HydrogenAudio

Hydrogenaudio Forum => General Audio => Topic started by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-22 21:42:00

Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-22 21:42:00
I (thankfully) don't listen to this band but I have Prosthetic Records on my Facebook due to a few others on their roster that I appreciate.

Here's a screenshot of what these dumbasses submitted to the label as their "master." Is anyone else shocked that any record company would accept this as normal?

(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/9468/59553894.png)

...I guess we can expect this sort of "professionalism" from the recording industry these days.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-22 22:12:37
It's what's on the disc that matters, and I see no reason to make any assumptions about that based on the picture you're submitted.

I'm guessing you're not a musician who has ever submitted music to a record label for distribution.

Let's look at it  another way, how do you think this would be handled when someone like Rick Ruben is involved?
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: xnor on 2013-02-22 22:20:39
Nobody knows what's on the disc but the record company...
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: DVDdoug on 2013-02-22 22:22:24
I'm not sure if there's anything wrong with that...  If the disc contains a DDP file (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_Description_Protocol), it should be fine.  There's certainly no reason to make it "look good".

An audio CD is probably not the way to do it (because of the weak error checking/handling), but WAV files and a cue sheet or track list might be acceptable.    You might not even need the track list, depending on what information the Label already has.    And, I assume the artwork and packaging are handled separately.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-22 22:26:03
@ greynol: You don't have to guess, greynol. I can tell your right now that I'm not a musician. So?

I'm making the assumption that the "master" is a 16/44.1 CD-R and that this is going to be used to press CDs and LPs. What assumption should I have made when a record company says they got the new "masters" and the CD-R is even dated from a few days ago? Edit: I'm not at all understanding what this has to do with Rick Rubin.

FWIW Prosthetic said later that they would never use Redbook for pressing. I don't think they though I was being assumptive based on the info they provided.

@xnor: what's on the disc can hardly be more than Redbook. That's the issue. It's a CD. How many uncompressed WAV files can you fit on such a "master?"
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-22 22:31:51
I think you're going to have a very hard time convincing forum regulars that there is a problem with creating vinyl from CDDA.

Regarding submission via red-book, I think we've gotten just a little bit paranoid about DAE.  Furthermore, 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?
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-22 22:46:30
Yeah, I'm not trying to play that "16 bits is more than enough for vinyl!" flame-fest. That's not even what I'm getting at.

So tell me how it's handled. I believe it should be handled at at least 24/48. I don't think I need to be a musician to state that.

...but enlighten me. Seriously. I'm not above being wrong.

I'm not stating that Redbook isn't adequate as a delivery-format. I'm also aware that some labels were said to have used lossy for mastering CDs. That's even bigger crap...but this is still completely unprofessional IMO.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: carpman on 2013-02-22 22:47:44
Do record companies expect 16 bit masters?

45 mins @ 16 bits = approx 460 MB
45 mins @ 24 bits = approx 700 MB  (could be 24 bit?)
45 mins @ 32 bits = approx 930 MB

C.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-22 22:53:03
Do record companies expect 16 bit masters?

45 mins @ 16 bits = approx 460 MB
45 mins @ 24 bits = approx 700 MB  (could be 24 bit?)
45 mins @ 32 bits = approx 930 MB

C.


"Look at what we just received! Blaring the new Scale the Summit "Migration" masters in the office right now!" (Emphasis mine.)

...I would have never started this thread if I had known I would have to immediately go into defensive-mode.

My assumption is based on the information they provided. What is yours based on? It looks like they just got a CD and they are playing it in their office. That's what I took away from that post.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: carpman on 2013-02-22 22:59:21
I just asked a question (and not directed at you). Don't assume people are attacking you and you won't need to defend yourself.

