My system is too accurate

[Bill Hart]

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

Al Schmitt is credited, who is a fabulous engineer; so is Elliot Scheiner, who worked for Phil Ramone and has done some pretty good stuff- but though he is an analog guy, based on interviews I've read, he readily embraced new technologies for recording, but i think preferred to mix down using analog boards. I'll stop so Tom doesn't get mad that I'm taking us on a detour. See my other posts re 'the source is the problem'.
Best!

 

[treitz3]

I'll stop so Tom doesn't get mad that I'm taking us on a detour. See my other posts re 'the source is the problem'.

First off, I don't get mad. Life is too short for that. I do agree that part of SH's issue with "too accurate" is the source. I just noticed that the last couple of pages have been centered on recordings, remastering and mastering. That's all.

Tom

 

[MylesBAstor]

Al Schmitt is credited, who is a fabulous engineer; so is Elliot Scheiner, who worked for Phil Ramone and has done some pretty good stuff- but though he is an analog guy, based on interviews I've read, he readily embraced new technologies for recording, but i think preferred to mix down using analog boards. I'll stop so Tom doesn't get mad that I'm taking us on a detour. See my other posts re 'the source is the problem'.
Best!

Grammy award winners for 1978: Al Schmitt, Bill Schnee, Elliot Scheiner & Roger Nichols (engineers) for Aja performed by Steely Dan. (Bill Schnee, Elliot Scheiner, Jerry Garszva & Roger Nichols (engineers) for Gaucho performed by Steely Dan)


All of the above were multi-Grammy award winning engineers.

FYI, Elliot unfriended me from his FB page because I asked him was he was bashing Fremer.

 

[rbbert]

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.

So it sounds like you're making my argument for me!

 

[MylesBAstor]

So it sounds like you're making my argument for me!

Yes, I find it's rare that a re-issue sounds better than the original. There are many other reasons, however, for owning a reissue.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

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!

The mix is, arguably (not much of an argument IMHO) more important than the master. Not to diminish the importance of mastering, it can be critical, but if you've got a really good mix to stereo, there's not all that much that should be done in mastering. Mastering gets a lot of attention in audiophile circles because it's a great place to screw up a good mix, and that's happening a lot these days. Not only has the importance of mastering been exaggerated by enthusiasts on the internet, the basic function has been blown way out of reality. I see stuff attributed to mastering, and pressings, all the time, that really can't happen post-mix.

Tim

 

[Al M.]

Perhaps this Stereophile article plays into the current discussion as well, "Accuracy is not the answer":

http://www.stereophile.com/content/accuracy-not-answer

Also, note the disagreements in the comments section. I love the comment by gmgraves2 half-way down the page, describing the effects on people of a recording he made, played from plain Redbook CD.

 

[Bill Hart]

The mix is, arguably (not much of an argument IMHO) more important than the master. Not to diminish the importance of mastering, it can be critical, but if you've got a really good mix to stereo, there's not all that much that should be done in mastering. Mastering gets a lot of attention in audiophile circles because it's a great place to screw up a good mix, and that's happening a lot these days. Not only has the importance of mastering been exaggerated by enthusiasts on the internet, the basic function has been blown way out of reality. I see stuff attributed to mastering, and pressings, all the time, that really can't happen post-mix.

Tim

And we were getting along so well. Tim, I think it is all important, right down to the microphones and their placement. I know you have heard (and may own) a copy of that Shelby Lynne confection, "Just a Little Lovin'." I can hear some effects on her voice that sound to me (pure speculation) like limitations of the microphone, that give her voice a hooded sound. (It's been a while since I've listened to the record so I'd have to go back and play it to identify precisely where).
But, and this may be more a function/limitation of vinyl, there are HUGE sonic differences in different masterings of the same record. And, like Myles, I've typically found the best sound in the early pressings where the thing was mastered. Perhaps in the case of older recordings it is the result of being the closest to the original mixdown, rather than a later generation copy, even if these other masterings were done roughly at the same time as the original. I don't think the differences have been blown out of proportion, at least in the case of old vinyl- but, I will grant you, it may be more of a case of other and later masterings screwing up the sound than any 'magic' in the original.

 

[MylesBAstor]

And we were getting along so well. Tim, I think it is all important, right down to the microphones and their placement. I know you have heard (and may own) a copy of that Shelby Lynne confection, "Just a Little Lovin'." I can hear some effects on her voice that sound to me (pure speculation) like limitations of the microphone, that give her voice a hooded sound. (It's been a while since I've listened to the record so I'd have to go back and play it to identify precisely where).
But, and this may be more a function/limitation of vinyl, there are HUGE sonic differences in different masterings of the same record. And, like Myles, I've typically found the best sound in the early pressings where the thing was mastered. Perhaps in the case of older recordings it is the result of being the closest to the original mixdown, rather than a later generation copy, even if these other masterings were done roughly at the same time as the original. I don't think the differences have been blown out of proportion, at least in the case of old vinyl- but, I will grant you, it may be more of a case of other and later masterings screwing up the sound than any 'magic' in the original.

Not only the pressing but down to the type of vinyl used in the pressing. Perhaps Tim should also take a trip to a pressing plant and see what goes on and how it can affect the sound. I've had copies of Chesky's pressed on different vinyl formulations and the differences are significant (not to mention the material used in making the cd as well as the transfer say of digital recording to the glass master). I think also that Classic Records played with different vinyl formulations to the end with the Clarity vinyl (which Chad will be using in the forthcoming AP UHQR vinyl releases).

