A very interesting post on mastering recordings

J

James Tanner - Bryston

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
1,874
A very interesting post on mastering recordings

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 20:32:12 -0400

Subject: Dr. AIX Post for Thursday, October 23, 2014

Dr. AIX

I know and count as friends a large number of professional recording engineers. Among them are Grammy nominees/winners and engineers that have worked with some of the biggest music acts on the planet (including the Stones, Diana Ross, Stevie Wonder etc). The recent AES Convention presented an opportunity to meet some new friends and catch up with s few old ones. And as you might have guessed, I brought up the subject of high-resolution audio to a number of them. Strolling the aisles of the show, I also stopped random individuals and asked them about high-resolution audio as well...a sort of "man in the aisles" impromptu poll.

Here's a brief report on my some of those conversations and the results of my questioning:

Outside of our little world...almost no one knows what high-resolution is or has even heard about it. This was quite surprising to me. Wouldn't you expect the engineers recording the next big hit or album would want to be current with the latest engineering trends? Well, perhaps they are...and high-resolution audio isn't one of them. Of roughly 20 people that I polled, only about 30% had any clue what high-resolution audio was. About half had heard the term but couldn't really provide any more information than, "it's when you use run Pro Tools at 96 kHz or higher, right". A couple of analog traditionalists brought up the resurgence of analog tape and vinyl LP in referring to high-resolution audio. When challenged I got the usual responses..."analog is infinite resolution", "I just like the sound of analog better", and "no one can tell the difference between a CD and high-res audio...so why bother?"

The reality is that engineers don't really have the facts and they don't really care. Their goal is to produce recordings that the labels and producers are willing to release...not ones that actually sound good.

Another interesting discussion that I had with more than one engineer is the lunacy of audiophiles. When I said that I owned and operated an audiophile record label, the responses ran the gamut from comments with a decidedly "Twilight Zone" cast or to ones that actually tried to understand the motivations of audiophiles. I think the best conversation I had was with a very successful engineer and studio owner (multiple facilities, in fact). When I mentioned some of the "accessories", "tweaks", and cable costs that are pitched to audiophiles, he rolled his eyes and said, "don't audiophiles know that we don't use any of that stuff while we're making records?" I responded that I think many are aware of the basics of audio production but they feel that they can get more out of the tracks with exotic cables, special treatments, and hocus pocus accessories.

This is a touchy area with professionals. They regard what they do as alchemy...a blend of technology, artisanship, and inspiration. What they hear from their monitor speakers (JBL, DynAudio, Tannoy, ATC etc...not Wilson or Magico) is what they approve. And the artists usually approve the final mixes and mastered tracks on their own home systems. I've seen artists approve final masters on the built in speakers on their tour busses.

Finally, there are occasions when you learn something from a veteran that you didn't know. I bumped into Allen Sides outside of the paper sessions area of the show and got chatting briefly. He told me that the Studer machines that The Beatles used form many of their early records had the low end restricted by an Abbey Road tech. I hadn't heard that before. He told me that he had heard that the machines wouldn't handle anything lower than 40-60 Hz and that's why the low end is so thin on those albums. Interesting.

Audio magazines would do a big favor to the audiophile community if they would concentrate on less pricey equipment and explore the studios where the music is actually produced.

If you would like to leave a comment on this article, you can do so at the RealHD-Audio.com site at the bottom of this article page. Click here to visit that page.

You are subscribed to this mailing list as [email protected]. Please click here to modify your message preferences or to unsubscribe from any future mailings. We will respect all unsubscribe requests.
 
Interesting read and her comments mirror my own experiences this summer touring recording studios. The biggest shock for me, was the amount of DSP studios use.

This is why a lot of live albums today sound so much more natural than the equivalent of processed food recordings we get today. I watched many times how a song was chopped up and edited and digitally "corrected" - one millisecond at a time.

What I found was that for all their bad habits and use of digital technology don't usually equate to great sounding albums on a good HiFi system. Is this why audiophiles are constantly recycling all the old (analog) recordings?

