MQA Off-Topic Spinoff

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

I love audiophiles who are not assholes. 

 

 

I love industry professionals who are not assholes. 

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

It's all situational, there is no number, no dogma.

 

True.

 

Interesting discussions about DR. But I'm not sure who takes the DR value as "dogma" (a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true). We know that the DR calculation can be misleading (eg. when digital gets converted to vinyl, or when we can increase it artificially without significant effect thru DSP).

 

I think for most of us, the idea of desiring a larger DR is more a "rule of thumb" (a broadly accurate guide or principle, based on experience or practice rather than theory) than dogma. For some genres, it's not that important (eg. I don't think anyone expects a high >DR10 album out of the The Black Keys), but it would be rather unfortunate to see low DR values for most acoustic jazz, blues and especially classical albums. Also, since audiophiles tend to like their female vocals, a Diana Krall album at DR6 is likely not something most here would like through experience with these types of recordings .

 

Personally (and I think for many "audiophiles"), part of the magic of "classic" rock recordings like the old Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms or Fagen's The Nightfly, or Floyd's Dark Side is that the average loudness was lower and dynamic range throughout the album greater than today's typical recording/mixing/mastering of rock or pop. That difference is easily audible and preferable. That is simply an expression of subjective preference within this small segment of music lovers and I don't think anyone is calling to crucify artists or engineers who desire a different creative intent. I think we all just hope that the artists and engineers are mindful about this concern some of us have and the result is truly their intent (rather than say a side goal of "loudness war" arms race with other loud recordings).

 

While I happily purchase lower DR recordings all the time (hey I got my wife a copy of Shania's Now the other day - one of yours, right?), for me, I know from experience that essentially less than DR5 ends up being unlistenably harsh (again, not dogma but personal experience over years of music collecting). It's just a measurable correlation I would be foolish to ignore - nor would I stay silent about it if the album happened to be an artist I love!

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

False

 

In stereo playback the room is 50% + of the experience.

 

Put your best system in a gymnasium, and get back to us.

 

Put your musicians in the same spot, in the same gymnasium - do we only get 50% of the musical value from them?

[fas42]

Talking of good mastering, this is an album that took my breath away - every song on this is a beauty ... I've often used this for a solid workout when visiting shops, etc.

 

 

[fas42]

Awww, what the heck! ... I'm in the groove, now ...

 

 

[synn]

5 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I love industry professionals who are not assholes. 

+1

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

Put your musicians in the same spot, in the same gymnasium - do we only get 50% of the musical value from them?

 

Ehm, Yes. I testified of that a few months ago, including a recording of it, which I put up. Without having seen the artists, I thought it was a very poor reproduction system I was listening to (it was in a large hotel lobby).

[firedog]

6 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

False

 

In stereo playback the room is 50% + of the experience.

 

Put your best system in a gymnasium, and get back to us.

Again, you keep putting words in other posters' mouths based on some preconception of yours or maybe a simple inability to read the context.  No one said the room wasn't important. 

 

The  context of the post you quoted was about the importance of a quiet room. No one was talking about "room size"  or anything similar, so your post (again) is a comeback to a point that wasn't made. 

 

We are all aware here of the importance of the room  in stereo playback. No need for you to point it out to us as if we don't know about it. 

[firedog]

6 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

I love audiophiles who are not assholes.  They listen, invest in playback, love music and are open minded to the musical work of artists.

 

Which is a perfect description of most of the posters here. You, for whatever reason, don't seem to be able to see it. Not only do people here love music and invest in playback - they actually spend lots of money buying music AND pay for subscription streaming services. Unlike many people who love music and think they should get it all for free. 

 

As far as being open to the musical work of artists: some people here are close minded. Many probably have some of the most open minded and eclectic music collections you are ever likely to see.  Possibly even more than yours. (And that wasn't intended as an insult to you, just pointing out something you apparently haven't considered). 

[Brian Lucey]

4 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

True.

 

Interesting discussions about DR. But I'm not sure who takes the DR value as "dogma" (a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true). We know that the DR calculation can be misleading (eg. when digital gets converted to vinyl, or when we can increase it artificially without significant effect thru DSP).

 

I think for most of us, the idea of desiring a larger DR is more a "rule of thumb" (a broadly accurate guide or principle, based on experience or practice rather than theory) than dogma. For some genres, it's not that important (eg. I don't think anyone expects a high >DR10 album out of the The Black Keys), but it would be rather unfortunate to see low DR values for most acoustic jazz, blues and especially classical albums. Also, since audiophiles tend to like their female vocals, a Diana Krall album at DR6 is likely not something most here would like through experience with these types of recordings .

