HDTracks has WMG Eagles, Jackson Browne and more

[bdiament]

Hi wgscott,

 

I note a polarity inversion between the two screenshots too. Don't know which is "correct".

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Mark,

 

"...I see that "Hotel California" was issued on CD in the 80's, then remastered for a "gold" DCC release in 1990. I assume each mastering engineer would have used his own favorite compressor with his "special sauce" settings. ..."

 

If memory serves, I mastered the original CD release for this one.

In that case, there was no compression at all. I believe that one is not among the screenshots I see so far in this thread.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[labjr]

Hi Barry,

 

Did you have as difficult of a time with the original CD mastering as Steve Hoffman did only a few years later? For several reasons, he has said it was one of the most difficult projects he's ever done.

 

Regards,

 

Larry

 

[bleedink]

but it does seem pretty clear that HDtracks is using material that is already out there...I keep thinking that one day I'll go to the site and find something that hasn't already been released 10 years ago on SACD or DVD-A...that seems to be all that is in their catalog unless I missed something...

 

[bluedy1]

What are the other websites offering hi-rez downloads?

 

[labjr]

I think HD Tracks is using whichever source they can. Probably isn't their choice. I'm sure they'd love to offer recently transferred, uncompressed material for every release. Especially to picky audiophiles like us. Hopefully, this will happen in the future as this is only the beginning.

 

[bdiament]

Hi Larry,

 

It is hard to remember many details about projects I did a quarter century ago or more (I'm lucky I can recall today's breakfast ;-}) but that said, I don't remember anything particularly difficult with any of the Eagles CDs I did.

 

In fact, I would tend to say the opposite; I remember thinking of the mixes as "better than average" (though that is somewhat tempered by how "low" the average, particularly for pop recordings tended/tends to be).

 

Just goes to what I always say: "Ask three audio folks a question and you'll get at least four different answers (five of which may be wrong)." ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[eatapc]

Apparently the tapes had been damaged by poor storage in the interim, although I don't understand the last comment:

 

Tuesday, October 31, 2000

"For CD guru, masters are his domain "

By Fred Shuster

Music Writer L.A.Times

...

It was even harder getting the right sound for the "Hotel California" reissue. When Hoffman received the master tapes, they couldn't even be played until he had baked them in an oven, which reconstituted the moldy tape for three weeks' use.

 

"Then, when you played it, all you heard was this horrible muffled sound," Hoffman recalled. "I called the original engineer on the sessions, and he said, 'You have to know how to play it back.' "

 

[labjr]

I think I recall an interview where Steve Hoffman said he also had to search for the original JBL monitors to hear what the tapes were supposed to sound like and then used like three parametric EQs to get it sounding back to normal because the monitors originally used in the Miami studio used were not accurate.

 

Seems kind of odd that Hotel California was recorded in Miami.

 

[bdiament]

Hi Larry,

 

Looks like Mark may have found the clue; it seems something happened to the tapes in the years between when I used them at Atlantic and when Steve got them. (This of course, assumes the same tapes.)

 

As to monitoring, I've always been a very strong believer in using the most accurate monitoring possible, rather than what was used during any given session by another engineer. I want and need my speakers to tell me how the tape itself sounds (not how it sounds through "these" speakers in "that" room). I don't really care about what was heard by others at another time in another place; I need to know what it sounds like now and for real (something I personally find most studio monitors no better at doing than a typical car speaker).

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[eatapc]

I finally bought the HD Tracks today. Sounds great. No audible clipping. I assume that Audacity's "Show Clipping" function is flagging peaks that are at 0; that doesn't necessarily mean they were over 0 and thus digitally clipped, as that would be very audible, wouldn't it? (And it would be incomprehensibly unprofessional.) Again, I hear no clipping.

 

Dynamic range is good by today's standards. I note that the bass guitar is slightly right of center in the mix, which might account for the right channel looking hotter in the Audacity screenshot. I bet an Aphex Aural Exciter was used on the original bass and drum tracks (on the multitrack master), which might account for much of the compression that we see in Audacity.

 

Bottom line: I recommend the HD Tracks download.

