A picture paints a thousand words
 

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


It's the norm for some little tin pot duplicating company to do this
sort of 'mastering'? I find that beggars belief.

Most mastering facilities have modern facilities with an "impressive"
array of equipment. Considerable investment has been made.

That may support the suspicion I describe below...


This begs the question: "Did anyone actually listen to the music?"

This whole mastering thing has always confused me (except for vinyl).
If a mix is produced in the studio that satisfies the client, why is
that messed with afterwards?

Indeed. A question I have been asking myself for many years.

My suspicion is that this is due to a combination of factors.

One is the mindless assumption this is "needed" and so applied without any
sign of thought.

The other is that competing companies may want to offer what *they* think
is the 'most attractive' service and give themselves a 'selling point'. In
this case, given the above assumption, that they can make a 'louder' (must
be 'better' in their mind) result than alternative disc makers.

So I'd guess they equate such mindless behaviour as them being "cheaper and
better" than their competitors. Perhaps a survival adaptation to a pop
music world where the faith is "louder is better".

Gus Dudgeon (producer for Elton John and David Bowie) whom I knew well
from my Decca days, summed it up nicey when he stated "whether we like
it or not, CD mastering has become an extension of the creative process"

In the end I assume that depends on who is paying.

And that's the difference, in a nut shell. The objectives are not the
same. In vinyl disc mastering the aim was to copy the information from
analogue tape as accurately as possible to acetate disc. Giving the
shortcomings of the medium, the results achieved were often amazingly
good.

I am less convinced that it was such a golden age for 'accuracy' in the 1:1
sense. :-)

Partly because so many of the LPs I bought back then were audibly
imperfect.

Partly because - as I recall - some people who 'cut' the discs traded on
having a reputation for making the result 'sound better' by tweaking it in
various mystical ways. If all that was needed was a careful flat transfer
I'm not clear how they did that. Although I appreciate that skill, care,
and experience are required to ensure the cutting goes correctly.

Again, the 'guru' disc cutters seemed to mainly be a feature of the 'pop'
world where they would scratch their sign on the land at the inner end of
the side. The master mason leaving his mark... they wished. :-)

So although I'd agree that many of the tapes leaving the classical studios
would have sounded excellent. I'm much less confident that the LPs would
have sounded the same. I can remember Golden Guinea, but not Golden Age.
;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

A picture paints a thousand words
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in


Take a look:
It's not pretty!

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...Comparison.png


Iain

Pretty dreadful! If they'd only normalised it to -1dBFS or even, at a
push, 0dBFS at least it would have preserved the dynamic range, but what
they did was
nothing but vandalism.


Looks like LP on the left CD on the right! :-)

Hope all is well with you Serge. I was talking to an associate of yours some
time back (Mike Bray) - he sent his regards.

A picture paints a thousand words
 

So what actually happened as I'm obviously not able to read the thousand
words, nor paint you as the song goes.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...
I have recently been involved in a string quartet
recording. It has been a challenging project.
Everyone was delighted with the performance
and the sound on the production master which
was sent to a CD plant in the UK for 1:1 duplication.

When a run of 500 copies is required, a glass
master normally needs to be made for replication.
The client gave permission for this to be done by
the CD plant, on the understanding that no audible
changes were to be made, as the production master
was exactly what was requiired.

I asked to be informed when the finished discs had
been received. Yesterday, I received a phone call
from a very disappointed cellist.

She said, "Every nuance of our performance has
been destroyed. We sound like the musical equivalent
of ballet dancers in jack boots!"

This morning, I had the chance to compare a
portion of the envelope from our production
master (the left-hand side of the pic) with the finished
CD (right had side)

Take a look:
It's not pretty!

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...Comparison.png


Iain

A picture paints a thousand words
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...
I have recently been involved in a string quartet
recording. It has been a challenging project.
Everyone was delighted with the performance
and the sound on the production master which
was sent to a CD plant in the UK for 1:1 duplication.

When a run of 500 copies is required, a glass
master normally needs to be made for replication.
The client gave permission for this to be done by
the CD plant, on the understanding that no audible
changes were to be made, as the production master
was exactly what was requiired.

I asked to be informed when the finished discs had
been received. Yesterday, I received a phone call
from a very disappointed cellist.

She said, "Every nuance of our performance has
been destroyed. We sound like the musical equivalent
of ballet dancers in jack boots!"

This morning, I had the chance to compare a
portion of the envelope from our production
master (the left-hand side of the pic) with the finished
CD (right had side)

Take a look:
It's not pretty!

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...Comparison.png


Iain



"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
So what actually happened as I'm obviously not able to read the thousand
words, nor paint you as the song goes.
Brian


The artists' description of it "sounding like the musical
equivalent of ballet dancers in jack boots!" will give you
some idea, Brian.

The dynamic of the performance has been totally
destroyed by heavy compression, copious make up
gain, and then very heavy brick-wall limiting, resulting
in severe clipping - fine for heavy metal but is totally
inappropriate for a classical string quartet.

