Slashdot Mirror

This isn't just about mastering. There is literally more detail there.

Oh rly?

Here is a link to the original paper by Dr. Peter Craven where he mathematically proves that an apodizing filter can make audible improvements in sound reproduction.

You can't mathematically prove something sounds better. Most adults can't even hear 16KHz, let alone 20 KHz and beyond, or detect subtle variations in those ranges.

You have to do double blind testing. Double blind testing has shown even real 24/96KHz can't be discerned from 16/44.1KHz by audiophiles and recording pros.

Anything they are trying to sell beyond this is placebo snake oil.
http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

A "preservationist" is someone like Martin Scorsese who has worked tirelessly to make sure old celluloid films aren't lost.

Crosby was a major figure in the early days of magnetic tape recording. He wanted better audio for his Bing Crosby show, and used some early tape recorders based on the German Magnetophon. The engineers involved with the early recorders started Ampex, Crosby put in $50,000, and pro audio rapidly moved to tape. The Bing Crosby Show was the first show to be edited before broadcast, which tightened up the pacing and made it a hit show.

Ampex later went on to build the first videotape recorder in 1950, which was simply called "Crosby Video".

So Crosby definitely had a major role in the preservation of audio and video.

The eighties did not have autotune.

Wrong.

A lot of the articles I read on the subject in the past were either in magazines, or are gone from the web now. Mix magazine has an article which touches on some of vinyl's limitations:

http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_witch/

Apart from that, check Wikipedia for articles regarding stuff like the RIAA equalization curve, or just Google the specifications for things like microphones and analog tape decks. You'll quickly discover that a lot of the "high frequency" information some audiophiles claim to be hearing can't possibly have been intentionally recorded. In other words, it's noise.

The following comes from an old April issue of Audio Magazine. It cleverly points out some of vinyl's many failings:

NEW PRODUCT ANNOUNCEMENT

The LIRPA-1 CD Enhancer/LP Record Simulator:

A revolutionary new device for all those who believe that CD players
produce "mid-fi" results, and that analog recordings (LPs) are superior
to CDs.

PURPOSE:

This device allows you to tailor the signal produced by the
Compact Disk medium to more closely resemble that of LP records.
It can be placed between the Compact Disk player and your
receiver, in a tape monitor loop or external processing loop, or
between the preamp and power amplifier of your stereo system.

STANDARD FEATURES:

o HARMONIC DISTORTION GENERATOR: Adjustable from 0% to 100% THD
(total harmonic distortion). This allows you to increase the total
harmonic distortion of the Compact Disk from 0.01% to levels found
on typical LPs played with "top-of-the-line" stereo cartridges
(commonly 1% THD +). An additional benefit is found in that this
control also contributes to that ultra-sonic information above
22kHz which was "lost" in the digital process.

o SEPARATION-REDUCTION CONTROL: Permits variable blending of left and
right channels over a range from 90dB separation (found on Compact
Disks) to full blending (monophonic sound). Adjustment of about
30dB separation is recommended to simulate the typical "state-of-
the-art" stereo cartridge.

o DYNAMIC RANGE COMPRESSOR: Now you don't have to worry whether your
power amplifier or your speakers are "Digital-Ready". This knob
allows you to reduce the dynamic range of the Compact Disk from
90dB to as low as 45dB. This is a definite "must" for those who
prefer the TELARC 1812 LP to the TELARC 1812 CD (suggested adjustment
for this recording: 65dB).

o SUB-SONIC DOPPLER DISTORTION GENERATOR: Superimposes sub-sonic

Is Bainwol -- the guy who lied to Congress -- a lawyer? This brief biographical sketch shows him to be a Republican party operative, but doesn't mention any work as a lawyer.

These days, he plays in a jazz trio called "Bellyflop "with Joey Francesco and Doug "Doctor Music" Riley. He also enjoys tending to his cat.

I'd also like to add that many of the early (late eighties time frame) CD releases were unmodified master tapes that were meant for record. Mastering to CD and record are two different animals. It is absolutely necessary to limit peaks when cutting a record master, which isn't for "artistic" purposes as you don't want cheapy players' needles launching out of the groove due to peaks that are beyond its capabilities. Thankfully, recording and mastering engineers got hip to digital, but many lost there perspective early on regarding how dBFS and the VU scale don't relate. Many people tend to think you must set your levels so that you reach digital full-bit.