C.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: db1989 on 2013-02-22 22:59:29
[…] this is still completely unprofessional IMO.
I don’t understand. Is there some rule that a band has to provide a master at high bit-depth and sampling rate just so that both of those can be downscaled for release? If it’s a master, then it should be what’s going to be sold. [edit] I meant that it it isn’t under any universal obligation to be higher in quality. I think. [/edit] In that sense, 44.1/16 is fine as a format for delivery, which you’ve seemingly acknowledged once but which doesn’t agree with the rest of your complaints.

If you’re referring to the admitted shortcomings of CDDA on the level of format (not quality), those are very unlikely to matter anyway with a very recently created disk that has been treated carefully. I can’t imagine any other problem with this, other than perhaps a purely aesthetic perception that it’s weird to have to rip a CD in order to create a template from which to press other CDs.

...I would have never started this thread if I had known I would have to immediately go into defensive-mode.
Then it would make sense to explain your perceived problem with this scenario as clearly as possible, instead of just repeating how you’re so annoyed by it without really explaining why. Otherwise, why wouldn’t people continue to ask you in an attempt to get an elusive straight answer as to whatever has gotten you so riled up? Playing the victim isn’t going to help anyone here, either.

Quote
My assumption is based on the information they provided. What is yours based on? It looks like they just got a CD and they are playing it in their office. That's what I took away from that post.
Once again: What would be wrong with that?

Also, I like how you jump to a blanket dismissal of the entire recording industry, whereas it was the band who submitted the master, and this is only an anecdote about a single label. I think, if you want to complain about the industry, there are many better places to start.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-22 23:02:25
It's a master, FFS.  At some point something will have to be at 16/44.1 if CDs are going to be pressed.  Personally, I would rather it be done by me than having to put faith in someone else.

That picture doesn't say anything about how it was recorded, mixed or mastered.  Also, I don't think 48k is the best choice in samplerate, though it really shouldn't matter these days provided an SRC with adequate quality is being used.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-22 23:09:59
...I would have never started this thread if I had known I would have to immediately go into defensive-mode.

I guess you expected us all to join in on the bashing like we do when someone posts something that was found on head-fi or stereophile?

Perhaps I should have just said that this probably happens a lot more often than you or I know and in places you or I might not expect.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: xnor on 2013-02-22 23:27:40
Audio CDs are 44.1/16, why would you give the record company 96/24 files?
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-22 23:54:47
...Otherwise, why wouldn’t people continue to ask you in an attempt to get an elusive straight answer as to whatever has gotten you so riled up? Playing the victim isn’t going to help anyone here, either.

Quote
My assumption is based on the information they provided. What is yours based on? It looks like they just got a CD and they are playing it in their office. That's what I took away from that post.
Once again: What would be wrong with that?

Also, I like how you jump to a blanket dismissal of the entire recording industry, whereas it was the band who submitted the master, and this is only an anecdote about a single label. I think, if you want to complain about the industry, there are many better places to start.


I made it abundantly clear in my second post what was to you "so elusive and got me all riled up." Please review it.

Where's the blanket dismissal of the industry? The subtitle?? It's called sarcasm. I know pretty well that the "band submitted the master." The label seemed to accept it as such.

So can we get back to the Redbook CD-R-thing I mentioned almost straight away? I'm sorry, but all I got was the impression that you were trying to agitate me (I like to think I've been a productive poster here in the recent past) by condescension and dismissal. "Playing the victim."


...I would have never started this thread if I had known I would have to immediately go into defensive-mode.

I guess you expected us all to join in on the bashing like we do when someone posts something that was found on head-fi or stereophile?

Perhaps I should have just said that this probably happens a lot more often than you or I know and in places you or I might not expect.


I sort-of do expect the bashing of other forums whose biases don't lean in the directions as this one (right or wrong.) "Friendly rivalries." I get that. I wasn't expecting immediate personal condescension regarding my "qualifications" to question something based on whether I'm a musician or not.

Sorry if I haven't been clear:

I don't believe that, if this is what it appears to be, this is an appropriate "master" for any format. Again: Apparently Prosthetic doesn't believe it either or they wouldn't have tried to convince me that they would never use Redbook to do pressings. They reportedly agree with me on this issue...if I need to keep uploading screenshots at the expense of my anonymity I guess I can.