Iain

A picture paints a thousand words
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


It's the norm for some little tin pot duplicating company to do this
sort of 'mastering'? I find that beggars belief.

Most mastering facilities have modern facilities with an "impressive"
array of equipment. Considerable investment has been made.

That may support the suspicion I describe below...


This begs the question: "Did anyone actually listen to the music?"

This whole mastering thing has always confused me (except for vinyl).
If a mix is produced in the studio that satisfies the client, why is
that messed with afterwards?

Indeed. A question I have been asking myself for many years.

My suspicion is that this is due to a combination of factors.

One is the mindless assumption this is "needed" and so applied without any
sign of thought.

The other is that competing companies may want to offer what *they* think
is the 'most attractive' service and give themselves a 'selling point'. In
this case, given the above assumption, that they can make a 'louder' (must
be 'better' in their mind) result than alternative disc makers.

Indeed, a whole subset within the industry has blossomed and thrives.

So I'd guess they equate such mindless behaviour as them being "cheaper
and
better" than their competitors. Perhaps a survival adaptation to a pop
music world where the faith is "louder is better".

I don't know about cheaper. Except for projects funded by EU cultural
foundations which must, as a term of the funding be put out to tender for
subcontracting, I am not sure that the price of mastering is a serious
consideration when compared with the other outlays involved. For example
the cost of renting a Bosendorfer concert grand piano, its transportation
with a piano technician on standby is considerably more than the mastering
of a CD !

I am less convinced that it was such a golden age for 'accuracy' in the
1:1 sense. :-)

Given the technology available at the time, I think the results were
often amazingly good. Rather like iron ships built before
the days of welding:-)


Partly because so many of the LPs I bought back then were audibly
imperfect.

The faults you have (so frequently:-) described were pressing not cutting
faults, IIRC. I realise this is of little comfort to the customer to whom a
bad disc is a bad disc, but we should really differentiate between the two.


Partly because - as I recall - some people who 'cut' the discs traded on
having a reputation for making the result 'sound better' by tweaking it in
various mystical ways.

Harry Fisher, the senior disc cutting engineer at Decca, under whose
beady eye, I learned the art of disc cutting, used to say "The objective
is to make the disc sound the same as the tape. Any fool can make it
sound different"

Again, the 'guru' disc cutters seemed to mainly be a feature of the 'pop'
world where they would scratch their sign on the land at the inner end of
the side. The master mason leaving his mark... they wished. :-)

Everyone who cut discs was required to inscribe their ID
together with the matrix and the cut number on the inner
of the disc, adjacent to the locked groove, so that the
factory knew who had cut the disc and on which lathe.
This was not just something the "gurus" did, we all did it:-)

Iain

A picture paints a thousand words
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Take a look:
It's not pretty!

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...Comparison.png



Yecch!

Obvioiusly, the vendor lied - they did not give you a
1:1 reproduction run or anything like it.

Indeed. 1:1 was stipulated.

The sad of the story is that they obviously did extra
work over what was actually required.

Probably not. I am inclined to think what Jim suggested
may be correct - this project fell victim to an automated
generic pop mastering process, where heavy compression
and brickwall limiting are the norm.

This begs the question: "Did anyone actually listen to
the music?"

They either hate classical music, or they thought they
were doing you a favor.

The may have been stimulated to rework your master since
the peak levels were so low.

The peak levels were at the standard used for classical
masters and pre-production masters -10dB FS

That would be a local standard.

If you regard Decca and DGG as local:-))

Do not confuse the studio master and production
pre-master levels with that of the finished disc,
which is a matter for individual consideration at the
mastering stage.

In this instance, 1:1 was stipulated i.e. a bit-for-
bit clone.

Iain

A picture paints a thousand words
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
The dynamic of the performance has been totally
destroyed by heavy compression, copious make up
gain, and then very heavy brick-wall limiting, resulting
in severe clipping - fine for heavy metal but is totally
inappropriate for a classical string quartet.

My feeling is clipping is unacceptable for anything.

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

A picture paints a thousand words
 

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


So I'd guess they equate such mindless behaviour as them being
"cheaper and better" than their competitors. Perhaps a survival
adaptation to a pop music world where the faith is "louder is better".

I don't know about cheaper. Except for projects funded by EU cultural
foundations which must, as a term of the funding be put out to tender
for subcontracting, I am not sure that the price of mastering is a
serious consideration when compared with the other outlays involved.

Here "cheaper" has two meanings that can cause the makers/vendors to act as
they do. One is the ability to reduce their own costs. The other is the
ability to then use that for some choice of increased margin and lower
price to induce more sales. They obvious want to charge the customer as
much as they can get, regardless. And want to rack up the margin and volume
of sales.

I am less convinced that it was such a golden age for 'accuracy' in
the 1:1 sense. :-)

Given the technology available at the time, I think the results were
often amazingly good. Rather like iron ships built before the days of
welding:-)

My only demur would be wrt the use of "often". :-)


Partly because - as I recall - some people who 'cut' the discs traded
on having a reputation for making the result 'sound better' by
tweaking it in various mystical ways.

