DSD to Vinyl Versus Analog Tape to Vinyl

[Carlos269]

Understood, but it's not really re-mastering in the traditional sense. Re-Mastering involves manipulation of the individual tracks' levels, phase, panning and effects. You're taking a finished product and overlaying effects, DEQ, etc.

Also, I use HQPlayer, an excellent player with filters, dithering, oversampling etc. It's the best sounding and capable player and digital manipulator I've found.

You are wrong here. HQPlayer is not traditional remastering I grant you, it is “remastering lite” sort to speak. But my two systems are full blown remastering systems as I mentioned earlier, I’m able to keeping both dry and wet signals and decompose the stereo signals into X-Y vectors to alter the stereo field while at the same time shaping the waveforms for spatial and spectral content. I can add reverberation, delays, measured iron and tube saturation and pan by moving things around in the stereo field so on. Not overlaying affects but actually deconstructing to the X-Y vectors and branching to make changes before regenerating the left and right stereo signals back for further processing. My systems can decompose the stereo signals in both the digital and analog domains to make separate branches to parallel processes the decomposed signals for enhancing whatever attribute that I want. This is far more complex and involved than simply “overlaying” effects on top of the mix. Perhaps you are not familiar with high-end mastering.

Since you claim to be familiar with the studio environment, you should know that it is the “mix engineer” that adjust the individual tracks and the “mastering engineer” is responsible for polishing the final mix, and rarely revert to tracking.

I have more capabilities in these two mastering systems than most world class studios. If you are at all familiar with the mastering engineers at Sterling Sounds or at the old Sony Classical Music studios in New York you would find that they use similar tools and do not go back to tracking as that is the role of the mix engineer and not the mastering engineer. Mastering engineers work with the final mix and not at the individual track level.

Check out Bob Katz‘s mastering tools and you will see a very simple mastering chain. I have all of his mastering tools and many more.

 

[Solypsa]

I bought my Neumann VMS 70 system ( now gone ) from Sony Studios NYC back on 04. Nice facility..Rockport TT in the archive room.

Fact is *most* mastering studios are far less extravagant as they are for profit businesses in a not so lavish sector of the music industry, but you are very correct that it's often the skill of the engineer and their care to do no harm that makes the best outcomes as oppossed to writing checks or outrageous gear lists....

 

[Gregadd]

You missed the point, that it has much more to do with filtering than the extra bandwidth. This technical discussion may be beyond your grasp. Sorry.

Long ago a.departed member(Amir) discussed filtering and sampling rate. I am researching the point. But alas this not about me.
Edit just to be clear I did not miss the point, I made new one. When I press the like button I am in accprd.
Wje.

 

[Atmasphere]

You missed the point, that it has much more to do with filtering than the extra bandwidth. This technical discussion may be beyond your grasp. Sorry.

One very obvious issue with higher sampling frequencies is simply the extra headaches associated with keeping switching noise under control.

The WE 111C transformers are old telephone line repeater transformers and are extremely linear to the tube of +/- 0.5 dB throughout their bandwidth. It’s their bandwidth that is the secret sauce. What these transformers do is clean up the sound and make the music clearer by rolling off the high frequencies at 15 to 16 KHz and more importantly by cleaning up music by rolling off the bass and low frequency rumble at 30 Hz.

That is we’re the music resides and what the specifications were for vintage high-fidelity playback systems from 30 to 15,000 cycles per second (Hz).

Rex makes a good point here!

I am suspecting that the transformer is doing a lot more than just roll off the extremes- else you could do that with some of your very capable equalizers. Isolation is probably playing a role too. The balanced standard is meant to prevent ground loops amongst other things and its very effective at that. But I find especially in solid state gear that designers tend to take some shortcuts since transformers are expensive. So I've seen 'pro' gear that references ground; IOW the non-inverting output could be used as a single-ended output by simply using ground and pin 2 of the XLR. A transformer, with its isolation, can prevent a lot of noise from being passed downstream. Ground loops are not always about hum- they can manifest as noise too. I have to imagine that if there are any ultrasonic artifacts about, the transformer is good at blocking them as well, where an equalizer might let them pass.

My recording and mastering facility is much simpler than yours! I've done as much as I can to minimize equipment in the signal chain. If the drums don't sound right, we move the mics instead of using EQ (not to say that we don't have EQ or compression...). To this end I modified a set of Western Electric mic preamp channels to drive the tape machines and ADCs directly with no processing whatsoever beyond a volume control.

