Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail, Ths is what we can expect now, I guess. Options

[Engelsstaub]

@ Porcus: That's the stated issue, yes.

There's no reason any modern recording can't be mastered, pressed, whatever from a higher bit/sampling rate.

(I'm really starting to sound like one of those records...a proverbial broken one.)

Edited to be directed at the poster it was intended for.

This post has been edited by Engelsstaub: Feb 23 2013, 02:41

[greynol]

What is called “mastering” today, is much more than taking a master tape/file and pressing CDs/LPs from it – “mastering” is was once was called “pre-mastering”.

It's funny how some think mastering means adding DRC.

[Engelsstaub]

...and...I'm done.

Thanks.

[greynol]

27 responses in a little over four hours, not too shabby!

I hope I'm off-base, but in case anyone thought my previous reply was directed at the OP, it wasn't.

[Porcus]

It's funny how some think mastering means adding DRC.

It's not so funny how right they are.

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

My belief is this:

Since what follows runs contrary to science, I presume that you are using believe in a metaphysical sense. Is that true/

[saratoga]

I really don't see what the big deal is. If its competently done, CD is fine. If its incompetently done, nothing is going to change that.

[Engelsstaub]

My belief is this:

Since what follows runs contrary to science, I presume that you are using believe in a metaphysical sense. Is that true/

No, it's not. And your attempt to frame this as a Science vs. Spirituality-thing is even more disrespectful as you expecting responses from me, while contributing nothing new or useful, when I said I was finished with the thread.

Since the record company wished to convey that it also agreed with me...



...I value their input far more than snark or condescension from an echo-chamber (I know some of you politely disagreed) and, if they are earnest, I can accept that I was mistaken and jumped to a conclusion based on the picture and what they said. I'm still sorry I even started this thread because I wasn't expecting a response (Edit: from the record co.) That was me not giving the record company the benefit of the doubt and jumping to conclusions.

Any more bait (and that's what your question was; an "invitation" to flame away in a typical HA Arny-War fashion) will truly be ignored this time.

This post has been edited by Engelsstaub: Feb 24 2013, 02:39

[Glenn Gundlach]

Why would you assume it's necessarily 44.1 ? If they are .WAV or .FLAC files they could be anything as long as it fits on the disc. I often use CDs or DVDs or even BluRay discs as 'data carriers'. Would you have had a problem if they submitted a flash drive? After all, a file is a file and what you choose to put in it is totally up to you. Now if they're MP3s, well......

G²

[botface]

It's a long time since I was involved in the manufacturing side of the music industry. Given this :

Regarding submission via red-book...............I think there is quite a bit of naivete about how this process actually works. Again, how do you think this is handled between big-name studios and big-name labels? Do you think CD-Rs are never used?

and this:



Can anybody tell what the normal process is these days? At some point the "Master" must be in Redbook format. When does it happen if not at the pressing stage?

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

My belief is this:

Since what follows runs contrary to science, I presume that you are using believe in a metaphysical sense. Is that true/

No, it's not.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

And your attempt to frame this as a Science vs. Spirituality-thing is even more disrespectful

I can't change Science and I can't change the relevant facts.

I wasn't attempting anything, I was simply pointing out how many unscientific assertions have littered the playing field.

as you expecting responses from me, while contributing nothing new or useful, when I said I was finished with the thread.

Umm, the thread was ended because you wanted it to be ended?

Are we seeing some control issues? ;-)

Since the record company wished to convey that it also agreed with me...



...I value their input far more than snark or condescension from an echo-chamber (I know some of you politely disagreed) and, if they are earnest, I can accept that I was mistaken and jumped to a conclusion based on the picture and what they said. I'm still sorry I even started this thread because I wasn't expecting a response (Edit: from the record co.) That was me not giving the record company the benefit of the doubt and jumping to conclusions.

Any more bait (and that's what your question was; an "invitation" to flame away in a typical HA Arny-War fashion) will truly be ignored this time.

This isn't bait, its just my personal opinions. I find any attempt to suppress them to be indicative of a lack of desire to participate in a potentially mutually beneficial discussion.

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

It's a long time since I was involved in the manufacturing side of the music industry. Given this :

Regarding submission via red-book...............I think there is quite a bit of naivete about how this process actually works. Again, how do you think this is handled between big-name studios and big-name labels? Do you think CD-Rs are never used?

and this:



Can anybody tell what the normal process is these days? At some point the "Master" must be in Redbook format. When does it happen if not at the pressing stage?

There are enough viable and sonically-equivalent options that are being widely used that it would take an expensive detailed market survey to determine which is the most widely used.