"They regard what they do as alchemy...a blend of technology, artisanship, and inspiration." What I witnessed was a love affair with the technology. Much more "computer science" than artisanship and inspiration. An Artisan doesn't sit their at a MacIntosh computer with cheesy speakers editing one millisecond at a time...."bleep blurp, bleep blurp, bleep blurp."

All this DSP processing and digital regurgitation is fine for ear buds or a car stereo, but not for HiFi. And truth be told, those with HiFi systems these days is a small fraction compared to those who will listen on ear buds or their car stereo, so they are merely catering to their primary audience.
 
In general, there's a world of difference between the engineers of yore, almost all of whom, be they producer or engineer, were musically trained and strove to get the best sound possible. Every company back then modded every piece of gear they used. The companies took pride in what they released. Today, the music labels are run by bean counters.

The majority of today's engineers are nothing more than trained chimpanzees, techno geeks for sure, trying to justify their existence by twiddling a knob. Perhaps they should open their minds and talk to people like KOJ, Michael Bishop, Paul Stubblebine, Bob Ludwig, Tony Faulkner, David Chesky, Steve Hoffman, Steven Marsh, etc. But that will never happens with the fools we have running AES. If AES spend as much time trying to understand what audiophile's demands as trashing them, we'd be a whole lot better off. Today, when a popular release sounds good , it's more of a mistake than intentional planning.

The sad thing--and I've had more than a few mastering engineers by my place--is that the majority of them can hear the differences among gear and recordings. But few of them have ever heard the great recordings that came from the Golden Age of stereo recording of the '50s, '60s and '70s. When I play these great LPs, not to mention 15 ips second or third generation reel to reel tapes, their minds are blown.

In the end therefore, is the issue simply exposure and having an open mind? After all, you can't expect great service at a restaurant if the waiters aren't properly trained; isn't the same thing true for engineers?

PS. I've had many long conversations with Allen Sides and he is a wealth of information on the recording process, both yesterday and today. Want to set him off? Just ask him about Pro tools. No one is more familiar with the pluses and minuses of Pro Tools, than Allen.

PPS While there may be something to the Beatles story, it's curious that the Studer J37 machine is spec'd down to 30 Hz. (of course some depends on set up, head bump, etc.)

Studer J37 | Emusician

http://thehistoryofrecording.com/Manuals/Studer/J37_Op_Serv.pdf
 
Oh yes, one other thing. Many would turn their noses up at the equipment used back in the '50s and '60s to monitor equipment. Have you ever heard a (or pair of) Olson LC-1As that many companies used in mastering back then? Not pretty. But somehow the producer and engineer's work transcended the gear and sounded like what they actually heard in the studio or hall. That ingredient-whether it be the cost of recordings--is sadly missing today.

One thing I took home from a conversation many years ago with one of the greats at RCA. The hall (or studio) is 80% of the equation. If that's not right, you can't do anything to fix it. Today, the attitude is exactly the opposite because of studio costs; record it and fix it later. Unfortunately what the guy at RCA said still holds true. You can't fix it.
 
Well said Myles. I would say they are run by bean counters and computer geeks who wouldn't know a good recording if it bit them in the ass.
 
"This is a touchy area with professionals. They regard what they do as alchemy...a blend of technology, artisanship, and inspiration. What they hear from their monitor speakers (JBL, DynAudio, Tannoy, ATC etc...not Wilson or Magico) is what they approve. And the artists usually approve the final mixes and mastered tracks on their own home systems. I've seen artists approve final masters on the built in speakers on their tour busses."

Audiophiles and recording professionals can learn a thing or two from each other. I've watched a number of documentaries where the studio had no dedicated listening room that resembled anything a typical consumer would have at home let alone an audiophile. The final mix is evaluated at the console staring at the nearfield montitors blasting away at 120 db. in a foo fighters documentary they actually evaluated the final mix by taking a CDR to their cars to hear it over the stock car radio - huh??

