New NIN

[Shaffer]

"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."

Unfortunately for those who prefer to buy their music from given vendors, the audiophile mix is only available for purchase through NIN website. I ordered the CD a few days ago and should be able to download the audiophile master tomorrow. I'll post back with some impressions.

 

[Bruce B]

"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..

There have been a few albums mastered both ways. The one off the top of my head is Paul McCartney who did a couple.

 

[Shaffer]

As luck would have it, I won an autographed LP pressing from my local store, so I am now in possession of the vinyl, the CD, and the audiophile download.

CD: Dynamically it's a pancake. Just lays there, bit in an in-your-face kinda way. Not pleasant, not inviting.

Audiophile download: Sounds more alive than its DR rating of 6 would suggest. Everything is better compared to the CD. Still, calling it "audiophile" is almost laughable.

LP: Now we're talkin'! Fairly big dynamic swings, lots of separation and space. The album is so much more interesting, involving, and gratifying to listen to. Personally, I think something similar to the LP master should have been released as the 24/96 download. In a sense I'm glad that I had this experience, but there's no denying that as a buyer I would have been much happier with a better sounding product advertised as such.

 

[puroagave]

trent reznor was interviewed on NPR he talked about this record which isnt so dark as his previous work, being married with two kids will do that to you! i liked the groove on the song samples they played, ill prolly get the LP.

 

[XV-1]

Nice one Shaffer, thanks for sharing

My vinyl arrived this morning, so will give it a spin tonight.

 

[853guy]

As luck would have it, I won an autographed LP pressing from my local store, so I am now in possession of the vinyl, the CD, and the audiophile download.

CD: Dynamically it's a pancake. Just lays there, bit in an in-your-face kinda way. Not pleasant, not inviting.

Audiophile download: Sounds more alive than its DR rating of 6 would suggest. Everything is better compared to the CD. Still, calling it "audiophile" is almost laughable.

LP: Now we're talkin'! Fairly big dynamic swings, lots of separation and space. The album is so much more interesting, involving, and gratifying to listen to. Personally, I think something similar to the LP master should have been released as the 24/96 download. In a sense I'm glad that I had this experience, but there's no denying that as a buyer I would have been much happier with a better sounding product advertised as such.

I've been listening to the audiophile download for the last two days.

I can understand a little of the disappointment with the DR rating, but here's my two (three) cents.

Firstly, this is a Nine Inch Nails album. It's industrial rock. It's not Famous Blue Raincoat or a David Chesky album. I think for the genre, and particularly, given the strong structures, it's a really impressive mastering job. Clean, spacious, fairly open and pummelling where appropriate.

Secondly, the amount of bass on this record is insane. That is goes so low without distortion is a truly laudable feat.

Thirdly, the mix is amazing. Considering how dense the instrumentation is, everything has its place and there's a place for everything.

I think a lot of the online chatter about how "laughable" the audiophile release is would be tempered if people truly understood how difficult it is to mix and master this type of music without making it a cacophonous, lifeless, one-dimensional slab. That Mr. Reznor and Mr. Moulder pull this off so consistently is a pretty rare thing.

 

[NorthStar]

As luck would have it, I won an autographed LP pressing from my local store, so I am now in possession of the vinyl, the CD, and the audiophile download.

3. CD: Dynamically it's a pancake. Just lays there, bit in an in-your-face kinda way. Not pleasant, not inviting.

2. Audiophile Download: Sounds more alive than its DR rating of 6 would suggest. Everything is better compared to the CD. Still, calling it "audiophile" is almost laughable.

1. LP: Now we're talkin'! Fairly big dynamic swings, lots of separation and space. The album is so much more interesting, involving, and gratifying to listen to. Personally, I think something similar to the LP master should have been released as the 24/96 download. In a sense I'm glad that I had this experience, but there's no denying that as a buyer I would have been much happier with a better sounding product advertised as such.

