MQA Off-Topic Spinoff

[Rt66indierock]

58 minutes ago, synn said:

 

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.

Actually most artists do an album about every three years. The current economics don't support more so more like 200 a year.

 

In my personal case I count clients I only see once every five years or so. I have some international clients who only have US type questions I'm engaged to consult on irregularly.

[the_bat]

Sigh.

 

I'm finding this all a bit odd.  Brian came on here with a point which I thought many, if not most, people agreed with about issues with MQA.  He's immediately attacked  basically for making records that sound the way modern artists want them, not the way some records from 35 years ago (the Nightfly) or 45 year ago (DSOTM) sound. I suspect many of those commenting wouldn't like anything from (say) Jay-Z no matter what the DR, or would complain about Bowie's Blackstar and compare it unfavourably to Hunky Dory despite both being superb recordings.

 

I suspect he adopted a persona and was clearly enjoying tweaking peoples tails.  Some of the comments he got however have been frankly insulting, suggesting that he doesn't know what he's doing, or that he doesn't care about quality which is clearly not the case.

 

Taste clearly comes into this but I keep being reminded of old men shouting "you kids get off my lawn".

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, the_bat said:

He's immediately attacked

As they say, pics or it didn’t happen. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

12 minutes ago, the_bat said:

Sigh.

 

I'm finding this all a bit odd.  Brian came on here with a point which I thought many, if not most, people agreed with about issues with MQA.  He's immediately attacked  basically for making records that sound the way modern artists want them, not the way some records from 35 years ago (the Nightfly) or 45 year ago (DSOTM) sound. I suspect many of those commenting wouldn't like anything from (say) Jay-Z no matter what the DR, or would complain about Bowie's Blackstar and compare it unfavourably to Hunky Dory despite both being superb recordings.

 

I suspect he adopted a persona and was clearly enjoying tweaking peoples tails.  Some of the comments he got however have been frankly insulting, suggesting that he doesn't know what he's doing, or that he doesn't care about quality which is clearly not the case.

 

Taste clearly comes into this but I keep being reminded of old men shouting "you kids get off my lawn".

 

I will say that there seems to be an underlying assumption that Brian's stature in audio production entitles him to "tweaking peoples tails", while any rebuttal to that is characterized as insulting.  He clearly came here with some audiophile stereotypes in mind, and simply would not engage in a discussion about his aesthetic tastes regarding loudness in the production process.  All we got is that we're "dogmatic" for even caring about excessive loudness and how damaging it is to dynamic range.

 

Brian himself admitted he's 50 years old, so I'm thinking that he was engaging in a little of that "get off my lawn" shtick as well.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

Brian himself admitted he's 50 years old, so I'm thinking that he was engaging in a little of that "get off my lawn" shtick as well.

 

I turned 42 Monday and he called me old. 

[the_bat]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

As they say, pics or it didn’t happen. 

 

abtr's first comment

 

I listened to some of his products on Tidal and checked for dynamic range here: http://dr.loudness-war.info/. He must be mastering music to win the loudness war.

 

and his second

 

At the same time, however, he creates horribly compressed music. Does this guy really know what he is talking about? I'm not inclined to think so..

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I turned 42 Monday and he called me old. 

 

No musical artist that is chasing the potentially lucrative younger demographic would want to have their stuff mastered by grandpa.  So Brian has to play up the "young at heart" shtick.  Part of that is calling people younger than him, "old".

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, the_bat said:

 

abtr's first comment

 

I listened to some of his products on Tidal and checked for dynamic range here: http://dr.loudness-war.info/. He must be mastering music to win the loudness war.

 

and his second

 

At the same time, however, he creates horribly compressed music. Does this guy really know what he is talking about? I'm not inclined to think so..

 

I thought the first comment was more tongue in cheek than anything, but I don’t disagree with the sentiment that recording he is involved with are mastered loud. I don’t think you can disagree with that either. 