Similarly, when mastering no DSP is used, no EQ or limiting. Usually it takes a few test cuts to see if a certain spot in a project can be mastered to fit in the grooves without limiting or adding bass processing. So far, not had to do any of that. But this also means we're spending a lot more time with each project than would normally happen with an LP project.

 

[Carlos269]

One very obvious issue with higher sampling frequencies is simply the extra headaches associated with keeping switching noise under control.

Rex makes a good point here!

I am suspecting that the transformer is doing a lot more than just roll off the extremes- else you could do that with some of your very capable equalizers. Isolation is probably playing a role too. The balanced standard is meant to prevent ground loops amongst other things and its very effective at that. But I find especially in solid state gear that designers tend to take some shortcuts since transformers are expensive. So I've seen 'pro' gear that references ground; IOW the non-inverting output could be used as a single-ended output by simply using ground and pin 2 of the XLR. A transformer, with its isolation, can prevent a lot of noise from being passed downstream. Ground loops are not always about hum- they can manifest as noise too. I have to imagine that if there are any ultrasonic artifacts about, the transformer is good at blocking them as well, where an equalizer might let them pass.

My recording and mastering facility is much simpler than yours! I've done as much as I can to minimize equipment in the signal chain. If the drums don't sound right, we move the mics instead of using EQ (not to say that we don't have EQ or compression...). To this end I modified a set of Western Electric mic preamp channels to drive the tape machines and ADCs directly with no processing whatsoever beyond a volume control.

Similarly, when mastering no DSP is used, no EQ or limiting. Usually it takes a few test cuts to see if a certain spot in a project can be mastered to fit in the grooves without limiting or adding bass processing. So far, not had to do any of that. But this also means we're spending a lot more time with each project than would normally happen with an LP project.

The isolation from transformers is implied by definition. Most high-end mastering processors have transformers at their inputs and outputs so the isolation from the repeater transformers is not that big of a deal. The other thing that they do is saturate if you get the levels high enough and that does produce a pleasing effect.

You are involved at the recording stage, if you only had the final mixes you would need to resort to a lot more than minimalist processing to make any substantial changes.

 

[Atmasphere]

You are involved at the recording stage, if you only had the final mixes you would need to resort to a lot more than minimalist processing to make any substantial changes.

Yes. The assumption is that any finished project is how the producer wanted it. Our job is to do the transfer with as much fidelity as possible. Sometimes we encounter deficiencies and we contact the producer to see how they want to proceed. One time we got a tape that has an obvious microphonic tube in the tape machine used by the band to record- it was producing a 19KHz tone that was easily seen in the grooves. They let it go...we stuck a bit of EQ on it and that seemed to help.

 

[sbo6]

You are wrong here. HQPlayer is not traditional remastering I grant you, it is “remastering lite” sort to speak. But my two systems are full blown remastering systems as I mentioned earlier, I’m able to keeping both dry and wet signals and decompose the stereo signals into X-Y vectors to alter the stereo field while at the same time shaping the waveforms for spatial and spectral content. I can add reverberation, delays, measured iron and tube saturation and pan by moving things around in the stereo field so on. Not overlaying affects but actually deconstructing to the X-Y vectors and branching to make changes before regenerating the left and right stereo signals back for further processing. My systems can decompose the stereo signals in both the digital and analog domains to make separate branches to parallel processes the decomposed signals for enhancing whatever attribute that I want. This is far more complex and involved than simply “overlaying” effects on top of the mix. Perhaps you are not familiar with high-end mastering.

Since you claim to be familiar with the studio environment, you should know that it is the “mix engineer” that adjust the individual tracks and the “mastering engineer” is responsible for polishing the final mix, and rarely revert to tracking.

I have more capabilities in these two mastering systems than most world class studios. If you are at all familiar with the mastering engineers at Sterling Sounds or at the old Sony Classical Music studios in New York you would find that they use similar tools and do not go back to tracking as that is the role of the mix engineer and not the mastering engineer. Mastering engineers work with the final mix and not at the individual track level.

Check out Bob Katz‘s mastering tools and you will see a very simple mastering chain. I have all of his mastering tools and many more.

I don't think I'm wrong at all evidenced by your second sentence - "HQPlayer is not traditional remastering I grant you, it is “remastering lite” sort to speak."

Also, how are you able to "keep dry signals", you need the original master before becoming wet signals to do so?

