&
http://www.audiostream.com/content/dsd-v-pcm-file-comparison-16441-2496-24192-64x-dsd-128x-dsd (http://www.audiostream.com/content/dsd-v-pcm-file-comparison-16441-2496-24192-64x-dsd-128x-dsd)
walk the plank2