Sometimes all it takes is nothing
Again, not stirring the pot, but for a mastering engineer, with the experience and the right room/playback chain, knowing when a mix is good already is a not unimportant skill...
DSD to Vinyl Versus Analog Tape to Vinyl
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Again, not stirring the pot, but for a mastering engineer, with the experience and the right room/playback chain, knowing when a mix is good already is a not unimportant skill...
Check out the mastering that Bob Katz did on Chesky recordings.
Mastering engineers are secretive about the techniques that they utilize as that is how they earn their living and do not want to divulge any special techniques that they view as a competitive edge. In other words, there is no telling what the mastering engineer did on any particular recording, unless you speak with the mastering engineer directly and he references his notes on the project.
Also check out YouTube. There are a number of videos on mastering techniques on YouTube if you are interested.
Last edited:
That's not exactly what I said but it might be close enough for government work.
You clearly used the word 'bullshit' when describing tweaks.
It made it sound to me as if you were not aware that some tweaks are extremely effective in a home system or perhaps a bit of disdain. But your comment can be interpreted in several ways; this is simply the one that struck me as the most likely.
Those that have had no exposure to home audio equipment that supports AES48 might come away wondering what balanced is all about, because if you don't support AES48, single-ended might sound better. Unfortuately in high end audio, the majority of manufacturers that produce balanced line products seem to prefer to not support AES48 or might be ignorant of it. I've not sorted out which in most cases nor is it worth my time. But as an audiophile if your only exposure to balanced line operation has been through such equipment you might well come away thinking its an ineffective tweak.
To be perfectly clear, your use of the WE transformers is what many audiophiles would call a 'tweak'. So an alternative reading of your quote might suggest that some tweaks are perfectly valid and others are cattle manure (although the demeanor of your sentence suggests otherwise). As subjective as audio is (starting with microphone placement and the selection of a recording venue, as well as the changes you make when you 'remaster'), what tweaks fall into which category is obviously subjective. I don't like to see certain tweaks at all, since I know for a fact that some of them are sold by charletons that have sorted out they can make a living on expectation bias. I hope this is all we have to say about this.
I am sorry. I thought you had made some of these recordings.
I am familiar with Chesly. I go to there frequently.
I also regularly use you tube to learn about digital recording files per my thread Primer on dacs
Thanls.
I do not remaster recordings for anyone other than for myself. I do not own or have worked at a professional studio. So none of the remastering that I have done are available commercially. When I use my two remastering systems I do the adjustments real time for myself as I’m listening during my listening sessions. It’s very satisfying to get better sound out of recordings that need it and having the equipment in-house to do so. It is very commanding to have that much power at your finger tips. Obviously I don’t do that for every recording nor do I use these to systems often. Currently my go to is HQPLAYER as it enhances all my digital recordings and streaming without all the effort.
You are shaping the sound of your own music collection to your preference in your room. This is DIY tweaking of the sound. We did a much less sophisticated version of this last night at a friends house with power cords and subwoofer comparisons.
Peter, thank you so much for the opening:
It was exactly that trial-and-error nonsense that audiophiles engage in, I was also there at one time, that led me to seek out a more intelligent approach, which ultimately let me to the world of high-end mastering.
Let me explain, when on does any of those audiophile changes or substitution you get a difference and you have to either live with the change or revert back or try something different. Some changes bring improvemeets, others do not, but in almost all these substitution the changes bring tradeoff’s: improvements perhaps not to the degree that we were seeking or perhaps too much, tighter bass but loss of depth, more air and sparkle but less 3-Dimentional, and so on. In any event, it is all trial and error and you never know what you are going to get until you try it because as we know the effect of these substitutions are not universal, what works for you might not work for me.
I said to myself, there has got to be a smarter way than this dumb trial and error way. And there is, with the right mastering equipment, skill and most importantly knowledge, you can make changes to the musical presentation that are predictable, scaleable, and most importantly defeatable.
Just step back and think of how dumb the trial and error approach really is. It is like luck and hoping for the best, when you can roll-up your sleeves and get right down to what you want to accomplish, in an intelligent way.
Now as I have said this approach does not work for everyone as it takes knowledge and effort and some just want to write a check or come on these forums and say “me too, I also got the latest flavor of the month”. But there are smarter approaches than trial and error and that is what let me to invest in equipment designed to make changes that are well specified, scalable, tuneable and defeatable. Now don’t get me wrong, these high-end mastering components are not inexpensive and the rare ones like I have are almost impossible to get but it is the smarter approach.
I’m an audio equipment collector and a sound explorer and I‘m making my way to exploring every faction of this audio hobby. Along the way I have picked up some tweaks and fancy cables to play with but I do not kid myself. The whole trial and error approach may be fun for some but it definitely isn’t the smartest approach.
Thanks again for the opening.
Last edited:
I've yet to see any sound processing equipment that does not have a sound of its own. Anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves. That's why tone controls, as simple as they are, are often not seen in high end audio equipment. I don't miss them.
Even when mixing from multi-channel, I go through lengths to not involve any processors if I can get away with it. We've all seen recordings destroyed by too much processing. How the heck you can electronically massage the signal to get around the fact that the power cords for the power amps is starving the power supplies of the amps is beyond me. But you many not be saying that in your post?