 

Personally (and I think for many "audiophiles"), part of the magic of "classic" rock recordings like the old Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms or Fagen's The Nightfly, or Floyd's Dark Side is that the average loudness was lower and dynamic range throughout the album greater than today's typical recording/mixing/mastering of rock or pop. That difference is easily audible and preferable. That is simply an expression of subjective preference within this small segment of music lovers and I don't think anyone is calling to crucify artists or engineers who desire a different creative intent. I think we all just hope that the artists and engineers are mindful about this concern some of us have and the result is truly their intent (rather than say a side goal of "loudness war" arms race with other loud recordings).

 

While I happily purchase lower DR recordings all the time (hey I got my wife a copy of Shania's Now the other day - one of yours, right?), for me, I know from experience that essentially less than DR5 ends up being unlistenably harsh (again, not dogma but personal experience over years of music collecting). It's just a measurable correlation I would be foolish to ignore - nor would I stay silent about it if the album happened to be an artist I love!

 

5 is hot, I would prefer not to go over, but it happens.

 

Older records sound older, it's just the way it is.  Railing against modern music seems to me like protesting wind.

 

Nightly and a host of older records sound dated and would be better with a little less DR and a little different distortion, assuming it was done well.  Problem is that many people doing remastering are bulk processing on the cheap for the label.

[Brian Lucey]

Just now, firedog said:

 

Which is a perfect description of most of the posters here. You, for whatever reason, don't seem to be able to see it. Not only do people here love music and invest in playback - they actually spend lots of money buying music AND pay for subscription streaming services. Unlike many people who love music and think they should get it all for free. 

 

Sounds good !

 

Just now, firedog said:

As far as being open to the musical work of artists: some people here are close minded. Many probably have some of the most open minded and eclectic music collections you are ever likely to see.  Possibly even more than yours. (And that wasn't intended as an insult to you, just pointing out something you apparently haven't considered). 

 

My first experience here set the tone, and it's also the reason this thread was necessary.  I came here to discuss an opinion on MQA and those who were excited to find a professional to vent to, including the site founder, went off.

 

First impression matter, it was not open minded music lovers.

[synn]

I support a multitude of artists by paying for their work, artists who can’t afford the glitz and glamour of an LA based mastering studio. If that makes me an asshole audiophile, let it be so.

 

my responses to Mr. Lucey has nothing to do with the fact that he is an industry professional. I couldn’t care less. There are a thousand other people involved in the music industry I would like to talk to before a mastering engineer. Much less one who works on music that I personally have no interest in listening to.

 

I responded because he comes across as an extremely arrogant person who ignores whatever the other person is saying and keeps banging his drum as loud as he can. 

 

Perhaps that is where his penchant for loudness comes from.

[Brian Lucey]

6 minutes ago, synn said:

I support a multitude of artists by paying for their work, artists who can’t afford the glitz and glamour of an LA based mastering studio.

 

You have no idea what I charge, or who my clients are.  Come on man, do better.

[synn]

2 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

You have no idea what I charge, or who my clients are.  Come on man, do better.

So you’re saying that the shiny pictures on your website are not of your actual clients?

 

[esldude]

7 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I love industry professionals who are not assholes. 

+1

[fas42]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Ehm, Yes. I testified of that a few months ago, including a recording of it, which I put up. Without having seen the artists, I thought it was a very poor reproduction system I was listening to (it was in a large hotel lobby).

 

Well, we can't really expect reproduction to do better than being 100% accurate to what was recorded. If someone chooses some incredibly unsuitable place for playing it back, then that's their choice  - my pleasure is sensing the energy and vitality of the music making; that the environment it's in causes it to have a less than perfect FR or reverberation properties is not particularly interesting to me - rather, what really bothers me is hearing obvious clues that it's "fake" .

[Brian Lucey]

1 hour ago, synn said:

So you’re saying that the shiny pictures on your website are not of your actual clients?

 

I have 600 clients  year.  They range from start ups to majors.  You're simply being combative.  It's rude, and unnecessary.

 

This forum is a place where I have tried to shine some truth on the ignorance of so many, as to how records are made and why decisions are made.

 

I'm done here, thanks to those who were cool, and the rest, you know who you are.

[PeterSt]

30 minutes ago, fas42 said:

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Ehm, Yes. I testified of that a few months ago, including a recording of it, which I put up. Without having seen the artists, I thought it was a very poor reproduction system I was listening to (it was in a large hotel lobby).

 

Well, we can't really expect reproduction to do better than being 100% accurate to what was recorded. If someone chooses some incredibly unsuitable place for playing it back, then that's their choice 

 

It was this. Get your plugs :

2017_08_26_09_56_32.wav.mp3

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

In practice, very well. "Good gear" is the first priority, quiet room is very far down on the list - put it this way: you have a grand piano in your listening room; a highly accomplished pianist comes in, and commences to play a wide array of pieces in style, from the most subtle dream state conjurings, to almighty, thunderous Chopin or Liszt extravaganzas - is the fact that the room is "quiet" or not have the slightest bearing on the experience?

 

A recording of classical piano?  That's a DR range that's pretty well defined from a recording perspective.  Is that the example of "HDR audio" in this case?