 

I agree the second comment isn’t helpful, but neither comment comes close to an attack. In addition the comments are from one person who doesn’t speak for anyone but himself. 

 

You thought many or most people (your words) here agreed with him but you’re using a single person to suggest something else entirely. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, the_bat said:

 

abtr's first comment

 

I listened to some of his products on Tidal and checked for dynamic range here: http://dr.loudness-war.info/. He must be mastering music to win the loudness war.

 

and his second

 

At the same time, however, he creates horribly compressed music. Does this guy really know what he is talking about? I'm not inclined to think so..

 

That Marilyn Manson stuff (for example) is really loud.  Brian should have stepped up and owned the loudness.  But all he did was bob, weave, and use lots of UPPER CASE letters.

 

Seriously, he could have made a case for the loudness, instead he blamed it on vague insecurities of some artists (or something).

 

[Shadders]

27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

As they say, pics or it didn’t happen. 

 

Hell's Grannies...(the 'computeraudiophile' chapter)

 

 

{That is Brian Lucey, on the floor}

[Abtr]

34 minutes ago, the_bat said:

Sigh.

 

I'm finding this all a bit odd.  Brian came on here with a point which I thought many, if not most, people agreed with about issues with MQA.  He's immediately attacked  basically for making records that sound the way modern artists want them, not the way some records from 35 years ago (the Nightfly) or 45 year ago (DSOTM) sound. I suspect many of those commenting wouldn't like anything from (say) Jay-Z no matter what the DR, or would complain about Bowie's Blackstar and compare it unfavourably to Hunky Dory despite both being superb recordings.

...

My point was that compressing/limiting music is much worse SQ-wise than anything MQA can ever do to sound. So, how can someone like  @Brian Lucey  , who consistently produces very much DR squashed masterings, authoritatively comment on the sound quality of MQA..?

[fas42]

8 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Yes, recordings. If no compression or fiddling is done then the DR should be true to the acoustic experience that people would have had at the recording site - do we want more dynamic range than the real thing has?

 

Hmmm, you know people who manage to squash a grand piano into a vehicle, and as a bonus they get a pianist who is able to play it as they wander through the traffic? ... I think we started with a "quiet room" - so perhaps we should stick with that basic scenario. IOW, like for like - you listen to the recording in a similar place to where the live experience could/would occur - if "quietness" is a factor.

 

IME I have never felt that the playback needed more "quiet" - what happens is that one is drawn into the performance, and irrelevant, extraneous noises vanish from one's consciousness - the "strength" of the illusion dominates your awareness of what's going on - it's a primary focus of the highest order. As an example, I can have the phone ring while something is playing - and I miss it completely. The sound of the phone is so out of context that my mind dismisses it, the ringing is "invisible".

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, recordings. If no compression or fiddling is done then the DR should be true to the acoustic experience that people would have had at the recording site - do we want more dynamic range than the real thing has?

 

Hmmm, you know people who manage to squash a grand piano into a vehicle, and as a bonus they get a pianist who is able to play it as they wander through the traffic? ... I think we started with a "quiet room" - so perhaps we should stick with that basic scenario. IOW, like for like - you listen to the recording in a similar place to where the live experience could/would occur - if "quietness" is a factor.

 

IME I have never felt that the playback needed more "quiet" - what happens is that one is drawn into the performance, and irrelevant, extraneous noises vanish from one's consciousness - the "strength" of the illusion dominates your awareness of what's going on - it's a primary focus of the highest order. As an example, I can have the phone ring while something is playing - and I miss it completely. The sound of the phone is so out of context that my mind dismisses it, the ringing is "invisible".

 

I'm not sure we were ever talking about the same thing.  I commented on the notion of "HDR audio".  I assumed this hypothetical new format would have a dynamic range that was higher than the highest dynamic range found in recorded music today.  And in my experience, that would almost certainly be classical music.  I was simply proposing that any DR higher than the highest DR found in currently available content was a non-starter, because it would be so impractical from a playback standpoint.

 

[esldude]

12 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I'm not sure we were ever talking about the same thing.  I commented on the notion of "HDR audio".  I assumed this hypothetical new format would have a dynamic range that was higher than the highest dynamic range found in recorded music today.  And in my experience, that would almost certainly be classical music.  I was simply proposing that any DR higher than the highest DR found in currently available content was a non-starter, because it would be so impractical from a playback standpoint.

 

Good point you are making. 

 

HDR video is useful because prior video had a dynamic visual range which is less than our eyes have.  We don't have the same situation with sound.  Recordings can more or less equal the range of our ears or perhaps exceed it.  For other reasons we don't even come close to using the range that is available.  

[fas42]

19 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I'm not sure we were ever talking about the same thing.  I commented on the notion of "HDR audio".  I assumed this hypothetical new format would have a dynamic range that was higher than the highest dynamic range found in recorded music today.  And in my experience, that would almost certainly be classical music.  I was simply proposing that any DR higher than the highest DR found in currently available content was a non-starter, because it would be so impractical from a playback standpoint.

 

 

My immediate response: what's the point? For any reason, whatsoever ...

 

16/44.1 is perfectly capable of capturing the full range of the most extreme orchestral exercises - I have a recording which starts with an climactic fanfare - if set at the right level, and people were unaware, then a few changes of underwear may be called for - the piece then continues, with ppp passages galore, and no irritating anomalies.

 

Decades ago I did an exercise where I listened to a classical piece attenuated by 60dB, in 16/44.1 format. The volume had to be set on maximum, and I could just barely hear it with my ear against the speakers - and there was the piece, fully intact; very noisy, as if it was raining quite hard - but none of the sense and impact of the piece was lost, at all. So, I was listening to something with 60dB DR, and, it worked - it was impractical because the gain of the amplifying chain needed to be so much greater to even hear it.

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

My immediate response: what's the point? For any reason, whatsoever ...

 

16/44.1 is perfectly capable of capturing the full range of the most extreme orchestral exercises - I have a recording which starts with an climactic fanfare - if set at the right level, and people were unaware, then a few changes of underwear may be called for - the piece then continues, with fff passages galore, and no irritating anomalies.

 

Decades ago I did an exercise where I listened to a classical piece attenuated by 60dB, in 16/44.1 format. The volume had to be set on maximum, and I could just barely hear it with my ear against the speakers - and there was the piece, fully intact; very noisy, as if it was raining quite hard - but none of the sense and impact of the piece was lost, at all. So, I was listening to something with 60dB DR, and, it worked - it was impractical because the gain of the amplifying chain needed to be so much greater to even hear it.

Some of the impact had to be lost.  Your sensitivity to sound at lower frequencies is much lower at such low loudness levels.  Ditto for the highs.  You necessarily lost some of the potential impact.  Your brain may very well have adapted and it still sounded okay.

[semente]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

My immediate response: what's the point? For any reason, whatsoever ...

 

16/44.1 is perfectly capable of capturing the full range of the most extreme orchestral exercises - I have a recording which starts with an climactic fanfare - if set at the right level, and people were unaware, then a few changes of underwear may be called for - the piece then continues, with ppp passages galore, and no irritating anomalies.

 

Decades ago I did an exercise where I listened to a classical piece attenuated by 60dB, in 16/44.1 format. The volume had to be set on maximum, and I could just barely hear it with my ear against the speakers - and there was the piece, fully intact; very noisy, as if it was raining quite hard - but none of the sense and impact of the piece was lost, at all. So, I was listening to something with 60dB DR, and, it worked - it was impractical because the gain of the amplifying chain needed to be so much greater to even hear it.

 

To paraphrase Charles Hansen "If either your ears are insufficiently trained or your system is so low resolution that you can't hear the difference these make, you have my condolences. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that."