Audio CDs are 44.1/16, why would you give the record company 96/24 files?


...because, as stated above, they apparently expect them. (Hell, even iTunes is beginning to expect them now.)

I expect that...and yes: cutting records with a CD and applying an RIAA curve is bullcrap. Whether someone here likes vinyl or not. I know it happens.

@nobody in general: As db1989 said: there's plenty of things to get mad at the recording industry about. This is something I got mad about. Being condescending and dismissive isn't encouraging a productive discussion either.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Wombat on 2013-02-22 23:58:01
To me Master simply means final means ready for production.
Back earlier this often was a tape, now in the digital age it can be as simple as a cheap CD-R with files, why not?

What may cause this confusion here is that these days the word Master is often used together with music sold as HD files.
Most likely spectralophiles that love this stuff may get confused how to store master quality with all its macro and micro detail on something small as a CD-R when even their 1950 tape transfer at least needs 24/192 to make the feet tapping.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: xnor on 2013-02-23 00:05:03
...because, as stated above, they apparently expect them. (Hell, even iTunes is beginning to expect them now.)

For Audio CDs? There could be several masters, 44.1/16 for redbook, 96/24 as "HD" download, ...

It's not uncommon that different formats (Redbook, "HD" ...) are mastered differently (for example less compression).
Off-topic, but that's the reason why people think higher bitrate/samplerate files sound better. A few years ago Linn did this borderline fraudulent comparison of 44.1/16 and 96/24 files - the more expensive "hi-def" files had a clearly different looking waveform ...
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-23 00:05:33
I wasn't expecting immediate personal condescension regarding my "qualifications" to question something based on whether I'm a musician or not.

The point is you're really not demonstrating much familiarity with the process, especially the way it works these days where it doesn't take much money to create excellent sounding recordings.

cutting records with a CD and applying an RIAA curve is bullcrap

Care to elaborate on this?
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-23 00:13:32
Quote
iTunes

Let's not even go there or I might start in on a diatribe that sounds quite similar to the original post.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-23 00:22:24
My belief is this:

A Redbook CD is completely fine for a delivery format. CD-Rs shouldn't be used to cut vinyl. I think it's stupid to use a CD-R for a final master when it's easy for even a non-professional to archive at more optimal bit depths and sample rates for pre-delivery formats.

@greynol: I know you'd love to hear that records are cut with CDs. It bolsters your biases you've already elaborated on in previous conversations. That's cool. 

...but seriously: if my cart is specced to deliver more frequencies than my CD player it would seem fair to include whatever info is present. That's my opinion and I don't claim to hear those frequencies. (OT: It's impossible to scientifically demonstrate that my TT sounds better to me than my CD player. I can't get that out of the realm of subjectivism and neither can anyone else reliably.)

What I said earlier about "defensive mode:" I've been around long enough to know that claiming something could be better than CD would get me dog-piled ...and perhaps rightly so. I just genuinely wasn't expecting to get dog-piled over saying that Redbook is not ideal for a pre-delivery format.

I realize the "Mastered for iTunes" thing is somewhat misguided. I would hope that it would encourage actual modern production on top of the highly-debatable benefit of having a "hi-res" master to encode to lossy from.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-23 00:45:50
I think it's stupid to use a CD-R for a final master when it's easy for even a non-professional to archive at more optimal bit depths and sample rates for pre-delivery formats.

I think you need to back up a bit and explain why CDDA is not good enough, especially the part about about the RIAA curve.

It bolsters your biases you've already elaborated on in previous conversations.

Project much?

...but seriously: if my cart is specced to deliver more frequencies than my CD player it would seem fair to include whatever info is present. That's my opinion and I don't claim to hear those frequencies. (OT: It's impossible to scientifically demonstrate that my TT sounds better to me than my CD player. I can't get that out of the realm of subjectivism and neither can anyone else reliably.)

