My system is too accurate

[rbbert]

Are you taking into account the natural degradation of the master tape over many years and many playings?

I think in most cases that is minimal compared to the havoc wreaked during mastering. The newest release of Kind Of Blue is a good indication of how well master tapes hold up, and my earlier example of Some Girls compares two relatively contemporary remasterings.

 

[KeithR]

I don't see where Myles said that no progress has been made in room acoustic innovation in 30 years. All I took away from what he has said is that he has heard plenty of expensive rooms sound like crap.

But a lot of them (including those on this thread) sound fantastic and LEDE I believe was brought forward in the late 70s before we had computers and all sorts of toys to figure out how we hear better.

I'd be interested to hear what Myles says about room acoustics as it relates to PF reviewers or his own personal experience.

 

[mep]

I think in most cases that is minimal compared to the havoc wreaked during mastering. The newest release of Kind Of Blue is a good indication of how well master tapes hold up, and my earlier example of Some Girls compares two relatively contemporary remasterings.

Interesting that you brought up Kind of Blue. KOB is a flawed recording with microphone overload on some of the horn work that causes blatant distortion and sounds like crap. I brought this up a long time ago on this forum before it was popular to say there was a giant fly in the ointment of KOB. Overall, KOB is an excellent recording, but it has some giant flaws that can't be ignored. All of the mastering in the world isn't going to fix those flaws.

 

[rbbert]

Interesting that you brought up Kind of Blue. KOB is a flawed recording with microphone overload on some of the horn work that causes blatant distortion and sounds like crap. I brought this up a long time ago on this forum before it was popular to say there was a giant fly in the ointment of KOB. Overall, KOB is an excellent recording, but it has some giant flaws that can't be ignored. All of the mastering in the world isn't going to fix those flaws.

FWIW, that horn distortion is most clearly reproduced in the new 24/192 HDtracks release, one reason I still prefer the SACD (the other being that I don't really like the wide soundstage of the new mix).

 

[MylesBAstor]

I think the latter is a couple of orders of magnitude more common than the former, unfortunately. A lot of good recordings are being destroyed for release in the mastering. The best evidence for this comes from remasters of older recordings that sound worse than the original, and the different masterings depending on format of new recordings.

Sorry but that's a bit simplistic. It's much more complicated than you let on Rbbert. The lacquers are not the same as back then due to EPA regs on nitrocellulose, we don't know what the production team did to spruce the recording up, they aren't being played back on the same tape machines or headstack (yes some believe it's important to use the same headstack), tubes vs. transistors, were the same tapes used, etc. So once you get past the surface, the original and reissues are hardly the same.

 

[MylesBAstor]

But a lot of them (including those on this thread) sound fantastic and LEDE I believe was brought forward in the late 70s before we had computers and all sorts of toys to figure out how we hear better.

I'd be interested to hear what Myles says about room acoustics as it relates to PF reviewers or his own personal experience.

And a lot don't. Basic thing, room design and acoustics isn't a science but an art. Not that different than designing a performance hall. Very few good ones and a lot of epic fails.

Sorry Keith but I have a policy on not commenting on rooms or equipment that I haven't heard. Perhaps you'd like to give your opinion on the ones you've heard or what has worked for you in your room.

 

[rbbert]

Sorry but that's a bit simplistic. It's much more complicated than you let on Rbbert. The lacquers are not the same as back then due to EPA regs on nitrocellulose, we don't know what the production team did to spruce the recording up, they aren't being played back on the same tape machines or headstack (yes some believe it's important to use the same headstack), tubes vs. transistors, were the same tapes used, etc. So once you get past the surface, the original and reissues are hardly the same.

Not really relevant to my examples. Some Girls SACD and HDtracks were mastered within a couple of years of each other, yet the difference in dynamic range is more than 10 dB and both bass and treble are obviously boosted onthe HDtracks as well. another example I didn't mention is Dire Straits Brothers in Arms, a digital multi-track master. The difference between the 2005 SACD and the 2013 MFSL SACD is even more dramatic; in dynamic range alone there is 14 dB less on the 2005 SACD. Surely that is primarily due to mastering.

These are just some of the more egregious high-profile examples; there are many many more.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Not really relevant to my examples. Some Girls SACD and HDtracks were mastered within a couple of years of each other, yet the difference in dynamic range is more than 10 dB and both bass and treble are obviously boosted onthe HDtracks as well. another example I didn't mention is Dire Straits Brothers in Arms, a digital multi-track master. The difference between the 2005 SACD and the 2013 MFSL SACD is even more dramatic; in dynamic range alone there is 14 dB less on the 2005 SACD. Surely that is primarily due to mastering.

These are just some of the more egregious high-profile examples; there are many many more.

The best evidence for this comes from remasters of older recordings that sound worse than the original,

I'm sorry but weren't you talking about in comparison to the *original* release?

 

[rbbert]

I'm sorry but weren't you talking about in comparison to the *original* release?

Well, in my mind I was referring to the original CD release, so only tape properties (as opposed to LP cutting equipment properties) apply. And since presumably A>D has improved, if anything the advantage should go to the more recent transfer.

 

[mep]

FWIW, that horn distortion is most clearly reproduced in the new 24/192 HDtracks release, one reason I still prefer the SACD (the other being that I don't really like the wide soundstage of the new mix).

I can hear the distortion clearly with every recording I have of KOB and they are all analog.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Well, in my mind I was referring to the original CD release, so only tape properties (as opposed to LP cutting equipment properties) apply. And since presumably A>D has improved, if anything the advantage should go to the more recent transfer.

Not necessarily for different reasons including you don't know if they used the same tape, a digital copy made back then, a digital copy made now, a high rez digital copy, equalization, compression, what pressing plant they used if we're talking about CDs and so on. The mind boggles once you let some of these remastering engineers loose.