"Audio magazines would do a big favor to the audiophile community if they would concentrate on less pricey equipment and explore the studios where the music is actually produced."

most audiophiles I know don't want to see how the sausage is made they just want the final product. I've fought people at our club about having the next field trip at a recording studio rather than another manufacturers facility. most of them dont even know what they're looking at (hardware) and just oooh and aaah at seeing little capacitors and resistors lined up in pretty rows. You might be surprised at how many people don't care what's underneath the hood that makes it tick. likewise, the records somehow make themselves:huh::)
 
Z
puroagave said:
"This is a touchy area with professionals. They regard what they do as alchemy...a blend of technology, artisanship, and inspiration. What they hear from their monitor speakers (JBL, DynAudio, Tannoy, ATC etc...not Wilson or Magico) is what they approve. And the artists usually approve the final mixes and mastered tracks on their own home systems. I've seen artists approve final masters on the built in speakers on their tour busses."

Audiophiles and recording professionals can learn a thing or two from each other. I've watched a number of documentaries where the studio had no dedicated listening room that resembled anything a typical consumer would have at home let alone an audiophile. The final mix is evaluated at the console staring at the nearfield montitors blasting away at 120 db. in a foo fighters documentary they actually evaluated the final mix by taking a CDR to their cars to hear it over the stock car radio - huh??

"Audio magazines would do a big favor to the audiophile community if they would concentrate on less pricey equipment and explore the studios where the music is actually produced."

most audiophiles I know don't want to see how the sausage is made they just want the final product. I've fought people at our club about having the next field trip at a recording studio rather than another manufacturers facility. most of them dont even know what they're looking at (hardware) and just oooh and aaah at seeing little capacitors and resistors lined up in pretty rows. You might be surprised at how many people don't care what's underneath the hood that makes it tick. likewise, the records somehow make themselves:huh::)
Click to expand...

What sort of system do you think bands have in their basement no less a studio? With the proliferation of digital recording equipment, more and more bands are doing home recordings.

Fact is, there has to be more cross fertilization between equipment manufacturers and studios. A few have made the connection such as Cello, Wilson, B&W, Transparent but there's lots of room for improvement. But I think there's a fundamental disconnect between what engineers feel is important for recreation of the recording and what audiophiles want. For instance, engineers don't give a rats ass about sound staging but there better be dynamics and bass on the recording (yes I know there's a disconnect here-but we know who has the final say in ten release and generally it's not the engineer, less likely the artists and more likely the producer and record label/hit maker computer software.
 
James, thanks for starting this thread. Your post confirms a lot of my suspicions about how most music is recorded today. A few years back, I commented on another forum that I think the recording industry has disdain for audiophiles, if they think about us at all. I know a few musicians, a couple of whom have recording studios in their homes. They admit that getting the highest quality recording made is not among their priorities. They think more in terms of getting the sounds they want on to the recording. If it's there, then on to the next thing. I always suggest to them that making the highest quality recording possible would theoretically please everyone, since the majority won't care either way. They mostly just shrug at the suggestion.
 
asindc said:
James, thanks for starting this thread. Your post confirms a lot of my suspicions about how most music is recorded today. A few years back, I commented on another forum that I think the recording industry has disdain for audiophiles, if they think about us at all. I know a few musicians, a couple of whom have recording studios in their homes. They admit that getting the highest quality recording made is not among their priorities. They think more in terms of getting the sounds they want on to the recording. If it's there, then on to the next thing. I always suggest to them that making the highest quality recording possible would theoretically please everyone, since the majority won't care either way. They mostly just shrug at the suggestion.
Click to expand...

Many years ago. I was at RCA Studios then on 44th St. and 6th Ave. covering Chesky's remastering of the great RCA Living Stereo classical recordings. While I was standing there, one of the RCA people in the studio turned to David and asked why his record company was releasing them in analog. "Just digitize the tapes," this chap suggested, "and release them on LP because the people won't know." God's honest truth and this guy was dead serious. Then you ask?
 
