Recording Engineers : You molest our recordings !

[cfmsp]

Soundproof says:

 

"If you want to hear fantastic recordings, CG, pick up birdsong releases by some of the well known recording ornithologists.

 

They go into the field with equipment similar to what you describe, and with good microphones, which they will place on stands - record to two channels and do minimal processing.

Fantastic soundscapes that really show off what your loudspeakers can do in the room."

 

I agree, although perhaps ironically, most of these recordings are compressed by the time they are made available for download, typically being available in the 192kbps to 320kbps range .... and they still sound great.

 

The gear used by the better known pro nature recordists is quite high quality, and they take great care in recording.

 

CG, one of my favorite field recordists - Aaron Ximm of http://www.quietamerican.org/ - uses recent versions of those same microphones with great success, and the Sony PCM-M1 was cream of the crop for field recording in the age of DAT.

 

Nowadays, Sound Devices digital recorders are the gold standard for nature recording, and Sennheiser MKH series microphones are most often used by the most serious of nature recordists, such as Martyn Stewart of http://www.naturesound.org/martyn_stewart.html

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

[CG]

Clay -

 

Yeah. I should stop f'ing around with this hardware stuff (and forums!) and see if I can borrow the household recording equipment and get outside. Not quite at the same level as Sound Devices and Sennheiser (or whoever...) but plenty good enough to get going.

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

CG, I agree.

 

Beats the hell out of debating if Nyquist was adequate when no one records at 44.1k.

 

Plus, you gain actual experience with recording instead of basing one's opinion on theory.

 

clay

 

 

[Soundproof]

Here's a recording from Costa Rica, made by Beto Bertolini.

 

It's a massive junglescape of sound, but completely authentic - no editing.

 

Listen to tracks 23 and 24 if you want an impression of how your sound system can actually perform when it comes to depth, width, apparent 3D and enveloping sound in two-channel.

These are low-res versions, but the impression is still there.

 

http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/costa-rica/id72259625

 

Why does this sound "so right", while a lot of the music we listen to sounds wrong?

An ornithologist or naturalist doing recordings in the wild wants to register precisely what was there, and has no subsequent goal of "improving" upon what was recorded.

That's a very different mindset from most recording technicians and even artists - who wish to use the technology to improve upon what was recorded.

 

These junglescapes sound perfectly authentic and a bit intimidating, in addition to their obvious hifi-qualities as far as enveloping sound is concerned, because they are completely unmanipulated. How do you improve upon a tucan's scream? Why alter the amazing effect of sounds reflecting off the foliage in the rain forest?

 

On the other hand, a lot of recorded music sounds completely artificial because the entire process applied to record the music was artificial, and post-processing has only enhanced that artificiality. Down to the worst recordings imaginable: close-miking with post-addition of reverb and room resonances. There's no way it won't sound about as natural and real as the color of one of those fluorescent sodas you can buy at the supermarket.

 

If you're really into excellence in music - how that music came to be, and what was done to it in the process, should concern you a lot.

 

[barrows]

Well, there certainly are singers who can sing these days. In the past few years I have seen Alison Krauss, Shelby Lynne, and just recently, Paula Cole perform, and all of them can sing quite well indeed. I would suspect that most people on these forums listen to a lot of music which the artists/musicians can actually perform live (in tune).

If the differences between direct to digital (or close to that) and going into Protools and doing post processing are so stark that a total amateur, with medium level consumer gear, can produce a recording at a live event that eclipses a pro studio job, something is much more wrong than I previously believed.

In any case, there is often not much choice as to recording quality, as one must take what they can get for the music that one loves. I cannot choose the music based on recording quality (except perhaps some Classical, where so many different renditions of the same music are available), that would be absurd.

 

[Oystein]

Hi Peter,

 

With much interest I am reading this article and I also realise many commercial recordings sound bad.

I may not be the only one curious how your recording will sound like.

 

I suppose it is not a commercial recording involving copyright etc .. so can you make your 16/44.1 recording available for the public so we can put it on cd and play it on our own hifi set ?

 

Thanks,

 

Oystein

 

[Christopher]

Dear Peter,

 

I would also like to hear your recording. I share your passion with great interest.

 

Is this possible? Please say yes : )

 

Respectfully yours,

Chris

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

thanks for posting these.

 

wonderful sound.

