Article: And The Winner Is …

[JR_Audio]

When recording, mixing and mastering, I have always SpectraFoo running (on a second Mac). You can see an example of an image of SpetraFoo at my post (in this blog number 51). I can have several meters running with different ballistic settings and what is also very nice, the phase torch, where I see the phase relation between left and right (this is easy), but versus frequency range (and this is unique).

 

And as for the dynamic range meter, for example for the file (song) Misunderstood, you can have the online version (plug-in) of that DR meter running, so you can see the dynamic range separately, for each section of the song. But I do not use the dynamic range meter for mixing or mastering. I just use the K14 (or K12) scale and setting of the "Katz-Meter" (Bob Katz) and this works great.

 

Juergen

[doublea71]

Get a load of this: from another audio-related forum where HDTracks posted a response regarding their releases:

 

Including post which they've responded to:

 

Quote: Originally Posted by Dopaminer

It`s not good enough and it`s more than a little bizarre. I`m also an HDTracks customer, or was, and I find their attitude completely unacceptable. This is an enthusiasts` market: we know what we want, and it`s often quite specific. I`m into the details. That one of the main sources of this content, that charges for their services, can be so blasé about their own lack of knowledge is really lame.

 

I`ve been toying with the idea of undertaking the PS3 hack and it`s suddenly become much more appealing. . .

 

 

We apologize if you find our attitude or responses unacceptable our intention is not to offend. The fact of the matter is, many times it is extremely difficult or impossible to discuss with all of the labels for all of our releases, have them track down the mastering or mix engineer or get the source information for them. That would take an army and we are not releasing one album a day. On every single release we do our due diligence and make sure it is the resolution the label is saying it is. Aside from that, it is very difficult to get information from them.

 

We completely understand you are into the details, the details are great. But because we cannot get information from them, (and believe we have tried) should HDtracks not exist or should we not release these albums? We think it is pretty fair to say we are one of the pioneers of the hi-res digital download age and it is not easy, AT ALL to be the first. So maybe instead of complaining about what we can't offer compliment what we can offer and help bring the audiophile culture up, not down. The more people complain the more you make other people who have never had the pleasure of experiencing hi-resolution downloads afraid to try it. You make it seem like our intent is to deceive, withhold information and like it is not a great experience to hear one of your favorite albums in incredible high-resolution. You are hurting the movement that way. So if we would like to see this culture grow, which is the only way you will get your favorite artists to record and offer all of their albums, less compressed, better mixed and mastered and in hi-res formats we should start helping it grow not degrade it. Because if it doesn't grow, artists and engineers will just continue to over compress, poorly mix, and not give us information on any of it, because who cares why would they if its not helping them out or have any effect on their album sales.

 

The main point is we are just starting with this, so we are sorry if everything is not perfect. But please believe we are striving everyday to bring this to the forefront and let people know that there is a better alternative to poorly recorded, crappy sounding mp3's and they should expect the best. Hopefully so that eventually our voices and demands are so loud that they will not have a choice but to record and offer the very best product they can.

[doublea71]

They want to have it both ways, which makes sense from a business perspective but none if you add ethics to the mix. They suggest that we continue to buy their products without knowing if it really is what they say it is (not in all cases, of course, but certainly some). Just trust them and fork over the premium for what may or may not be true high-res audio. Not knowing whether it is or not simply isn't their responsibility. However, when it isn't (as has already been proven in the case of Morning Phase), don't dare complain or you, the customer, will be to blame for tearing down the high-res music business.

 

I think the best way to convince them to get their act together is to stop giving them money and make it crystal-clear why. It's on them to convince the labels to be more forthcoming. If they are unable to verify whether an album is up to their standards, which understandably can happen, don't sell the record as a high-res download and lower the price. Be forthcoming and alert the consumer as to why the price is lower. That is how you build a loyal customer base and avoid controversy. Treating them like a mouth-breathing atm machine is not.

[4est]

If they simply provided freq plots as a rule, the buyer could be held responsible. There would be no surprises and no refunds of bad material. Till then...

They want to have it both ways, which makes sense from a business perspective but none if you add ethics to the mix. They suggest that we continue to buy their products without knowing if it really is what they say it is (not in all cases, of course, but certainly some). Just trust them and fork over the premium for what may or may not be true high-res audio. Not knowing whether it is or not simply isn't their responsibility. However, when it isn't (as has already been proven in the case of Morning Phase), don't dare complain or you, the customer, will be to blame for tearing down the high-res music business.

