A very interesting post on mastering recordings

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 7100 times.

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 20448
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« on: 24 Oct 2014, 12:01 pm »
A very interesting post on mastering recordings

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 20:32:12 -0400

Subject: Dr. AIX Post for Thursday, October 23, 2014

Dr. AIX

I know and count as friends a large number of professional recording engineers. Among them are Grammy nominees/winners and engineers that have worked with some of the biggest music acts on the planet (including the Stones, Diana Ross, Stevie Wonder etc). The recent AES Convention presented an opportunity to meet some new friends and catch up with s few old ones. And as you might have guessed, I brought up the subject of high-resolution audio to a number of them. Strolling the aisles of the show, I also stopped random individuals and asked them about high-resolution audio as well...a sort of "man in the aisles" impromptu poll.

Here's a brief report on my some of those conversations and the results of my questioning:

Outside of our little world...almost no one knows what high-resolution is or has even heard about it. This was quite surprising to me. Wouldn't you expect the engineers recording the next big hit or album would want to be current with the latest engineering trends? Well, perhaps they are...and high-resolution audio isn't one of them. Of roughly 20 people that I polled, only about 30% had any clue what high-resolution audio was. About half had heard the term but couldn't really provide any more information than, "it's when you use run Pro Tools at 96 kHz or higher, right". A couple of analog traditionalists brought up the resurgence of analog tape and vinyl LP in referring to high-resolution audio. When challenged I got the usual responses..."analog is infinite resolution", "I just like the sound of analog better", and "no one can tell the difference between a CD and high-res audio...so why bother?"

The reality is that engineers don't really have the facts and they don't really care. Their goal is to produce recordings that the labels and producers are willing to release...not ones that actually sound good.

Another interesting discussion that I had with more than one engineer is the lunacy of audiophiles. When I said that I owned and operated an audiophile record label, the responses ran the gamut from comments with a decidedly "Twilight Zone" cast or to ones that actually tried to understand the motivations of audiophiles. I think the best conversation I had was with a very successful engineer and studio owner (multiple facilities, in fact). When I mentioned some of the "accessories", "tweaks", and cable costs that are pitched to audiophiles, he rolled his eyes and said, "don't audiophiles know that we don't use any of that stuff while we're making records?" I responded that I think many are aware of the basics of audio production but they feel that they can get more out of the tracks with exotic cables, special treatments, and hocus pocus accessories.

This is a touchy area with professionals. They regard what they do as alchemy...a blend of technology, artisanship, and inspiration. What they hear from their monitor speakers (JBL, DynAudio, Tannoy, ATC etc...not Wilson or Magico) is what they approve. And the artists usually approve the final mixes and mastered tracks on their own home systems. I've seen artists approve final masters on the built in speakers on their tour busses.

Finally, there are occasions when you learn something from a veteran that you didn't know. I bumped into Allen Sides outside of the paper sessions area of the show and got chatting briefly. He told me that the Studer machines that The Beatles used form many of their early records had the low end restricted by an Abbey Road tech. I hadn't heard that before. He told me that he had heard that the machines wouldn't handle anything lower than 40-60 Hz and that's why the low end is so thin on those albums. Interesting.

Audio magazines would do a big favor to the audiophile community if they would concentrate on less pricey equipment and explore the studios where the music is actually produced.

If you would like to leave a comment on this article, you can do so at the RealHD-Audio.com site at the bottom of this article page. Click here to visit that page.

You are subscribed to this mailing list as villapatricia@msn.com. Please click here to modify your message preferences or to unsubscribe from any future mailings. We will respect all unsubscribe requests.

 
« Last Edit: 24 Oct 2014, 06:46 pm by James Tanner »

Early B.

Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #1 on: 24 Oct 2014, 01:49 pm »
Hmmm... very insightful.

I shouldn't be surprised that most recording engineers don't know or care about high resolution. It's analogous to most physicians who don't know much about health.