This is a crazy, CRAZY concept that's been perpetuated for 20 years!

When digital machines first came out for professional use, 16-bit at 44.1KHz was the standard setting. Even companies like Apogee made retrofit D/A/D converter cards for the Sony PCM3324 if you wanted improved performance (for a hefty price tag). Now a days, 24-bit at 96K seems nominal.

Where the joke is regards the noise floor. At 16/44.1 you have about 30dB greater SNR compared to a 2" 24-track recorder operating at 30ips. Yet most everyone pushes the noise floor below the gain structure of their consoles when digital was supposed to increase your headroom.

For me, if I see my peak meters move at all, I hit record. dBFS is supposed to be at the clipping level of your audio console (about 22dB above nominal), not a hair above your operating level :)

I won't even mention loudness war compression.. Engineers need to know how to set levels first.

"If there can be no quiet, there can be no loud." The loudness war explained

Amen. In fact, just getting many recordings onto vinyl in the first place can require some compression in order to get an LP that a typical stylus can actually track. An interesting article at Mix suggests punching up the loudness on 45 RPM records to improve their popularity was done as far back as the Motown era.

Thanks for pointing that out. I forgot about it because I knew that unlike AM and FM, you can't run even a flea power TV signal in the US without a license that makes sure you are not on an interfering frequency.

Turns out that wireless microphones and such are actually a licensed service, although hardly anyone bothers to license them. Because they operate at such low power -- 50-100mw (250mw max) -- and are sensitive to interference, themselves, their users apparently take care of keeping them out of the way of TV broadcasters. Here's a link.

From the broadcaster's point of view, wireless mics and such aren't a problem.

That seems to be vastly different from the unlicensed 'wireless' that the White Space Coalition wants to do. FWIW, The wireless mic people are with the broadcasters in opposing the Microsoft/Google/whoever proposal. I haven't been able to dig out what power levels they propose to operate at, but did find that the HP prototype the FCC tested failed miserably at avoiding interference.

The quality of the sound.
MP3 is a terrible format, yes I know a lot of people tell me,"it's alright, I use the highest rate available", but it still sounds like excrement, with nasty high frequency artifacts that make my teeth jangle and destroyed dynamics.
Seriously I was in a nightclub a few weeks ago and they had installed an MP3 based music system and apart from all the high frequency narkiness that was giving me a headache the lack of dynamics made the resultant mix of songs so BORING that even the dedicated clubbers were getting turned off.
Apple on the other hand worked a bit harder on their codec and came up with something that did not destroy the music as much.
As I once wrote before try this test (With thanks to Paul D. Lehrman, of Mix Magazine and a teacher of audio).
take a mono wave file, convert it to both MP3 (any rate you choose), and 'MP4a'(Apples format).
Now convert both of these back to .wav. Using your favourite wave editing program. invert the original wave file and then add it to each of the converted and reconverted files.
For a perfect conversion there should be total cancellation,that is, to give an example, if you add the inverted wave file to the original wav file there will be nothing left over.
My experience is that the apple codec will leave a few specks on the graph but nothing more than a few clicks and pops will be audible.
The Mp3 codec will leave you with enough of the song behind that you will be able to recognise the track and even sing along with it.
Paul Lehrman from mix magazine goes into this in more detail and someone else may be kind enough to provide a pointer to the exact article.

But in the meantime here are some references from music industry professionals (not RIAA but the real ones who do the work and love music) :
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_consumer_conundrum/ index.html

even students notice the difference :
http://mixonline.com/newmedia/internetaudio/audio_ kids_right/index.html

The quality of the sound.
MP3 is a terrible format, yes I know a lot of people tell me,"it's alright, I use the highest rate available", but it still sounds like excrement, with nasty high frequency artifacts that make my teeth jangle and destroyed dynamics.
Seriously I was in a nightclub a few weeks ago and they had installed an MP3 based music system and apart from all the high frequency narkiness that was giving me a headache the lack of dynamics made the resultant mix of songs so BORING that even the dedicated clubbers were getting turned off.
Apple on the other hand worked a bit harder on their codec and came up with something that did not destroy the music as much.
As I once wrote before try this test (With thanks to Paul D. Lehrman, of Mix Magazine and a teacher of audio).
take a mono wave file, convert it to both MP3 (any rate you choose), and 'MP4a'(Apples format).
Now convert both of these back to .wav. Using your favourite wave editing program. invert the original wave file and then add it to each of the converted and reconverted files.
For a perfect conversion there should be total cancellation,that is, to give an example, if you add the inverted wave file to the original wav file there will be nothing left over.
My experience is that the apple codec will leave a few specks on the graph but nothing more than a few clicks and pops will be audible.
The Mp3 codec will leave you with enough of the song behind that you will be able to recognise the track and even sing along with it.
Paul Lehrman from mix magazine goes into this in more detail and someone else may be kind enough to provide a pointer to the exact article.

But in the meantime here are some references from music industry professionals (not RIAA but the real ones who do the work and love music) :
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_consumer_conundrum/ index.html

even students notice the difference :
http://mixonline.com/newmedia/internetaudio/audio_ kids_right/index.html

Also, where's even a niche market for this product???

Multitrack recording.

No offense, but you may not be in the right business or circles to hear about it. Every trade magazine for the audio industry and some article featuring PJ's setup.

for example Mix magazine

Search for anything related to Pro Audio with Project Charlotte (Where I found the above link)

1) In interviews, band members said they got the idea, and then Epic (Sony) wanted a piece of the action, to which the band agreed. And this is the reason you saw them in stores for the 2000 tour.

2) This time around, Epic didn't want in on the action, so the CD's are still being produced for the 2003 tour and are being sold on-line only, most likely with the band footing the overhead costs.

You can't possibly be this obtuse, can you? Vinyl can't reproduce loud bass accurately, and every link I provided supports that assertion. Not that I even needed to provide that set of links, since several other links had already indicated that vinyl CAN'T REPRODUCE ANY SIGNALS ACCURATELY, due to all the frequency response and phase issues imposed by the RIAA equilization / de-equalization process, harmonic distortion caused by the mass of the needle and resonances in the pickup and cartridge, rumble, wow and flutter, surface noise, etc. etc. etc.

Here are some relevant passages from the three links you were sooooo concerned about.

From planetdmb:

Try to keep record lengths below 12 minutes per side; an average club record runs 7-9 minutes. The shorter you keep the track lengths, the louder the recording will be and the more heavy and full the bass will sound.

From aardvarkmastering.com:

Dance club music is way heavy in bass, and likes to be cut at very high levels. The standard level for european dub plates is 6 db over standard reference level. Cutting at these levels, especially heavy bass, the grooves have to be pretty spread out, and deep to keep the needle from bouncing out, especially when scratched and back-cued.

From futurediscsystems:

It should be mentioned here that if the bass information is too loud, your raft [the needle - sunspot42] gets thrown over the embankment (skips).

And also from futurediscsystems:

I'll discuss stereo very briefly. If the sides of the river don't stay parallel, it's stereo. In other words, any difference between the two channels causes the stylus to move up and down in addition to sideways. As the stylus digs deeper, it is using more precious disc space. The moral for engineers is: If you are looking for hot levels or long sides, don't pan instruments like drums and percussion hard left and right. Keep the bass and bass drum in the center, and keep everything in phase. An out of phase snare or bass drum can wreak havoc. Use an oscilloscope if possible!

And also:

If the sides are long, remember that the more bass, the lower the cutting level (volume). It is possible to squeeze 30 minutes on a side but the level will be so low you'll have to crank it just to hear it, and you will hear the surface noise!

I find your whining to the moderateors incredibly pathetic. I note you didn't offer a similar whine when "Sara Chan" posted a doofus reply in which two of the "references" provided no documentation for the assertions being made whatsoever, while the third was a pile of marketing treacle.

Here's another reference for you to chew on regarding how crappy vinyl "fidelity" is, this time from a veteran engineer. But please, don't allow any facts to get in your way. You're batting a thousand so far!