 

I think the best way to convince them to get their act together is to stop giving them money and make it crystal-clear why. It's on them to convince the labels to be more forthcoming. If they are unable to verify whether an album is up to their standards, which understandably can happen, don't sell the record as a high-res download and lower the price. Be forthcoming and alert the consumer as to why the price is lower. That is how you build a loyal customer base and avoid controversy. Treating them like a mouth-breathing atm machine is not.

[The Computer Audiophile]

They want to have it both ways, which makes sense from a business perspective but none if you add ethics to the mix. They suggest that we continue to buy their products without knowing if it really is what they say it is (not in all cases, of course, but certainly some). Just trust them and fork over the premium for what may or may not be true high-res audio. Not knowing whether it is or not simply isn't their responsibility. However, when it isn't (as has already been proven in the case of Morning Phase), don't dare complain or you, the customer, will be to blame for tearing down the high-res music business.

 

I think the best way to convince them to get their act together is to stop giving them money and make it crystal-clear why. It's on them to convince the labels to be more forthcoming. If they are unable to verify whether an album is up to their standards, which understandably can happen, don't sell the record as a high-res download and lower the price. Be forthcoming and alert the consumer as to why the price is lower. That is how you build a loyal customer base and avoid controversy. Treating them like a mouth-breathing atm machine is not.

Have you ever complained to your local store or online retailer such as Amazon about this issue after purchasing an SACD or DVD-Audio disc?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - I think energy could be focussed on the artist and label who provided the tracks. If you don't like the artist's decision to use high dynamic range compression, then talk to the artist. If you feel cheated that the high resolution version supplied by Beck or his label isn't true high resolution, it may do some good to raise hell with Beck and his label. I don't speak for HDtracks or any other online retailer selling this album. I think focussing energy solely on HDtracks isn't the best way to bring about change.

 

Also, has anyone ever blamed an audio dealer for selling a DAC that purports to play native DSD but actually converts the data to PCM internally unbeknownst most people? My guess is no. Blame and questions would be directed at the manufacturer. This isn't an apples to apple comparison but there are many similarities. A dealer could find out what's going on inside the DAC without much trouble. He could post this on his website or tell the consumer before purchasing the DAC.

[Booster MPS]

 

I think the best way to convince them to get their act together is to stop giving them money and make it crystal-clear why. It's on them to convince the labels to be more forthcoming. If they are unable to verify whether an album is up to their standards, which understandably can happen, don't sell the record as a high-res download and lower the price. Be forthcoming and alert the consumer as to why the price is lower. That is how you build a loyal customer base and avoid controversy. Treating them like a mouth-breathing atm machine is not.

 

I understand your passion and the importance of this issue but allow me to push back a little on that -

 

If you are Joe Engineer at Blue Note, wouldn't you get a little bent if HDT picked apart your last three projects for using DR compression or upsampling when it was the artist that drove that decision? Maybe it was the label that drove that decision. Same if you were the marketing exec at Blue Note - why send your products to HDT when you know they have been critiqued by the retailer? When you go to Whole Foods and buy your organic chicken soup you "think" the farmer loved his chickens but you really don't know. Target does not provide commentary on their products. These are just retailers and unfortunately that is all they are there for.

 

I think that HDT is absolutely positioned to be our advocate and they should be vocal in that role. However, for better or worse it's not their job to decide what sounds good and what does not. I don't want them in that business. Where we can be heard is through providing hi res reviews here at this site and also encouraging retailers like HDT to be more active advocates without blaming them for what they can't control. HDT was not behind releasing a half dozen different digital products for the new Beck album.

[mitchco]

Having spent well over 10,000 hours in the recording/mixing chair, I can say that multi-mic’d, multi-track recording of rock/pop bands ain’t easy. I outlined a few of the issues in this article: Compressors, Limiters, Loudness War, and Mastering Inception - Blogs - Computer Audiophile

 

Ever play or stand in front of a real drum kit while being played? The dynamic range can go from barely audible to threshold of pain from one drum stick hit to the next. Try and get that to be realistic sounding out of an iPod and ear buds. In case people have not noticed, for the major record labels, this is the target market whether ones likes it or not.

 

I was a recording/mixing engineer when the industry was moving from analog to digital. One digital recording I made using a stereo pair of Crown PZM mics into a Sony F1 digital recorder, in a beautiful sounding cathedral had huge dynamic range. But was totally destroyed by the mastering house as they had no idea/way of transferring that to vinyl. So we got what we got with no other choice - a crushed master.