 

clay

 

[chrille]

Makes me really long back to Costa Rica's rainforests again.

 

I have always argued, the simpler the better, and these recordings prove the point.

I have stuff recorded with a stero pair and a DAT from both Costa Rica and Asian rainforests where sometimes I couldn't differentiate beween my own recording of a Gibbon and the real one!

Several times I caught myself looking for the gibbon which I couldn't find! Because I wasn't recording but actually listening to an earlier recording with my headphones on.

I even swatted non-existing mossies sometimes.

There are of course several other reasons why lots of recordings don't sound realistic. But "over miking" and "overprocessing" are certainly very often the most obvious ones.

For those interested in more in similar style albeit more processed, there is a musically very interesting CD ,yeah sorry only RBCD, called Simbiosis piano and rainforest sounds recorded in the Monteverde Reserve in Costa Rica

addendum: The recording engineer and person responsible for mixing and mastering are far from always the same person!

 

[barrows]

Yes, thanks for posting that link, I will check some of this out. I need to do a little research to find if these downloads are entirely legal, and with all permissions from musicians intact. I do not believe in illegal file sharing, as doing so does not contribute financially to the original artist, I prefer to support the work of those musicians I love, so that they can afford to keep doing what they do.

 

[Soundproof]

EDIT - I believe Barrow's comment was about the archive.org page, and the music content there.

 

You'll see that the music page does quite an effort to get musicians to either approve of uploaded music or let them know it should be removed. You'll quickly find what's worth using.

A lot of bands use archive.org to promote their work, spread their concerts, etc. I'm sure you can find instances where concerts are uploaded where all rights aren't copacetic.

 

Note they also have a special Grateful Dead section, with lots of live concerts.

 

[audioengr]

Not so surprising actually, given the typical process and equipment that recording studios use.

 

- 44.1 digital masters

- compression

- lots of EQ and echo

- poorly chosen mics

- no attention to cable quality

- A/D clock is not good enough

 

Put all of these together at the same time, and you have the typical CD recording. I'm actually surprised that you got such a good result with 50m of balanced cable of studio quality. There are a few engineers that actually use good cables, such as Blueport recording:

 

http://www.blueportjazz.net/about.html

 

I asked Cookie Marenco (Bluecoastrecords.com) what is typical, and these were it. I was actually shocked to discover that most digital masters are 44.1!!

 

http://www.bluecoastrecords.com

 

Most recording engineers compress the track until it sounds okay in a loud running car with the windows open.

 

Cookie is one of the few that produces 24/96 native tracks with NO compression and minimal mixing and EQ. A real pleasure to listen to.

 

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

 

[cookiemarenco]

I've been reading this thread and am continually fascinated that more professional engineers aren't involved in the audiophile world listening the way you do.

 

Thanks, Steve, for the mention. I've been a recording engineer since 1982 and have recorded more than 400 albums/cd before starting my own label, Blue Coast Records.

 

As a hired gun engineer, my drummer credentials include recording Max Roach, Billy Higgins, Brain (Bryan) Mania (drummer for GunsNRoses, Primus, Tom Waits), Brady Blade (Emmylou Harris, Spyboys), Kenny Aronoff (John Mellencamp, Ricky Martin, Melissa Etheridge), Steve Smith (Journey) and hundreds of other drummers.

 

Drums are my favorite instrument to record because they are always a challenge. No kit is ever the same. The question posed as to 'why do recorded drums sound so bad' is complicated. Below, I'll list some of the challenges we pro engineers face.

 

CURRENT HIT RECORD TRENDS and LOUD DISC MASTERING

The biggest reason for inadequate drum sound is trend towards loud mastering to compete with the latest hit record. Much of this is about getting a record to 'pop' when you put it in the disc player... translation, a loud recording. It's tough when the label or artist thinks loud is good and they hold the purse strings.

 

There are cases where music I've recorded and mixed became unrecognizable to me after mastering or mp3s were made. It is one of the reasons I started Blue Coast Records.... to regain control from beginning to end.

 

COMPENSATING FOR AN INADEQUATE DRUMMER

It's not that hard to get a good sound on drums, especially if no other instrument is playing. As you add instruments and make decisions on how to mix, different criteria for sound come into play. Unfortunately, drums often take a lower priority to vocals or other instruments when mixing. As the drums fall back into the mix, the inadequacy of the drummer becomes apparent.