 

[Bill Hart]

I've been trying to get this heard over the "mastering" mantra for a long, long time. Every step, every stage of the production chain is important. There's only so much even the best mastering engineer can do to try and rescue a bad mix. At that point a lot is unrecoverable and the best that can be done is put lipstick on the porker and hope it doesn't smudge. Obviously a dumb mastering engineer can screw up a good mix too blame that on the producers!

I come out where you do, Jack, based on my experience in sourcing a lot of original pressings, WLPs and various remasters to find the 'best' sounding version of older pop and hard rock records (which i've been heavily focused on these last 6-12 months). In many cases, as I mentioned in a post upstream on this thread, the original recording is not so good, e.g. LZ I, Aqualung. The various contemporaneous first masterings of LZ1 all sound different, but none are audiophile quality. In a couple of cases, remastering has 'improved' them to a degree but perhaps it is just a sonic trade off.

 

[treitz3]

Though we are swaying off of the original topic, I personally think "sonic trade off" can apply to many of them.

Tom

 

[JackD201]

Hey Bill, imagine trying that with 80s, early 90s pop and rock, to me the lowest point of audio mass market quality EVER. I spent a lot of time, effort and money trying to find "better" but even re-masterings from houses like Mo-Fi couldn't save the likes of U2's Unforgettable Fire. Man, I would hate to be a mastering engineer handed a dog of a recording to work with. I don't think I could ever deal with the unrealistic expectations at least while keeping my name on the credits.

 

[mep]

Hey Bill, imagine trying that with 80s, early 90s pop and rock, to me the lowest point of audio mass market quality EVER. I spent a lot of time, effort and money trying to find "better" but even re-masterings from houses like Mo-Fi couldn't save the likes of U2's Unforgettable Fire. Man, I would hate to be a mastering engineer handed a dog of a recording to work with. I don't think I could ever deal with the unrealistic expectations at least while keeping my name on the credits.

Not only that, MoFi has been known to muck up great recordings through their mastering. They don't always hit home runs when they play around with the EQ.

 

[Bill Hart]

Hey Bill, imagine trying that with 80s, early 90s pop and rock, to me the lowest point of audio mass market quality EVER. I spent a lot of time, effort and money trying to find "better" but even re-masterings from houses like Mo-Fi couldn't save the likes of U2's Unforgettable Fire. Man, I would hate to be a mastering engineer handed a dog of a recording to work with. I don't think I could ever deal with the unrealistic expectations at least while keeping my name on the credits.

My interest has been even earlier, late 60's- early 70's- Island UK, Vertigo UK (recently discovered with a vengeance), Harvest (label, not the record mentioned next), as well as 'standard issue' stuff that just sounded good on first pressings, e.g. Neil Young's Harvest mastered by Lee Hulko, etc.
As the studio equipment got more complicated, and artists and engineers got more traction with multi-tracking, the sound got worse- partly because stuff was miked separately, indeed recorded separately, rather than a 'natural acoustic' of an actual performance, stuff got overdubbed, or punched in later. All of this took 'air' out of the balloon- some of the later stuff just sounds very 'flat' to my ears. Maybe it is euphony that I like, I'm wary of arguments about 'accuracy.' And some really dumb records sound just great- e.g. standard issue A & M Carpenters Single compilation on vinyl.

 

[JackD201]

You gotta feel for us, the MTV turned VH1 generation. Not only did Video kill the Radio star..........Grrrrrrr.

Looking back, all the fluff, posing and just general absurdity (Devo anybody? Twisted Sister maybe?) was what made many of us seek out earlier bands on one end and go underground looking for substance on the other on parallel tracks. Oh well, turned out for the best perhaps.

The irony is that except for maybe Bigs like Jackson and Madonna whose regular pressings were generally okay and the DM Mastercuts better, the best stuff was recorded, mastered and pressed worst. There is a reason I still have SL-1200s with blunt-o MM carts around. LOL!

 

[Bill Hart]

Not only that, MoFi has been known to muck up great recordings through their mastering. They don't always hit home runs when they play around with the EQ.

Oh, yeah, I bought and still have a lot of them from when they were issued. There are very few I listen to today, I just keep them for completeness. I like the Rickie Lee Jones first album on MoFi, and yes, I have many other pressings, including UK, Japanese, etc.

 

[MylesBAstor]

My interest has been even earlier, late 60's- early 70's- Island UK, Vertigo UK (recently discovered with a vengeance), Harvest (label, not the record mentioned next), as well as 'standard issue' stuff that just sounded good on first pressings, e.g. Neil Young's Harvest mastered by Lee Hulko, etc.
As the studio equipment got more complicated, and artists and engineers got more traction with multi-tracking, the sound got worse- partly because stuff was miked separately, indeed recorded separately, rather than a 'natural acoustic' of an actual performance, stuff got overdubbed, or punched in later. All of this took 'air' out of the balloon- some of the later stuff just sounds very 'flat' to my ears. Maybe it is euphony that I like, I'm wary of arguments about 'accuracy.' And some really dumb records sound just great- e.g. standard issue A & M Carpenters Single compilation on vinyl.

I think it was Steely Dan's Aja that was the first 64 track recording?

 

[Bill Hart]

Though we are swaying off of the original topic, I personally think "sonic trade off" can apply to many of them.

Tom

Sorry if I am the cause; to bring it back to Hoffman's quandary, my original point was- and remains, i think- that if he is getting good sound on 70% of what he listens to over his system, he's doing great. And the 'bad' sounding stuff, I would speculate, not having heard his system, is the result of bad sounding source material- which is simply unavoidable. To channel Tim for a minute, if the system colored a 'bad' recording to sound good, where would that leave the system, and its 'accuracy' with respect to the 'good' recordings?