Net is - while you have a world class mastering system and you can add reverberation, delays you can't remove what's already been done (e.g.: wet sounds = production which you and I own). You can't undo much (most?) of what has already been imprinted by the original mastering engineer. That's why re - masters start with the "original tapes" (dry signals) to remix and remaster (think the majority of Beatles remasters level, removal of hard panning, effects, etc.) and not the end product.

 

[Carlos269]

I don't think I'm wrong at all evidenced by your second sentence - "HQPlayer is not traditional remastering I grant you, it is “remastering lite” sort to speak."

Also, how are you able to "keep dry signals", you need the original master before becoming wet signals to do so?

Net is - while you have a world class mastering system and you can add reverberation, delays you can't remove what's already been done (e.g.: wet sounds = production which you and I own). You can't undo much (most?) of what has already been imprinted by the original mastering engineer. That's why re - masters start with the "original tapes" (dry signals) to remix and remaster (think the majority of Beatles remasters level, removal of hard panning, effects, etc.) and not the end product.

Wow, it’s hard to believe that you are not even getting the terminology correct. When you remaster at home like I do, the “dry“ mix is what you start with, the original commercially released mix. The “wet” mix is what you are processing and the “remastered” mix is typically a mixture of the two. I suggest you pick up Bob Katz’s book “The Art of Mastering” and educate yourself. High-end mastering is a convoluted process in which you produce parallel copies of the signal and expertly adjust each version before you bring them all back together for the final two channel mixdown. I can guarantee you that the mastering process is most powerful or impactful in enhancing any recording compared to any audiophile trial and error tweak. This is no secret listen to two different versions of a recording and it is quiet obvious to hear the differences. Again, do yourself a favor and pick up a book on mastering as you have a lot to learn. There are a few other very good books on mastering besides Bob Katz’s out there but his is a good place to start.

Regarding removing artifacts from recordings, this is easily accomplished in audio editing on a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation). Like my Sadie 5 DSD8 or in Protools. But it can also be done real-time with hardware from Weiss, Dolby, Cedar and others. You have no idea how powerful mastering is, and it has nothing to do with having access to the original raw tracks.

Give Jussi and his HQPLAYER tool more credit, HQPLAYE-Pro is a fantastic mastering tool in the studio and home environment. While it does not give access to all parametric controls, with its pipeline architecture and convolution processes there is a huge amount of power at the disposal of qualified and capable individuals.

 

[Atmasphere]

I can guarantee you that the mastering process is the most powerful or impactful in enhancing any recording compared to any audiophile trial and error tweak.

Well it had better be! Most audiphiles I know are purists and want to experience the recording in its purest/purist form.

 

[Carlos269]

Well it had better be! Most audiphiles I know are purists and want to experience the recording in its purest/purist form.

In theory but not in practice. Read this or any other audiophile forum and everyone is seasoning their systems, with bullshit tweaks and whatever someone claims is good and expensive, to suit their own taste.

 

[Gregadd]

In theory but not in practice. Read this or any other audiophile forum and everyone is seasoning their systems, with bullshit tweaks and whatever someone claims is good and expensive, to suit their own taste.

There we go.

 

[Atmasphere]

In theory but not in practice. Read this or any other audiophile forum and everyone is seasoning their systems, with bullshit tweaks and whatever someone claims is good and expensive, to suit their own taste.

I'd be careful- some 'tweaks' have a lot of history!
For example, the custom table for my mastering lathe is equipped with a damping platform and adjustable pointy 'tip toe' feet. And made around 1950.

Some tweaks work and some do not.

Is a power cord a tweak? They obey Ohm's Law- and so can really affect amplifier performance. I seen and measured that- with regards to the latter, measured a 40 watt loss of power entirely due to a power cord...

 

[Carlos269]

I'd be careful- some 'tweaks' have a lot of history!
For example, the custom table for my mastering lathe is equipped with a damping platform and adjustable pointy 'tip toe' feet. And made around 1950.

Some tweaks work and some do not.

Is a power cord a tweak? They obey Ohm's Law- and so can really affect amplifier performance. I seen and measured that- with regards to the latter, measured a 40 watt loss of power entirely due to a power cord...

You know very well what I’m referring to so don’t pretend! You either play it straight or you don’t.

 

[Atmasphere]

You know very well what I’m referring to so don’t pretend! You either play it straight or you don’t.

Sorry - not pretending. I try to play things as straight as I can. But 'tweak' covers a pretty broad range of things that can be done. Some of them are expensive and some are not. Some work and some do not and price has nothing to do with it. Intention does but even intention can be thwarted by made up stories about how the tweak is supposed to work as opposed to reality.

