There is a smarter way

[Republicoftexas69]

That’s the beauty of this approach, that is that you can dial in the system to suit your personal preferences and taste. Again, this is not about remastering any one recording in particular, but instead to tailor the system’s presentation to meet your ideal; same goal as that of equipment and component upgrades. I hope that that is clear to you as it is a very important distinction.

All good for you. Enjoy Carlos.

 

[PeterA]

I find alternative approaches rather refreshing in this hobby, and I enjoy reading about them here. The question for me is how tolerant and inclusive and accepting of different ways of thinking about the hobby are we as a membership group? It is a vast and diverse hobby. We could welcome those who look at things differently, and we may learn something from them. I like the breadth of opinions offered here. Let us not lose it.

 

[sbo6]

I find alternative approaches rather refreshing in this hobby, and I enjoy reading about them here. The question for me is how tolerant and inclusive and accepting of different ways of thinking about the hobby are we as a membership group? It is a vast and diverse hobby. We could welcome those who look at things differently, and we may learn something from them. I like the breadth of opinions offered here. Let us not lose it.

Agreed, breadth of opinions is important, done - with respect.

Let us not allow repeated insults from those that purportedly know it all.

 

[PeterA]

Agreed, breadth of opinions is important, done - with respect.

Let us not allow repeated insults from those that purportedly know it all.

I tolerate different styles and am not offended by much. I prefer it when people behave honestly. We learn from that too.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

I tolerate different styles and am not offended by much. I prefer it when people behave honestly. We learn from that too.

Agreed, breadth of opinions is important, done - with respect.

Let us not allow repeated insults from those that purportedly know it all.

You both are right and I do enjoy reading most of the posts here. I truly have learned a lot here.

 

[sbo6]

I tolerate different styles and am not offended by much. I prefer it when people behave honestly. We learn from that too.

I prefer honesty also, but not offensive behavior (especially repeatedly).

 

[microstrip]

(...) I’m dialing in the system to sound exactly like I want it to, therefore by definition there is no degradation in sonics that are not wanted. With my approach, you are the master and any shortcomings are on you and should be dealt with and corrected by you.

Just one question - in your approach you manipulate (correct) each recording individually to match your preference or you apply the same manipulation to every recording?

 

[Carlos269]

I prefer honesty also, but not offensive behavior (especially repeatedly).

Listen, I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings. As Peter mentioned, many different things to chew on this forum besides my innovative approach to achieving one’s goals in this hobby. If you prefer to keep doing the trail and error approach, have at it. Relax, stay cool, and enjoy the tunes.

 

[Carlos269]

Just one question - in your approach you manipulate (correct) each recording individually to match your preference or you apply the same manipulation to every recording?

The settings are done for the system and not for any particular recording. In other words, I do not adjust the settings per recording, analogous to how audiophiles do not switch speakers, amps, preamps, dacs, turntables, tonearms, cartridges for each recording. Every recording is subject to the same settings once I have the system sounding the way that I want it to. Don’t think that this brings about homogeneousness as these are dynamic settings only triggered if the recordings demand it. Obviously the tools and hooks are in place to adjust the settings for each recording, but who would want to do that. In my view and with my OCD, adjusting the settings for each recording would equate to torture and not musical enjoyment.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Don’t think that this brings about homogeneousness as these are dynamic settings only triggered if the recordings demand it. (...)

Can you be more explicit on this aspect?

 

[Carlos269]

Can you be more explicit on this aspect?

Sure, with static filters such as parametric or graphic equalizers for example, if you add gain or attenuation at a certain frequency then that filter will add or subtract the specified level of gain boost or cut for every incoming signal no matter the spectral content. With dynamic filtering you are able to specify the threshold for instance, so if a signal does not meet the criteria that filtering is not applied, when not needed. The characteristics of the dynamics can be specified in terms of attack and release timings but even more importantly in terms of proportional compression or expansion characteristics. Secondly with static methods the entire recording gets the same treatment regardless if it is needed or not, while with dynamic decomposition you apply your adjustment only to the portion of the signal that you wish to target. Again these are very powerful tools and need to be applied with a great degree of intelligence and in a surgical manner or the results will turn into a mess rather quickly.

 

[Carlos269]

There has been a lot of text in this thread recently and some of the questions that I would be asking have not even been asked.

During last night’s “Friday Night Listening” session I made a series of videos, for myself, to hear the remastering process in quick comparisons:

 

[Carlos269]

I should have mentioned in the post above that these Remastering videos are with the same settings, with which the system was dialed-in. I have made no adjustments to the settings since dialing-in the system.

I’m pretty proud of what I have been able to accomplish with this “minimalist” Remastering system. I own a large number of pieces of mastering studio equipment and each of my two full scale mastering systems have quite a few digital and analog processors in the chain, but thanks to HQPLAYER the WAAR system Remastering process is all kept in the analog domain and implemented with only the absolute minimum number of functions required to accomplish my objectives.

As evident by the sound, and represented on the videos, the results of the system remastering process are pretty phenomenal.

 

[Solypsa]

What does "WAAR" stand for? I looked a t HQ Player and didn't notice it. Sorry if this has been explained already...

 

[Carlos269]

What does "WAAR" stand for? I looked a t HQ Player and didn't notice it. Sorry if this has been explained already...

I should have explained it earlier. WAAR stands for Wisdom Audio Adrenaline Rush. I have implemented my “system level” remastering process on my reference system based on the Wisdom Audio Adrenaline Rush speaker system. I decided to use WAAR instead of writing it out all the time. My remastering process is system independent but it should be implemented on a system capable of handling the frequency extension and dynamic range extension required for a successful implementation. Let me know if that requires clarification. I use HQPLAYER 5 to handle all digital domain enhancements and use the Remastering process to make the remainder of the system adjustments in the analog domain.

 

[Carlos269]

The dialed-in Remastering setting have proven effective across all genres of music. Here is a jazz piece to demonstrate the power of the “system level” Remastering process:

 

[Solypsa]

I should have explained it earlier. WAAR stands for Wisdom Audio Adrenaline Rush. I have implemented my “system level” remastering process on my reference system based on the Wisdom Audio Adrenaline Rush speaker system. I decided to use WAAR instead of writing it out all the time. My remastering process is system independent but it should be implemented on a system capable of handling the frequency extension and dynamic range extension required for a successful implementation. Let me know if that requires clarification. I use HQPLAYER 5 to handle all digital domain enhancements and use the Remastering process to make the remainder of the system adjustments in the analog domain.

Now I get it.

 

[PeterA]

There has been a lot of text in this thread recently and some of the questions that I would be asking have not even been asked.

During last night’s “Friday Night Listening” session I made a series of videos, for myself, to hear the remastering process in quick comparisons:

I prefer the DHT SET in this set. I really like the theme music from Succession. Thanks for posting.

 

[Carlos269]

I prefer the DHT SET in this set. I really like the theme music from Succession. Thanks for posting.

Peter, my various DHT-SET systems are world class and I have not heard better; that is why they are used as the reference to judge the other videos by. The DHT-SET systems also benefit from the contributions from the upgraded plasma super-tweeters tweeters, which after implementing the Remastering process are no longer needed with the WAAR system.

Having said all the above about my DHT-SET systems, there is no denying the power and resolution of the WAAR system with the Remastering process.

You are classical music lover so perhaps this video will get the point across to you and others of the power, scale, and resolution of the WAAR system with the Remastering process:

 

[thedudeabides]

Because I have well over 0.5MM$ invested in my big system and close to or over a 1MM$ in high-end mastering equipment.

Very impressive.