I seriously doubt that any record company management does the detailed technical investigation that would be necessary to ensure that all previous production steps happened in formats with a higher sample rate and/or data word size than Redbook CD.

There is a long tradition of taking whatever the artist provides. Most media managment is happy enough to have the music in a recognizable form.

For example, we now have credible technical evidence that something like half of all SACD and DVD-A releases were upsampled from media that was Redbook or worse. Much of it was very much sub-redbook.

[greynol]

After all, a file is a file and what you choose to put in it is totally up to you.

This but I do not discount a cd-r written as redbook as a viable format to deliver data. This is not 1986.

[S3NT13NT_GL1TCH]

If it contains a disc image or some other kind of digital file(s) it wouldn't matter. I'm going to go ahead and assume that it's probably not an audio CD that's been burned. I actually work at a small indie label, and we request that all our submissions be in .WAV format and just put them on an 8gb flashdrive along with the art files for printing/pressing . It's lossless, and as long as it's burned as a data CD and not audio (which you can't tell from the picture) there's no loss in quality.

This post has been edited by S3NT13NT_GL1TCH: Feb 24 2013, 18:49

[greynol]

While I may be stating the obvious, burning and subsequently extracting redbook audio does not have to be (and when done with care, knowledge and a small amount of effort will not be) a lossy process. Compare this with the creation and playback of vinyl which will never be a lossless process.

I know this may come across as an advocation of submitting redbook cd-r. Rest-assured it isn't.

The point is this entire topic seems to have stemmed from a completely faith-based point of view, which can be accurately be paraphrased as "I believe vinyl shouldn't come from 44.1/16 despite the fact that I cannot prove it causes any harm to my auditory system".

AFAIC, opinions about what constitutes professionalism from a non-professional should be dismissed. The final point that audio CDs must be ultimately sourced from 44.1/16 is self-evident, though one could and should argue that HDCD should be sourced from something with a higher bit-depth assuming a red-book cd-r submission wasn't already encoded this way (realistically it won't be, though I doubt this even applies to this specific instance).

Lastly, (and this isn't addressed at anyone in particular other than the OP who I know is still reading this discussion) if I only had a nickel for every person in the record business who didn't understand digital audio as well as the average HA contributor...

This post has been edited by greynol: Feb 24 2013, 21:49

[Engelsstaub]

...
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
...
I can't change Science and I can't change the relevant facts.
...
Are we seeing some control issues? ;-)
...
This isn't bait, its just my personal opinions. I find any attempt to suppress them to be indicative of a lack of desire to participate in a potentially mutually beneficial discussion.

Denial of what? You haven't presented one thing to the contrary save for more snark and condescension.

Not only are you a scientist with nothing to say to correct my metaphysical beliefs, but now you're a psychologist as well; diagnosing people through simple internet comments.

Again: SUPPRESS WHAT?? If you're trying to have a productive conversation tell me why I'm wrong rather than pounding off nothing but insults and condescension on your keyboard. How in the living breathing hell do you expect me to "participate in a potentially mutually beneficial discussion" when you have thus far contributed nothing of substance but insults?

"I seriously doubt that any record company management does the detailed technical investigation that would be necessary to ensure that all previous production steps happened in formats with a higher sample rate and/or data word size than Redbook CD."

...is this conjecture? Sounds like conjecture to me. If by 'I seriously doubt" you mean metaphysical yap yap... Meanwhile...I'll be asking a few more labels and seeing what responses they give me. They could just make shit up, but that's life, Dr. Krueger. At some point we have to take people at their word. ...or waste our lives in a fruitless search to uncover every conspiracy and "suppression" of truth. (If you'd like to be spoken to and treated differently than this remember it's reciprocal. Start over with this in mind: I'm a stranger to you and you're a stranger to me. We wouldn't speak to each other like this on the streets...I would hope.)

It's a long time since I was involved in the manufacturing side of the music industry. Given this :

Regarding submission via red-book...............I think there is quite a bit of naivete about how this process actually works. Again, how do you think this is handled between big-name studios and big-name labels? Do you think CD-Rs are never used?

and this:



Can anybody tell what the normal process is these days? At some point the "Master" must be in Redbook format. When does it happen if not at the pressing stage?

That's a great question. I'd like to learn it as well.


There are enough viable and sonically-equivalent options that are being widely used that it would take an expensive detailed market survey to determine which is the most widely used.

I seriously doubt that any record company management does the detailed technical investigation that would be necessary to ensure that all previous production steps happened in formats with a higher sample rate and/or data word size than Redbook CD.

There is a long tradition of taking whatever the artist provides. Most media managment is happy enough to have the music in a recognizable form.

For example, we now have credible technical evidence that something like half of all SACD and DVD-A releases were upsampled from media that was Redbook or worse. Much of it was very much sub-redbook.