It doesn't seem that you've read much on the reproduction of high frequencies from vinyl.  I'll take a flat response with low distortion across my range of hearing (and beyond, though my HF response is still pretty damn good) over the most "optimal" physically realizable configuration for vinyl playback any day of the week.

I would hope that it would encourage actual modern production on top of the highly-debatable benefit of having a "hi-res" master to encode to lossy from.

It is completely unnecessary.  We were there long before Apple decided to get involved in the process.  ...and by "there" I mean in areas where it counts: recording, mixing and editing.  If it weren't for the opportunity to charge more, I wouldn't care about the people that whine about not having access to hi-res masters, none of whom would be any the wiser if it weren't for spectral plots and the like.  To bring this back on-topic, we have no way of knowing how the content on that CD-R was produced ("modern" or otherwise).  Do you disagree?
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: DVDdoug on 2013-02-23 01:07:19
Quote
...but seriously: if my cart is specced to deliver more frequencies than my CD player it would seem fair to include whatever info is present. That's my opinion and I don't claim to hear those frequencies.
I'm only guessing, but I'll betcha there are subsonic & supersonic filters built-into the cutting amplifiers.    Of course, that doesn't prevent subsonic & supersonic "stuff" from ending-up (physically/mechanically) on the record, or being generated during playback.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-23 01:30:40
@ greynol in general: Welp, it remains that Apple is in the best position to encourage recording industry trends. (Whether they do or not remains to be seen. I wouldn't place a bet either way.)

Probably not going to explain why I don't think CDDA is good enough when it's really irrelevant in light of the fact that it's so incredibly easy to record and master at higher bit depths and sampling rates. The fact that the label seems to agree with me makes me wonder why I'm still even trying to have this conversation. Didn't think it had to be controversial...even here.

I'll put it this way: if I worked at a label and a signed band (not someone sending me a demo) sent me a CD-R and called it a master I'd make sure they weren't self-producing anything they were contractually doing on my label anymore. They obviously need a professional in their midst (just not Rick Rubin if it was me    ) It speaks to their attention to detail, professionalism, etc,  It looks like shit whether it sounds like it or not. I'd want to know what other crap they've been up regarding their production "skills."
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Porcus on 2013-02-23 01:33:51
Hm. Is the issue here that a CD – possibly an audio CD, and presumptively without RIAA EQ – is going to be used as “master”?

The “mastering” process does not mean you cannot add EQ. 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”.

(And yeah, re-masters have been fiddled around with much more than just finding the old tapes and cleaning the tape heads and making another master just because the old one has been in the machine too many times.)
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-23 01:37:21
I'd want to know what other crap they've been up regarding their production "skills."

I would hope your evaluation of their skills had something to do with their sound rather than some misguided preconception about what constitutes a "professional" submission.

If you were in the business and were actually successful at it, I think you'd have enough sense to know that your former self was tilting at windmills.

I think this topic can safely be chalked-up as listening with your eyes.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-23 01:39:36
@ 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.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-23 01:51:08
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.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-23 01:52:17
...and...I'm done.

Thanks.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-23 02:33:39
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.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Porcus on 2013-02-23 02:42:24
It's funny how some think mastering means adding DRC.


It's not so funny how right they are.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-02-23 21:18:46
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/
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: saratoga on 2013-02-23 22:47:09
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.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-24 01:37:19
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...

(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1109/79977891.png)

...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.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Glenn Gundlach on 2013-02-24 01:49:29
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......

Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: botface on 2013-02-24 12:15:28
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:

(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1109/79977891.png)

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?
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-02-24 12:53:05
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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? ;-)


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

(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1109/79977891.png)

...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.


Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-02-24 13:00:37
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:

(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1109/79977891.png)

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.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-24 16:12:34
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.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: S3NT13NT_GL1TCH on 2013-02-24 17:47:58
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.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-24 19:40:12
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...
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-24 21:40:33
...
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:

(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1109/79977891.png)

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?
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-24 21:51:21
...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.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-24 22:33:05
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. [attachment=7383:lp.flac]
2. [attachment=7384:not_lp.flac]
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-02-24 23:28:12
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.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: GeSomeone on 2013-02-25 00:09:35
@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).
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-25 00:19:53
@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.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-25 00:22:30
You might want to check some of your recent uploads.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-25 00:36:41
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.)
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: saratoga on 2013-02-25 00:40:48
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.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-25 00:52:15
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?

Quote
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?
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-25 00:57:50
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.

I'm not so sure it's that simple since >22.05 kHz content could have been added during the cutting and/or playback process (OT: as well as the appearance of increased dynamic range).
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-25 01:46:06
...
Quote
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?


I was just stating that it "could" have been a CD.

My entire thing is that IMO there's no reason not to use higher than Redbook until it goes to Redbook.

OT: I agree that DRC is a far more important than my complaints about using a Redbook CD-R to cut vinyl. I miss the Longbox-Days when purchase of a CD almost certainly guaranteed you got the best possible version of a current recording.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: saratoga on 2013-02-25 01:59:24
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.

I'm not so sure it's that simple since >22.05 kHz content could have been added during the cutting and/or playback process (OT: as well as the appearance of increased dynamic range).


I don't know much about cutting, but wouldn't it be straightforward to check if the higher frequency content was:

1)  Correlated with lower frequency content (e.g. harmonics of it, envelop tracks lower frequency, etc)
2)  Not digitally filtered around the usual 19-21khz limit
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-25 02:06:47
...this is all above my pay-grade 

I couldn't be of any help with that but I'd be happy to know the findings regardless of whether I like them or not.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-25 03:24:39
My entire thing is that IMO there's no reason not to use higher than Redbook until it goes to Redbook.

If feasible then sure, I can go with that.  There may be simple reasons why vinyl may have been sourced from 44.1/16, like that was how the master was created or just "that's what we were given".  If it comes to light that some vinyl title was sourced from redbook then I really must question how this is worthy of crying foul.  Unless the vinyl is being sold as having been sourced from a higher resolution digital master, I don't see the harm.

I miss the Longbox-Days when purchase of a CD almost certainly guaranteed you got the best possible version of a current recording.

If I am to believe the most prevalent opinion on the matter I would not be so quick to assume that there was much care given to choosing the highest quality analog recordings for digitization back then.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2013-02-25 11:44:10
If you’re referring to the admitted shortcomings of CDDA on the level of format (not quality), those are very unlikely to matter anyway with a very recently created disk that has been treated carefully. I can’t imagine any other problem with this, other than perhaps a purely aesthetic perception that it’s weird to have to rip a CD in order to create a template from which to press other CDs.
I'm sure it happens. I recall some band releasing a compilation of rare tracks where the ripping errors were very audible, and having to go back and fix it. I'm sure many digital streams are/were created by ripping CDs (sometimes badly).

However, it is not what I would deliver, and not what I would want to take delivery of. Why put your faith in a somewhat error-prone process, when more robust processes exist, and can be delivered on the same 10p medium?! I'll tell you why: because some of the people involved are clueless. It would be naive to think they were clueless about this, but knowledgeable about every other step of the process, don't you think?


No harm in wishing the recording industry would be more careful than it really is.


As for 16/44.1 not being enough to master vinyl - there was a great discussion on the Steve Hoffman forums with the guy who mastered the new Beatles vinyl from 24/44.1 masters, saying why they didn't go back to the 24/96 versions (those versions hadn't been "fixed" and approved by the Beatles/partners), and why there was no need to (can't cut those higher frequencies anyway).

Here's a question though: knowing that the master is 16/44.1, 24/48, 24/96 whatever, and having some belief that "formats numerically better than 16/44.1 are audibly superior", why the heck would you be badgering the recording company about how it releases the vinyl? Surely far better to badger the record company to just sell you the digital master.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-02-25 12:42:44
@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.


