New Comparing 24/96 wav vs 24/96 flac vs 16/44.1 wav vs 320 mp3 (working link )

bdiament · June 9, 2015

No, except that that means that the majority of the recordings that we listen to probably has been mastered in wavelab.
But looking at your test it seems like the audio industry has to shape up.

Hi PAP,

I would say the majority of recordings we listen to were mastered with soundBlade, by a good margin.

Some others like Pyramix are becoming widely used to. There are dozens of others but most will be found more in semi-pro or musician-owned studios than in the big mastering rooms.

Often, you'll find more than one application in the better mastering rooms, simply because each tends to do something the others do not. (I have four or five dedicated mastering applications, plus a number of other apps that I might call upon when mastering an album.)

Best regards,

Barry

Jud · June 9, 2015

Often, you'll find more than one application in the better mastering rooms, simply because each tends to do something the others do not. (I have four or five dedicated mastering applications, plus a number of other apps that I might call upon when mastering an album.)

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Barry, would love to hear as much as you care to say about the mastering and other software you often use, and what jobs each does.

Another thing I'm curious about is to what extent these commonly used applications have characteristic sounds, and whether you might point us to any popular or classic recordings that have passages exemplifying these sounds. (If that's the subject of a separate thread, please feel free to start one!)

bdiament · June 10, 2015

Barry, would love to hear as much as you care to say about the mastering and other software you often use, and what jobs each does.

Another thing I'm curious about is to what extent these commonly used applications have characteristic sounds, and whether you might point us to any popular or classic recordings that have passages exemplifying these sounds. (If that's the subject of a separate thread, please feel free to start one!)

Hi Jud,

There is definitely a characteristic sound to each of the applications. I don't know that you would hear such on any given recording because so many other factors outweigh the sound of the mastering apps by far. (You would need to hear the same master passed through the different apps in order to discern what the mastering apps are doing.)

While the playback in each app is slightly different from the others, the discrepancies really come into play when you start to use the full capabilities of each of the "engines." I ran some tests a while back, using one of my own recordings to analyze the sound of several mastering apps. The tests consisted of loading the original recording into each of the apps and applying the same process in each.

One of the things I need to do when mastering my own recordings is set the final level with the mastering application. I record with lots of headroom and besides, every monolithic A-D converter I know of will exhibit its lowest distortion when the maximum peak is no greater than -6 dBFS. The performance might be even better at -10, -12 or lower. For the final master, however, the level will generally be raised--in the digital domain--to use up all of the available resolution. This is particularly important for the 16-bit release because resolution is already compromised and throwing bits away is just silly. I have often remarked that folks tend to confuse CD's signal-to-noise ratio with its dynamic range. To my ears, the undistorted dynamic range of CD is nothing at all like the 96 dB of the noise spec, being more like 30 or 40 dB before the harmonics and low-level info turn to mush.

So, I took the original which had a max peak on that particular track of about -12 dBFS and changed the gain in each of the mastering apps by a little over 11 dB. Then I brought the results of all four apps in the test into a multitrack application and synchronized them. This made switching between pairs of tracks (i.e., each version) easy and seamless. The differences were plain as day, primarily in how low level information and spatial cues were preserved (or not).

Of course, there are many operations that might be required when mastering an album, depending on the source. I'll generally use third-party "plug-ins" for sample rate conversion and dither/noise shaping. While my own recordings are essentially raw and unprocessed (by design), most of what comes in for mastering, due to how it was recorded and mixed, needs help. It might be EQ or any of several other things, including altering the mix -- even when I only have a stereo source. (We have ways. ;-})

When EQ is needed, I find the Metric Halo software (the ChannelStrip plug-in or the built-in MHStrip) unmatched for its ability to do the job and still stay out of the way. I've done similar tests where I applied the same EQ using different plug-ins. The MH EQ made the others sound broken--"crunchy" isn't a bad descriptor either for the results in certain parts of the range. Other tests used different dither algorithms, noise shaping algorithms, and all sorts of other processors - again all used the same way on multiple copies of the same source. Using trusted recordings and comparison against the unprocessed originals has been something I've found invaluable in helping me select the tools to use. (My criterion is if you can hear the process, the tool fails.)

Another tool that has saved some folks' mixes is iZotope's RX. With it, I can remove spurious noises without disturbing the rest of the mix. If I'm not mistaken, it was designed by Alexey Lukin, who also designed iZotope's 64-bit SRC and their MBIT+ dither/noise shaping algorithms.

Reaper is a wonderful application that can be used for recording and mixing (and some editing). I find it to sonically outperform much of its competition at a small fraction of the price. Other apps in the toolbox are soundBlade, Peak Pro XT (discontinued but still my favorite editor), Triumph, Wave Editor, DSP Quattro, Sample Manager (a wonderful batch processor), SoundSoap, and the amazing SpectraFoo (for analysis). There are probably others on the main drive too but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment.