That is excellent feedback Felix, thx! ...And congrats! :b

 

[Shaffer]

Firstly, this is a Nine Inch Nails album. It's industrial rock. It's not Famous Blue Raincoat or a David Chesky album. I think for the genre, and particularly, given the strong structures, it's a really impressive mastering job. Clean, spacious, fairly open and pummelling where appropriate.

Neubauten is industrial. This is pop with an edge, and a somewhat contrived one at that. Ironically, the truly industrial stuff is far more clear, clean and explosive-sounding.

Secondly, the amount of bass on this record is insane. That is goes so low without distortion is a truly laudable feat.

A laudable feat compared to what? The press snippet talks about the low bass, sure, but what's actually there? Not a whole lot at the very bottom (my system is -6dB @ 18Hz)

Thirdly, the mix is amazing. Considering how dense the instrumentation is, everything has its place and there's a place for everything.

I'm not really sure what to say.

I think a lot of the online chatter about how "laughable" the audiophile release is would be tempered if people truly understood how difficult it is to mix and master this type of music without making it a cacophonous, lifeless, one-dimensional slab. That Mr. Reznor and Mr. Moulder pull this off so consistently is a pretty rare thing.

Well, the LP does exist and it's not a "cacophonous, lifeless, one-dimensional slab." There's no reason why a HD downlaod billed as audiophile connot follow suit.

That Mr. Reznor and Mr. Moulder pull this off so consistently is a pretty rare thing.

Listen to any similarly inspired recording on Sub Rosa. There's no comparison. That's just one example.

 

[Shaffer]

That is excellent feedback Felix, thx! ...And congrats! :b

Thanks, Bob. This is the second thing I've won in 50 years. The first was a product package from a detailing forum, and now the album. I'm pretty thrilled.

 

[853guy]

Neubauten is industrial. This is pop with an edge, and a somewhat contrived one at that. Ironically, the truly industrial stuff is far more clear, clean and explosive-sounding.

True, you could call Einsturzende Neubauten "industrial". Admittedly, I haven't listened to anything they've done since Tabula Rasa, so I have no idea whether their current output resembles "industrial" anymore, or whether, like Mr. Reznor, they've moved toward more song-orientated structures. Maybe, for the sake of argument, we could say NIN's output is a little closer to Mute-era Depeche Mode, than it is to say, Miley Cyrus or Adam Lambert. I guess how "contrived" you think NIN's output has become will depend on your perspective of the current state of modern music and whether a band that's been producing music (often independently) for 15 years is less or more contrived than the screeds of "artists" who release a single pre-written, produced, played, auto-tuned and marketed by a corporation only to disappear after the music video comes off rotation and re-emerge on a reality show about their oxycontin addiction.

A laudable feat compared to what? The press snippet talks about the low bass, sure, but what's actually there? Not a whole lot at the very bottom (my system is -6dB @ 18Hz)

Compared to the CD release given the content. As someone who's had to engineer, mix and master a few things I can say it's really difficult to get that sort of low bass at the levels they have and not have it clip. I have no idea what's actually there either, but I'd imagine you'd be in a better position than me to ascertain that, what, with your -6dB @ 18Hz system and everything.

I'm not really sure what to say.

Well, you could say you think it's mixed badly, indifferently or excellently, I guess. You could say it's mixed similarly to The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo soundtrack, and much better than Death Magnetic or Clockwork Angels, or most of what comes from productions involving Nick Raskulinecz and Greg Fidelmen in general. Just to be clear, that's never stopped me from buying the albums - I've never been asked to mix or master a major label release so I just buy whatever's released and accept the sonics for what they are.

Well, the LP does exist and it's not a "cacophonous, lifeless, one-dimensional slab." There's no reason why a HD downlaod billed as audiophile connot follow suit.