 

An inexperienced drummer will not have control over the sound of his high hat or ride cymbal. Individual miking of drums and cymbals is not often sufficient to compensate. If you take out the 'loud' high hat mic, it will still bleed into all the other mics creating a less than definite sound of the hat, for example. If the drummer can't control how loud he plays his individual drums/cymbals you're destined for problems.

 

If you are familiar with the early Steely Dan drum sound, you'll notice a very 'tight' drum sound. I'm not a fan, but this style of recording will give you more control over the individual sound of the drums. It's achieved by recording each drum separately to a click track-- kick then snare then hat, etc. Or by padding up the drums with tape, etc, to lessen the bleed. Then, noise gates are applied to open only with the one drum is hit and compressed to re thicken.

 

To me, the sound achieved is dead and lifeless. Some of the finest engineers and my heroes have had to record in this style. I can't deny I've done it myself over the years.

 

OVER COMPRESSION

In today's pop music, to compensate for a less talented drummer, the entire drum kit is compressed to 'even' out the sound, squish the cymbals and make the drummer sound more 'powerful'. Use of compression is an easy way to even out the performance and automatically removes the high and low frequencies naturally present. It turns to a thick pile of mud and helps disguise just how bad the drummer is!

 

DIGITAL MULTITRACK RECORDING FORMAT

I record my basic tracks to 2" tape or DSD where I have lots of headroom. But, as Steve mentioned, 80% of today's recordings are made at 44.1 on Protools. Most ADDA's used in recording to digital have uncontrollable compression built in to avoid going over the head room.

 

Rather than teach the engineer to record at a lower level, engineers are taught to record hot to get more bits active. Low level PCM recording has fewer bits and losses sonic life in these low levels.

 

Aside from 44.1 not having true high or low frequencies, percussive instruments especially suffer badly as transient frequencies slap the limit of dynamics and 'flat top'. There is a slight 'ticking' sound that resembles slapping your hands. Tape and DSD recording do not have these same issues.

 

MUCKING AROUND WITH DIGITAL PLUG INS

One way to run up a clients bill is to use digital plug ins that automatically put drums in time (beat detective). I'm very much against this practice and believe the lifeless perfection takes the personality away from the drummer. It also causes subtle artifacts that fly under the radar for most engineers, artists and public, but, I believe contribute to the public's gradual trend away from new music.

 

This technique is being used on even the finest drummers. You would be horrified to know that this is done in many current jazz recordings... and how many times I have to convince people to accept their slightly imperfect recording for the sake of the human emotional content.

 

DIGITAL COPYING

It is unfortunate that pro engineers are not taught that every digital copy, consolidation, bounce or transfer results in lowered quality. Instead, they are taught to make their life easier by using these copying tools freely without considering the consequence. From Recording to Mix to Mastering to Replication there is a minimum of 3 digital transfers. You are not close to listening to the original master. After the master in the studio, it's all downhill.

 

CREATIVITY, DEADLINES AND REALITY

Some artists just want to do something differently, like Tom Waits. He'll have the drummer set up in the bathroom with one mic outside the door. I am guilty as charged. Sometimes, I just want the drums not sound like drums... for fun.

 

A big issue for an engineer is that if we're on the money clock of the artist or label, we often don't get much time to really get the 'right' sound all the time. You learn to move fast, get a great sound quickly and move on. The session can't be about getting the best possible sound on the drums or you'll lose the magic of the moment from the other artists. A good engineer is always conscious session momentum.

 

BOTTOMLINE

It's easy to fault my fellow engineers for ignoring the true sound of the drums. The luxury an amateur engineer has in time spent can result in some nice recordings. The test of a good professional engineer not only getting a great sound, but also a great performance within a time deadline. Even the finest engineers will say that time and money can interfere with the sound of the drums.

 

I run an active intern recording program at my studio, OTR Studios, which is one of the few in the country. We get audio students from around the globe who are completing their college programs. I am often horrified at the lack of knowledge of music and physics of sound they are taught in school. On the otherhand, I am happy to say my students all leave as intense listeners and the next generation of audiophiles.

 

I am part of a recording book written by Rick Clark that is going to be used as a college text book for recording. It has interviews by many, many excellent engineers who offer their expertise. You might want to check it out.

http://bluecoastrecords.com/cookie-marenco-s-recording-techniques-featured-in-new-book

 

I was thrilled that Rick chose to include Extended Sound Environment (E.S.E) that was developed by Blue Coast Records for recording. It shows a commitment to more audiophile kinds of recordings.

