HDTracks Rod Stewart and Esperanza Spalding

[ted_b]

I am traveling but will buy the discounted 24/192 when I return this weekend, and will report back. I know this album inside and out (graduated college in '76).

 

[firedog]

Listened to it some more. It does sound really good. I tried to be reserved in my comments before b/c I hate the habit audiophiles have of talking about everything as if each "improvement" is like "hearing it as I never heard it before - sounds like a different album" - and so on.

 

It's definitely the best version I have. I like it. Just didn't want to give the impression that the download will make you think you're "hearing it for the first time", as it were.

 

[latitude94941]

If you have the chance, could you please tell us which CD version you were comparing it to? Does it have any mastering credits?

 

[bleedink]

Question: Was this just a question of who did the current mastering or where the file came from since it wasn't ever released as a DVD-A/SACD? It seems there are quite a few albums on HD that haven't seen the light of day as physical releases like the Fleetwood Mac series (although I realize the work for some of this 'stuff' was done years back). Just wondering why this particular album was singled out. It seems like a few of these albums that are sitting around the 'vaults' have come out on HD.

Also, thanks to Ted for figuring out the mastering credits/process.

 

[got tinnitus]

OK, so I downloaded from HD Tracks Esperanza Spalding new album and ran it through Audacity. It's supposed to be 24/96.

 

Looking at this screen shot, what is it telling me? Doesn't look hi-res to me....

The graph doesn't even get close to 48k. Obviously it's brick walled but why can't they offer the full spec's before committing to buying?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

That doesn't look brick walled to me at all. It looks like information up to about 27k.

 

 

[firedog]

I do find it odd that the frequency response peters out at 27-28k, but it certainly doesn't show "brickwalling"; brickwalling shows up as an abrupt end to the frequency response. That's why the other type of graph used above is more useful - it shows you the slope of the frequency curve. But IMO the download sounds fine.

 

[firedog]

If you have the chance, could you please tell us which CD version you were comparing it to? Does it have any mastering credits?

 

No, sorry. Don't have the booklet from the original CD. But looking at the discography on allmusic.com, I assume it is the Mercury release from 1998. That's the only one that fits.

 

 

[got tinnitus]

True, I was a bit loose in using the brick wall terminology....but all other files I've checked recently from other releases have spikes that go way past the averaged peak.

 

But in regards to "Radio Music Society", for me it sounds like a tweaked remaster/upsample. I wish I had the CD to compare it but I wouldn't be surprised if I were to prefer the CD version...

 

[badbanana]

I downloaded the Esperanza Spalding album over the weekend and found the vocals sounding a little obscured. I thought it was perhaps the way she was mic'd as the other instruments seem pretty open. After seeing the graph above, I would like to hear a redbook-ripped version.

 

As for the music, it's a winner. Contemporary artist with classic vibe in the vein of Mayer Hawthorne and Raphael Sadiq. She's a bit like Erykah Badu but a little more rooted in old school jazz, R&B. Great album. Highly recommend it.

 

[dallasjustice]

I agree the vocal don't sound as clear; especially compared with her last album. But I think the overall production is done that way to give it a 70's R&B feel. For example, the drums sound a little flat, which I believe was done to give the drums that classic 70's sound. It's a good album and shows a new artistic direction for her that I like.

 

[bdiament]

I'm not sure how anyone could tell a transfer was "flat" without having the source to compare with.

 

And if "flat" a good thing? I once thought so... more than three decades ago... before I ever heard any masters.

 

In the standard audio jargon, a flat transfer suggests a copy with no alteration, meaning no processing, no equalization, etc. etc. This is often spoken of in audiophile circles as though it is the ultimate in desirability, without exception, by folks who have not heard any masters.

 

To be clear, I believe there are cases when a flat transfer is the way to go in mastering. In the larger world of record making however, they are the very rare exceptions.

 

Outside of the world of purist, audiophile type recordings, we must consider how the record is made. We need to think about the microphones that are used and what they sound like, particularly what they sound like when they are placed where they are placed for 99% of the records out there. (Anyone think a vocalist sounds the same from 1/4" from their lips as they do from a foot or two away? How about a Steinway grand, with your ears under the often closed lid, just above the hammers vs. with an open lid and your ears several feet away. Or a lead guitar with one's ear up against the grill cloth of a Marshall stack vs. a few feet away from the amp?)

 

We need to think about how the recordings are mixed and monitored too and once all of these things are considered, it is no surprise that most masters sound the way they do.

 

When I first started out, I was very much a flat transfer advocate. Then I came to realize, if I can take a recording that is capable of loosening dental fillings and make it less painful by using EQ, that EQ becomes a very good thing indeed. The overwhelming majority of masters I've heard (99% isn't an exaggeration) need EQ. Many need gain adjustments between songs (sometimes within a song, to provide consistence between mixes that are often done at different times, in different rooms or by different engineers.

 

I understand one company is not touting "Flat Masters" but does not elaborate other than to say there is no compression in the mastering. While I applaud this, in my mind, it takes more than the absence of compression to qualify as "flat". And once again, the question of desirability of flat transfers is, in my view, the key question that can be answered only by having heard master recordings.