I haven't heard the LP. I'm basing my comments on listening to the HD download vs. the CD, and agree entirely with what you wrote above. My comments re: "cacophonous, lifeless, one-dimensional slab" relate to releases where the care in engineering, mixing and mastering fall somewhat short of what Trent Reznor and Alan Moulder have historically attempted to do (I'll let you insert your own examples here).

I'm just sorry you're disappointed in having new music from a band with some artistic credibility and the three formats available to you aren't quite enough. Personally, I remember when format choice was limited to the cheapest piece of bendable vinyl you could imagine or a dubbed cassette version replete with ticks, pops, scratches and tape-hiss.

The truly crazy thing? There's already more formats extant that ever before - if we count vinyl, CD, SACD, DVD-A, MP3s, FLACs, WAVs, 24/96 HD downloads and second-generation reel-to-reel releases - and still people complain about sound quality. Mostly audiophiles, actually.

Listen to any similarly inspired recording on Sub Rosa. There's no comparison. That's just one example.

Except that Sub Rosa didn't release Hesitation Marks. A major label did. And you got nice, limited edition art work and a choice of three formats. I like Stars of the Lid and DJ Spooky and Bill Laswell and Mick Harris and David Shea too. I think Sub Rosa did a great job of looking after those artists on those releases. And there's lots of incredible avant-garde and minimal electronica being produced by indie labels all over the world - all of it with incredibly variable sound-quality, and most importantly, wholly subjective creative content. Sub Rosa releases great stuff, no question, but they didn't release the latest Meshuggah album, or Tim Hecker's latest, or the Dillinger Escape Plan's latest, or any of Thomas Koner's work, or Lull's Like a Slow River, or any of Naked City's work. I love what Tzadik and Table of the Elements and Warp and Mille Plateaux release. But none of those labels released Hesitation Marks, sorry.

And to say "there's no comparison" is utterly redundant. Which "similarly-inspired" Sub Rosa release should we be comparing? Let me know, because I feel fairly confident they won't have offered the album in three formats in which each received a bespoke master and the vinyl was cut by Chris Bellman and pressed by URP.

 

[Shaffer]

I didn't quote your post, as I'm not sure what you're trying to argue:

1. That the audiophile mix with little dynamic range and a slightly more palpable presentation than the horrible CD is actually good? That's essentially impossible, no matter how much you try to obfuscate the point. Your argument involves writing a new set of rules for an audiophile recording and those rules simply don't comply with reality, not to those who are actually audiophiles and who know what an audiophile recording sounds like.

2. That the mix contains an abnormal amount of low bass? Only if one listens to the sales shpiel; certainly not on a comparative level [I mentioned my system's low-end response, as you're new, as marker of competence. There are quite a few members here who can reproduce low bass at fairly high amplitude].

3. That such a recording is difficult to master clearly? Again, multiple hundreds of examples pointing to the opposite conclusion. I feel silly even discussing this, as a certain degree of intellectual honesty and listening experience are expected norms in this venue.

4. That the mix/mastering is very good, given a major label. Because, a major label can rewrite the definition of an audiophile recording at its whim? That makes no sense, either.

5. You like the download, great. It's nice to see someone enjoy it. How, is beyond me, given the assertion of sound quality.

Edit: I just reread my post and I hope you don't see it as rude. On a personal level, I have an enormous respect for recording industry professionals. Can you tell us which recordings you were responsible for? Perhaps I have some.

 

[Peter Breuninger]

I was a NIN non-believer too. You have to open up your mind to new possibilities. When I play the track "Piggy" on the MBLs it's breathtaking.

 

[Shaffer]

I was a NIN non-believer too. You have to open up your mind to new possibilities. When I play the track "Piggy" on the MBLs it's breathtaking.

Peter, honestly, this sort of this has been going on since the mid-80s with Front242, Revolting Cocks, even Nitzer Ebb which is close to NIN, stylistically, as well as being a similarly pop-oriented horror show. Their first album came out in '83, IICR. NIN, themselves, have been doing this for ~20 years.

