[simoon]

Trent Reznor, who I've always respected even though I am not a huge fan of his music, is releasing multiple mastered versions of his new release, Hesitation Marks. Three versions to be exact.

Here's more from Reznor:

"Hesitation Marks was mastered in two different ways - the standard, “loud” mastering (which is what you’ll find on the CD, on iTunes, and everywhere else), and also an alternate “audiophile” mastering, which we’re offering as a free download option for anyone who purchases the album through nin.com. For the majority of people, the standard version will be preferable and differences will be difficult to detect. Audiophiles with high-end equipment and an understanding of the mastering process might prefer the alternate version.

Alan Moulder, who mixed the album, offers a more detailed explanation:

When we were mixing Hesitation Marks we decided to treat the mastering process in a slightly different way to the usual. Since we had tried to treat every other aspect of making this record differently to how we were used to, it seemed to make sense. We were mixing as we went along with the production of each song rather than at the end, so we thought that once we had a song pretty close we would send it off to Tom Baker, our long time serving mastering engineer, to give it some mastering treatment. Normally you wait until the record is finished being recorded and mixed, then take all the mixes to mastering. But we thought doing it again, as we went along, might make us push the process further and spend more time on mastering rather than rush through it at the end. Whilst doing this we became aware of how much low bass information there was on the record. Since that can define how loud of a level the mastering can be, we were faced with a dilemma: do we keep the bass and and have a significantly lower level record, or do we sacrifice the bass for a more competitive level of volume? The biggest issue in mastering these days tends to be how loud can you make your record. It is a fact that when listening back-to-back, loud records will come across more impressively, although in the long run what you sacrifice for that level can be quality and fidelity. So after much discussion we decided to go with two versions. On the main release Tom did exceptional work to maintain the integrity of our mixes and reproduce the low end as much as possible and still get a decent level, although it’s still nowhere as loud as a lot of modern records. The Audiophile Mastered Version is more true to how the mixes sounded to us in the studio when we were working on the songs. Have a listen, turn up the volume and enjoy the experience!

Mastering Engineer Tom Baker adds:

I believe it was Trent’s idea to master the album two different ways, and to my knowledge it has never been done before.

The standard version is “loud” and more aggressive and has more of a bite or edge to the sound with a tighter low end.

The Audiophile Mastered Version highlights the mixes as they are without compromising the dynamics and low end, and not being concerned about how “loud” the album would be. The goal was to simply allow the mixes to retain the spatial relationship between instruments and the robust, grandiose sound.

NOTE: The standard mastered version is in no way inferior to the Audiophile Version - we wouldn’t release something inferior as the default. And vinyl purists rest assured, the vinyl edition was mastered to sound the very best for that format. The Audiophile Version is merely an alternate take on the mastering, which some people will appreciate. It’s meant to give a slightly different experience, not denigrate the standard version. Listen to each and come to your own conclusions.

If you ordered any format of Hesitation Marks from nin.com, you’ll be able to download one or both mastering versions, in whichever formats you prefer (MP3, FLAC, Apple Lossless, and WAV), beginning September 3rd."


I sure hope this catches on. I've been advocating multiple releases like this for years.

[S Clark]

Very interesting.  I sent this along to a family friend that is a mastering engineer in Austin.  I'll be curious to hear his take on it.

Scott

[S Clark]

I heard back.  Nick Landis of Terra Nova Mastering in Austin told me that he often does a double master- a different one for vinyl.  Apparently it isn't quite so unique after all. 

[dB Cooper]

From AES fellow and recording engineer Mark Waldrep's realhd-audio.com website (check it out, heard him speak at Capital Audiofest this past July, lots to say about digital and HD audio) :

Well, first my hat is off to Trent and his production team for trying this “two versions” idea with their new release. I can tell you the contrary to Tom Baker’s assertion that it has never been done before…it has. I’ve been doing this since 2000 on every record I’ve released on AIX Records. Not only do I put a “mastered” version on iTunes and a “non-mastered” version on our HD discs but I provide three different mixes of each track (and this is without mentioning the Headphones[xi]® versions ). This is what I refer to as “personalized music delivery”.

The idea of providing a downloadable file that avoids the heavy mastering and dynamics squashing that occurs in the world of pop/rock commercial albums is a major step in the right direction. I really hope that we’ll see more of these.

I would like to think that perhaps I had a little influence on Trent’s decision. He was here at the AIX Studios about 18 months ago and we got talking after he finished the thing he was doing with Dr. Dre’s Beats headphones. I told him about the kinds of records that I had been making and how we leave the real world dynamics in the tracks that we release. We talked for about 20 minutes and I think he was impressed with some of the things I was saying. I look forward to connecting with him again…maybe I can get him to let me create real HD-Audio mixes in full 5.1 surround of the new project! That would be fun.

When the record comes out tomorrow, I’ll get a copy of the CD and the “audiophile” track and do my usual analysis. It should prove interesting.

[Vapor Audio]

Trent has been on the cutting edge of audio quality and new ways to release music for some time.  Of course he's not the first to master a track in more than one way, but he IS the first major name to do so ... and the first I know of to market it in the way that he did.  We should all be cheering the move, as it'll do nothing but raise awareness of differences in audio quality.  NIN has been offering high-res digital download for some time now, probably going back 5+ years.

Trent is the man btw, I have a total man-crush.  If somebody knows somebody and could setup him and I listening to his music together on my speakers, I could die right then a happy man. 

[dB Cooper]

If more artists start more conversation around SQ, we'll get better sounding recordings, especially if the twentysomethings stop stealing them. An entire generation has grown up now with the mentality that music is free. Maybe this is behind the vinyl "resurgence"- reintroducing generation loss? Somewhat of a tangent to be sure but it relates. Somebody has to pay for the care that is required to produce high quality audio.