 

Take care -- Mark

 

[bdiament]

Hi Mark,

 

Back in the day (i.e. early days of CD), the thinking was to ensure the loudest peak(s) reached 0 dBFS. The general (though not universal) standard for what was considered a clip was three consecutive samples at 0 dBFS.

 

In the intervening years, it became apparent (to some) that "intersample peaks" could well exceed 0 dBFS and manifest as less than optimal sound on D-A conversion. Perhaps not necessarily out-and-out, obvious clips; let's call them "not so easy to hear clips". So among folks I know (myself included), 0 is now seen as a clip; the red lights on my ULN-8 are set to light as soon as the signal hits 0.

 

Nowadays, I adjust final levels to the max peak doesn't exceed -0.3 dBFS. With very dynamic material, it is sometimes even necessary to leave a little more headroom.

 

As to the Aphex, I always found it identifiable by the "shriek" it applied (aka a time smear) most notably in the treble. So, I'm not so sure it was used on the Eagles' material, which to my ears, seems smoother than much of what their contemporaries were releasing. (That said, I haven't heard this particular album in at least a few years.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[eatapc]

Like you, I always associated the Aural Exciter with an unpleasant "shriek" on vocals. In order to refresh my memory, I went to Wikipedia to learn more about the Aphex, and I guess I mixed together the info on two separate processors. In other words, I mono'd the Wiki entry.

 

It was the Aphex "Big Bottom" that did the compression on bass frequencies; the "Aural Exciter" added the phase shift and brightness. Two separate processing circuits in one infamous box. http://www.aphex.com/204.htm

 

Take care -- Mark

 

[bdiament]

I used to refer to it by the "technical term" "razzer"; i.e. something that adds "razz".

As in, "Uh-oh, someone used a razzer on this." ;-}

 

There were many such "technical terms". George Piros, my all-time favorite mastering engineer, used to refer to a certain, very popular noise reduction product as "the plumbing supply unit". (That one might be a "you had to be there". ;-})

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

... But what did you actually do to get to these one or two or three adjacent clipping samples ?

 

Even analoguely squeeze it would mean some form of compression to me ...

 

But what I notice is that albums with sufficient headroom (like around 27000 decimal max) sound the best far out.

(and this is not because my DAC overshoots, haha)

 

At least I totally never heard any relation with the fully used dynamic range (more dynamics etc.). But using far less than the available headroom would at least be a kind of guarantee that nothing has been compressed (I said kind of :-).

 

Regards,

Peter

 

 

[labjr]

Hi Barry,

 

Looks like Steve Hoffman thought the tapes were defective. So out of curiosity searched for the reason. I also do remember reading that Steve Hoffman listens to every available version of an album when he does a remaster. I guess it's his way of familiarizing himself with what an album sounds like. Sort of like how some good actors immerse themselves in an acting role before filming a movie.

 

Here's a quote from his own website. www.stevehoffman.tv

 

 

The Eagles' "Hotel California." In fact, when we finally got those master tapes from Criteria Studios in Miami, it was like I wanted to cancel the project. We had already paid Elektra/Asylum all the advance money and everything. But I didn't understand how something could sound so muffled and bass-heavy, and be the actual master. So I thought, "maybe it's been destroyed." So I got the safetys, and they were 1:1 copies. They sounded exactly the same way. So I thought, "it must be the way they were mixed." I went in search of (engineer) Bill Szymczyk's JBL monitors (not the exact same pair he used, but a similar pair). I stuck them out in the middle of the room without any bass re-enforcement [like at Criteria in 1976]. "Oh, ok, that sounds more like it!" All that boomy bass was gone, and it started to take shape. I had one or two choices at that point. Either sell a pair of JBL studio monitors with every gold CD, or master the thing the way it should be sounding on everyone's stereo, like it sounds on those JBLs. So that's what I ended up doing. But let me tell you, I scratched my head a long time trying to figure out how to make that sound good. I used a lot of EQ on those. I didn't add any EQ, I just subtracted. Sometimes -14 db at 100 cycles. That's a lot! And even then, it was still pretty boomy."