 

[Andre Marc]

As luck would have it, I won an autographed LP pressing from my local store, so I am now in possession of the vinyl, the CD, and the audiophile download.

CD: Dynamically it's a pancake. Just lays there, bit in an in-your-face kinda way. Not pleasant, not inviting.

Audiophile download: Sounds more alive than its DR rating of 6 would suggest. Everything is better compared to the CD. Still, calling it "audiophile" is almost laughable.

LP: Now we're talkin'! Fairly big dynamic swings, lots of separation and space. The album is so much more interesting, involving, and gratifying to listen to. Personally, I think something similar to the LP master should have been released as the 24/96 download. In a sense I'm glad that I had this experience, but there's no denying that as a buyer I would have been much happier with a better sounding product advertised as such.

I have both versions of the downloads. This is far, far from anything you could call "audiophile" as you say. JUST judging the sound..the music is Ok...this is a synthetic sounding recording. There
is no way this would be mistaken for a vintage album..there was no attempt at warmth what so ever. Cold is the word I would use.

48/24 PCM. And this is why I still get a chuckle out of the DSD and high resolution hounds, who are delusional about the state of current recording. I am big DSD fan, but folks who thing the rock and pop acts
are going to dump their Pro Tools rigs are on crack. 48 and 44.1 @ 24 bits rules the day.

 

[853guy]

I didn't quote your post, as I'm not sure what you're trying to argue:

Hey, Shaffer. I'm not really trying to argue anything. Simply posting a perspective. My perspective is: 'wow, great, some new music from NIN, and look… three formats to chose from, each with a bespoke master where at least two versions aren't flat-topped all the way through from beginning to end. Great!'

1. That the audiophile mix with little dynamic range and a slightly more palpable presentation than the horrible CD is actually good? That's essentially impossible, no matter how much you try to obfuscate the point. Your argument involves writing a new set of rules for an audiophile recording and those rules simply don't comply with reality, not to those who are actually audiophiles and who know what an audiophile recording sounds like.

So the arbiter of all things audiophile is… er, you? I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. Like I say, I didn't mix or master it, so I only get a choice of whether I buy it or not and like it or not. That's the reality. And unless you want to put your name forward to re-mix or re-master it, it'll remain the only reality.

By the way, I suppose I have a few "audiophile" recordings. Would Vishwa Mohan Bhatt and Ry Cooder's A Meeting By the River qualify? An album with a DR value of -9? -12? Recorded direct to two-track with no EQ and compression in either tracking, mixing or mastering? Would riding the fader discount it? If the signal chain contained tubes? Gosh, that probably narrows it down to a bunch of classical and boutique label jazz releases. Yep, those sound nothing like any Nine Inch Nails release. Funny that.

2. That the mix contains an abnormal amount of low bass? Only if one listens to the sales shpiel; certainly not on a comparative level [I mentioned my system's low-end response, as you're new, as marker of competence. There are quite a few members here who can reproduce low bass at fairly high amplitude].

Yes, on a comparative level - to the CD release. I think I posted that above. (And sure, -6dB @ 18Hz would be really impressive - if the rest of the frequency spectrum measured similarly with no peaks or troughs. I'm sure that's the case, right?)

3. That such a recording is difficult to master clearly? Again, multiple hundreds of examples pointing to the opposite conclusion. I feel silly even discussing this, as a certain degree of intellectual honesty and listening experience are expected norms in this venue.

Ooh, sorry… Let me check my credentials at the door next time - I snuck in the back and hoped no-one would notice. I guess my point is that every recording poses challenges in mixing and mastering, and that since neither you nor I were present at either session, balancing the expectations of the artist, engineer and label then all we can do is compare the MP3, CD, HD download and vinyl of the same recording, because comparing different recordings by different artists is rather intellectually dishonest and redundant, don't you think?