[highfilter]

Trent has been on the cutting edge of audio quality and new ways to release music for some time.  Of course he's not the first to master a track in more than one way, but he IS the first major name to do so ... and the first I know of to market it in the way that he did.  We should all be cheering the move, as it'll do nothing but raise awareness of differences in audio quality.  NIN has been offering high-res digital download for some time now, probably going back 5+ years.

Trent is the man btw, I have a total man-crush.  If somebody knows somebody and could setup him and I listening to his music together on my speakers, I could die right then a happy man.

Ahem, back off. He's mine! 

[JRace]

If more artists start more conversation around SQ, we'll get better sounding recordings, especially if the twentysomethings stop stealing them. An entire generation has grown up now with the mentality that music is free. Maybe this is behind the vinyl "resurgence"- reintroducing generation loss? Somewhat of a tangent to be sure but it relates. Somebody has to pay for the care that is required to produce high quality audio.

It is great when the artists cares about the end product.

I am of the mentality that music should be freely distributed and accessible by all.
Some artists, even Trent Reznor use file sharing sites
(Oink was a private bit-torrent muisc sharing site)

I’ll admit I had an account there and frequented it quiteoften. At the end of the day, what made OiNK a great place was that itwas like the world’s greatest record store. Pretty much anything youcould ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format youwanted. If OiNK cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but thereisn’t the equivalent of that in the retail space right now. iTunes kindof feels like Sam Goody to me. I don’t feel cool when I go there. I’mtired of seeing John Mayer’s face pop up. I feel like I’m being hustledwhen I visit there, and I don’t think their product is that great. DRM,
low bit rate, etc. Amazon has potential, but none of them get aroundthe issue of pre-release leaks. And that’s what’s such a difficultpuzzle at the moment. If your favorite band in the world has a leakedrecord out, do you listen to it or do you not listen to it? People onthose boards, they’re grateful for the person that uploaded it —
they’re the hero. They’re not stealing it because they’re going to makemoney off of it; they’re stealing it because they love the band. I’mnot saying that I think OiNK is morally correct, but I do know that itexisted because it filled a void of what people want.

http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/10/trent-reznor-on/


I do wish artists could make more % on there albums, so when possible i order direct from the Artist, or at concerts when possible. As with knowledge, music can certainly benifts from unfettered access.

As my niece says, Sharing is Caring

[kc8apf]

My brother got me the pre-order for my birthday so I downloaded both the "loud" and "audiophile" masterings today in FLAC.  Subjectively, I much prefer the audiophile on both my work, headphone setup (Schiit Modi/Magni, Sony MDR-V6) and home, 2-channel setup (JRiver streaming PCM L16, Oppo BDP-83, Outlaw 975, AVA Synergy 240/3, Salk Supercharged SongTowers).  The bass has a lot more depth and clarity.

Both sets of FLAC are 24-bit, 48kHz.  Loaded "Came Back Haunted" from each in Audacity.  First the "loud" mastering:


And the "Audiophile" mastering:



The audiophile version still seems to push the limits of the dynamic range but avoids clipping.  Just for fun, here is the frequency spectrum for the "loud" mastering:


And the "audiophile":

[Vapor Audio]

Holy crap this new album is great!  NIN is by far my #1, go-to band ... but I've never had that OMG feeling after the first listen through a new release.  They always grow on me in time, take many listens to appreciate.  This time it's just wow, blown away.  Right now I'm thinking this is their best work ever, but only time will tell if that's the way I really feel or not. 

I can say one thing for sure, the new album is going to get a lot of play time at our RMAF room this year 

[newzooreview]

especially if the twentysomethings stop stealing them. An entire generation has grown up now with the mentality that music is free.

All of the academic research not funded by big record corporations has either shown no affect on music sales from file sharing (e.g. the modern version of swapping cassette tapes) or has shown that people who regularly share music online  purchase more music than those who do not.

No impact on music sales (Harvard/UNC): "Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero, despite rather precise estimates. Moreover, these estimates are of moderate economic significance and are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the recent decline in music sales." http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

File sharers buy more music than others (Columbia University study summarized at Ars Technica): "users of peer-to-peer file-sharing software buy 30 percent more music than those who do not use peer-to-peer software" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/new-music-survey-p2p-users-buy-the-most-no-one-wants-disconnection-penalties/

Furthermore, top artists profit significantly more from concert revenues than from album sales (and not because file sharing is killing album sales--artists simply get very little of the sales income). This is why, for example, Madonna started her own concert production company, Live Nation.

Meanwhile, small artists benefit from piracy because it's a highly effective avenue for them to gain exposure and build a fan base. "A study by Blackburn (2004), a PhD student from Harvard, found that the 75% of the artists actually profit from piracy." http://davidjhblackburn.com/papers/blackburn_fs.pdf

Despite all of the above (and despite rising revenues in the music industry*) we've seen the industry (which is a friend to its own money, not artists, not music, and not audiophiles) go the extent of suing grandmothers for vastly more than the value of the songs they allegedly downloaded and establishing a national extrajudicial process to sever entire households from the internet over allegations of file sharing, no legal proof required.

*Worldwide Music Industry Revenues: 2006 ($60.7 billion), 2007 ($61.5 billion), 2008 ($62.6 billion), 2009 ($65.0 billion), 2010 ($66.4 billion), 2011 ($67.6 billion) http://www.grabstats.com/statmain.aspx?StatID=67

If more artists would follow the lead of Trent Reznor, those corporate revenue numbers might finally fall as the revenue from music flows into the hands of the artists rather than the middle men.