[fas42]

15 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

It was this. Get your plugs :

2017_08_26_09_56_32.wav.mp3

 

 

 

A valuable recording. What one hears are two clear sound elements, the rattle of voices and activity in the lobby, and mixed within, the live performance. One can "hear" that the music is live, because there are no distinguishing markers from, say, a PA system with its typically overcooked sound - the fact that the music is fighting the noise in the area is neither here nor there - what counts is that the sense of realness of the instrument playing is not undermined  by anything - at least to my ears.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

what counts is that the sense of realness of the instrument playing is not undermined  by anything - at least to my ears.

 

OK.

But with all my "experience" (duh) I thought it was a poor playback system and was even highly annoyed by it (for 15 minutes that I sat there waiting for something).

Btw, I named the post I was referring to "expectation bias" .

[PeterSt]

6 hours ago, the_bat said:

Brian came on here with a point which I thought many, if not most, people agreed with about issues with MQA.

 

I'd like to see a quote of that, as I don't recall it and also can not find it (easy to track I'd say). So HE says so (later on), I proposed it to him, and all HE again did for explicit response to my question was making some detours about self-defense (my wording) etc.

I just wonder how these things get their own life, as per your quote ...

[PeterSt]

6 hours ago, the_bat said:

At the same time, however, he creates horribly compressed music. Does this guy really know what he is talking about? I'm not inclined to think so..

 

Abtr couldn't know how much more bad it would turn out to be. So that guy most certainly appeared to know what he is talking about.

He fully agrees with it but hides behind his clients in some kind of proposed split.

 

lie

old

fantasy

 

Really forceful terms to convince me.

Not. And not helpful anywhere. And therefore plainly destructive (to "audio" as such). Sorry.

[synn]

I don’t think he adopted any persona.

his behavior was in line with your typical mid level cog in any wheel. 

 

An overly inflated sense of self worth, talking down to others who are “not from the field”, hiding behind dubious achievements when he is questioned (I have listened to more music than you, I have 600 clients etc.)... these are all telltale signs of someone who is way more replaceable than they let out to be.

 

Anyway, I am glad he got his 15 minutes of MQA fame with that interview. I personally will get back to discussing the actual topics at hand now.

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, synn said:

I personally will get back to discussing the actual topics at hand now.

 

You mean the real MQA discussions ?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo - haha

[arcman]

7 hours ago, synn said:

I don’t think he adopted any persona.

his behavior was in line with your typical mid level cog in any wheel. 

 

An overly inflated sense of self worth, talking down to others who are “not from the field”, hiding behind dubious achievements when he is questioned (I have listened to more music than you, I have 600 clients etc.)... these are all telltale signs of someone who is way more replaceable than they let out to be.

 

Anyway, I am glad he got his 15 minutes of MQA fame with that interview. I personally will get back to discussing the actual topics at hand now.

Lucey's opinion is just one in a million ( although I generally agree with what he says). I think the attraction to Lucey's comments were that he does work on the artist side of the industry. Most comment's we have heard from industry professionals were more on the equipment side or reviewer side. You could ask 100 mastering engineer's opinions (Lazar, Masterdisc, Sterling, Ludwig, etc) and get 100 different answers. Many opinions are probably influenced by the role$ the studio or engineer plays with MQA. Does their studio do MQA conversion for labels, etc. 

 

If a production professional tells you "I can hear a negative difference with the final sound I produced with MQA" why not believe them? 

[Rt66indierock]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

A valuable recording. What one hears are two clear sound elements, the rattle of voices and activity in the lobby, and mixed within, the live performance. One can "hear" that the music is live, because there are no distinguishing markers from, say, a PA system with its typically overcooked sound - the fact that the music is fighting the noise in the area is neither here nor there - what counts is that the sense of realness of the instrument playing is not undermined  by anything - at least to my ears.

On the other hand I walked by a man playing a grand piano leaving the gates at Portland Intrrnational Airport yesterday and the sound was lost in that big space. 

 

Put it the same piano in a small room and it can easily overwhelm the room.