 

Sorry for the long note, but, I was compelled to set the record straight for the pros and confirm that your findings are correct.. most recorded drums sounds sound bad!

 

 

It's a tough gig.

Cookie

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Cookie - Thanks for taking the time to provide a professional point of view and educate us audiophiles at the same time. Much appreciated.

 

P.S. You should give Jon Reichbach at Sonic Studio a little nudge to speed up the work on the DSD capability in Amarra so us computer audiophiles can download the Blue Coast DSD files in their native format :~)

 

[PeterSt]

What a great, but also sad story. Who could have thought that there would ever be such a direct and honest response to this all ...

 

Strangely enough I have been looking this morning to the new Blue Cost Records downloads, with the very explicit hunch that the "within a few hours upload" *had* to be without any manipulation, just because of the lack of time. And now there's your story, which puts things in quite some other perspective.

Btw, since I had to register I went on with other things on the reproduction side :-) but I now sure will have a listen. I must add to it that I read about "other mixes will be uploaded later", and thought "oh no ...". Haha.

 

Let me end with a small story which may more or less fit yours.

 

My son takes drum lessons, and his teacher is a good drummer;

Next month there will be a showdown of his pupils, and each pupil will play along with a track they picked themselves. Ceasar Zuiderwijk (The Golden Earring, from my place of birth btw) will also be there with a 90 minute show.

My son has chosen Smoke on The Water (Deep Purple), although I rather saw him play Rat Bat Blue - to name something he won't be up to yet. Anyway, his teacher asked to send him the version of the track, so it can be used at the show next month. So we sent the WAV.

 

2 days back an email popped up from the teacher with the polite question whether we could send an MP3 version of the track. He has a good reason : "WAV format is too large for the CD I want to burn".

 

Again, thanks for the great story and insight,

Peter

 

[barrows]

Thanks so much for sharing your expertise. I found the following especially interesting:

"One way to run up a clients bill is to use digital plug ins that automatically put drums in time (beat detective). I'm very much against this practice and believe the lifeless perfection takes the personality away from the drummer."

There is a book: "This is Your Brain on Music" by Daniel Levitan, that addresses research into how the human brain responds to music. One of the most interesting findings in the author's studies is that of "groove"-he found that the human brain actually responds better to less than perfect timing (of the beat, but with the musicians keeping time with each other), and that small imperfections in rhythym is actually what creates "groove" and allows the brain to lock into a "groove". Of course, the use of a click track, or of "fixes" like Beat Detective to standardise the beat would then destroy the possibility of "groove". This is just another way common recording practices may harm how we listeners actually interact with music.

 

[ziggyzack]

Good stuff

 

Amongst other things, got me thinking about how I've sometimes been surprised by good electronica, which can groove (though I do help it along )

 

ZZ

 

[cookiemarenco]

Thanks, all, some great points to address.

RE: Amarra... I spoke to Jon R about being in our booth for the California Audio Show and it was suppose to happen but unfortunately, it did not. The good news is many manufacturers will be adding DSD data playback next year.

 

RE: Drum teacher and musicians in general. Having spent a lifetime with musicians (and being one myself since the age of 4 and a piano, oboe and sitar teacher since 14) I can tell you that musicians are the last ones to adapt to the new playback technologies.

 

In 1997, I was the Liquid Audio evangelist to alert musicians, labels and engineers about audio downloads. Musicians thought I was from Mars. The labels didn't think there was money to be made. I understand their dilemma, too much new to learn and change is scarey... until Stephen Jobs clobbered the whole thing and it went down like the fall of the Roman Empire.

 

RE: Daniel Levitan. He is an acquaintance and we've exchanged ideas. While I think he's a little biased to some styles of music, I do completely agree with his thoughts on 'groove'. When a drummer like Kenny Aronoff describes touring with Joe Cocker as "taking 4 months to learn to play behind the beat so far that the kick drum felt like it was a 16th note behind hitting the 'one'... that's a groove. To think that anyone would run Kenny's drums through beat detective is unthinkable... but they do. Sad.