+1 to greynol's comments and qualifications.

Thanks for snubbing me stubby and trying to cherry pick experts. I happen to be a professional recordist who has been working with church and educational groups for decades. I still remember the days of vinyl.  I've been in and out of mastering and vinyl cutting facilities since the days when vinyl is all we had.  You are clearly inconvenienced by my personal knowledge of this matter. 

Historically, LP's have been cut from the best recordable media available which has outperformed LPs technically for decades. Before digital it was 2 track 15 ips analog tape which is very definitely a sub-CD, near-CD format.

Anybody who has hands-on technical experience with vinyl knows what a technical POS it is compared to the CD format. Just buy the best test LPs ever made and play them on a SOTA or near-SOTA playback system. Measure the performance of the signal you get off of the vinyl, pulling every technical string you know how to pull. Everybody's results are in the same ball park. Vinyl is pretty nasty.

Compared to any old CD you randomly or intentionally  burn, the LP format is pi$$.  It's got relatively massive amounts of just about every kind of distortion known to man. If you think that jitter is problem with digital, you ain't seen nuttin' until you see what LPs do.  It's about 3 orders of magnitude worse.  There is a reason why nobody does technical tests on LP playback systems, and that's because the results are so horrific as numbers.

Frankly, most of us techies who had to live with it for decades have been mystified about how bad the LP was and it still sounded pretty good. It wasn't until we learned about masking, and what you could get away with in perceptual coders (e.g. MP3) that it became clear that as bad as the LP format's technical failings are, the ear is generally accepting of them because of their nature.  We similarly demsytified the widespread angst with SS and digital with DBTs. We basically found that decades of familiarity with vinyl had made us believe that everything had a characteristic sound (vinyl playback equipment strongly tends to be this way) and audibly corrupts sound quality  (vinyl playback equipment strongly tends to be this way). This was also true of analog tape and tubed equipment. It is still true of loudpeakers and rooms, but not amplifiers and digital players.  All that becomes clear when you control natural systematic and human bias in listening tests.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-02-25 13:07:23
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.

I'm not so sure it's that simple since >22.05 kHz content could have been added during the cutting and/or playback process (OT: as well as the appearance of increased dynamic range).


I don't know much about cutting, but wouldn't it be straightforward to check if the higher frequency content was:

1)  Correlated with lower frequency content (e.g. harmonics of it, envelop tracks lower frequency, etc)


Some of it is, but that doesn't answer the question of whether it was added by the massive nonlinear distortion that is inherent in vinyl production and playback or was there in the original source.  Vinyl playback at high frequency has a number of inherent sources of nonlinear distortion. The largest and most intractable source of this distortion is geometric, and due to differences in the operation and geometry of cutting styli (which are sharp edged) and playback styli (which are round or at least rounded).  Deflection of the vinyl as it attempts to overcome the effective mass of the stylus tip is a probably the next major source of both linear and nonlinear distortion.

Interestingly enough laser playback was reasonably well perfected by ELP and avoids some aspects of these problems but turned out not to take the vinyl world by storm even as a tool for professional transcription technicians. Two of its problems were its inability to clear dust from the groove and distort the groove like a playback stylus would. In the latter days of vinyl cutting analog computers were sometimes used to pre-distort the cutting waveform to linearize the playback process. The inherent problem with that is that any such predistortion technique had to presume a standardizes playback stylus which never actually came to be.

Quote
2)  Not digitally filtered around the usual 19-21khz limit


Most LP's from the days before digital mastering and production became the rule were made by playing back a 2-track 15 ips analog tape. The playback of most such tapes have a fairly gritty ca. 24 KHz brick wall filter that is due to the width of the gap of the playback machine.  This cut-off takes the form of a deep null at the frequency where an entire wave fits across the playback head's tape head gap which is between the pole pieces and usually about as narrow as it can be reliably made and kept clean enough to function.  The null repeats every so many Hz as integer wavelengths span it.  Obviously the amplitude and phase irregularities due to this process reflect downward into the audio range but no more than an octave.

While analog tape can be far more accurate than LP playback, it too is a very nasty land compared to the much-maligned Redbook CD.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: almostmitch on 2013-02-25 15:28:04
but I like Scale The Summit..
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-26 03:00:45
...
Thanks for snubbing me stubby and trying to cherry pick experts. I happen to be a professional recordist who has been working with church and educational groups for decades. I still remember the days of vinyl.  I've been in and out of mastering and vinyl cutting facilities since the days when vinyl is all we had.  You are clearly inconvenienced by my personal knowledge of this matter.
...


I can assure you that, in spite of those little "dot,dot,dots" I used to shorten the quotation, I read your postings in their entirety.

Regarding your first sentence that I quoted; I have no idea what that even means. Was I cherry-picking experts? The only "expert statement" I had to quote was that of the record company in question. Seems appropriate to me.

I am not "clearly inconvenienced by (your) personal knowledge of this matter." I was inconvenienced by the completely uncalled for and condescending manner in which you replied. I'm past that now...it's ok.

Speaking of your personal knowledge (heretofore unknown to me) where in all of that irrelevant and immaterial reply about how bad you think vinyl is can I find your anecdotes about how often a Redbook CD-R has been used for pressing vinyl?

You even quoted another member saying with regards to pressing from such a source "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)."

"This actually happens all the time" is a pretty sweeping statement and I called bullshit. You can +1 Google-style all day long but until someone can back such a statement up it remains in the realm of bullshit from someone who said it always happens as if they know. I reasonably asked for any credible indication that this is true in the face of what little I have from just one record co. that claims otherwise. Nobody has even attempted to back it up. ...until such time as one can reasonably demonstrate this then bullshit it is.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-26 03:21:42
...
As for 16/44.1 not being enough to master vinyl - there was a great discussion on the Steve Hoffman forums with the guy who mastered the new Beatles vinyl from 24/44.1 masters, saying why they didn't go back to the 24/96 versions (those versions hadn't been "fixed" and approved by the Beatles/partners), and why there was no need to (can't cut those higher frequencies anyway).

Here's a question though: knowing that the master is 16/44.1, 24/48, 24/96 whatever, and having some belief that "formats numerically better than 16/44.1 are audibly superior", why the heck would you be badgering the recording company about how it releases the vinyl? Surely far better to badger the record company to just sell you the digital master.
...


Hi, David.

You raise some good points and I would love to read the discussion on the Beatles vinyl. I don't really read the Hoffman forums unless a Google-search sends me there for something. I wouldn't have crapped myself if they said they were mastered from 24/44.1. I'm surprised they even told anyone that. To me it just seems amateurish and lazily inept to not do the best we can. If that's the best they had then people should accept it. It would be better than constantly rolling out some really old master tapes that have probably degraded quite a bit by now. Digital is great and I don't sit around pining for the days when I couldn't clean up a needle-drop with such precision as I can on my computer now  I would really hate to go back to taping records to play in my Walkman or car.

I would badger record companies to sell me the digital master for certain albums. I think that would be fruitless and they would find such a request strange TBH. ...especially in the days of file-sharing and such I think they'd be hesitant to release "more" than CD or vinyl versions. (Whatever "more" means...could be 24/48 or "less-limited" rather than post DRC. Whatever.)

Remember the Woods of Ypres sample I uploaded in that last thread I posted about Vinyl vs. CD masters? I love that album and would love the master for it but it would be nearly impossible to get as the singer/mastermind has sadly passed on. The gatefold 2 x LP is literally the best version you can get. I own three copies of it on vinyl (one unopened) plus the CD (which I donated to my daughter's collection. I actually discouraged her from getting into vinyl because I felt it would be a bigger pain in the arse than what she'd be willing to deal with.) I digitized it and it sounds fantastic "even" as a Redbook CD-R. I kept it at 24/96 in case I want to dick around with it some more in iZotope RX2 or Audition.