 

We're talking about recordings, right? 

 

Here's a title from my collection.  Track 1 has an Loudness range of 21.1 LRA.  Is this a sufficient example of the DR you're talking about?  Because this exists today and anyone can buy it.

 

And yes, if you listen to this in the car, you're going to have to ride the volume knob.  Unless your car is so quiet you don't have to turn up the volume for the quiet parts.  It would have to be one quiet car.

 

 

[Fair Hedon]

5 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

I have 600 clients  year.  They range from start ups to majors.  You're simply being combative.  It's rude, and unnecessary.

 

This forum is a place where I have tried to shine some truth on the ignorance of so many, as to how records are made and why decisions are made.

 

I'm done here, thanks to those who were cool, and the rest, you know who you are.

I listened to the Cameron Avery album you did, Ripe Dreams, Pipe Dreams twice through yesterday.

 

What a modern symphonic pop masterpiece.

[Archimago]

8 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

5 is hot, I would prefer not to go over, but it happens.

 

Older records sound older, it's just the way it is.  Railing against modern music seems to me like protesting wind.

 

Nightly and a host of older records sound dated and would be better with a little less DR and a little different distortion, assuming it was done well.  Problem is that many people doing remastering are bulk processing on the cheap for the label.

 

Hi Brian,

Yeah, glad we're in agreement that DR5 is hot as a general rule of thumb...

 

Yup,  Nightfly is certainly sounding dated (like all of Steely Dan IMO) and I have no doubts that a modern recording/mix/mastering could sound superior if done well...

 

But I think that recording is worth thinking about because within the audiophile crowd, it is held in esteem over the years. It's a fine recording and I certainly do not want to take away from Fagen's artistry... However, I'm not sure it would have maintained this status if not for that "icing on top" average DR16 with concomitant RMS level of around -20dB; a nice example of an album where we can pump up the volume, hear the fine details and feel the kick from those transients. Presumably this came about to some extent due to the early digital process and the engineers felt they maximized the potential of the 3M 16/50 technology of the day.

 

Obviously I'm not suggesting all albums should be like this. There are many subjective preferences to be made in the process and my preference could change depending on whether I listen in the car or at home in the sound room. But as a "rule of thumb", I do like the ability to use the volume knob more and hear/feel the dynamic impact and emotional expression that comes with it especially when my equipment can render this well.

 

[Rt66indierock]

12 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Hi Brian,

Yeah, glad we're in agreement that DR5 is hot as a general rule of thumb...

 

Yup,  Nightfly is certainly sounding dated (like all of Steely Dan IMO) and I have no doubts that a modern recording/mix/mastering could sound superior if done well...

 

But I think that recording is worth thinking about because within the audiophile crowd, it is held in esteem over the years. It's a fine recording and I certainly do not want to take away from Fagen's artistry... However, I'm not sure it would have maintained this status if not for that "icing on top" average DR16 with concomitant RMS level of around -20dB; a nice example of an album where we can pump up the volume, hear the fine details and feel the kick from those transients. Presumably this came about to some extent due to the early digital process and the engineers felt they maximized the potential of the 3M 16/50 technology of the day.

 

Obviously I'm not suggesting all albums should be like this. There are many subjective preferences to be made in the process and my preference could change depending on whether I listen in the car or at home in the sound room. But as a "rule of thumb", I do like the ability to use the volume knob more and hear/feel the dynamic impact and emotional expression that comes with it especially when my equipment can render this well.

 

A lot of the status of The Nightfly is it was used to tune sound systems for live concerts. And it was helpful getting the sound right  on radio stations in my case as well. 

[Archimago]

Just now, Rt66indierock said:

A lot of the status of The Nightfly is it was used to tune sound systems for live concerts. And it was helpful getting the sound right  on radio stations in my case as well. 

 

Good to know Indie.

 

I've certainly heard many a time when it was used in store auditions (and used tracks myself).

 

[Abtr]

18 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

Which of your children do you prefer?

 

Just because I don't care about you enough to see all your questions, or answer a dumb question  ... is not ignoring it.   I skipped over your posts for a while now as you seem less than friendly and with an agenda.

You see, no answer.. I think anyone with reasonably good audio gear can hear the distortion in low DR masterings. I wonder why you can't.

 

There are two versions of The Nightfly on Tidal. An MQA version which might be based on the original DR16 version and a significantly louder version (Warner/WEA) which might be a DR13 remaster. On my system, the latter certainly doesn't sound better. It sounds like a different and relatively distorted album.

 

I hear the same distortion in your masterings so I presume it must be the compression/limiting causing it..

[synn]

9 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

I have 600 clients  year. 

 

Assuming that’s 1 album per client, thats 1.65 albums per day at an average.

 

I see why you do not understand or care about the quality argument. I wouldn’t start a discussion about gourmet cooking in the McDonalds kitchen either.