If it contains a disc image or some other kind of digital file(s) it wouldn't matter. I'm going to go ahead and assume that it's probably not an audio CD that's been burned. I actually work at a small indie label, and we request that all our submissions be in .WAV format and just put them on an 8gb flashdrive along with the art files for printing/pressing . It's lossless, and as long as it's burned as a data CD and not audio (which you can't tell from the picture) there's no loss in quality.

Can you tell me (if you know) if LPs are generally pressed from Redbook files?

[Engelsstaub]

...The point is this entire topic seems to have stemmed from a completely faith-based point of view, which can be accurately be paraphrased as "I believe vinyl shouldn't come from 44.1/16 despite the fact that I cannot prove it causes any harm to my auditory system".

...The final point that audio CDs must be ultimately sourced from 44.1/16 is self-evident, though one could and should argue

That's really cool: my thoughts that a record (which in spite of its limitations is more than capable of containing information exceeding Nyquist) should be cut with a very easy to record and obtain higher bit-depth and sampling rate...is "a completely faith-based point of view"

...but one "should argue that HDCD should be sourced from something with a higher bit-depth..." That's different.

Yeah: this is some objective stuff going on right here, greynol. If my assertions are to be dismissed as faith-based then yours can be as well. ...with the addition of bias and prejudice.

[greynol]

Yes, that's different.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that the SNR and dynamic range afforded by 16 bits is not better than the human auditory system which is still better than vinyl. I'm also pretty sure from what I've studied that CDs are more faithful in preserving frequencies as they were recorded with respect to the limits of the human auditory system. So I really don't see the problem here, though I'll rescind the comment if it is too nuanced for you.

(which in spite of its limitations is more than capable of containing information exceeding Nyquist)

This doesn't make any sense. Assuming you mean half the samplerate of CDDA, again, I think you better brush up on how vinyl handles HF content; from what I've read on the subject it isn't very pretty. I'd offer up some of the quite recent samples submitted to the forum of vinyl recordings and their counterparts on CD where there is clear audible distortion present on the vinyl recordings¹ but not on the CD versions², though I don't know that my assessment won't also be frought by misinterpretation, so never mind my brain fart.

1.  lp.flac ( 104.31K ) Number of downloads: 46

2.  not_lp.flac ( 106.66K ) Number of downloads: 40


This post has been edited by greynol: Feb 26 2013, 21:36

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

Can you tell me (if you know) if LPs are generally pressed from Redbook files?

LP's have generally been pressed from media that was at the very best technically equal to Redbook. Often it was inferior.

[GeSomeone]

@greynol: I know you'd love to hear that records are cut with CDs.

This actually happens all the time. And so much for those who say the vinyl sounds better. (well it may sound different, but that's another subject).

[Engelsstaub]

@greynol: I know you'd love to hear that records are cut with CDs.

This actually happens all the time. And so much for those who say the vinyl sounds better. (well it may sound different, but that's another subject).

Please attempt to demonstrate this. Cite some examples or tell us of your credentials or whatever.

[greynol]

You might want to check some of your recent uploads.

[Engelsstaub]

You might want to check some of your recent uploads.

Yeah, everyone seemed to be in agreement that many of those examples exhibited at least some less DRC than the CD. (Except for you much later of course. Looked at some pics and proclaimed they were all the same but one when others clearly were not.) I'm not certain how it can be determined that a CD was used in any of them. It could have been a CD that was less dynamically compressed though.

Seriously...I like what can fly right under the Bullshit Detector here while everyone that isn't on the same page of the Amen Circle's hymnal is slapped with a TOS violation or dog-piled with derision rather than explanation. (There's my bit of condescension equating everything to a struggle between Church and Science. I think that's fair. I'm certainly not above it so I can play now too.)

[saratoga]

You might want to check some of your recent uploads.

Yeah, everyone seemed to be in agreement that many of those examples exhibited at least some less DRC than the CD. (Except for you much later of course. Looked at some pics and proclaimed they were all the same but one when others clearly were not.) I'm not certain how it can be determined that a CD was used in any of them. It could have been a CD that was less dynamically compressed though.

my thoughts that a record (which in spite of its limitations is more than capable of containing information exceeding Nyquist)

Given your premise, seems like you've got your means right there. Just show that its uncommon for records to contain a lower frequency range then CDs.

[greynol]

I'm not certain how it can be determined that a CD was used in any of them.

Does it bother you to think a CD may have been used for any of them? If you can't tell then what's the point of getting so riled up about it?

It could have been a CD that was less dynamically compressed though.

If so then it was still a CD, but all of a sudden it doesn't seem so bad now, does it?