Some might regard my equipment stand as a tweak. Others might not. The bearings on which the stand sits do most of the work preventing footfalls- by a good 30dB! Some might regard them as a tweak while seeing the stand as a component. See what I mean?

So you need to be careful when you make general comments; their general nature tends to render them false. And to some, offensive (although none taken here).

Many regard cables as tweaks. I knew Robert Fulton, who pretty sell single-handedly founded the high end cable industry back in the late 1970s. Because I knew him and also because I played in a civic orchestra where I was able to hear the direct mic feed while it was being recorded, I realized that balanced lines could be used in the home to eliminate cable differences- and get everything to sound better all at the same time. So I designed the first balanced line preamp made anywhere which went into production in 1989. One of the founders of BAT was an early customer. Some people think balanced operation is a 'tweak'. So you do have to be careful with terms!

 

[microstrip]

(...) Is a power cord a tweak? They obey Ohm's Law- and so can really affect amplifier performance. I seen and measured that- with regards to the latter, measured a 40 watt loss of power entirely due to a power cord...

I know its mainly a question of semantics but IMHO this was not a tweak - it was a faulty cable or an inappropriate cable.

Just because some tweaks are a joke does not imply we should have an instinctive anti-tweak reaction. Why are the DIY people considered enthusiasts and of merit and the tweakers a public enemy?

 

[Carlos269]

Sorry - not pretending. I try to play things as straight as I can. But 'tweak' covers a pretty broad range of things that can be done. Some of them are expensive and some are not. Some work and some do not and price has nothing to do with it. Intention does but even intention can be thwarted by made up stories about how the tweak is supposed to work as opposed to reality.

Some might regard my equipment stand as a tweak. Others might not. The bearings on which the stand sits do most of the work preventing footfalls- by a good 30dB! Some might regard them as a tweak while seeing the stand as a component. See what I mean?

So you need to be careful when you make general comments; their general nature tends to render them false. And to some, offensive (although none taken here).

Many regard cables as tweaks. I knew Robert Fulton, who pretty sell single-handedly founded the high end cable industry back in the late 1970s. Because I knew him and also because I played in a civic orchestra where I was able to hear the direct mic feed while it was being recorded, I realized that balanced lines could be used in the home to eliminate cable differences- and get everything to sound better all at the same time. So I designed the first balanced line preamp made anywhere which went into production in 1989. One of the founders of BAT was an early customer. Some people think balanced operation is a 'tweak'. So you do have to be careful with terms!

Perhaps you are correct in not assuming that everyone can see as clearly through the BS as some can. Not sure how anyone could classify balanced circuit topology as a tweak, but in the world of Pseudo-balance I guess that anything is possible. When the exceptions to the rule are few and far between, it is easy to label the group as represented by its majority.

 

[Solypsa]

.High-end mastering is a convoluted process in which you produce parallel copies of the signal and expertly adjust each version before you bring them all back together for the final two channel mixdown. I can guarantee you that the mastering process is most powerful or impactful in enhancing any recording compared to any audiophile trial and error tweak.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. My experience in the mastering industry was that there are 3 primary reasons 'mastering' still exists ( since there is not a master made in the old sense of the term unless vinyl or pressed cd...):

1) Quality Control- engineer shall catch any glitches or anomalies not noticed during mixdown

2) Salt and Glue- Mastering can include subtle alterations to the character of the final mix by skillful passing through ( mostly analog but also digital emulations of analog ) devices that are known to help create a cohesive sound and pleasant harmonic distortions and slight phase shifts that over time have become known to help ( especially with mutli track mixes ) the final version 'flow'. Old gear like Pultec, Fairchild or Sontec...new gear like mentioned in this thread. This is *generally* done to the stereo mix...

3) Correction- surgical removal of artefacts, rebalance of a poor mix and changing the overall sound in more heavy handed ways. Here we get m/s x/y convolution sidechain parallel process etc etc. This is usually only needed for pretty poor recordings and not in my experience a part of the tracks that end up being celebrated as ' the best'. Here is where a lot of skill comes in but also a last resort vs a full remix.

I am not challenging @Carlos269 as he clearly has the gear and the skill, however it would be unfair to present mastering to this audience without pointing out that it is a 'do no harm' first occupation and a 'creative endeavor' second...

Regarding removing artifacts from recordings, this is easily accomplished in audio editing on a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation). Like my Sadie 5 DSD8 or in Protools. But it can also be done real-time with hardware from Weiss, Dolby, Cedar and others. You have no idea how powerful mastering is, and it has nothing to do with having access to the original raw tracks.
.

