Interesting article with Steven Wilson

[firedog]

Why Mastering Isn’t Needed In High-Res Audio | Real HD-Audio

 

maybe we should get Steven Wilson, Mark Waldrup and Barry together to see how we could progress the debate ?

 

Clearly, Barry is talking about something different. In a word, Barry seems to be saying that mastering, at a minimum, means preparing a set of tracks for release - so they play as a set regarding volume levels, sequencing between tracks, gaps, etc.

SW and MW seem to be defining mastering as "knob fiddling" - altering "timbre and dynamics", EQ, etc.

 

I don't think the 3 of them actually disagree. They are just defining "mastering" differently. Obviously both SW and MW do the minimum of what Barry considers mastering to prepare an album for release. Listen to their work and it is obvious. Apparently SW and MW consider "mastering" to begin where Barry's "basic mastering" (my term) ends. I think Barry has a point when he says that

the decision to *not* turn a knob is as valid a mastering decision as the decision to boost or cut frequency x by x db.

[alfe]

There is an ISRC code in all his albums, how the hell he is burning them without a mastering stage?

[Allan F]

Clearly, Barry is talking about something different. In a word, Barry seems to be saying that mastering, at a minimum, means preparing a set of tracks for release - so they play as a set regarding volume levels, sequencing between tracks, gaps, etc.

SW and MW seem to be defining mastering as "knob fiddling" - altering "timbre and dynamics", EQ, etc.

 

I don't think the 3 of them actually disagree. They are just defining "mastering" differently. Obviously both SW and MW do the minimum of what Barry considers mastering to prepare an album for release. Listen to their work and it is obvious. Apparently SW and MW consider "mastering" to begin where Barry's "basic mastering" (my term) ends. I think Barry has a point when he says that

the decision to *not* turn a knob is as valid a mastering decision as the decision to boost or cut frequency x by x db.

 

+1

 

I believe that Barry is probably "technically" correct in his use of the term. However, it is clear that the others are using the term to describe "processing" of the musical content, perhaps in the way the public generally views mastering.

[bdiament]

+1

 

I believe that Barry is probably "technically" correct in his use of the term. However, it is clear that the others are using the term to describe "processing" of the musical content, perhaps in the way the public generally views mastering.

 

Hi Allan,

 

My take is if you ask Joe or Jane Average what mastering is, they'll have no idea what you're referring to. (Or they'll mishear you and simply refuse to talk about personal issues. =8-0 )

 

I also think it is a good idea when folks understand the meaning behind a word. I believe it can make for more effective communication (i.e., better understanding) than when folks all make up their own definitions for terms, particularly technical terms.

 

When I make a recording that sounds exactly the way I want the listener to hear it, I'll *master* it with that in mind, and avoid changing the sound in any way. The definition of mastering has existed as long as mass distribution of recordings has existed. This definition does not change because some folks mistake potential components of a process with the process itself.

 

I'm all for not mucking up the sound of recordings. In my experience, while a great many are further ruined by improper mastering, their overall quality ceiling was determined long before mastering was even considered.

 

Best regards,

Barry

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com

[petaluma]

Hi Allan,

 

My take is if you ask Joe or Jane Average what mastering is, they'll have no idea what you're referring to. (Or they'll mishear you and simply refuse to talk about personal issues. =8-0 )

 

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Barry, they may be uncomfortable in that discussion because unfortunately they are NOT masters of their domain.....

[Allan F]

My take is if you ask Joe or Jane Average what mastering is, they'll have no idea what you're referring to. (Or they'll mishear you and simply refuse to talk about personal issues. =8-0 )

 

Hi Barry:

 

I was actually referring to some members of this forum when I used the term "public". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that you are suggesting that neither Steven Wilson nor Mark Waldrep understands what "mastering" is. Rather, I assume that your problem is with their use of the term to describe only what both you and they consider to be an undesired aspect of mastering.

 

I'm all for not mucking up the sound of recordings. In my experience, while a great many are further ruined by improper mastering, their overall quality ceiling was determined long before mastering was even considered.

 

From which one may infer that there are a number of people making recordings who haven't got a clue.

[bdiament]

Hi Barry:

 

I was actually referring to some members of this forum when I used the term "public". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that you are suggesting that neither Steven Wilson nor Mark Waldrep understands what "mastering" is. Rather, I assume that your problem is with their use of the term to describe only what both you and they consider to be an undesired aspect of mastering....

 

Hi Allan,

 

I could be wrong of course, but I would think music enthusiasts, such as the folks on this forum, are interested in getting as much of the technical aspects correct as possible. If there is a record for them to purchase, that record was mastered. So the suggestion that there might be buyable records that were not mastered is misleading at best.