4. That the mix/mastering is very good, given a major label. Because, a major label can rewrite the definition of an audiophile recording at its whim? That makes no sense, either.

Well, isn't that exactly what major labels have been doing for years and years - dictating the sound quality of the music we love pushing it louder and louder in a race to the bottom? My perspective, for the sake of being ridiculous, is: 'well, at least NIN, Alan Moulder, Tom Baker, Chris Bellman and Colombia gave us a choice of multiple formats with a few degrees of dynamic range.' Many, many artists and labels could give a rats.

5. You like the download, great. It's nice to see someone enjoy it. How, is beyond me, given the assertion of sound quality.

Oh, it's easy. I just always listen to the music for the artistic content and overlook the quality of the sonics. Yes, I really appreciate it when an artist releases music that's not slammed and brick-walled into oblivion, but as it's never my prerogative to demand it, not being responsible for the recording/mixing/mastering process, I'm simply grateful when it's made available - just like it was here. I think the HD version is better than the CD, and I'm sure the vinyl is even better, like you say. Whether any of those versions qualify as "audiophile" is exactly what will be debated by those audiophiles whose sensibilities are offended by their moniker being used for a DR5 release. Me? I'm a music lover, so I never feel the need to get too upset by the recording/mixing/mastering of anything. It lets me listen to a far greater variety of music than I've historically found at many "audiophile" homes and dealer's showrooms.

Edit: I just reread my post and I hope you don't see it as rude. On a personal level, I have an enormous respect for recording industry professionals. Can you tell us which recordings you were responsible for? Perhaps I have some.

Thanks, but all of them have a DR value of -4, so I'm afraid I'd only invite your vitriol. One song off an album I engineered, mixed and mastered did find itself used on the season finale of Brother and Sisters, so if you have the soundtrack, I guess you might have. (In the interest of full disclosure, that was a long time ago, and the amount of money I made being in the music industry was also in the negatives. Now I work in advertising, which makes television content for products no-one needs, that people buy with money they don't have. Ah, sweet capitalism.)

 

[Shaffer]

Whether any of those versions qualify as "audiophile" is exactly what will be debated by those audiophiles whose sensibilities are offended by their moniker being used for a DR5 release. Me? I'm a music lover, so I never feel the need to get too upset by the recording/mixing/mastering of anything. It lets me listen to a far greater variety of music than I've historically found at many "audiophile" homes and dealer's showrooms.

1. That must explain why you're posting to a thread discussing the sound quality of the three releases.

2. Audiophiles aren't misc lovers, and you've transcended our respective outlook to reach a certain gestalt in your existence that we all lack. Before deluding yourself further, have a look at the threads showing members' record collections. Seriously. Then come back.

Clearly, it's difficult for the two points above to coexist: you care about sound, but you really don't. One thing is certain, you have no idea what audience you're addressing.

Oh, it's easy. I just always listen to the music for the artistic content and overlook the quality of the sonics.

I omitted the rest of your comments due to their circular nature. We're discussing sound quality, but you seem to say whatever is convenient at the moment. Intellectual honesty, remember? And so it goes...

 

[Peter Breuninger]

Speaking of NIN... they paid us a visit yesterday!

 

[853guy]

1. That must explain why you're posting to a thread discussing the sound quality of the three releases.

2. Audiophiles aren't misc lovers, and you've transcended our respective outlook to reach a certain gestalt in your existence that we all lack. Before deluding yourself further, have a look at the threads showing members' record collections. Seriously. Then come back.

Clearly, it's difficult for the two points above to coexist: you care about sound, but you really don't. One thing is certain, you have no idea what audience you're addressing.

Ah, Shaffer... You come across so arrogant, defensive and petulant in your posts, but really underneath it all I know you're a big teddy bear in need of a hug. Come 'ere you big lug and give me some love...!

Look dude, while it's becoming clear I've come to your invite-only S&M BBQ dressed in tight-wighties with a salad, let me ask you one last question: How many people do you know at a major label?

Off the top off my head, I probably know about fifty, from Universal, Sony, Warners - some of them artists, some of them label heads and some of them A&R guys. Do you know how many of them think releasing multiple formats with bespoke masters to placate a tiny, tiny portion of the music buying public who bitch and moan about sound quality all the time is a great idea?

None of them.

Given most have seen their career trajectory nose-dive into the runway over the last ten years, making multiple formats available is insane. And spending money on two different mastering engineers to make less-crushed masters in digital and analog respectively is so far beyond the point of diminishing returns it's just not funny.

If you knew the industry at all, you'd know that what we got with Hesitation Marks is an anomaly. Bespoke masters almost never happen, so enjoy it while you can.

I do care about sound quality, but I just take what I can get and applaud the effort when it's made. Sorry I broke up your hate-fest, but I'm sure labels all 'round the world will be attempting to remedy your complaints with every release from now on. Or not.

I omitted the rest of your comments due to their circular nature. We're discussing sound quality, but you seem to say whatever is convenient at the moment. Intellectual honesty, remember? And so it goes...

Ow, man, that really hurt my feelings. *Sniff*

 

[Bruce B]

How many people do you know at a major label?

Off the top off my head, I probably know about fifty, from Universal, Sony, Warners - some of them artists, some of them label heads and some of them A&R guys. Do you know how many of them think releasing multiple formats with bespoke masters to placate a tiny, tiny portion of the music buying public who bitch and moan about sound quality all the time is a great idea?

None of them.

Given most have seen their career trajectory nose-dive into the runway over the last ten years, making multiple formats available is insane. And spending money on two different mastering engineers to make less-crushed masters in digital and analog respectively is so far beyond the point of diminishing returns it's just not funny.

If you knew the industry at all, you'd know that what we got with Hesitation Marks is an anomaly. Bespoke masters almost never happen, so enjoy it while you can.

I do care about sound quality, but I just take what I can get and applaud the effort when it's made. Sorry I broke up your hate-fest, but I'm sure labels all 'round the world will be attempting to remedy your complaints with every release from now on. Or not.

+1.. I deal with these guys almost every day and they could care less.

 

[Andre Marc]

Ah, Shaffer... You come across so arrogant, defensive and petulant in your posts, but really underneath it all I know you're a big teddy bear in need of a hug. Come 'ere you big lug and give me some love...!

Look dude, while it's becoming clear I've come to your invite-only S&M BBQ dressed in tight-wighties with a salad, let me ask you one last question: How many people do you know at a major label?

Off the top off my head, I probably know about fifty, from Universal, Sony, Warners - some of them artists, some of them label heads and some of them A&R guys. Do you know how many of them think releasing multiple formats with bespoke masters to placate a tiny, tiny portion of the music buying public who bitch and moan about sound quality all the time is a great idea?

None of them.

Given most have seen their career trajectory nose-dive into the runway over the last ten years, making multiple formats available is insane. And spending money on two different mastering engineers to make less-crushed masters in digital and analog respectively is so far beyond the point of diminishing returns it's just not funny.

If you knew the industry at all, you'd know that what we got with Hesitation Marks is an anomaly. Bespoke masters almost never happen, so enjoy it while you can.

I do care about sound quality, but I just take what I can get and applaud the effort when it's made. Sorry I broke up your hate-fest, but I'm sure labels all 'round the world will be attempting to remedy your complaints with every release from now on. Or not.



Ow, man, that really hurt my feelings. *Sniff*

I do have a quick question. I also know quite a few folks at major labels and in production.

Forget everything else. and ESPECIALLY audiophiles...don't artists want the music they write, record, and release to sound as
as good as possible? Or are they just convinced that it make no difference through white ear buds, plastic Best Buy stereos,
and car speakers?

This is not a sarcastic or trick question, I am asking sincerely!