Myles B. Astor said:
Many years ago. I was at RCA Studios then on 44th St. and 6th Ave. covering Chesky's remastering of the great RCA Living Stereo classical recordings. While I was standing there, one of the RCA people in the studio turned to David and asked why his record company was releasing them in analog. "Just digitize the tapes," this chap suggested, "and release them on LP because the people won't know." God's honest truth and this guy was dead serious. Then you ask?
Click to expand...

Not surprising at all. Most recording engineers think audiophiles are all idiots. Their job is to process the in to the out. What happens in the middle just needs to be done as cheaply and quickly as possible. I'm glad some artists give a hoot about how their recordings sound at the end of the day. But most of the modern, horrific sounding "artists/rappers/offensive rhymers" don't give a hoot....they're just glad there are computer tools to fix their sorry excuse for perfect pitch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A couple of vignettes.

The first set of Magico's that I ever heard was at Paul Stubblebine's studio in the Mission in SF. They were huge, very early models. Later, after Michael Romanowski took over the studio, he installed a pair of Focal Utopia (IIRC) - big speakers, for his monitoring. (Both Paul and Romo along with Dan 'Doc Bottlehead' Schmalle are the principals of the Tape Project.)

For my Decca Book with FIM, I got to participate in the process of editing and mastering, between Michael Bishop and Robert Friedrich of Five/Four who did the mastering of the CD's and Winston Ma. It was fascinating to hear the various stages of the development of the sound that made the final CD's and the back and forth between a great engineer and a great producer, who both had great sets of ears and minds. The process is definitely a back and forth and takes more time (=money) than all but a handful of companies are willing to spend.

One example from the Decca project, I was listening to a test CD that included the Grieg Piano Concerto played by Radu Lupu. (It is a TAS super disc in its vinyl incarnation). Near the beginning of the second movement, I heard a few extremely low level clicks. In the previous FIM issue of the album and in my original Decca vinyl copy, I hadn't heard the clicks. So I told Winston and Michael about what I heard. Michael listened to the section and said it was the mechanical clicking of the flute keys, that his mastering had picked up and not to worry. They were in the original recording. And they are there in the CD's released with the book.

Larry
 
Michael was very un-Mikey-like and was very measured. Guess he didn't want to be deleted after seeing some of those uniformed initial comments. But that Admin ahem.... was Reagan's Teflon cousin. He would have agreed with what anyone said and had Mikey not jumped in would have been perfectly happy to lie with initial posters. His comments about audiophiles were as lame as the original posters. (and I've experienced the same condescending, know-it-all attitude from Mark at shows)

Would someone please tell me why it is a crime to ask for BOTH good sound and performance??? Record labels were able to do it 60 years ago! That's the problem with society today and the McDonalds syndrome. There is no longer any appreciation read zero for quality. Why would I need a Panerai or IWC when a $20 blah blah blah keeps as good a time.
 
These are exerpts from posts I made on another forum three years ago:

"I am firmly convinced that the music industry does not like audiophiles in any respect, whether they be analog or digital advocates. HDCD or SACD should have naturally evolved to become the de facto CD standard, and 24/192 files should be the de facto standard for hi res downloads. Quality vinyl pressings should be the norm rather than a relatively expensive exception. Sadly, though, the majority of the market bears the inferior products without protest (or even knowledge, in most cases)."

"My point about [the music industry] hating audiophiles is not about refusing to offer higher quality recordings, but that audiophiles want, if not demand, high quality throughout the process, from musicianship to recording to mastering to packaging to distribution to marketing to selling, and companies have largely abandoned/ignored this potentially lucrative niche. I have spoken with a couple of well known jazz artists about what is happening in the industry. The industry's current mentality is to maximize profits with the least amount of costs, as is typical of most, if not all, industries (costs in this case being production costs (recording, mastering, etc.)).

Unlike most other industries, however, a music product's quality can be subjectively yet consistently discerned by a distinct minority of consumer, who will buy such quality when offered. While offering these higher-quality products to a small niche of consumer (such as the BMW Z8 or the Martin Logan Statement) won't increase record companies' market share (at least in the short term), it will allow the companies to enhance their ability to produce higher quality recordings at price points that most consumers are willing to purchase. (You probably have noticed that most car buyers have not demanded many $130,000 two-seat roadsters and most loudspeaker buyers have not demanded $100,000 loudspeakers, yet companies continue to produce such products.)