 

This is but one of many examples that is fraught with complexity from the moment a mic is turned on till the sound arrives at ones ears.

 

While it is arguable that HDTracks could do a better job of quality control, 99.9% of the damage done has already happened before any tracks arrive at their doorstep. Especially if the tracks are already mixed down to 2 tracks and already have a DR of 6. Just like my case with the crushed master, there is absolutely nothing HDTracks can do about that scenario.

 

Back in the mid 80’s I was so excited by digital audio and its stupendous dynamic range capabilities (and good sound!) and listening to 16/441 CD’s of The Police - Synchronicity DR15, Peter Gabriel Security – DR15, Dire Straits – Brothers in Arms DR16, among many others. So what happened?

 

With respect to Beck’s Morning Phase, there could be a multitude of reasons why it ended up the way it did and we are never likely to know. My guess is that it is simply Becks “sound”. So whatever file format it is distributed on, and by who, is a moot point.

[firedog]

Okay, can we separate out 2 very different things being mixed up by some on this thread? A digital release can be legitimate hi-res and also be highly volume compressed. Being volume compressed does not mean the HDT release isn't true hi-res. Period. Can't blame HDT for that, if that is what is being released in hi-res.

 

On the other hand, when we buy a legacy album remastered for high res, say something like the CSN album I bought a few months ago from HDT, I'd like to know something about the level of volume compression before I buy it. With older material it's pretty certain it wasn't originally subjected to the level of volume compression that is common today. HDT doesn't give us any way of getting this info (even a users review section would be helpful for this kind of info) and for that I do hold them responsible. The album is question just isn't enjoyable for me to listen to because of the volume compression added FOR THIS RELEASE. I have another digital remaster of the same album on CD and it doesn't suffer from the added VC, so clearly the label could have released the hi-res version without the added VC if it had chosen to. I'd like to know about the VC before I buy it, if possible.

[VandyMan]

I think focussing energy solely on HDtracks isn't the best way to bring about change.

 

Eventually we will be able to buy our HD recordings directly from the label or the artist. This has already started to happen. A number of bands have been offering CD quality downloads for years. Once this becomes common, how will HD Tracks compete? I see an online store with a so-so download manager, hardly any info about the releases/artists/provenance, usually no cd booklet, outdated browsing, and an unreliable shopping cart.

 

So, if I can't trust them to do quality control, what is left? I want to buy a release and enjoy it. I don't want to have to test it with special software or research it online to make sure I was not hoodwinked.

 

HD Tracks is blowing their "first mover advantage" by building zero customer loyalty.

 

I think someone could be very successful with a curated music download site that only had the highest quality from both an artistic and technical perspective.

[VandyMan]

HD does not mean bit-depth, sampling frequency, display resolution, etc. to most consumers. It means a higher quality than SD. To sell music as HD based on the file format alone is not good for anyone in the long run. It is certainly not fair to consumers.

[doublea71]

I understand your passion and the importance of this issue but allow me to push back a little on that -

 

If you are Joe Engineer at Blue Note, wouldn't you get a little bent if HDT picked apart your last three projects for using DR compression or upsampling when it was the artist that drove that decision? Maybe it was the label that drove that decision. Same if you were the marketing exec at Blue Note - why send your products to HDT when you know they have been critiqued by the retailer? When you go to Whole Foods and buy your organic chicken soup you "think" the farmer loved his chickens but you really don't know. Target does not provide commentary on their products. These are just retailers and unfortunately that is all they are there for.

 

I think that HDT is absolutely positioned to be our advocate and they should be vocal in that role. However, for better or worse it's not their job to decide what sounds good and what does not. I don't want them in that business. Where we can be heard is through providing hi res reviews here at this site and also encouraging retailers like HDT to be more active advocates without blaming them for what they can't control. HDT was not behind releasing a half dozen different digital products for the new Beck album.

 

All HDT has to do is not charge a premium when something is clearly upsampled, and be more upfront about the whole issue. I also think it is their job to decide what sounds good - they should compare what they're being given with the mp3 version and be able to discern whether they can sell the high-res version as high-res in good conscience or not. If they are unwilling to even do that, they should expect some unhappy customers. They can't have it both ways. Labels send their music to HDT because they know people are willing to fork over good money for a high quality digital file, so if they send something that isn't up to snuff, I could care less if a recording engineer gets some unflattering feedback. It's a business with paying customers who also have high expectations - if they don't like the terrain, they are more than welcome to sell chickens.