 

[Bruce B]

The main reason mastering engineers get a lot of flack is because we're the last bastion of hope before it gets released to the masses. What people don't realize is 99% of the time it's A&R, Labels and Artists that are calling the shots. He'll, I had one produces telling me what freq. and how much to EQ!

 

[Bruce B]

The main reason mastering engineers get a lot of flack is because we're the last bastion of hope before it gets released to the masses. What people don't realize is 99% of the time it's A&R, Labels and Artists that are calling the shots. He'll, I had one producer telling me what freq. and how much to EQ!

 

[rbbert]

...I've had copies of Chesky's pressed on different vinyl formulations and the differences are significant (not to mention the material used in making the cd as well as the transfer say of digital recording to the glass master)...

Bruce has also alluded to the latter when discussing Winston Ma's CD's. All that makes me wonder just how "accurate" any of it is...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

And we were getting along so well. Tim, I think it is all important, right down to the microphones and their placement. I know you have heard (and may own) a copy of that Shelby Lynne confection, "Just a Little Lovin'." I can hear some effects on her voice that sound to me (pure speculation) like limitations of the microphone, that give her voice a hooded sound. (It's been a while since I've listened to the record so I'd have to go back and play it to identify precisely where).
But, and this may be more a function/limitation of vinyl, there are HUGE sonic differences in different masterings of the same record. And, like Myles, I've typically found the best sound in the early pressings where the thing was mastered. Perhaps in the case of older recordings it is the result of being the closest to the original mixdown, rather than a later generation copy, even if these other masterings were done roughly at the same time as the original. I don't think the differences have been blown out of proportion, at least in the case of old vinyl- but, I will grant you, it may be more of a case of other and later masterings screwing up the sound than any 'magic' in the original.

I'm sorry. I wasn't specific enough, and I find nothing in your post to disagree with. I was talking about the penchant people seem to have to blame all ills or attribute all benefits to the mastering, when most of the magic or mud happens before the
mastering engineer gets ahold of it. The mastering engineer can change the tonal balance (EQ) and affect the dynamics (compression). There may be a few more things he can do...Bruce? But he doesn't have any where near the kind of control that results from mic placement and control over EQ, effects, volume and panning of individual tracks.

Tim

 

[TBone]

Personally, I like the fact my system represents the quality of the source. Unlike Steve, I can live with the bad as long as I get "great". With superb software, it's utterly convincing, with lesser it sounds appropriate. Therefore, in my system, only superb software invites volume.

That doesn't bother me. Well ... that's a lie ... it does bother me, but NOT from a system point of view. Rather because some of my favorite music was screwed from the get-go, recorded/mastered so poorly it doesn't justify listening at decent volume on great system (at least to me).

And the message of high-def didn't help ... proved by the arrival/over-hype of some SACD reissues, which sounded horrid.

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.

I thought BIA was a 16/48 recording, although (contrary to belief) that shouldn't matter. I'm surprised, however, that it contained a 14db difference. I wonder how the LP compares?

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.

I recently heard a LP-CDR copy of Aqualung and the bass was completely missing. I agree about LZ1, I have a Japanese version, original, and just purchased a Classic 33rpm which I've not heard. I considered Classic's LZ2 stunning, which surprised me considering I've got so many other copies. That said, I'm not certain they could rescue Physical Graffiti rather thin and compressed sound.

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.

Too "bad", I occasionally use a LP-CDR copy for demonstration purposes - because it's very hard tune to reproduce properly.

tb1

 

[rbbert]

BIA was recorded at 16/44.1. The dynamics of the original Vertigo CD and the MoFi are similar, although it sounds to me as though MoFi recovered slightly better sound from those masters. Why the 2005 Vertigo SACD was so compressed is a mystery. There was also an XRCD from around 2000; I have no idea how it sounds.

 

[TBone]

Speaking of mastering ...

I just recently purchased the latest (2013) The Bands Last Waltz; 180 gram pressing. Listened to a side last night and was kinda disappointed - because the SQ, although not bad, was easily bettered by the Blu Ray.

Almost sounds like two very different versions, 1 being brighter & lively (BR) the other (LP) darker and murkier. Strangely enough, the BR makes all the musicians sound younger, or perhaps the LP makes them sound older. The only advantage the LP had over the BR was during peaks or louder passages; in which the BR tends to become more confusing & congealed as SPL rises. That characteristic, however, is to be expected; as most quality Turntables & CDPs "should" offer superior compressional tendencies compared to a cheap BRP (even tho it includes a higher-rez digital soundtrack).

tb1

 

[mep]

Speaking of mastering ...

I just recently purchased the latest (2013) The Bands Last Waltz; 180 gram pressing. Listened to a side last night and was kinda disappointed - because the SQ, although not bad, was easily bettered by the Blu Ray.

Almost sounds like two very different versions, 1 being brighter & lively (BR) the other (LP) darker and murkier. Strangely enough, the BR makes all the musicians sound younger, or perhaps the LP makes them sound older. The only advantage the LP had over the BR was during peaks or louder passages; in which the BR tends to become more confusing & congealed as SPL rises. That characteristic, however, is to be expected; as most quality Turntables & CDPs "should" offer superior compressional tendencies compared to a cheap BRP (even tho it includes a higher-rez digital soundtrack).

tb1

Say what??

 

[TBone]

Mep, can you be more specific, I'm no mind reader ...

 

[mep]

"superior compressional tendencies" would be a good place to start. Please explain that statement.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

"superior compressional tendencies" would be a good place to start. Please explain that statement.

That drew my attention as well and left me somewhat confused?