Best regards,

Barry

Jud · June 10, 2015

Barry, that was fascinating, and very generous. Much appreciated!

jabbr · June 10, 2015

Thanks!

esldude · June 10, 2015

I believe protools is mac and wavelab is pc. But probably there are more contenders.
What does Blue Coast or Reference Recordings use?

No Pro Tools and Wavelab are available for both platforms. You can even buy dedicated audio specific PC's made for Protools use running your choice of Win 7 or Win 8.

I don't know what Blue Coast uses. I suppose from their descrition they do most work in analog, and likely use one of the DSD specific DAWs otherwise.

YashN · June 10, 2015

When EQ is needed, I find the Metric Halo software (the ChannelStrip plug-in or the built-in MHStrip) unmatched for its ability to do the job and still stay out of the way. I've done similar tests where I applied the same EQ using different plug-ins.

Hi Barry, it would be interesting to know your thoughts about Acustica Audio's Nebula if you've tried it. It made me become uninterested in other plugins just like when I got my analogue synths that made me lose interest in Virtual Instruments. It sounds really good to me, doesn't sound digital at all, sounds analogue even though it works with PCM.

Reaper is a wonderful application that can be used for recording and mixing (and some editing). I find it to sonically outperform much of its competition at a small fraction of the price.

As a Pro Tools owner, I became disappointed with their odd updates, odd update paths which look more like extortion and general lack of stability. It does sound very good... when it works. After my disappointment a few years back, I set up Reaper, with the Imperial skin. Looks great, sounds great, has all the features needed and rock-solid MD and Audio stability.

esldude · June 10, 2015

Hi Barry, it would be interesting to know your thoughts about Acustica Audio's Nebula if you've tried it. It made me become uninterested in other plugins just like when I got my analogue synths that made me lose interest in Virtual Instruments. It sounds really good to me, doesn't sound digital at all, sounds analogue even though it works with PCM.

As a Pro Tools owner, I became disappointed with their odd updates, odd update paths which look more like extortion and general lack of stability. It does sound very good... when it works. After my disappointment a few years back, I set up Reaper, with the Imperial skin. Looks great, sounds great, has all the features needed and rock-solid MD and Audio stability.

+1 on the Reaper. Surprisingly great software at a very reasonable price.

mkrzych · June 10, 2015

Hi Jud,

There is definitely a characteristic sound to each of the applications. I don't know that you would hear such on any given recording because so many other factors outweigh the sound of the mastering apps by far. (You would need to hear the same master passed through the different apps in order to discern what the mastering apps are doing.)

While the playback in each app is slightly different from the others, the discrepancies really come into play when you start to use the full capabilities of each of the "engines." I ran some tests a while back, using one of my own recordings to analyze the sound of several mastering apps. The tests consisted of loading the original recording into each of the apps and applying the same process in each.

One of the things I need to do when mastering my own recordings is set the final level with the mastering application. I record with lots of headroom and besides, every monolithic A-D converter I know of will exhibit its lowest distortion when the maximum peak is no greater than -6 dBFS. The performance might be even better at -10, -12 or lower. For the final master, however, the level will generally be raised--in the digital domain--to use up all of the available resolution. This is particularly important for the 16-bit release because resolution is already compromised and throwing bits away is just silly. I have often remarked that folks tend to confuse CD's signal-to-noise ratio with its dynamic range. To my ears, the undistorted dynamic range of CD is nothing at all like the 96 dB of the noise spec, being more like 30 or 40 dB before the harmonics and low-level info turn to mush.

So, I took the original which had a max peak on that particular track of about -12 dBFS and changed the gain in each of the mastering apps by a little over 11 dB. Then I brought the results of all four apps in the test into a multitrack application and synchronized them. This made switching between pairs of tracks (i.e., each version) easy and seamless. The differences were plain as day, primarily in how low level information and spatial cues were preserved (or not).

Of course, there are many operations that might be required when mastering an album, depending on the source. I'll generally use third-party "plug-ins" for sample rate conversion and dither/noise shaping. While my own recordings are essentially raw and unprocessed (by design), most of what comes in for mastering, due to how it was recorded and mixed, needs help. It might be EQ or any of several other things, including altering the mix -- even when I only have a stereo source. (We have ways. ;-})

When EQ is needed, I find the Metric Halo software (the ChannelStrip plug-in or the built-in MHStrip) unmatched for its ability to do the job and still stay out of the way. I've done similar tests where I applied the same EQ using different plug-ins. The MH EQ made the others sound broken--"crunchy" isn't a bad descriptor either for the results in certain parts of the range. Other tests used different dither algorithms, noise shaping algorithms, and all sorts of other processors - again all used the same way on multiple copies of the same source. Using trusted recordings and comparison against the unprocessed originals has been something I've found invaluable in helping me select the tools to use. (My criterion is if you can hear the process, the tool fails.)