Ralph, I’m not going to let you off the hook this time. You always want to have the final word even when you have been clearly out smarted. So please name those component that do not have a sound of their own.
I have attempted to take it easy on you and let you off the hook several times on this thread but you finally did it. I think that you have been used to and like having the last word. With old age people get stubborn. And I know that you can educate the garden variety audiophile, but I’m frankly getting tire of you always needing to have the final word with me.
For the record, some of the finest audio engineers reside in the high-end studio equipment side of the world and they run circles around most high-end audio designers.
So please start naming components that don’t have any sound of their own.
Last edited:
I know of none. Anyone who says they know of such is fooling themselves. I'm of the opinion you misunderstood my last post. I did also ask if you might have been saying something that was other than what I addressed. Your vitriol seems unwarranted.
All the genuinely pretty, nice gear that you posted earlier looks like it would be great to have in a studio. As far as I can make out, its all meant to have a sound, save for that which is meant to get rid of a sound. But even that has its own fingerprint.
Carlos, are you the guy who has a room full of gear, top to bottom, side to side, that at least looks like it is difficult to move around in? I might be confusing you with another gear collector who shared some photos of his room/collection.
This is just a confirmation of the known bitter statement that stereo is not a system, but an individual experience. But unless we share the maximum of details and want to share the results with others, it can easily become "They Were All Out of Step But Jim"
Peter, it’s seven, as in 7, rooms full of gear.
No one is right, no one is wrong. Everyone is free to choose their own approach. My mind is always thinking on how to do things smarter, for myself.
My takeaways from the mastering world are a little different. A few brief points ( all imho )
1) Most sought after analog studio processing has a certain sound signature. The point is not that others do not but that some have been decided to be pleasant. While a home audio reproduction chain should be 'as simple as is needed' I feel some take the minimalism ethos past its usefull point. I don't want 6 preamps in a row at home but the fact that a mastering studio can do so is at least an informative point.
2) *IF* a little adjustment is needed with source material in the context of your system it makes sense to me to make adjustment at the source preamp ( vinyl ) or player ( digital ). The AudioSpecials Phonolab phono preamp does offer a subtle adjustment feature as do a few others- although I don't often want for it its nice to have when called for. The rest of the system should be operating under excellent technical and subjective criteria for all music.
3) *if* your system is not meeting your expectation having a few mastering type eq and other procesors to borrow and insert might help narrow down the issue...but I wouldn't advocate for leaving them in rather a focused way to change things...
1) Most sought after analog studio processing has a certain sound signature. The point is not that others do not but that some have been decided to be pleasant. While a home audio reproduction chain should be 'as simple as is needed' I feel some take the minimalism ethos past its usefull point. I don't want 6 preamps in a row at home but the fact that a mastering studio can do so is at least an informative point.
2) *IF* a little adjustment is needed with source material in the context of your system it makes sense to me to make adjustment at the source preamp ( vinyl ) or player ( digital ). The AudioSpecials Phonolab phono preamp does offer a subtle adjustment feature as do a few others- although I don't often want for it its nice to have when called for. The rest of the system should be operating under excellent technical and subjective criteria for all music.
3) *if* your system is not meeting your expectation having a few mastering type eq and other procesors to borrow and insert might help narrow down the issue...but I wouldn't advocate for leaving them in rather a focused way to change things...
Why not? Care to elaborate how a Fairman equalizer or a Quantec processor would not be a welcome addition to any system? It seems like audiophiles are installing HSE Audio Labs phonostages in their systems. why can they install the HSE phonostage but not the HSE mastering equalizer? Care to elaborate and enlighten us? Why can they use Bricasti dacs, preamps and amps but they shouldn’t use their M7 or M10 spatializer? Why are so many audiophiles using Weiss dacs, transports and servers, but they need not use the Weiss mastering tools? Curious to see your reasoning and line of thinking here.
Also please let me in on how tube rolling and cartridge/tonearm/turntable or cable swapping is a “better” and smarter choice. Obviously you have a conflict of interest there.
Last edited:
They could. Those disposed to learn how to use them correctly probably already are inclined to have them imo. In my point #1 I concede ( from first hand experience ) that having multiples of active devices is not the evil its made out to be. Yet why not use the tools to identify a problem and correct if that is possible*? An audio club or group of friends could share the cost and all benefit. If one can acheive a goal without so many gears that can be a good thing. * I am not talking about room correction here
In my point #2 I suggest that source adjustments be made at the preamp for vinyl. If that's an HSE phono preamp into an HSE eq so be it. ( a rather costly so be it ). I gave another example and there are more. You already point out HQ Player which also serves my point #2.
I love mastering gear. Not sure why you feel I may not. My position is simply that the tools can be useful for discovery and a simpler overall system might be built from that. What is wrong with this idea?
In my point #2 I suggest that source adjustments be made at the preamp for vinyl. If that's an HSE phono preamp into an HSE eq so be it. ( a rather costly so be it ). I gave another example and there are more. You already point out HQ Player which also serves my point #2.
I love mastering gear. Not sure why you feel I may not. My position is simply that the tools can be useful for discovery and a simpler overall system might be built from that. What is wrong with this idea?
That becomes a static solution with no flexibility and you are once again at square # 1.