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Peter,

 

"...... But what did you actually do to get to these one or two or three adjacent clipping samples ?...

 

Not sure if your question is addressed to me but some software allows the user to select the threshold at which an "Over" (or in some cases, 0) indicator will light. In my experience, this is determined by the number of consecutive samples that reach 0 dBFS and the programs let the user enter the number of samples that will trigger the light.

 

"...But what I notice is that albums with sufficient headroom (like around 27000 decimal max) sound the best far out...."

 

Sorry, I don't know what "27000 decimal max" means.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Larry,

 

Hmm. That doesn't sound like shipping damage.

But neither does it sound anything remotely like what I remember in any of the source tapes at Atlantic.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[eatapc]

Peter, I'll let Barry give the engineer's version if he wants, but I don't think there's any correlation between using less headroom and being less compressed. In my video mixing, I compress the living daylights out the final mix, but I always set the limiter at -8.

 

TV broadcast standards want the level to actually be at -10 (digital/absolute) for obscure reasons that I won't get into here. However, mixing engineers figured out a long time ago that the tapes wouldn't be rejected by broadcasters if they cheated, so cheat they did. No one wanted their commercials to sound softer than the commercials in the same block. -8 dB became the de facto standard. So ... there's 8 dB headroom but almost no dynamic range.

 

Even for the web, where I generally do the mixing in Final Cut Suite, as opposed to going to a Pro Tools session, I use my own "secret sauce" compression/limiting preset, then adjust to taste using my imperfect ears + Genelec speakers. I want my videos to sound OK on crappy computer speakers and cheap headphones, so compression helps immensely. I leave plenty of headroom only so that the video doesn't jump out as too loud, which might cause the viewer to hit stop immediately.

 

Take care -- Mark

 

[eatapc]

The DCC remasters tend to be bass shy on my system. Hmmmmm.

 

I stopped buying DCC CDs in spite of the good reviews after Bonnie Raitt's "Nick of Time." Where did the bass go? The original was one of my favorite CDs; the DCC made my system sound weak. Maybe it was ... and is, for that matter ... but I don't have JBLs.

 

Now that I'm ripping my collection, I've run across a few DCC CDs. I'll have to go back listen with fresh ears on my current system.

 

There's something amiss when Hoffman needs -14 dB at 100Hz. That implies that Bill Szymczyk's JBLs were so weak in the bass that Szymczyk EQ'ed that much bass into the mix at the Criteria sessions. Audiophiles, of course, generally place their speakers away from walls; Hoffman seems to be saying that Szymczyk's mix sounded peachy with the speakers away from the walls -- just like audiophiles do it. Just sayin'.

 

BTW, a Google search shows Szymczyk used "Westlake monitors with all-JBL components." Here's an interesting bio piece: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov04/articles/szymczyk.htm

 

Does anyone else feel that albums produced at Criteria back in the 70s and 80s were boomy? OK, yes, a little, maybe. But not THAT much. Here's Tom Dowd taking a reporter on a tour of the actual room:

 

There were certainly a lot of classic albums mixed in that studio. My understanding is that much of "Hotel California" was actually recorded in California, then additional recording and mixing was done at Criteria. Szymczyk and others treated the small room at Criteria as their "lucky" room -- the room that made their hits -- and they kept coming back to it.

 

Take care -- Mark

 

[labjr]

"I stopped buying DCC CDs in spite of the good reviews after Bonnie Raitt's "Nick of Time." Where did the bass go? The original was one of my favorite CDs; the DCC made my system sound weak. Maybe it was ... and is, for that matter ... but I don't have JBLs. ;)"

 

 

I don't think Steve Hoffman uses old JBL monitors. He only got them for the Eagles project. And I don't think he actually used them for mastering. I can't imagine there are many old monitors that are still in use by anyone. Speaker technology has gotten much better since the 70's

 

 

Really? A couple of years ago some friends and I compared the two versions of Nick of Time. We all felt the DCC version was much better. I don't recall a problem with bass. After hearing Hi-res recordings, I feel like CD is a big compromise anyway. I'd like to hear Nick Of Time in Hi-res.