 

You are correct in that I am not at all suggesting Messrs. Willson and Waldrep don't understand what mastering is. I'm sure both do quite well.

That is why I take exception to the confusion of a *potential* component of the process with the process itself.

 

 

From which one may infer that there are a number of people making recordings who haven't got a clue.

 

A matter of opinion of course. But one I share. ;-}

Too much music that I love is, in my view, quite poorly represented on record. (Just one example of a thousand that come to mind right away: I'm pretty sure Elvin's snare was not clipping in real life. I'm equally sure McCoy's piano was not rolled forward as he began his solos and rolled backward when he ended them. ;-} )

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[Miska]

I have tested my 16 bit CDs on high quality Rega CD players, for example, and the "loss" of quality on the CDs where I have done nothing apart from increasing the volume to a peak of -0.3 dBFS is quite obvious on a revealing system. They sound noticeably better and more transparent if I just leave the original levels where they are. It is a pity because the nulling experiment I explained above shows I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by peak normalising prior to the 16 bit conversion. But the irony is it does not produce better sound when you stick it into a CD player connected to a "traditional" hifi system.

 

As Tony commented earlier, major problem is that RedBook 44.1/16 is not very accurate representation of the signal and normalizing it to 0 dBFS will result in inter-sample overs in digital (and analog) filters. While simultaneously it is also problematic not to normalize level to 0 dBFS due to limited dynamic range. Some DACs and player software take this into account while most traditional CD players don't.

 

So if you master for CD you need to decide whether you focus on avoiding peak distortion on CD players, or optimize SNR. IMO, best you can do is to keep peak levels 2 - 3 dBFS from maximum and use good quality dither, possibly with slight noise shaping, to avoid adverse effects on SNR. Keeping peaks at max -3 dBFS doesn't need much of noise shaping to keep A-weighted SNR the same as unweighted 0 dBFS level.

 

For people doing upsampling in player software I already recommend using -3 dBFS volume setting to leave space for inter-sample expansion. Wolfson DAC chips have option to use -2 dBFS, but it is hard to know what kind of configuration a particular player or DAC is using.

 

This is something you don't easily see in digital analysis of the RedBook data, because the intermediate analysis values are usually not restricted to the value range of RedBook.

[Lossless]

Hi

 

I've listened to some of SW's remasters and of course his own albums. Hand. Cannot. Erase blew me away, and so did The Raven. For some years now i have gradually turned into quite the audiophile-diva. Constantly bugging myself over people using good and expensive gear, while listening to music through services such as spotify. ^^

 

However. I read this article today; and now i feel like i just have to get involved in some way or another. Found this forum, and it seems very nice, unlike my friends, whom does not wish to hear anything that is good quality audio, or know anything about it.

 

Cheers

[semente]

As Tony commented earlier, major problem is that RedBook 44.1/16 is not very accurate representation of the signal and normalizing it to 0 dBFS will result in inter-sample overs in digital (and analog) filters. While simultaneously it is also problematic not to normalize level to 0 dBFS due to limited dynamic range. Some DACs and player software take this into account while most traditional CD players don't.

 

So if you master for CD you need to decide whether you focus on avoiding peak distortion on CD players, or optimize SNR. IMO, best you can do is to keep peak levels 2 - 3 dBFS from maximum and use good quality dither, possibly with slight noise shaping, to avoid adverse effects on SNR. Keeping peaks at max -3 dBFS doesn't need much of noise shaping to keep A-weighted SNR the same as unweighted 0 dBFS level.

 

For people doing upsampling in player software I already recommend using -3 dBFS volume setting to leave space for inter-sample expansion. Wolfson DAC chips have option to use -2 dBFS, but it is hard to know what kind of configuration a particular player or DAC is using.

 

This is something you don't easily see in digital analysis of the RedBook data, because the intermediate analysis values are usually not restricted to the value range of RedBook.

 

Hi Miska,

 

Do you think that a wide dynamic music programme should be compressed when down-converting from 24-bit to 16-bit?

I understand that with RedBook one is only getting 8-bit at -48dB (if the programme peaks at 0dBF) but -48dB is a very low level signal especially when presented next to -6dB or -1dB peaks...

Is there a particular track you suggest I should use that better illustrates this loss of resolution?

I don't listen on heaphones but my current room is on the quite side.

 

Cheers,

Ricardo

[buffalobill]

Interesting discussion but as an consumer audiophile I have no control over the mastering process, regardless of the various definitions of "is". If I want to listen to my favorite artists I have to buy what they produce. I always learn from Barry's comments but this seems to be an issue best debated within the industry.

[tranz]

Some great videos showing the mixing gurus sharing their art:

 

MixWiththeMasters on YouTube.

 

One example: