The Audiophile's Dilemma.....

[Mallette]

We have discussed this before, they record for the masses, they mix for the masses, and they master for the masses. Record companies are in the business of selling art to as many people as possible.

 

Not so much for purposes of debate...but that tells you that either the masses prefer their wind chimes clipped, compressed, and EQ'd or the producers are idiots.  Whether they really liked the music or not I've never had a single person in my listening room who heard pure master recording and said it had too great a dynamic range, not enough distortion, and the low end isn't mushy enough.

 

It has remained my belief that the origins of severe compression in popular music compositionally as well as in production came from the automobile radio of the pre-AC era when anything quiet wouldn't be heard.  Admittedly, that doesn't explain its persistence.

 

Dave

[JJkizak]

I'm not sure what causes digital distortion but I sure get a slug of it intermediately (sometimes) on my FM tuner section of some of the FM-HD stations on the Denon X-4000. Then again other stations are consistantly pristinely beautiful. Yet

when the distortion occurrs there is no fading of the signal and it will last for a couple days then miraculously recover. Drives me nuts even with the outside antenna. The distortion mainfests itself mostly in the voices and speech syllabies.

JJK

[Chris A]

Digital "copies" are clones, not copies.  Think of it this way, if one byte of data is incorrect in an executable digital file, chances are that it won't run on the computer.  As far as technology used to create and manipulate digital music files, it's the same as executable files in terms of correctness (freedom from errors) - and by far the chances are that we're talking about exact clones - no errors whatsoever.

 

What I believe you are quoting from the "mastering guys" is that they want access to the original digital file to copy to a new hard drive because they fear that what others are calling "digital copies"...aren't.  People add distortion to digital music files (i.e., no other sources of error exist) unlike analog tracks which get most of their degradation from copying and line transmission noise.

 

Chris

Edited September 11, 2015 by Chris A

[Mallette]

I'm not sure what causes digital distortion but I sure get a slug of it intermediately (sometimes) on my FM tuner section of some of the FM-HD stations on the Denon X-4000.

 

It isn't distortion unless there is a problem in your Denon that is creating it.  You're hearing what happens when all the information isn't there and it is likely due to something in the atmosphere or from being in a fringe signal area.  You can see it in video, especially from satellite, when a storm is approaching,  Image (and sound) will break up. 

 

You are still getting "bit perfect" but just not all the bits.  If it were a computer it would crash, but as the bits are being turned into an analog signal you just get an incomplete analog signal.

 

Dave

[Chris A]

I'm not sure what causes digital distortion but I sure get a slug of it intermediately (sometimes) on my FM tuner section of some of the FM-HD stations on the Denon X-4000.

 

This is pretty easy to explain: once the "HD" lock is broken due to signal-to-noise issues with a particular station that is broadcasting HD, your HD-capable tuner reverts back to the analog FM signal, which will typically be a few milliseconds ahead of the HD signal (it takes a few ms of processing and buffering to play digital HD FM music streams). Once the HD signal strength becomes strong enough for an HD lock, the tuner will switch back to HD, with a very small amount of delay in the music stream.  When it shifts in and out of HD, you will hear this over and over again - and it's quite annoying in my experience.

 

Chris

Edited September 11, 2015 by Chris A

[Mallette]

When it shifts in and out of HD, you will hear this over and over again - and it's quite annoying in my experience.

 

I've never seen an HD radio, but I know our local NPR stations have HD channels but they broadcast a different program from the analog.  I wasn't aware that many are simulcasts.

 

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

That was an awesome video by Toole. He says that the state of the art is, and will be, active powered loudspeakers.

What is Spinorama? Anyone heard of that?

[Chris A]

I've never seen an HD radio, but I know our local NPR stations have HD channels but they broadcast a different program from the analog. I wasn't aware that many are simulcasts.

 

There are usually two digital channels alongside the analog signal and HD1 is usually simulcasting the FM analog signal, while HD2 is something different.

[Jim Naseum]

If you go to minute 8:30-12:30 on the following video, you might see and hear the state of the art (SOTA) for the year 2000 in terms of pop music mastering techniques, and how they achieve it (Warning: this will likely turn your stomach...)