Just as the most recent generations of BMW M Series cars benefitted from the R and D done on the Z8, and the most recent generations of ML speakers benefitted from the R and D done on the Statement, record companies could have applied better quality recording practices learned from producing HDCDs and properly-produced SACDs to a wider variety of formats, if not marketed the better formats more aggressively. They chose not to because, IMO, they see no need to be bothered if most consumers don't seem to care, and for the reason you state in the first bolded statement above [the financial bottom line].

Same thing happens in the car industry and loudspeaker industry to a lesser extent, of course, but the difference is that if Toyota won't or can't offer you the same driving experience that BMW does, then you save your money to buy the BMW. If, however, Columbia has decided to not provide Sly and the Family Stone's music in any high res format, then you are just sh!t out of luck. No amount of money you are willing to spend is going to compel Columbia to make that particular music available in the highest quality available. If SatFS' music was available from other record companies, or Columbia allowed other companies to produce their music in a higher quality format, then there would be no problem. Not going to happen, of course, for reasons understandable (your second bolded statement above), and not so understandable (the point of this long-winded post). Hate is probably not the correct term. Disdain is probably more appropriate."
 
asindc said:
These are exerpts from posts I made on another forum three years ago:

"I am firmly convinced that the music industry does not like audiophiles in any respect, whether they be analog or digital advocates. HDCD or SACD should have naturally evolved to become the de facto CD standard, and 24/192 files should be the de facto standard for hi res downloads. Quality vinyl pressings should be the norm rather than a relatively expensive exception. Sadly, though, the majority of the market bears the inferior products without protest (or even knowledge, in most cases)."

"My point about [the music industry] hating audiophiles is not about refusing to offer higher quality recordings, but that audiophiles want, if not demand, high quality throughout the process, from musicianship to recording to mastering to packaging to distribution to marketing to selling, and companies have largely abandoned/ignored this potentially lucrative niche. I have spoken with a couple of well known jazz artists about what is happening in the industry. The industry's current mentality is to maximize profits with the least amount of costs, as is typical of most, if not all, industries (costs in this case being production costs (recording, mastering, etc.)).

Unlike most other industries, however, a music product's quality can be subjectively yet consistently discerned by a distinct minority of consumer, who will buy such quality when offered. While offering these higher-quality products to a small niche of consumer (such as the BMW Z8 or the Martin Logan Statement) won't increase record companies' market share (at least in the short term), it will allow the companies to enhance their ability to produce higher quality recordings at price points that most consumers are willing to purchase. (You probably have noticed that most car buyers have not demanded many $130,000 two-seat roadsters and most loudspeaker buyers have not demanded $100,000 loudspeakers, yet companies continue to produce such products.)

Just as the most recent generations of BMW M Series cars benefitted from the R and D done on the Z8, and the most recent generations of ML speakers benefitted from the R and D done on the Statement, record companies could have applied better quality recording practices learned from producing HDCDs and properly-produced SACDs to a wider variety of formats, if not marketed the better formats more aggressively. They chose not to because, IMO, they see no need to be bothered if most consumers don't seem to care, and for the reason you state in the first bolded statement above [the financial bottom line].

Same thing happens in the car industry and loudspeaker industry to a lesser extent, of course, but the difference is that if Toyota won't or can't offer you the same driving experience that BMW does, then you save your money to buy the BMW. If, however, Columbia has decided to not provide Sly and the Family Stone's music in any high res format, then you are just sh!t out of luck. No amount of money you are willing to spend is going to compel Columbia to make that particular music available in the highest quality available. If SatFS' music was available from other record companies, or Columbia allowed other companies to produce their music in a higher quality format, then there would be no problem. Not going to happen, of course, for reasons understandable (your second bolded statement above), and not so understandable (the point of this long-winded post). Hate is probably not the correct term. Disdain is probably more appropriate."
Click to expand...

From your mouth to God's ears! :congrats:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top