Sounds like a case of circular reasoning: one is a top analogue designer/Hifi enthusiast because one knows the old established techniques sound massively better, and one knows this because one is a top analogue designer/Hifi enthusiast
Moved to Devialet
- Thread starter Blindspot
- Start date
Sounds like a case of circular reasoning: one is a top analogue designer/Hifi enthusiast because one knows the old established techniques sound massively better, and one knows this because one is a top analogue designer/Hifi enthusiast
My daughter has a masters degree in Commercial Music. The algorithms you mention are nothing to do with the actual music, from the initial mixing session to any mastering that might need to be done. Anything else may be to do with the marketing of the music for streaming services (Spotify, Bandcamp, Soundcloud etc), or any social media, and this is normally handled in conjunction with the Record Company or Record Label's marketing team.
What is happening more and more these days is that artists are using computers to record and mix music themselves, as in Billie Eilish and her latest album "When we all fall asleep, where do we go?". This album was recorded at her home using a computer, so for modern music production using basic streaming services this could spell the end for a lot of mastering engineers...
You can see this here...
Tw99
source last
It's certainly a fact that mastering engineers these days take note of the processing done by streaming services (e g. loudness adjustments), and work with those in mind. As Keith stated.
Look at Ian Shepherd's site for example.
That may well be the case, but ultimately the sound will be driven by the client or record label, as to how they want their music to sound, or be heard when played. Plus it will be for a certain type of music. For example: it wouldn't be relevant for a record label like Hyperion. My daughter had one of her songs mastered and we had to get the mastering engineer to change it, to get it how she wanted it to sound. This is just the engineers bread and butter to be fair...
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
It’s a bit surprising that modern recorded music doesn’t come with mastering presets — a squished and crappy preset for listening in the tube on earbuds or in a noisy car, a reasonably full and dynamic preset for people who have something better than a sound bar, and at the medium’s full potential preset for those who have woofers the diameter of a family-sized pizza.
It’s only data after all and with the ubiquity of high-capacity formats like DVD-audio and SACD and high-res streaming over the Interwebz it wouldn’t be an impossible technological hurdle.
Joe
It’s only data after all and with the ubiquity of high-capacity formats like DVD-audio and SACD and high-res streaming over the Interwebz it wouldn’t be an impossible technological hurdle.
Joe
Agreed Joe.
But it also begs the question as why certain mastering engineers need high quality loudspeakers systems when they are mastering music for MP3...
Mr Underhill
pfm Member
I think this is interesting. My LP 'rips' have been done with my LP12/Aro/Geddon via an EAR868pl. I find as my digital front end has improved so have these rips; depending on the quality of the source vinyl of course. Some of my favourite source files are simply excellent, and generally have more layering through my M-Scaler/Qutest. I have tested doing a rip direct from the TT and then applying an RIAA curve via audacity, the differences were much less than I had expected.
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Beats me, GT.
It’s interesting that movies don’t seem to suffer from the same terrible mastering. It’s not as though films are mastered to look good a phone with a 4-inch screen but crap on a decent home cinema system. (Or maybe they are. I’m just typing out loud.)
Joe
It’s interesting that movies don’t seem to suffer from the same terrible mastering. It’s not as though films are mastered to look good a phone with a 4-inch screen but crap on a decent home cinema system. (Or maybe they are. I’m just typing out loud.)
Joe
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
Im at a loss again that you think that taking a record and recording it digitally affects the soundstage. If that were the case all digital remasters available on cd would be flat, and they arent.
Simply put, 24/96 is capable of capturing anything and everything you can put onto vinyl. After all that's where 99.9% of all vinyl comes from.
Any difference in sound between vinyl from a digital recording and the straight digital replay is down to mastering choices and the noise and distortion inherent in all vinyl replay, rumble, groove noise, tracing distortion, warps, bass monoing and eq. Not magic.
And yes my vinyl front end is 20x the cost of my digital.
Simply put, 24/96 is capable of capturing anything and everything you can put onto vinyl. After all that's where 99.9% of all vinyl comes from.
Any difference in sound between vinyl from a digital recording and the straight digital replay is down to mastering choices and the noise and distortion inherent in all vinyl replay, rumble, groove noise, tracing distortion, warps, bass monoing and eq. Not magic.
And yes my vinyl front end is 20x the cost of my digital.