 

One of the reasons I took out a large room at CAS was to demonstrate the recording process and educate the music lovers on the process... and also about how easy it is to get great sound at home without a lot of expense. The movement is to real music and great recordings is going to start with the Audiophiles and the punk musicians (who are using vinyl these days to release). When the fans show they will pay for real performances and great sound, the labels, musicians and pro audio engineers will follow.

 

That's why I hang with y'all at c'putphile.

 

Thank you, Chris, for this forum.

 

Cookie Marenco

ps.. ah, the remix of the CAS recordings ... well, to be honest, you can hear the dryness of the room and mixing through headphones with no sound check is a b(*&h. You'll notice I got 'better' as the sessions went on, but, I felt the vocals for Jane were a little hot to the instruments... and also I thought it might be interesting for fans to hear the actual recording vs what typically happens in a mix to 'sweeten' the sound... no autotune, beat detective, but probably some reverb and volume changes. you'll have all versions to choose from.

 

[cookiemarenco]

I agree... I'm working with a sister label, Valence Records, on hifi electronica. See what you think... Brain (drummer) and I produced the tracks and added some exceptional musicians. Lots of live playing, recording on 2"

 

http://thevalenceproject.downloadsnow.net/

There are a bunch of remixes at

http://thevalenceproject.com

 

thanks for asking about electronica... which I happen to love.

Cookie

 

 

 

[Tipper]

Kind off puts a different perspective on all that “the sound was so close to a live performance I was weeping with the pure joy of it all” doesn’t it.

 

[PeterSt]

Cookie, please allow me ... without the actual knowledge ...

 

You'll notice I got 'better' as the sessions went on, but, I felt the vocals for Jane were a little hot to the instruments...

 

True by itself, but IMHHetc.O - not what is wrong here ...

 

Yes, this is "what you heard", but through the individual mics which were right on the nose of the players. Btw, without that the 23 string etc. guitar (?? right ?) wouldn't have come through; Yes, your own story. So, a bit of panning will solve that ? ... maybe ...

 

At this moment, all comes right through the middle. This, again IMHO, is not what you heard. Ok, through your headphones maybe.

 

In the very end, for me, it comes down to : wouldn't we really have heard the 23 string guitar down to its merits without a close mic ?

 

If you'd only know how directional a bass is ... and how much joy that alone brings from listening through loudspeakers ...

Maybe I can tempt you to hop over and show you.

 

But tell me I'm wrong, and I'm ok. But please explain it.

Peter

 

PS: Of course I am challenhing you a bit on the "this ia how we heard it"; This can't be so while I don't perceive a "stage". So, this is where it starts to be wrong. Or ?

 

[cookiemarenco]

Hey Peter, I'm not quite sure what you're asking since, there is no 23 string guitar involved here, but, none the less... Mixing and recording at the same time through headphones when you're 5 feet from the performers is a nightmare.. let's start there. The mix needed more bass as well. Actually, the bass sounds pretty good if mixed properly.

 

Unfortunately, the point of recording at CAS was not to get optimized sound. It was more about 96k files uploaded to the internet.... which is why they are free.

 

If I had done an actual E.S.E recording trying to capture a more natural sound of the room and instruments it would have taken at least an hour of setup (not the 1.5 minutes I had)

 

I often do demonstrations in my home studio for our BAAS. If you'd like to setup a special demonstration where I could invite musicians to play while you try out some techniques, I'd be open for that if we could invite the group. Maybe in December? I'm on the peninsula, south of San Francisco. Could be fun. Maybe Chris would want to be involved in a bigger way for the whole forum.

 

 

Cookie

 

[Christopher]

Hi Cookie,

 

Very cool stuff here. Thank you for sharing your experiences.

 

I think it’s fascinating that you were able to work with Max Roach. A true legend.

With respect, NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/arts/music/16cnd-roach.html

 

Also, thank you for your generous and honest downloads from CAS. Very enjoyable. I’m a fan.

 

Best regards,

Chris

 

 

[cookiemarenco]

I have an interesting idea. Can you work with multitrack recordings? It could be fun for you to see what you would do with the individual tracks for the song with Jane and Chris recorded at CAS. Can you work with 4-5 tracks at 44.1/16 bit? I could talk to Jane and Chris about promotional/educational use of the song and let you mix -- see what you come up with.