I believe that it's driven by the clients--record producers and the artists themselves that are worried that if they make their music more natural sounding, they won't sell as many tracks online.

Also note that there are two types of digital albums: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/143320-loudness-war-and-the-dynamic-range-dr-database-some-observations/?p=1630561

Chris

Tiresome. Just listening to his sample made my head hurt. I prefer the sound of my 50s and 60s records, even with a few scratches. I don't like music clubs either where the sound is rubbish. Old records are a joy.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Mallette]

Old records are a joy.

 

Damn sure are, and there is a reason for it.  I've a 1944 mint 12" 78 by the Benny Goodman Orchestra with Gene Krupa doing "Sing, Sing, Sing" that, for me, is complete bliss.  One microphone right where my ears want to be.  Not a lot of dynamic range in the performance given the nature of the piece so no compression.  Yes, pre-emphasis from a pretty close to RIAA curve but that is all. 

 

It's PURE music that is about the performance, not the production. 

 

Today's formats may be flat from zero to light, beyond human abilities in dynamics, and be silent as space...but you CAN'T FIX CRAP. 

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

It seems evident to me that the "medium is the message."  Whatever else is said about tapes, records and CDs and digital files, the underlying meaning is that THIS THING is the art itself. It's not a reflection of art, a recording of art, a capture of art, it IS the art.

 

That's really what Katz' message is in that nice video about distortion. He's saying that HE was the artist, and that's essentially true. And before him, came the mixer who painted with his levels and pans, and before him came the engineer choosing mics and placements. These platters and tapes are works of a special kind of art. If you want the art of a cellist, you have to go sit in front of a cellist. That's a whole 'nother can of fish.

[JJkizak]

So after all of this doctoring what happens further when it passes through an FM-HD station?

JJK

[Travis In Austin]

Digital "copies" are clones, not copies. Think of it this way, if one byte of data is incorrect in an executable digital file, chances are that it won't run on the computer. As far as technology used to create and manipulate digital music files, it's the same as executable files in terms of correctness (freedom from errors) - and by far the chances are that we're talking about exact clones - no errors whatsoever.

What I believe you are quoting from the "mastering guys" is that they want access to the original digital file to copy to a new hard drive because they fear that what others are calling "digital copies"...aren't. People add distortion to digital music files (i.e., no other sources of error exist) unlike analog tracks which get most of their degradation from copying and line transmission noise.

Chris

I think that is true. They want the original hardrive from the mix, without limiting, compression, other processing because that all adds degradation.

I have a question, on these major remastering projects using outside mastering engineers, which most utilize, they hand fly those hard drives out to the mastering studio.

Why can't they send these as files over the internet? They are on the hard drive as files. I know they are giant, but people buy giant HD files and download them every day.

Is there some degradation in the process of sending the file? Assuming same format, no conversion. Do they not sent them by upload and download because of security issues, they don't want risk of files being stolen, copied, etc?

[Chris A]

Old records are a joy.

 

Damn sure are, and there is a reason for it.  I've a 1944 mint 12" 78 by the Benny Goodman Orchestra with Gene Krupa doing "Sing, Sing, Sing" that, for me, is complete bliss.  One microphone right where my ears want to be.  Not a lot of dynamic range in the performance given the nature of the piece so no compression.  Yes, pre-emphasis from a pretty close to RIAA curve but that is all. 

 

It's PURE music that is about the performance, not the production. 

 

Today's formats may be flat from zero to light, beyond human abilities in dynamics, and be silent as space...but you CAN'T FIX CRAP.

 

This example brings an interesting perspective to me personally.  My old man used to play Mr. Goodman's music and others from the swing era quite often when I was young and of course there were the old movies that further reinforced the gestalt of that time in my working memory.

 

I remember about a decade ago that I came across a modern variation on that same tune, this time called Sing, Sang, Sung by Gordon Goodwin's Big Phat Band on multi-channel DVD-A (which I recommend as your single reference disc for anyone with a multi-channel setup).  I was mesmerized by the sound.

 

Now, no one would pretend to confuse the recording quality of the mid-1940s mono onto shellac (probably directly - before good tape machines existed) with the modern DVD-A.  But my mind took me back to the feel of that earlier composition, and I was, for the moment, captivated enough by the music of the new composition to wonder why it wouldn't chart well in the early 2000s, i.e., I thought it was a spectacular hit. 