[4est]

I agree that the retailer is not responsible for the content source, and certainly not responsible for a file sounding good or having decent DR. What I do not agree with is your suggestion that the purchaser take it up with the artist and label. Place blame on the retailer? No, but it is the responsibility of the retailer to protect their customer. In your example, the manufacturer mislead the purchaser and the retailer should take it back possibly as there is some grey area in this. Even then, your example is hi rez>hi rez I presume. Upsampling is not hi rez- period. There should be a zero tolerance policy about that if the HD is to succeed. It is like putting an emblem on a car "turbo charged" when it is not. It might not be the dealer's fault, but it is their responsibility. As it is, there have been too many "fakes", and the legitimacy cannot be assumed. Measurements and/or graphs is really all it would take. I cannot imagine that it would take them much to have a database of the files. Heck, a loyal customer would do it for a discount if nothing else. The software is free. Aren't they supposed to work a little for their money?

Hi Guys - I think energy could be focussed on the artist and label who provided the tracks. If you don't like the artist's decision to use high dynamic range compression, then talk to the artist. If you feel cheated that the high resolution version supplied by Beck or his label isn't true high resolution, it may do some good to raise hell with Beck and his label. I don't speak for HDtracks or any other online retailer selling this album. I think focussing energy solely on HDtracks isn't the best way to bring about change.

 

Also, has anyone ever blamed an audio dealer for selling a DAC that purports to play native DSD but actually converts the data to PCM internally unbeknownst most people? My guess is no. Blame and questions would be directed at the manufacturer. This isn't an apples to apple comparison but there are many similarities. A dealer could find out what's going on inside the DAC without much trouble. He could post this on his website or tell the consumer before purchasing the DAC.

[hifitubes]

WTF is Bob Ludwig up to?

 

Sounds like Beck go t the shaft. Seems to me is putting all his effort and expertise into the music, leaving the rest "in good hands":

 

BECK: That was a tricky one, because you don't want to get in the way of the orchestra. With a lot of the songs on this record it was like, how do you keep this mood and not disrupt it, or break the spell of whatever's happening with the music? On some of them it's singing soft, singing higher, trying different voices. I had songs where I'd try singing it 20 different ways, just beating it into the ground, and then you finally find something: "Okay, this feels like it's part of the song." I've heard other singers — proper, trained singers — they have a certain voice they'll use. They just know that works. Whereas I kind of have to feel my way through it a bit."

 

Still, I agree, he should be the one who gives final approval. Tough call!

 

If you listen to the interview on NPR New Beck Album, 'Morning Phase': All Songs Considered Interview : All Songs Considered : NPR there's an interesting exchange around the 8:46 mark (you have to listen, it's not in the edited transcript):

 

Shortly after listening to an excerpt from "Wave"

 

Beck: It's funny after listening to it, the vocal got so loud after mixing and mastering. The vocal was always tucked in this ... huge orchestra.

Boilen: You actually like God.

Beck: Yeah, it's supposed to be tucked in there. But I don't know... You don't want to get in the way of the orchestra.

 

He sounded surprised/disappointed in how it sounded when played back to him. Sounds like the mastering wasn't something he was closely involved in.

 

Give it a listen.

[firedog]

Stop the Nonsense! Bob Ludwig On The True Numbers Behind Beck's <i>Morning Phase</i> Album | Analog Planet

 

Morning Phase:

"As the mastering engineer for Beck's "Morning Phase" album I can guarantee with 100% certainty that the album was mixed and mastered at 96kHz/24 bit. There were no Mp3 mixes, nor any mixes at any sampling rate other than 96kHz that were used.

 

When artists create an album, especially over a long period of time as this one was, the original multi-track sessions are often recorded at differing sampling rates, 88.2kHz, 96kHz, 48kHz or 44.1kHz depending on the local studios standards, computer stability issues with high track counts etc. They may be put together as an album and mixed through an analog console at 96kHz to more accurately represent the sounds the artist and mix engineer are hearing from the mixing desk. If one looks at the resulting spectrum analysis of the master, naturally one can still see the brick-wall anti-alias filters from the original sessions, often with some low level spectrum that continues out to 48kHz (the Nyquist frequency of 96kHz) due to the harmonics generated by the analog desk, effects, filters, reverbs, noise etc. This is totally legitimate engineering.