 

 

I don't know the specifics of Steve's mastering facility, but I think he has a pretty good ear. And he sometimes works together with Kevin Gray who seems to be very good at what he does.

 

[eatapc]

I don't think Steve Hoffman uses old JBL monitors.

 

Obviously. You misunderstood what I was getting at. According to his interview, he got some JBLs that were similar to what Szymczyk used, then put them in the middle of the room because Szymczyk told him the speakers at Criteria were placed away from the walls so there was no room reinforcement. That was clever and industrious on the part of Hoffman; he could then hear more or less what Szymczyk was hearing. At that point, Hoffman EQ'ed the tape on the system he was familiar with -- his reference system, his studio -- now that he was familiar with what the mix was supposed to sound like.

 

However, what if Hoffman's system wasn't perfect? What if Hoffman's system had a bass bump in the place where Szymczyk's system had a bass dip? That's the only thing that can account for a 14 dB difference, I think. I don't care how good Hoffman's ears are. I have no doubt they're much better than mine. But you're only as good as your playback system.

 

Hoffman is assuming his system is perfect and Criteria Studios is wildly inaccurate. I'm assuming that they're both inaccurate, perhaps in opposite ways.

 

Take care -- Mark

 

[labjr]

I can't imagine someone as particular as Steve Hoffman didn't set up his mastering room properly and consult with many other people while doing so.

 

On the other hand, when pop music was being recorded in the 70's, anything seems possible.

 

[bdiament]

It is a common (in my view) misconception that there is something desirable about hearing a recording on the same speakers on which it was recorded/mixed, etc. Besides, unless the room acoustics are the same (not likely) having the same speakers will be as much help as using the same toothpaste.

 

If most audiophiles heard the speakers in most studios or even more closely, heard the recording as the engineer heard it, they'd be shocked, to say the very least. I can't speak to the specifics of this recording (other than my own experience with it which seems to be diametrically opposed to what I'm reading here) but if a "trusted" monitoring system requires a recording to be EQd by that much, who cares if it sounds "better" on the speakers that were originally used. That would suggest the recording was altered to make those speakers sound better and not adjusted for the sound of the recording itself.

 

Again, I don't know what happened here. I'm sure something was wrong based on what Steve said. Perhaps the tapes were very different from what I had but I can say this: there was nothing even vaguely like that amount of EQ when I listened to the tapes. As I said earlier, I thought the Eagles tapes were above the common average for the time. And other tapes I heard from Criteria were too (one example that comes to mind was an album by the group Firefall).

 

All I can say is, before I had my own studio, the one criterion I used to select places I would work was the monitoring. After all, if the monitoring isn't telling you what the source sounds like, the rest of the gear is irrelevant anyway. And (to my ears) the monitoring in 99% of the studios I've been to is basically a big car system. A decent audiophile system for $1500 can run rings around almost any studio I've been in. I know it sounds strange; wouldn't studios have the "best" monitoring? You'd think so, wouldn't you?

Then again, you'd expect honor from congressmen and senators too. ;-}

I'm afraid the reality, in both cases, is something else again.

 

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[labjr]

Hi Barry,

 

25 years ago I bought a pair of Yamaha NS10M speakers because everytime I saw a picture of the inside of a studio, They had black speakers with white cones on the console. I was real disappointed with the sound of them.

 

I think accurate recording and pop music are two different things. Maybe one of the reasons you got away from it and do your own thing

 

Popular music recording it seems like an art form using a mountain of equipment and effects with overdubs using 120 tracks and end up with something original that makes you feel good and sells. I'm not sure accuracy or timbre or any other word to describe it is important.

 

I'm pretty amazed when I go to concerts that they can actually reproduce what they recorded on stage. David Gilmour for one has 2 or 3 racks of equipment on stage just for his electric guitar.

 

But I like a lot of old classic rock so I'm stuck with trying to find the best quality masterings of all this stuff.

 

When I was young, I thought all recording studios were a benchmark reference for perfect sound. Obviously, that's not the case.