Another tool that has saved some folks' mixes is iZotope's RX. With it, I can remove spurious noises without disturbing the rest of the mix. If I'm not mistaken, it was designed by Alexey Lukin, who also designed iZotope's 64-bit SRC and their MBIT+ dither/noise shaping algorithms.

Reaper is a wonderful application that can be used for recording and mixing (and some editing). I find it to sonically outperform much of its competition at a small fraction of the price. Other apps in the toolbox are soundBlade, Peak Pro XT (discontinued but still my favorite editor), Triumph, Wave Editor, DSP Quattro, Sample Manager (a wonderful batch processor), SoundSoap, and the amazing SpectraFoo (for analysis). There are probably others on the main drive too but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment.

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

That was awesome reading Barry! Thanks a lot for your post. BTW, you've said that in the process of comparing the tools you listen to low level cues, could you tell us what specifically we should listen to judge the mastering quality or recording? I mean, should we rather focus on spatiality, low bass extension, how the particular interments are placed as pseudo sources or rather something on the high frequencies like timbre, tone, granularity?

bdiament · June 10, 2015

Hi Barry, it would be interesting to know your thoughts about Acustica Audio's Nebula if you've tried it. It made me become uninterested in other plugins just like when I got my analogue synths that made me lose interest in Virtual Instruments. It sounds really good to me, doesn't sound digital at all, sounds analogue even though it works with PCM...

Hi YashN,

I have not tried Nebula (yet). Personally, I would hope it does *not* sound "analog" as I would consider this just as much a distortion as sounding "digital" or even sounding "great." The reason I love ChannelStrip and MHStrip (and MHEQ) as equalizers is because to my ears, they don't "sound" at all. I want the colors to come from the music, not the gear used to make recordings.

Of course that is just me. I understand that many seek certain "flavors" in the gear they use to make recordings and I think that is fine. There are obviously many ways to make a record. ;-}

Best regards,

Barry

bdiament · June 10, 2015

That was awesome reading Barry! Thanks a lot for your post. BTW, you've said that in the process of comparing the tools you listen to low level cues, could you tell us what specifically we should listen to judge the mastering quality or recording? I mean, should we rather focus on spatiality, low bass extension, how the particular interments are placed as pseudo sources or rather something on the high frequencies like timbre, tone, granularity?

Hi Krzysztof,

I mentioned that some of the differences I hear between the mastering applications manifest themselves in the area of low level information. It isn't necessarily that I'm listening for this, just that these are the areas that caught my ear when doing direct comparisons of the apps.

My experience has been that we all hear differently and probably all listen differently too. With this in mind, I can only speak for myself of course. When I'm evaluating mastering or a recording, the only thing I'm focusing on is the sound of the music including the space in which it occurs, whether real or synthetic. (By the way, the only way I know of to evaluate mastering is to either have the source on hand or have a different mastering. Obviously the first is the optimal way but often one mastering can reveal some things about another mastering.)

If the recording (and mastering) exhibits high quality, I find I'm better able to get into the music and the artistic message it contains. To my mind, it is really flaws in one or more stages of the process of record making that will raise issues about specific characteristics like frequency extension, dynamic range, soundstage, imaging, harmonic complexity, etc. In other words, I tend to notice these things when something is wrong-- which unfortunately with most records is most of the time.

By way of example, not too long ago I was listening to John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" album and though I've heard it many times over the years, on this particular occasion I sat in awe of the players (once again) and the energy they were creating. I even said out loud to my wife "The studio must have been on fire when these guys did this!" Such was the "heat" in the music. At the same time, I was frustrated by aspects of the recording that kept getting in the way. Elvin's drums were clipping. All the engineer had to do was turn down the record level. But he didn't. McCoy's piano swung forward for his solos, as if on a trapeze. And the sound, as heard from inside (!), under the lid (!), just above the hammers (!), captured by mics with significant treble peaks, was as if the instrument was made of aluminum instead of wood. And saxophones just don't sound like that! Dynamic compression was applied liberally--I would guess both in the original recording and again during the mastering. (Note, this is only a guess. I could be mistaken.) All this to say, if the recording was better, I'd have gotten more completely lost in the music. It would have taken less effort and less fatigue to get to the music. And if the recording was better, I wouldn't have noticed the microphones, the record level, or the processing. There would be only the music.

The same occurs at a good live performance (not those with "sound men" whose work should, in my view, be punishable). We hear the music, not the treble extension or the imaging. So, I would say the thing to listen for is the music. Characteristics of the sound will only come up if something is wrong. Granted, there may be something in every recording but some surely get out of the way much better than others.

As always, just my perspective.

Best regards,

Barry