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 19854
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #2 on: 24 Oct 2014, 02:15 pm »
Around 2002/3 the famous classical Swedish BIS label recorded in DSD 64, but for financial reasons and inability to work with the System DSD, they down grade to PCM 24/44.

Seems now in 2012/13 they returned recording in ''hi-resolution'' again.
Hi-resolution for them are PCM 24-96!!  :duh:

For comparison ISO-MIKE from Ray Kimber recorded in DSD 128 and this year upgraded to DSD-256.
So the honors should be given to those who deserve.

By what I have see all big names in classical music do 24/96, only afew small classical labels use 24-192, and they fill their mouths saying this is high definition.  :banghead:

Wayner

Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #3 on: 24 Oct 2014, 03:36 pm »
Well, most bands record to make money. They may say they are in it for the music (which is somewhat true) but they are really in it for the money. We all need money to carry on. To make money, you need to sell in large quantities to the masses. If only 30% of audiophiles knew what a high-res format was, that means the rest of audiophiles either are ignorant of the files or don't care. The real clinker is that very few people that buy music can be coined as an audiophile. So to direct your sales to an infinitely small target group is just a bad idea, remember the money thing?

Many new albums are released on CD, vinyl and even a version of DVD/BR, and when you have bought that, they offer (inside the album) a pass-word to down load an even higher-res format from their website.

To say that the recording engineer doesn't care is just complete BS. They are craftsmen, just like anyone one else and they want to put out a good product. But the marketed group is not a bunch of audiophiles.....

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 19854
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #4 on: 24 Oct 2014, 03:58 pm »
I worked some time in the pro area, and in pop/rock the situation are even worse.
They think that audiophiles are boring or neurotic people obsessed with sound quality.

The guys working with pro sound, has no idea(but does not have the lightest idea even!) how is the sound of a good tube amp or the harmonics set of a single driver fullrange.

Russtafarian

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1117
  • Typical reaction to the music I play
Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #5 on: 24 Oct 2014, 05:57 pm »
Most recording and mixing engineers are just as obsessed and tweaky as audiophiles. Since they are creating music, rather than just reproducing it, they just play with a different set of toys and have a different perspective.  The good ones have amazing ears but they listen for different things than audiophiles.  They have their favorite vintage mics, and boutique preamps/compressors/EQs that they use to shape the sound of their recordings.  Most engineers like analog gear and tape because it brings a certain tone and texture to the sound, but it’s too time consuming and tedious to work exclusively in analog.  So the analog stuff gets recorded to digital and tossed into the DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) like everything else. 

Digital workflow is the name of the game now.  Most production is done with 48 to 64 bit DSP engines and is captured at 24 bit.  Sampling rates vary from 44 to 192 with 24/48 being the most common since that’s what most plug-ins run at. As an example, for film scores, Allen Sides tracks (records individual mic feeds) at 24/192, mixes in analog, and prints (the final mix) back to 24/192.  That process sounds the most transparent to him.

Bottom line is the tools and resources are there to produce records with excellent sound quality.  It’s the demands of the artist and the consumer that dictates the sound quality of what gets released.  If the target audience primarily uses ear buds and blue tooth speakers, the engineers will deliver an album that will sound great for that playback context.  The Itunes version of the new U2 album is a perfect example of that.

Russ

Quiet Earth

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1788
Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #6 on: 24 Oct 2014, 09:39 pm »
Nice post Russ. You too Wayner.

I think we need to stop blaming recording engineers for our own failure to assemble a musically enjoyable playback system at home.

Freo-1

Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #7 on: 24 Oct 2014, 10:40 pm »
A couple of comments:


1) Some of the best sounding recordings I have heard are Jazz and Classical from the mid 50's through the 60's.  I think the engineers back then knew what they were doing.  Even some rock recordings, such as early Savoy Brown have amazing presence, depth, and clarity.  No loudness wars back then.


2) I have ATC speakers with the Super Linear mid driver, and they are among the very best speakers available, regardless of price.  I find them to be superior to "Audiophile Speakers", such as Wilson Audio.  The drivers are MUCH better.


3) I have some outstanding modern recordings.   The Cream 2005 Reunion on Blu Ray is incredibly life like.  Several SACD Classical recordings  I own are stunning.  Can't say the same for most rock/pop recordings today.   

Folsom

Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #8 on: 24 Oct 2014, 11:05 pm »
They would care if the listeners did...

Eventually Itunes will sell hi-rez, but not while the US has slooowwww internet.

But the irony is that live shows are a big thing among anyone that's younger than the audiophile crowd.

I don't blame anyone younger than 50 thinking that most stereo stuff is gaudy black giant piles of crap that takes up space and doesn't do anything for you... to the point that Best Buy doesn't really sell that stuff anymore.

One of the biggest issues is that, well, frankly most stuff anyone in a first world country can afford sounds like total shit.

SoCalWJS

Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #9 on: 24 Oct 2014, 11:30 pm »
I wouldn't doubt that there are many Recording Engineers who really don't care if they produce a high quality product with respect to "Audiophiles", but there are many that do. There are websites dedicated to the ones that do.

If there is a recording that I am interested in, I do a bit of research and find out if there are better versions/better recordings/better masters, and who did the Engineering (some of the Engineers have very good reputations and I am generally happy to get them w/o a ton of research). Then I get the "best" version (Yes, opinions will vary)

Sometimes it's a hi-rez version, sometimes it's Red Book, sometimes it's vinyl. It may be the original version, it may be a remaster, it may be an import.

Finding which is "best" is part of the fun.  :green:

Folsom

Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #10 on: 24 Oct 2014, 11:53 pm »
I look at Elusive Disc and Acoustic Sound often, as they tend to carry better versions. Elusive will note if the album is particular.

*Maybe the biggest saving grace is that engineers are typically too anal to not use some decent speakers. That means whatever sounds good to them, sounds great to those of us with better playback devices. We simply need them to not butcher it with the microphone to stored information, or in mastering. They might have very "neutral" (or so they believe) playback for checking on things, but it can still be boring and fatigue level could be very high.

Diamond Dog

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2219
  • Chameleon, Comedian, Corinthian and Caricature
Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #11 on: 25 Oct 2014, 01:35 am »
Nice post Russ. You too Wayner.

I think we need to stop blaming recording engineers for our own failure to assemble a musically enjoyable playback system at home.

This. If anybody in the audiophile community is still actually labouring under the conceit that the music industry is going to come around and start catering to the preferences of a tiny ( and shrinking ) group of petulant silverbacks whose favorite whinge is that recording/mastering professionals are a bunch of talentless hacks or deaf or worse, it's long past time to get over yourselves and do exactly what Quiet Earth has had the temerity to suggest. Use your resources and expertise to build a system which you can actually enjoy listening to rather than one which exacerbates the proffesssed shortcomings of modern recordings. All the endless whining has accomplished the square root of jack-squat. Yes, recordings are dynamically compressed. Yes, they are mastered "hot" and often overly bright. Deal with it. It's not going to change. Stop shouting at clouds and adapt.

 Or sink into the tar and be silent.

D.D.

Freo-1

Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #12 on: 25 Oct 2014, 02:02 am »
Much of what passes for popular music is not recorded all that well.  Current classical, jazz, and some other music from smaller labels is recored very well.  So, its not good or bad across the board.


Once you own accurate equipmet like Electrocompaniet and ATC, one realizes just how good or bad a recording actually is.  It's a bit shocking at first, but once you are exposed to it, becomes very hard to go back to gear that is not accurate.  After all, live music is sometimes harsh, loud, and can be fatiguing. 


The whole point of this hobby is to get enjoyment from listening to music.   Trust your own ears, not some reviewer's point of view. 

Quiet Earth

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1788
Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #13 on: 25 Oct 2014, 01:21 pm »
Freo-1,
I think your latest post could be a sticky for how not to assemble a home audio system.


Once you own accurate equipmet like Electrocompaniet and ATC, one realizes just how good or bad a recording actually is.  It's a bit shocking at first, but once you are exposed to it, becomes very hard to go back to gear that is not accurate.

If you choose equipment that makes most of your recordings sound bad, wouldn't it be easier to go back to equipment that makes it sound good? And if the process of technical accuracy dictates that most recordings are bad, how long does it take before you cannot listen to music at all?

The whole point of this hobby is to get enjoyment from listening to music.

I think you are contradicting yourself.

Freo-1

Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #14 on: 25 Oct 2014, 02:48 pm »
Freo-1,
I think your latest post could be a sticky for how not to assemble a home audio system.

If you choose equipment that makes most of your recordings sound bad, wouldn't it be easier to go back to equipment that makes it sound good? And if the process of technical accuracy dictates that most recordings are bad, how long does it take before you cannot listen to music at all?

Quote





Nonsense.  Who said anything about making the system sound bad, or that all recordings are bad.  You are reading in too much.


Most of the recordings I have are at least decent, and many of them are excellent.  I can assure you that Electrocompaniet/ATC combo gets a lot closer to the original intended recording than a lot of what passes as "audiophile" equipment.   Most audiophiles have not experienced this level of sound clarity, which makes comments against it based on ignorance.  In other words, one needs to hear the setup, and decide its not for them, before passing judgement.  I get the fact that some audiophiles are not after this type of playback.


Here is a review of the speakers that provide some insight:


http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-and-av-speakers/atc-scm19-hi-fi-98230/review


The point is (which I think you missed), is speakers like ATC reveal the recordings for what they are, be it good or bad.  That is why they appear in so many studios for recording/mastering.  If there is a lot of compression on the recording, it will expose it.  If the recording was done well, you will be rewarded with excellent results. 


Some audiophiles don't want accuracy.  They want euphonic sound.  Stereophile back in 80's looked into this, and found that many "Audiophile Systems" were anything but flat.  They tended to have elevated mid-bass, and a slightly depressed treble. 


So, as always, it's "horses for courses".

Diamond Dog

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2219
  • Chameleon, Comedian, Corinthian and Caricature
Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #15 on: 25 Oct 2014, 03:26 pm »

Much of what passes for popular music is not recorded all that well.  Current classical, jazz, and some other music from smaller labels is recored very well.  So, its not good or bad across the board.


Once you own accurate equipmet like Electrocompaniet and ATC, one realizes just how good or bad a recording actually is.  It's a bit shocking at first, but once you are exposed to it, becomes very hard to go back to gear that is not accurate.  After all, live music is sometimes harsh, loud, and can be fatiguing. 


The whole point of this hobby is to get enjoyment from listening to music.   Trust your own ears, not some reviewer's point of view. 

Recording and mastering are separate aspects of the process. A performance may be beautifully recorded and then mastered in such a manner as to make the recording less enjoyable for an "audiophile" who owns "Blah Blah" and "Blah". The music is mastered for the intended audience keeping in mind their likely choices of playback devices. What may not be desirable to the "audiophile" plunked down in front of an big pile of "accurate equipment like Blah Blah and Blah" may be highly desirable to someone listening to the same recording in a car or through earbuds. These people are often described as : "The Vast Majority". 
Anyone who uses terms such as "what passes for popular music" may need to come to terms with the fact that they may not be the intended audience and as such, will not be given primary consideration.

So let's see if I've got this straight:

The "audiophile" has assembled a playback system comprised of "accurate equipment like Blah Blah and Blah" which then reproduces the, to the "audiophile", less-appealing characteristics of said recording with tremendous accuracy. This causes the "audiophile" to log on to various internet sites devoted to such things and to use up precious bandwidth complaining that his "high-fidelity playback" system is providing him with "high-fidelity playback" and that this is "shocking" to him. This is frequently described  as: "Irony".

