Got the mastered tracks back!!! Now I see what mastering does!!!

[Mr.Will]

I had a listen and it really didnt sound any different at all!
Everything seemed a little clearer, and the high hats pushed through a bit
more, could make out the vocalists words a bit better - it wasnt bad before,
the mastering has just subtly made it a little "cleaner"..........

Anyone want to hear?

Mr.Will

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr.Will > wrote:
>I had a listen and it really didnt sound any different at all!
>Everything seemed a little clearer, and the high hats pushed through a bit
>more, could make out the vocalists words a bit better - it wasnt bad before,
>the mastering has just subtly made it a little "cleaner"..........

So, now play it back along with your original recording, on a good pair
of speakers in a well-set-up room.

Now, take the two and play them in your car.

Now, take the two and play them on a boom box.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[rakman]

On May 12, 10:19*pm, "Mr.Will" > wrote:
> I had a listen and it really didnt sound any different at all!
> Everything seemed a little clearer, and the high hats pushed through a bit
> more, could make out the vocalists words a bit better - it wasnt bad before,
> the mastering has just subtly made it a little "cleaner"..........
>
> Anyone want to hear?
>
> Mr.Will

Yeah some before and after mp3s might be interesting.

[RD Jones]

On May 13, 6:29*am, rakman > wrote:
> On May 12, 10:19*pm, "Mr.Will" > wrote:
>
> > I had a listen and it really didnt sound any different at all!
> > Everything seemed a little clearer, and the high hats pushed through a bit
> > more, could make out the vocalists words a bit better - it wasnt bad before,
> > the mastering has just subtly made it a little "cleaner"..........
>
> > Anyone want to hear?
>
> > Mr.Will
>
> Yeah some before and after mp3s might be interesting.

Decimating it down to empty3's defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it?

reddog

[rakman]

On May 14, 5:01*am, RD Jones > wrote:
> On May 13, 6:29*am, rakman > wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 10:19*pm, "Mr.Will" > wrote:
>
> > > I had a listen and it really didnt sound any different at all!
> > > Everything seemed a little clearer, and the high hats pushed through a bit
> > > more, could make out the vocalists words a bit better - it wasnt bad before,
> > > the mastering has just subtly made it a little "cleaner"..........
>
> > > Anyone want to hear?
>
> > > Mr.Will
>
> > Yeah some before and after mp3s might be interesting.
>
> Decimating it down to empty3's defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it?
>
> reddog

Lol. Yeah. Inadvertent trolling.
But downloading/streaming some big-ass PCM file
takes too long for my liking, though.

Some songs sound better at 24/96, some sound
better at 24/48, some better at 16/44.1.
Occasionally a 320kbps mp3 at 48K sounds better than
a 16/44.1 wav, or just as good, at least to my ears.
I also think we get a perfectly good musical/sonic experience
from YouTube videos, personally.

So what's your magic format that makes
mp3 look like such a joke?

[Anahata]

On Fri, 13 May 2011 21:01:46 -0700, RD Jones wrote:

>
> Decimating it down to empty3's defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it?

I know what you mean, but if the mastering process has made an audible
difference then that difference will still be audible on MP3s.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Scott Dorsey]

rakman > wrote:
>
>Lol. Yeah. Inadvertent trolling.
>But downloading/streaming some big-ass PCM file
>takes too long for my liking, though.

True, but it's necessary if you're doing critical listening.

>So what's your magic format that makes
>mp3 look like such a joke?

FLAC isn't bad. Sometimes the file size drops by half compared
with the .wav, and the original .wav can be reconstituted with no
loss. Still way bigger than .mp3 but you get what you pay for.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

RD Jones > wrote:

> On May 13, 6:29 am, rakman > wrote:
> > On May 12, 10:19 pm, "Mr.Will" > wrote:
> >
> > > I had a listen and it really didnt sound any different at all!
> > > Everything seemed a little clearer, and the high hats pushed through a
> > > bit more, could make out the vocalists words a bit better - it wasnt
> > > bad before, the mastering has just subtly made it a little
> > > "cleaner"..........
> >
> > > Anyone want to hear?
> >
> > > Mr.Will
> >
> > Yeah some before and after mp3s might be interesting.
>
> Decimating it down to empty3's defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it?
>
> reddog