 

Then I began to think why I was so taken by it.  I have to admit that my subconsciousness was playing tricks on my judgment.  In fact, I was remembering the smells and the feel of the material of my father's old WWII pea coat that I wore all the way through college in the 70s.  Then I became aware of how even old movies from prior decades are judged by an unequal standard to today's movies and quickly remembered how that phenomenon occurs...yet again in this case.

 

Past memories play strongly with our judgments and while I'm not saying that the 1940s swing tunes weren't great in their own right, I'm saying that they simply cannot compete with today's musical tastes unless the "nostalgia factor" is turned up all the way past any other set of judgment criteria,  The memories feel good and familiar in today's world that consistently feels alien, hostile, and unpredictable. 

 

I believe that sometimes we talk past each other here without acknowledging this occurrence.  That also includes music from our own childhood and young adult years. I can't always separate these feelings from the judgments that my own children might feel, so I tend to "close the book" on prior decades of music before my time and try to remember that the music of my youth isn't today's music anymore.  It's quite difficult to remember this, IMO, but collectively, I strongly believe that we must acknowledge that it is the mid 2010s - not 30 and 40 years earlier.  I keep moving in my music tastes because of this fact.  I don't even try to do this for classical music since the music itself is played over and over again on modern instruments and modern recordings and is actually made new again because of this phenomenon.  YMMV.

 

However, with the above revelations of the "trashing of popular recorded music" and even my own grown children's nostalgia for the music of my youth, it gets difficult to remember sometimes.  One of the ways that I keep moving along is to sort the DR Database for titles by year, starting with the most current year (2015 of this writing) and look at the highest DR rating by year for albums that I haven't heard. 

 

I've found some interesting and excellent new music this way that hasn't been trashed. 

 

Highly recommended.

 

Chris

Edited September 11, 2015 by Chris A

[Chris A]

I have a question, on these major remastering projects using outside mastering engineers, which most utilize, they hand fly those hard drives out to the mastering studio. Why can't they send these as files over the internet? They are on the hard drive as files. I know they are giant, but people buy giant HD files and download them every day. Is there some degradation in the process of sending the file? Assuming same format, no conversion. Do they not sent them by upload and download because of security issues, they don't want risk of files being stolen, copied, etc?

 

Perhaps what is happening is that they're sending the entire mix library to the mastering house - not just the final mix tracks.  If it were just the final mix, then it would be trivial to send by dropbox or even email - without any errors or degradation.

 

So the bottom line is that the mastering engineers are reaching into the mixing engineer's domain again.  I can understand why they're doing it--if they are trying to retain fidelity.  However, I also see a great deal of "make it 20 dB louder" happening still.

 

One of the most interesting events that occurred in recent memory is that Norah Jones allowed all of her albums to date (2012, that is) to be completely remixed and re-released at higher dynamic range level - usually about 2-4 dB greater dynamic range/crest factor.  These discs are on the Analogue Productions label as SACDs, and are typically a bit pricey, but they are worth the money, IMHO.

 

Chris

Edited September 11, 2015 by Chris A

[Travis In Austin]

I have a question, on these major remastering projects using outside mastering engineers, which most utilize, they hand fly those hard drives out to the mastering studio. Why can't they send these as files over the internet? They are on the hard drive as files. I know they are giant, but people buy giant HD files and download them every day. Is there some degradation in the process of sending the file? Assuming same format, no conversion. Do they not sent them by upload and download because of security issues, they don't want risk of files being stolen, copied, etc?

Perhaps what is happening is that they're sending the entire mix library to the mastering house - not just the final mix tracks. If it were just the final mix, then it would be trivial to send by dropbox or even email - without any errors or degradation.

So the bottom line is that the mastering engineers are reaching into the mixing engineer's domain again. I can understand why they're doing it--if they are trying to retain fidelity. However, I also see a great deal of "make it 20 dB louder" happening still.

One of the most interesting events that occurred in recent memory is that Norah Jones allowed all of her albums to date (2012, that is) to be completely remixed and re-released at higher dynamic range level - usually about 2-4 dB greater dynamic range/crest factor. These discs are on the Analogue Productions label as SACDs, and are typically a bit pricey, but they are worth the money, IMHO.