Fortunately for victims of " Irony ", they can cling to their "accurate equipment like Blah Blah and Blah" as a handful of enterprising entrepreneurs with a healthy sense of "Irony" have begun to cater to this huddled group of music refugees, offering them a ration of mediocre but beautifully- recorded and immaculately-mastered new music co-mingled with somewhat- improved versions of hoary oldies no-one wants to hear anymore, all of this at exhorbitant prices. This is frequently described as: "niche marketing".
"Audiophiles" unable to relinquish their "accurate equipment like Blah Blah and Blah", unable to enjoy music produced at prole-quality resolution rates but unwilling to pay extortion-level prices for " the good stuff" can plunk themselves down in front of their "accurate equipment like Blah Blah and Blah", fire it up and hope that a ground loop develops, thus giving them at least something to listen to... And it will be immaculately reproduced with stunning accuracy and a deep, wide soundstage.

So tell me again... why is this hobby dying?  :dunno:

D.D.


Quiet Earth

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1788
Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #16 on: 25 Oct 2014, 03:29 pm »
Freo-1,

You always say horses for courses and you always tell everyone that they don't what good sound is because they don't own ATC speakers. I think you are kind of clueless.

Much of what passes for popular music is not recorded all that well. 

Most of it is recorded well. It is popular music though, so it sounds like what it is. Stop analyzing it like you are in a recording session with live musicians from the 1950's and you can enjoy it.

Freo-1

Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #17 on: 25 Oct 2014, 03:34 pm »
Freo-1,

You always say horses for courses and you always tell everyone that they don't what good sound is because they don't own ATC speakers. I think you are kind of clueless.

Most of it is recorded well. It is popular music though, so it sounds like what it is. Stop analyzing it like you are in a recording session with live musicians from the 1950's and you can enjoy it.


If you have not listened to speakers like ATC, and criticize based on a lack of background, that to me is clueless. 


Suggest you look up the loudness wars on google.  Some good clues there. 

Diamond Dog

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2219
  • Chameleon, Comedian, Corinthian and Caricature
Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #18 on: 25 Oct 2014, 03:37 pm »

Nonsense.  Who said anything about making the system sound bad, or that all recordings are bad.  You are reading in too much.


Most of the recordings I have are at least decent, and many of them are excellent.  I can assure you that Electrocompaniet/ATC combo gets a lot closer to the original intended recording than a lot of what passes as "audiophile" equipment.   Most audiophiles have not experienced this level of sound clarity, which makes comments against it based on ignorance.  In other words, one needs to hear the setup, and decide its not for them, before passing judgement.  I get the fact that some audiophiles are not after this type of playback.


Here is a review of the speakers that provide some insight:


http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-and-av-speakers/atc-scm19-hi-fi-98230/review


The point is (which I think you missed), is speakers like ATC reveal the recordings for what they are, be it good or bad.  That is why they appear in so many studios for recording/mastering.  If there is a lot of compression on the recording, it will expose it.  If the recording was done well, you will be rewarded with excellent results. 


Some audiophiles don't want accuracy.  They want euphonic sound.  Stereophile back in 80's looked into this, and found that many "Audiophile Systems" were anything but flat.  They tended to have elevated mid-bass, and a slightly depressed treble. 


So, as always, it's "horses for courses".

Wow.  If there's an award for " Outstanding Achievement in Condescension " here, I think we can hand it out now...

So Freo-1, that job shilling for ATC and now Electrocompaniet - how does it pay? If it's by the shill, you can probably afford to go top-of-the-line by now. Live it up. :D

D.D.



Freo-1

Re: A very interesting post on mastering recordings
« Reply #19 on: 25 Oct 2014, 03:52 pm »
Well, when one comes across equipment that "delivers the goods", then its fair game to report it.  I realize that not many folks have been exposed to it, so just getting the word out.  Reading any more into it is not appropriate. 


The thread is about recording/mastering quality.  The equipment used to play them back is fair game to discuss.  So are the loudness wars.  Let's stick to that.