Possibly not if one sticks in the 320 or 256 kbps range.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[rakman]

On May 14, 12:09*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> rakman > wrote:
>
> >Lol. Yeah. Inadvertent trolling.
> >But downloading/streaming some big-ass PCM file
> >takes too long for my liking, though.
>
> True, but it's necessary if you're doing critical listening.
>
> >So what's your magic format that makes
> >mp3 look like such a joke?
>
> FLAC isn't bad. *Sometimes the file size drops by half compared
> with the .wav, and the original .wav can be reconstituted with no
> loss. *Still way bigger than .mp3 but you get what you pay for.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

It's possible that FLAC is better for classical music
or sophisticated jazz/fusion etc. Not sure if it makes
any difference for normal pop music though.

[geoff]

rakman wrote:
>
> It's possible that FLAC is better for classical music
> or sophisticated jazz/fusion etc. Not sure if it makes
> any difference for normal pop music though.

Well there is good pop music, and crap pop music, both recording, mixing,
mastering , and media aspects. If you only listen to the crap, then maybe
lossless isn't for you...

geoff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 15 May 2011 21:59:40 +1200, "geoff" >
wrote:

>rakman wrote:
>>
>> It's possible that FLAC is better for classical music
>> or sophisticated jazz/fusion etc. Not sure if it makes
>> any difference for normal pop music though.
>
>Well there is good pop music, and crap pop music, both recording, mixing,
>mastering , and media aspects. If you only listen to the crap, then maybe
>lossless isn't for you...
>
>geoff
>

I'm not convinced that FLAC is very aware of the genre of music it is
storing. Does it maybe, for instance, prefer Brahms to Rachmaninov?

d

[Scott Dorsey]

rakman > wrote:
>It's possible that FLAC is better for classical music
>or sophisticated jazz/fusion etc. Not sure if it makes
>any difference for normal pop music though.

Sure it does. It's lossless, just like gzip and similar utilities. What
you get in what comes out.

If it didn't make any difference, it would be because you couldn't hear
any mp3 artifacts on pop music, which sadly I can. They're different but
they're there.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[rakman]

On May 15, 10:59*am, "geoff" > wrote:
> rakman wrote:
>
> > It's possible that FLAC is better for classical music
> > or sophisticated jazz/fusion etc. Not sure if it makes
> > any difference for normal pop music though.
>
> Well there is good pop music, and crap pop music, both recording, mixing,
> mastering , and media aspects. *If you only listen to the crap, then maybe
> lossless isn't for you...
>
> geoff

"lossless" isn't a very accurate word anyway.

[rakman]

On May 15, 12:42*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> rakman > wrote:
> >It's possible that FLAC is better for classical music
> >or sophisticated jazz/fusion etc. Not sure if it makes
> >any difference for normal pop music though.
>
> Sure it does. *It's lossless, just like gzip and similar utilities. *What
> you get in what comes out.

> If it didn't make any difference, it would be because you couldn't hear
> any mp3 artifacts on pop music, which sadly I can. *They're different but
> they're there.
> --scott

16bit/44.1 files off a CD don't exactly sound great.
Far from pure, full and accurate.

[Scott Dorsey]

rakman > wrote:
>
>"lossless" isn't a very accurate word anyway.

It is a very, very accurate word.

It means that what comes out of the encoding/decoding process is 100%
bit for bit identical with the original. There is no sonic difference
because there is no arithmetic difference.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

rakman > wrote:
>
>16bit/44.1 files off a CD don't exactly sound great.
>Far from pure, full and accurate.

Clearly you're listening to the wrong CDs, then.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[rakman]

On May 15, 1:35*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> rakman > wrote:
>
> >16bit/44.1 files off a CD don't exactly sound great.
> >Far from pure, full and accurate.
>
> Clearly you're listening to the wrong CDs, then.
> --scott

Lol. Fair enough. It's true that FLAC sounds
miles better than mp3.