 

I don't ever use compression in my work but most masters that come in benefit enormously from judiciously applied EQ. As I said earlier, there are rare exceptions but these tend to be purist recordings from the start. With a typical multimic'ed, multitrack mixdown, done in the typical recording studio (where the monitoring is a louder version of what most of us have in our cars! and the mix is adjusted on that basis - much like adjusting colors while wearing sunglasses), the stereo mixed "master" is in my experience, nothing more than a work in progress.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[dallasjustice]

Sorry, maybe I didn't use the correct terminology. The drums don't sound as dynamic as her previous works. I don't know how this might be achieved in the studio, but certainly it was done intentionally which is consonant with the album's "classic" sound.

 

[bdiament]

Hi dallasjustice,

 

I'm sorry for any confusion. My post was not a response to yours but to one much earlier in the thread surmising a certain release was a flat transfer.

 

And interesting confusion though: flat, as in unaltered vs. flat, as in lifeless. ;-} (I was referring to the former.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[dallasjustice]

Thanks Barry of the exposition. I listen to red book albums like Bob Marley "Legend" and instantly realize that final product sample rate and bit depth have very little to do with the overall sound quality that we hear coming out of the speakers. Unfortunately for audiophiles, it's much more complicated than finding "high res" albums and pressing play.

 

[latitude94941]

I believe you were probably referring to my comments earlier in this thread. My use of the term "flat transfer" was only in reference to HDtracks so-called "Flat Master Series" as described as follows:

 

"HDtracks.com is proud to announce the first set of the new Warner Music Group Flat Masters Series. These classic gems will be available as uncompressed 192kHz/24bit downloads. This marks the first time that many of these albums have ever been released digitially let alone as high resolution downloads. Remastered specially for HDtracks."

 

I have not purchased any of the titles in this series but some (such as Fleetwood Mac s/t) have received favorable comments here at CA.

 

I agree with your comments about flat transfers being a rather questionable goal and that most recordings benefit from tasteful EQ. That said, if forced to choose, I'd probably take a flat transfer over a mastering that has painfully boosted treble and a squashed dynamic range (as seems to be the case with so much of the modern mastering from the major labels).

 

Of course, HDtracks could solve this problem entirely if they could somehow persuade you to do their mastering. I know I'd be buying a lot more from them if that was the case.

 

[bdiament]

Hi latitude94941,

 

Actually, it was another post that suggested the copy they listened to was a flat transfer.

 

As to the "Flat Master Series", it is difficult to discern whether "uncompressed" refers to dynamic compression or data reduction (e.g. FLAC).

 

I would agree that sometimes a flat transfer can be preferable to one that has "painfully boosted treble or a squashed dynamic range" but sometimes, in my experience, it is the flat transfer that can have the painfully boosted treble. It depends on what the recording and mix engineer did.

 

Earlier, I mentioned the popularity of having little, bass and dynamics deficient speakers placed atop the meter bridge of the recording/mixing console. This will, more often than not, cause a dip in the midrange at the engineer's listening position. The typical response will be to boost those frequencies. (Is it any wonder then, that so many releases are so painfully bright?)

 

Some mastering engineers will not gently dip those unnecessarily boosted frequencies but will attempt to "compensate" by boosting the mid-bass or some area in the treble. (Think of the infamous "smiley face" EQ of all too many "remasterings".)

 

One of the best ways I've found to fundamentally improve any studio is to get that large flat, reflective surface away from the direct path of the audio to the engineer's ears. Can you imagine having a table or desk between yourself and a high resolution audio system? If not, I suggest trying it sometime and comparing the results with what you hear when the table or desk is removed. Yet, this, like many things a good audiophile setup takes as givens, is "radical" to (actually, more often never even considered by) most studio owners and studio designers of which I'm aware and whose studios I've been in.

(I have been told I've been referred to as a "rebel" in this regard. Makes me smile.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[kerkula]

I also downloaded this album taking advantage of the offer of a discount. I've examined the spectral and frequency graphs in Cool Edit and while it isn't brick walled per se, it sure doesn't look like a 96khz file either.

 

Kerkula

 

[Leo Pard]

the source of the Every Picture 192 download on HDTracks is a safety copy of the original master. Not that they would tell you that.

 

[Leo Pard]

Rod Stewart: The source is a second generation analog copy.

 

And I assume everybody knows the Doors title is the REMIX?

 

[Leo Pard]

2nd generation tape.

 

[KDinsmore]

Leo,

 

Where did you get the information on the Stewart tape being a 2nd Gen?

 

[Leo Pard]

...from the source, Bruce Brown.

 

[lentille]

re every picture..

 

Guys I have just had my first listen - and to provide some context, I now own 46 albums downloaded from HDTracks as well as many MFSL CD's. Where available I always download 24/96. Playback is via Macbook, USB using Pure Music in hogg mode. I have seen Rod play live as recently as three years ago.

 

I have to say my first listen to EPTAS just now was hugely disappointing - it sounded like he was stranded in the middle and muffled, with the instruments much clearer and louder on the edges of the soundstage. I thought for a while this was his old voice track with new instrumentation recorded over it. It was so disappointing I afterwards sampled a redbook of his from a much lesser album - at least that had Rod as his more normal growling, front of attention, dominant self.

 

What's it like on the CD ? and has anyone else found their download so unimpressive ?

 

thanks - Vincent

 

[Mercman]

I agree with Vincent after listening to the 24/192 version download.