Chris

Not the guys I am talking about, the Trinity, Grundman, Ludwig and resently passed away, Doug Sax. Unless they were hired to do the mix they don't mess with that, but all of them are widely published as wanting the highest resolution, closest copy to the original mix master as possible, preferably the original hardrive that the mix was recorded onto.

It must be a security thing.

[Chris A]

Unless they were hired to do the mix they don't mess with that, but all of them are widely published as wanting the highest resolution, closest copy to the original mix master as possible, preferably the original hardrive that the mix was recorded onto...It must be a security thing.

 

This is interesting: if they are remastering anyway to "improve the sound" why wouldn't they start with making a new mix?  The implications of what you say are fairly enormous: if these outside guys want the original mix instead of the mix tracks, then what they are doing is "re-icing the cake" to make it louder.  Otherwise, I've found that having access to the original before-mixer tracks would be the way to truly recapture higher fidelity and go around all the damage done decades ago by the technology used then (i.e., not digital) to mix and master the albums.  YMMV.

 

I agree that it's probably a security thing--although they probably wouldn't send the archive copy on the original media but a digital copy made from the original - and on a SSD or flash memory drive that doesn't care if it gets booted, melted and/or smashed by UPS on the way to the remastering guys. 

 

If it were the original, I would think that the remastering guys would "go to the mountain"...so to speak.

 

Chris

Edited September 11, 2015 by Chris A

[Travis In Austin]

Unless they were hired to do the mix they don't mess with that, but all of them are widely published as wanting the highest resolution, closest copy to the original mix master as possible, preferably the original hardrive that the mix was recorded onto...It must be a security thing.

This is interesting: if they are remastering anyway to "improve the sound" why wouldn't they start with making a new mix? The implications of what you say are fairly enormous: if these outside guys want the original mix instead of the mix tracks, then what they are doing is "re-icing the cake" to make it louder. Otherwise, I've found that having access to the original before-mixer tracks would be the way to truly recapture higher fidelity and go around all the damage done decades ago by the technology used then (i.e., not digital) to mix and master the albums. YMMV.

I agree that it's probably a security thing--although they probably wouldn't send the archive copy on the original media but a digital copy made from the original - and on a SSD or flash memory drive that doesn't care if it gets booted, melted and/or smashed by UPS on the way to the remastering guys.

If it were the original, I would think that the remastering guys would "go to the mountain"...so to speak.

Chris

It depends if the tracking tape is still available, in a lot of cases it is, but in more cases it is not available. Then you have the problem with the board, is it still available, did it have a sonic signature, are the amps still around?

There are major technical issues, and then you get into the legal ones, who has to authorize, give clerances, etc.

[DrWho]

There are a lot of things the professionals in the music industry do / believe / ask for that is completely counter to reality and what is actually happening. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter that their perceptions are wrong if it results in the quality art they turn out. Most racecar drivers fall into that category too.....super horrible understanding of vehicle physics, and yet they're able to get that car around the track faster than any engineer on the pit crew.

 

Unfortunately most streamed audio doesn't use error correction, and any timing irregularities manifest themselves as jitter. In a real system not limited by idealistic thinking, I could totally see how transferring from one medium to another could result in very minor artifacts...

 

The bits on your spreadsheet and executable don't have the same absolute time dependencies.

Edited September 11, 2015 by DrWho

[DrWho]

Not the guys I am talking about, the Trinity, Grundman, Ludwig and resently passed away, Doug Sax. Unless they were hired to do the mix they don't mess with that, but all of them are widely published as wanting the highest resolution, closest copy to the original mix master as possible, preferably the original hardrive that the mix was recorded onto. It must be a security thing.

 

 

It's because there are always glitches and bit errors when people rip CDR's and the like. Really, it's just way easier at the end of the day to have the real source. Less unknowns to deal with.

 

Also, having confidence in the quality of the source changes the way one hears it...plus there's the whole image of taking care of everything as best as possible. In some ways it may just be a manifestation of the personalities of the people that excel at these jobs - this crazy loving sensitive attention to detail trying to preserve the beauty of the art. It's entirely an emotional process - no room for logic and the like.

Edited September 11, 2015 by DrWho