Agreed although it is best to start with high rez raw tracks....not unlike photo processing. The editing can be done either way tho...

 

[Carlos269]

Sometimes. Sometimes not. My experience in the mastering industry was that there are 3 primary reasons 'mastering' still exists ( since there is not a master made in the old sense of the term unless vinyl or pressed cd...):

1) Quality Control- engineer shall catch any glitches or anomalies not noticed during mixdown

2) Salt and Glue- Mastering can include subtle alterations to the character of the final mix by skillful passing through ( mostly analog but also digital emulations of analog ) devices that are known to help create a cohesive sound and pleasant harmonic distortions and slight phase shifts that over time have become known to help ( especially with mutli track mixes ) the final version 'flow'. Old gear like Pultec, Fairchild or Sontec...new gear like mentioned in this thread. This is *generally* done to the stereo mix...

3) Correction- surgical removal of artefacts, rebalance of a poor mix and changing the overall sound in more heavy handed ways. Here we get m/s x/y convolution sidechain parallel process etc etc. This is usually only needed for pretty poor recordings and not in my experience a part of the tracks that end up being celebrated as ' the best'. Here is where a lot of skill comes in but also a last resort vs a full remix.

I am not challenging @Carlos269 as he clearly has the gear and the skill, however it would be unfair to present mastering to this audience without pointing out that it is a 'do no harm' first occupation and a 'creative endeavor' second...


Agreed although it is best to start with high rez raw tracks....not unlike photo processing. The editing can be done either way tho...

Sometimes all it takes is running the mix through magnetic tape or a tape emulator like the Anamod ST-1 (analog) or SPL Machinehead (digital). There are no hard rules. It takes specialized equipment and skill, but most of all an understanding of what you are trying to do and how to go about doing it. Without understanding fundamental principles the effort will go off the rail pretty quickly and result in an incoherent mess. For one, whatever adjustments are made have to remain in phase or they will not collapse properly.

 

[sbo6]

Wow, it’s hard to believe that you are not even getting the terminology correct. When you remaster at home like I do, the “dry“ mix is what you start with, the original commercially released mix. The “wet” mix is what you are processing and the “remastered” mix is typically a mixture of the two. I suggest you pick up Bob Katz’s book “The Art of Mastering” and educate yourself. High-end mastering is a convoluted process in which you produce parallel copies of the signal and expertly adjust each version before you bring them all back together for the final two channel mixdown. I can guarantee you that the mastering process is most powerful or impactful in enhancing any recording compared to any audiophile trial and error tweak. This is no secret listen to two different versions of a recording and it is quiet obvious to hear the differences. Again, do yourself a favor and pick up a book on mastering as you have a lot to learn. There are a few other very good books on mastering besides Bob Katz’s out there but his is a good place to start.

Regarding removing artifacts from recordings, this is easily accomplished in audio editing on a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation). Like my Sadie 5 DSD8 or in Protools. But it can also be done real-time with hardware from Weiss, Dolby, Cedar and others. You have no idea how powerful mastering is, and it has nothing to do with having access to the original raw tracks.

Give Jussi and his HQPLAYER tool more credit, HQPLAYE-Pro is a fantastic mastering tool in the studio and home environment. While it does not give access to all parametric controls, with its pipeline architecture and convolution processes there is a huge amount of power at the disposal of qualified and capable individuals.

My friend, let me give you some advice - please tame your arrogance.

That said, dry is virgin recording, pre - processed, wet is post - processing which is what I stated. How you define it with your production material edits is not industry standard. Watch the first minute of this video if you're unconvinced.: Dry/Wet Explained - Audio Basics - YouTube

Also, I do use HQplayer's convolution and again, as I said for my purposes which include the playback engine and again convolution filter capability is excellent.
.

 

[Carlos269]

My friend, let me give you some advice - please tame your arrogance.

That said, dry is virgin recording, pre - processed, wet is post - processing which is what I stated. How you define it with your production material edits is not industry standard. Watch the first minute of this video if you're unconvinced.: Dry/Wet Explained - Audio Basics - YouTube

Also, I do use HQplayer's convolution and again, as I said for my purposes which include the playback engine and again convolution filter capability is excellent.
.

No arrogance on my part. I like the exchange of information. You need to apply the reference point of view. For my “remastering” done at home the Dry/Wet definitions are consistent with the standards that you have provided.

You ever done a Hamiltonian transform to switch from Cartesian coordinates to Spherical coordinates? It is all the same, just different points of reference.