 

Mixing is subjective, that is true. There is no right or wrong. Like any live recording when you have the audience waiting and performers showing up 5 minutes before airtime, there's a lot to consider. I believe I was still getting levels as they were playing. My first concern was making sure the digital multitrack (DSD) was not overloading. That way, I could always remix. However, we were simultaneously mixing to 96/24 and back to DSD in 2 tracks, which I believe may have hit some close to distortion points.

 

By the time that was undercontrol, (half way through the first song), I was probably starting to pull the guitar mics to the left and bass very slightly to the right while listening for phase issues. Hearing the live sound, listening for the air conditioner in the room (that wouldn't shut off) trying not to overload... well, welcome to the professional world of live sound. There is NEVER enough time.

 

Typically, I'm not in favor of placing mics in the 'noses' of the players. (as cute as they may look with a mic in their mouths)... I prefer some distance while understanding that all the mics bleed into each other. Also, I'm not a fan of total distant room sound mic placement, either, while I know some people are. This is very subjective. It happens I like a combination of close and distant mic placement... unless you have an airconditioner or crane operating that seeps into the sound.

 

There's not a lot of mystery to good mic placement and using good gear. It's 5% of a pro engineer's world. Most of the job is working fast enough to get a great musical take and keeping the audience happy. When I record the Monterey Jazz Fest, it is assumed that the first 2 songs are throw aways for sound check.... and it's live radio, also. Crazy.

 

.... more insights to the job of an engineer..

 

You may not agree with my choices that day at CAS. I know I don't. ... that's what remixing is all about. new day, new choices.

 

thanks for asking so many thoughtful questions!

cookie

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

First of everything and all, I want you to know that by no means I am or was complaining about your recording(s). I only wanted to make clear that the "this is what we heard" seemed not true to me. But then some people (me) take things too literal.

 

My remark about the xx string guitar was only my guess after hearing Greensleeves *afterwards*, and which sounds completely gorgious on its own.

 

So, I guess it is the message that a recording taken with two microphones only (but more instruments/singers) just won't give the best results. Or at least that is what I'm thinking now. And about my drums recording ... I think I mentioned right in the beginning that this was "a drum set only", and thus more easy to get right.

 

Your idea about me making a nice mix of your recording got me thinking ...

I think I would go crazy right from the start, seeing the bits disappear all over. Not when all would be 100% hard-panned of course, but that wouldn't be the best idea.

I think I would do it in the analogue domain ! hahaha

But I am serious.

 

At the same time I am starting to learn/realize what all goes wrong in the digital domain. For example, I now think that attenuating a, say, right channel with 48dB in order to pan it to the left(ish) just isn't allowed when it is to end up in the 16 bit domain (so, no matter if I'd be processing with 48 bits).

But please notice, this is new to me and I must think about it longer.

 

Ok, I just did (tried) ... Yes, I could do it, but it will need by own software (still to write). It would be great if you have four channels only (and I estimate this is the case in your original). With four channels I could use my own DAC to listen to the mixes (the 8 channel version isn't ready yet).

It (the mixing) can even be done in the 16 bit domain, and the inter-relation between the samples of a channel will remain 100% consistent. No dither will be applied.

 

Allright, I think I just made a technical exercise of it, while it was the idea to make a nice mix. The latter I won't be good at, but for the SQ result it should be as good as the original. So my challenge would be to not molest the recording at making another mix.

 

But I think it is more important that we learn to see that a good recording is always limited as per your various explanations. And yes, I understand the important tradeoff between the live event and not being able to have all the volumes right in one go, and thus do that close mic'd so it can all be done later, when there's time enough ... but where the "molesting" begins.

 

Wow, I never dreamt that I could learn so much by this thread, which just started with an observation and some idea about recording engineers themselves not knowing what might be going on. But I guess you pretty much do !

 

Ok, the idea about that mix is nice ... now find time to actually do it. So don't expect me to have it done "tomorrow".

It would be nice to know about the line-up ("stage"), and I guess there will be more data to exchange. I'll send you my email address per PM.

If it has to be done for 16/44.1, I'd really like 16/44.1 tracks (thus not the 24/96), and assume it is decimated to the best of your knowlegde. But otherwise please do nothing to it (like creating the headroom for summing, whatever).

If it's more than 4 channels/tracks it's okay with me too.

 

Nice challenge !

Peter

 

PS: I only now realize that I'll probably need to make 24 bits output of it in order to do it 100% right.