[alex]

Il 15/05/2011 11.03, rakman ha scritto:
> On May 14, 12:09 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Lol. Yeah. Inadvertent trolling.
>>> But downloading/streaming some big-ass PCM file
>>> takes too long for my liking, though.
>>
>> True, but it's necessary if you're doing critical listening.
>>
>>> So what's your magic format that makes
>>> mp3 look like such a joke?
>>
>> FLAC isn't bad. Sometimes the file size drops by half compared
>> with the .wav, and the original .wav can be reconstituted with no
>> loss. Still way bigger than .mp3 but you get what you pay for.
>> --scott
>>
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> It's possible that FLAC is better for classical music
> or sophisticated jazz/fusion etc. Not sure if it makes
> any difference for normal pop music though.


FLAC *IS* lossless. Always.
What may change is the compression ratio between different sources.
for sample a perfect mono track usually encodes smaller than a more
complex stereo one.
during the encoding the first step is MS processing to see if encoding
in MS or stereo wil make difference in size. Then the most efficent
technique is used.
next the waveform is approximated using simple polynomius algorithms,
again the more efficent is used. at the end the "decoded" signal is
subtracted from the original and only the differences are saved without
further processing.
This will lead to a completely lossless encoding but, the compression
ratio will change from song to song. Usually around 50%
FLAC encoder has settings of compression level from 0 to 8. What changes
is just the processing time and the final size, not quality.

alex

[alex]

Il 12/05/2011 23.19, Mr.Will ha scritto:
> I had a listen and it really didnt sound any different at all!
> Everything seemed a little clearer, and the high hats pushed through a bit
> more, could make out the vocalists words a bit better - it wasnt bad before,
> the mastering has just subtly made it a little "cleaner"..........
>
> Anyone want to hear?
>
> Mr.Will
>
>
one of the targets of the mastering engineer (the main one) is not to
change the original sound more as strictly needed. This is imperative in
the matter of respect of the early production steps.
In the mixing step engineers and musicians usually reach the
"satisfactory" sound. If some problems are recognized, they will ask the
mastering guy to attempt a correction.
If the material already sounds good, there's no direct need to change it.
Some technical processing are sometimes needed in order to make the
material more compatible with his final media.
Relative levels, fades, songs spacing, correlation, panorama, dynamic
range, air and deepth are controlled with the word "respect" always in mind.
You can see the mastering step like a final "check", and "corrections"
will take place only where needed.
Everytime i have doubts about the original sound i will ask the client
for the permission to change it, providing him some samples to hear.
Don't expect a big audible changes in the mastering, except where the
mix has problems.
Is usually very important to have the material double checked by a
second pair of (trained) hears, the mastering engineer is perfect for this.

[Scott Dorsey]

rakman > wrote:
>On May 15, 1:35=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> rakman > wrote:
>>
>> >16bit/44.1 files off a CD don't exactly sound great.
>> >Far from pure, full and accurate.
>>
>> Clearly you're listening to the wrong CDs, then.
>
>Lol. Fair enough. It's true that FLAC sounds
>miles better than mp3.

It might or it might not. But it sounds exactly like the original which
makes it useful. Because it is bit for bit identical with the original.

Sometimes high rate MP3s sound fine... but sometimes they don't, and
therefore you can't use them for comparison purposes because you can't
split apart the compression artifacts from the things you're comparing.

With a lossless system you at least eliminate one big set of confounding
variables. There are plenty more, but that's what makes life interesting.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2011-05-15 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>It's possible that FLAC is better for classical music
>>or sophisticated jazz/fusion etc. Not sure if it makes
>>any difference for normal pop music though.
>Sure it does. It's lossless, just like gzip and similar utilities.
>What you get in what comes out.
>If it didn't make any difference, it would be because you couldn't
>hear any mp3 artifacts on pop music, which sadly I can. They're
>different but they're there.

wHich is why I don't listen to mp3 stuff, I can hear the
artifacts, and I don't like the sound. My old cassettes
sounded better.

SAys the man who's never bought an mp3 from anywhere, I
don't pay for that stuff.
I didn't buy prerecorded cassettes back in the day either.
IF I wanted it on cassette I recorded it myself, with a
properly set up deck, for my own use. Often recorded from
my own vinyl, not somebody else's.
Chances were good if it was played on the radio I didn't
bother with it, I recorded the cuts from vinyl I liked that
didn't get the radio play. AFter all, if I liked it and it
was regularly heard on the radio I heard it enough. PUtting
down money to buy it meant I liked other cuts on the album
as well. AT least, this was my modus operandi with rock and
popular music. OTherwise my purchases were for stuff not in
the mainstream.


I don't think I've bought a piece of current pop music since
the '70's.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[[email protected]]

Alex writes:
>> I had a listen and it really didnt sound any different at all!
>> Everything seemed a little clearer, and the high hats pushed
>>through a bit more, could make out the vocalists words a bit
>>better - it wasnt bad before, the mastering has just subtly made
>it a little "cleaner".......... >
<snip>
>one of the targets of the mastering engineer (the main one) is not
>to change the original sound more as strictly needed. This is
>imperative in the matter of respect of the early production steps.

There's that word, and this is important, "respect" of the
earlier steps. IT sounds like you found the right mastering
engineer for the type of material you do, and that's a good
sign. Keep his number!!!

<snip>
>Some technical processing are sometimes needed in order
>to make the material more compatible with his final media.
>Relative levels, fades, songs spacing, correlation, panorama,
>dynamic range, air and deepth are controlled with the word
>"respect" always in mind. You can see the mastering step like a
>final "check", and "corrections" will take place only where needed.
>Everytime i have doubts about the original sound i will ask the
>client for the permission to change it, providing him some samples
>to hear. Don't expect a big audible changes in the mastering,
>except where the mix has problems.
>

Agreed, which is why I always suggest you be present during
the mastering session as well, if possible. The added bonus
of being present at the mastering session is that you'll
learn if you can do anything to avoid needed changes on
later mixes possibly. Attending the mastering session can
help you learn a lot of things about your working
environment while mixing, etc.

Glad it worked out for you Will!!!



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[alex]

Il 15/05/2011 13.42, Scott Dorsey ha scritto:
> Sure it does. It's lossless, just like gzip and similar utilities. What
> you get in what comes out.
>
> If it didn't make any difference, it would be because you couldn't hear
> any mp3 artifacts on pop music, which sadly I can. They're different but
> they're there.
> --scott

sometime i cannot hear the difference! But most of the time i can. In my
home "listening" room with 2 way passive b&w speakers the difference is
more subtle, but the nearfield monitors in the "studio" room will, of
course, expose more artefacts.
The most evident difference, for me, is on cymbals and hihats.
The general lack of upper harmonics, due to the LPF, is hard to
recognize because the behaviour of the human auditory neural chain, but
sometimes is really evident.
Other than this the encoding process tend to make the waveform smoother
and less compex, which, sometimes can appear as a sound "improvement"...

[alex]

Il 15/05/2011 18.35, ha scritto:
> Glad it worked out for you Will!!!
uh, in the fact, i forgot to mention, I AM A MASTERING ENGINEER! :-)
What i said is my appoach to the job, in very short terms and bad
english :-(
I'm glad you approve it.

alex

[[email protected]]

Alex writes:
>> Glad it worked out for you Will!!!
>uh, in the fact, i forgot to mention, I AM A MASTERING ENGINEER! :-)
>What i said is my appoach to the job, in very short terms and bad
>english :-(
>I'm glad you approve it.

I gathered you were a mastering guy from your comments.
Were you stateside that would mean that you'd be on my list
of folks to talk to for sure. Even if I didn't go to one of
the names that was what I went for with any mastering
session, another set of ears on the project, and another
listening environment along with my presence. Your basic
working philosophy was well stated, even if English isn't
your native tongue. wOuld that some native English speakers
could express themselves as clearly, and held the same views
<grin>.

Regards,





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[geoff]

rakman wrote:
> On May 15, 12:42 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> rakman > wrote:
>>> It's possible that FLAC is better for classical music
>>> or sophisticated jazz/fusion etc. Not sure if it makes
>>> any difference for normal pop music though.
>>
>> Sure it does. It's lossless, just like gzip and similar utilities.
>> What you get in what comes out.
>
>> If it didn't make any difference, it would be because you couldn't
>> hear any mp3 artifacts on pop music, which sadly I can. They're
>> different but they're there.
>> --scott
>
> 16bit/44.1 files off a CD don't exactly sound great.
> Far from pure, full and accurate.

Um, probably better than your ears can detect, or any transducers you have
can reproduce. By an order of magnitude !

Ever heard one CD that sounds fantastic ? Then they all *could*.

geoff

[geoff]

rakman wrote:
> On May 15, 10:59 am, "geoff" > wrote:
>> rakman wrote:
>>
>>> It's possible that FLAC is better for classical music
>>> or sophisticated jazz/fusion etc. Not sure if it makes
>>> any difference for normal pop music though.
>>
>> Well there is good pop music, and crap pop music, both recording,
>> mixing, mastering , and media aspects. If you only listen to the
>> crap, then maybe lossless isn't for you...
>>
>> geoff
>
> "lossless" isn't a very accurate word anyway.

Yes it is. It is exact.

geoff

[alex]

Il 15/05/2011 22.45, ha scritto:
> I gathered you were a mastering guy from your comments.
> Were you stateside that would mean that you'd be on my list
> of folks to talk to for sure. Even if I didn't go to one of
> the names that was what I went for with any mastering
> session, another set of ears on the project, and another
> listening environment along with my presence. Your basic
> working philosophy was well stated, even if English isn't
> your native tongue. wOuld that some native English speakers
> could express themselves as clearly, and held the same views
> <grin>.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard webb,

Thankyou very much, Richard

Alex

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

alex wrote:

[mp3 encode-decode]

> Other than this the encoding process tend to make the waveform
> smoother and less compex, which, sometimes can appear as a sound
> "improvement"...

I have a box with 100 big-band numbers. It is better when mp3'ed because
that hides some of the noise-reduction artifacts.

The worst issue with mp3 encode-decode is poor stereo encoding choices, I
haven't seen other encoders than Audition's allow easy access to those, but
nor have I looked very much. Basically wise choices allow you to preserve
stereo, bad choices makes you loose it.

I find it useful to downsample to 32 kHz sample rate prior to encoding, it
reduces the splattyness that comes from what appears to be the replacement
of treble with white noise and allows max quality variable bandwindth
encoding to do its best at lowest quality cost. The result is reasonable
"compact cassette type quality".

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

alex wrote:


> Thankyou very much, Richard

http://www.last.fm/user/grauone ?

> Alex

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Peter Larsen wrote:
> alex wrote:
>
> [mp3 encode-decode]
>
>> Other than this the encoding process tend to make the waveform
>> smoother and less compex, which, sometimes can appear as a sound
>> "improvement"...
>
> I have a box with 100 big-band numbers. It is better when mp3'ed because
> that hides some of the noise-reduction artifacts.
>

Weird. You mean companding artifacts? Not something I would
have expected. I have a few mixes from a Tascam 488MkII
8 track cassette with dbx, and the .mp3s fmro that
sound a lot like the .wav files.


> The worst issue with mp3 encode-decode is poor stereo encoding choices, I
> haven't seen other encoders than Audition's allow easy access to those, but
> nor have I looked very much. Basically wise choices allow you to preserve
> stereo, bad choices makes you loose it.
>
> I find it useful to downsample to 32 kHz sample rate prior to encoding, it
> reduces the splattyness that comes from what appears to be the replacement
> of treble with white noise and allows max quality variable bandwindth
> encoding to do its best at lowest quality cost. The result is reasonable
> "compact cassette type quality".
>

I get bigger error-difference-files from samplerate conversion ( using
CoolEdit 96 ) than from MP3 conversion.

> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Les Cargill wrote:

> Peter Larsen wrote:

>> I have a box with 100 big-band numbers. It is better when mp3'ed
>> because that hides some of the noise-reduction artifacts.

> Weird. You mean companding artifacts?

No, I mean noise reduction artifacts. Someone took too great care to clean'm
up with too little skill and not enough practice and an unsuitable or
maladjusted tool. empty3 encoding redudes then and thereby improves overall
listenability, even if not recreating the treble that was the on the
shellack. It was however 5 CD's at the price of one so solving the worst
issues by letting empty3 discard 80 percent does not come across as
unreasonable .... O;-) ... also, they didn't break the music.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[alex]

Il 16/05/2011 19.56, Peter Larsen ha scritto:
> alex wrote:
>
>
>> Thankyou very much, Richard
>
> http://www.last.fm/user/grauone ?
>
>> Alex
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
>
>
sorry, not me! :-)

regards