Harry Fisher, the senior disc cutting engineer at Decca, under whose
beady eye, I learned the art of disc cutting, used to say "The objective
is to make the disc sound the same as the tape. Any fool can make it
sound different"

However in the pop field it was evident IIRC that disc cutters used to
'sell themselves' on the basis that they could 'improve' the results. And
some became known to LP buyers as being 'gurus' who could magic up 'better'
sound.

Again, the 'guru' disc cutters seemed to mainly be a feature of the
'pop' world where they would scratch their sign on the land at the
inner end of the side. The master mason leaving his mark... they
wished. :-)

Everyone who cut discs was required to inscribe their ID together with
the matrix and the cut number on the inner of the disc, adjacent to the
locked groove, so that the factory knew who had cut the disc and on
which lathe. This was not just something the "gurus" did, we all did
it:-)

But how many then became widely known amongst buyers and used a name like
'Porky'?... :-)

So far as I can see, you are talking about one subset - mainly classical
and jazz perhaps. Whereas I'm pointing out what the (bigger in commercial
terms, I guess) pop/rock types got up to. As a parallel to what you got for
the CD you raised for this thread.

Either way, so far as I can see there was no 'Golden Age' of disc creation
in my lifetime so far. Just that some did their jobs one way, and others
worked on a different basis like a faith that "louder is better". So just
as it was possible to obtain well-made LPs, so it is possible to obtain
well-made CDs. And then as now, your chances depended on the company and
the type of music.

For LP the dilemma was that:

Classical/serious music was often well recorded and the disc cut with care.
But then the duplication process was prone to lousy production of the
individual LPs. Clicks, swishes, wow, etc, all very audible and easy to
distinguish from the sound of a quartet or orchestra.

Pop/rock music tended to be loud more of the time, so the same type of
click or swish tended to be masked by the music. Hence less sensitive to
poor LP duplication. And for 'studio created' pop there might be no way for
purchasers of an LP to tell if changes in the sound had occurred due to the
people making the 'cut' fiddling about to show how clever they were.

On one side the approach you describe in terms of Fisher. On the other, the
approach of 'Prime Cuts', etc.

The details of the divide in ways of working and thinking have changed. But
the divide still seems there to me. Just that with pop/rock, people have
more quickly slid downmarket to mp3 downloads as cheap and convenient. :-)
Whereas on the serious side people may be more attracted by high rate aac,
flac, lpcm, 24bit, 192k, etc. That side of things has perhaps been slower
off the mark because it is more demanding on the technology. And maybe
because the quality-minded may be more cautious about change.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

A picture paints a thousand words
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message The other is that
competing companies may want to offer what *they* think
is the 'most attractive' service and give themselves a 'selling point'. In
this case, given the above assumption, that they can make a 'louder' (must
be 'better' in their mind) result than alternative disc makers.

So I'd guess they equate such mindless behaviour as them being "cheaper
and
better" than their competitors. Perhaps a survival adaptation to a pop
music world where the faith is "louder is better".
SNIP
Partly because so many of the LPs I bought back then were audibly
imperfect.


Indeed they were but on the other hand quite a few of my 80s 'pop' albums
have those magic words on the cover:
"Play Loud" :o)

David
http://www.tnt-audio.com/topics/realstereo_e.html

A picture paints a thousand words
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:13:41 +0100, "Fed Up Lurker"
wrote:


"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...


SNIP


http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...Comparison.png


The common practice of leveling has been applied, it is indeed
unpleasent and apparently is the "default" process.
Do a google using these terms:
"Fletcher-Munson curves"
"cd audio leveling"
I've never undertaken pro mastering but my understanding is that
somewhere in the contract or whatever, that it would state "leveling"
would be applied by default unless otherwise/specifically requested.
Have a look at whatever piece of paper you signed for this mastering,
I doubt you'd have legal redress...




Not sure what you are saying here. Fletcher Munson curves are a
representation of equal loudness vs frequency. That has nothing
whatever to do with this.


Yes it does!

And neither is this levelling. It is mega compression followed by
brickwall limiting plus what looks suspiciously like digital clipping.
The whole thing is just a disaster.

d


You're wrong again!

Eight minutes after I posted you leapt in without knowing the subject.
I gave you a clue, to try a search on: "cd audio leveling"
But you didn't.
If you see how the thread evolved it is discernable that others did
do such a subsequent search.
I've only just found your reply, so I've just did the search for you.
"cd audio leveling" produces thousands of results, so I'm just providing
the link to the first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

It was probably the default option when Iain selected their services.
The contract of sorts probably stipulated such processing would be
undertaken by default. If the tickbox was ticked... no redress!
If Iain is 100% confident that this was not a default option brought
to his attention then he has grounds to reject, but he hasn't come
back to update, or has he?