 

Another thing I can guarantee with 100% certainty is that every note of "Morning Phase" has been carefully auditioned and represents Beck's artistic intention. We spent an enormous amount of time choosing mixes and mastering this album and nothing was left un-examined by myself and Beck. Beck often mentioned to me that he wanted the album to have a certain 'gritty' element to it and indeed I was sent both clean and purposefully distorted mixes on several tracks. The crushed, distorted kick drums, vocals and bass on some tracks are completely intentional and thus it represents how Beck wants this album to sound. This is art, not widgets or FFT displays."

 

In addition, Bob told me that he used his turntable, Dynavector cartridge and Manley Steelhead phono preamplifier to transfer a Bernie Grundman cut test pressing for the "vinyl experience" MP3 download that is included when you buy the LP. It's a good playback system, Bob told me, but contrary to what's been written online, it does not increase dynamic range! Bob told me that Chris Bellman was supposed to cut it but he was very busy and when Bernie heard the master he liked it so much he asked to cut it.

 

And interesting that he does confirm that the "Vinyl Experience" mp3 was made from a needle drop of the vinyl. And the claim that the album sounds exactly as Beck wanted it to.

[The Computer Audiophile]

The quote from Bob Ludwig is interesting because the measurements say otherwise. Maybe some can square these opposing results. For example, either a couple tracks are sourced from mp3 or there's something else going on that make them look identical to an mp3 sourced file.

 

I'd love to know but it's beyond my technical ability.

[firedog]

The quote from Bob Ludwig is interesting because the measurements say otherwise. Maybe some can square these opposing results. For example, either a couple tracks are sourced from mp3 or there's something else going on that make them look identical to an mp3 sourced file.

 

I'd love to know but it's beyond my technical ability.

 

Well, beyond a technical explanation that I'll leave to others, there is the possibility that the record company released some other mix that Bob and maybe also Beck are unaware of. Doesn't sound likely to me in this case with Bob Ludwig being so specific and adamant with what he says in the quote, but stranger things have been known to happen when record labels are involved.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Well, beyond a technical explanation that I'll leave to others, there is the possibility that the record company released some other mix that Bob and maybe also Beck are unaware of. Doesn't sound likely to me in this case with Bob Ludwig being so specific and adamant with what he says in the quote, but stranger things have been known to happen when record labels are involved.

My guess is Bob received WAV files that were once MP3 files. He wouldn't they were MP3 unless he analyzed them.

[firedog]

The quote from Bob Ludwig is interesting because the measurements say otherwise. Maybe some can square these opposing results. For example, either a couple tracks are sourced from mp3 or there's something else going on that make them look identical to an mp3 sourced file.

 

I'd love to know but it's beyond my technical ability.

 

Chris, see: http://www.analogplanet.com/content/stop-nonsense-bob-ludwig-true-numbers-behind-becks-imorning-phasei-album#comment-528905

 

John Atkinson agrees with you!

[The Computer Audiophile]

Chris, see: Stop the Nonsense! Bob Ludwig On The True Numbers Behind Beck's <i>Morning Phase</i> Album | Analog Planet

 

John Atkinson agrees with you!

:~)

[firedog]

My guess is Bob received WAV files that were once MP3 files. He wouldn't they were MP3 unless he analyzed them.

 

That is the simple explanation that could well be true, and Bob Ludwig could be telling the "truth", and still be incorrect about the source of the album. Again, never put it past a record company to do the worst (intentionally or not) in a case like this.

[firedog]

sorry double post

[VandyMan]

The topic on Analog Planet is quite comical. Micheal Fremer posted that everyone who disagrees with Bob Ludwig and posts in forums is a troll. That is followed by John Atkinson posting that the source was indeed MP3. So, Fremer ended up calling his boss a troll.

[bottlerocket]

The comment on the Analog Planet thread about Beck, HDtracks and Bob Ludwig getting together to screw the public was funny, but it totally misses the point. I don't think anyone is looking for a conspiracy. Personally, I am mostly curious what Beck's album would sound like at 24/96 without compression. Beck may know and he may have thought is sounded like crap or it was not what he was going for. I guess we'll never know.

[tresaino]

I listened to the Vinyl experience MP3 and to my ears it sounds ok but not more than that. But I also listened to the vinyl itself, and after repeated listening must admit that it actually sounds very good, I would guess it was sourced from a real high resolution digital master. To me this means that the vinyl version is actually by far the best one currently out there. This is not to defend vinyl, because we know the original recording was digital. The situation therefore is absurd.

Bottlerocket, if my ears are right there is a way to find out how Beck sounds at 24/96 without compression. And Chris I sent you a PM with a suggestion.

 

Roberto