...anyway my point is I highly value a great-sounding edition of any album I think highly of. And I will pay sometimes more than once  OTOH: I can often settle for the CD or iTunes release if it's not available on vinyl or I just don't care as much. (Edit: and yes I sometimes get a really bad LP that sends me after the CD to replace it. Bad-pressings are nearly non-existent on CD. No IGD either if the company was too cheap to put an album over forty minutes or so on more than one vinyl.)
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-26 05:31:09
Reminds me of a boss I had, VP of Marketing and International Sales (I was a project engineer with design responsibilities), he would often beligerently say to my team, "I don't understand it, but I don't like it."  This reminds me of him.

If he wasn't responsible for my job, I would have never bothered to explain anything to him; I wouldn't have bothered with him at all.  It's pointless trying to explain something to someone who has his fingers in his ears because he doesn't like what you have to say.  Truth, for some, can be an inconvenient thing.

The final word about the masters for this most recent Beatles release on vinyl by those responsible was that it doesn't matter.  It would appear that they can't be asked to concern themselves with people who feel that viewing spectral graphs enhances their listening pleasure.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2013-02-26 09:55:09
To me it just seems amateurish and lazily inept to not do the best we can.
In cases where there's a chance of creating an audible improvement, or avoiding an audible degradation, I agree with you. But where do you stop? 192kHz? 384kHz? 1MHz? DSD? DSD-Wide? Even more bits and samples per second?

Not to mention  that all this obsession with sample rates can be used as an excuse to get everything else wrong and still claim you've done a really great job.

I can still remember the day when most people accepted CD as the peak of audio reproduction. I have plenty of CDs from back in the day, and honestly some of them are still about as good an example of 2-channel audio reproduction as you could wish for.

I'm willing to accept that in some circumstances there just might be some audible failing with 16/44.1, but good grief, at the very worst the magnitude of this hypothetical failing is orders of magnitude less than what so many people claim it to be.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-02-26 12:13:20
"This actually happens all the time" is a pretty sweeping statement and I called bullshit.


Call it what you will.

It is clear that you have even less reliable information to share than we have.

Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2013-02-26 14:37:51
These samples...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=685550 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=71960&view=findpost&p=685550)

...first posted here...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=683458 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=71960&view=findpost&p=683458)

...include very high quality transfers of vinyl, which (to some extent) let you evaluate their source during/before the vinyl cutting process. As I said in that thread...
...on the Enya one, you can clearly see it was mastered from a 44.1kHz digital recording, because there's nothing above 22kHz.

...even more interesting when you consider that at least some Enya recordings were recorded and mixed in 24/48 (not 44.1).

Cheers,
David.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-26 20:41:50
FWIW, I just updated this post (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=99623&view=findpost&p=825416) with an example of audible distortion on an lp digitization not present on a digital download from the same section of audio.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-26 22:43:25
"This actually happens all the time" is a pretty sweeping statement and I called bullshit.


Call it what you will.

It is clear that you have even less reliable information to share than we have.


Again, sir I beseech thee: Where. Is. Your. Information?!

"It's clear" that I have some response from record labels. The only thing you've made clear was your OT-musings on how bad vinyl is. Paragraphs upon paragraphs of it (...per usual.) Only David has recently attempted to offer even one example of a record probably sourced from 44.1.

Maybe a record label's response on what they do could be unreliable...it's possible. The sweeping unchecked bullshit about how pressing from 16/44.1 "happens all the time" (followed by "because vinyl sucks!") went completely unqualified. ...by the poster, by you, and anyone else. Now you're just talking crap for the sake of argumentation and "the last word." Give me your examples.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Porcus on 2013-02-26 22:48:52
AFAIC, opinions about what constitutes professionalism from a non-professional should be dismissed.


As a general statement?  C'mon.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-26 22:50:47
Yawn.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-27 02:44:53
AFAIC, opinions about what constitutes professionalism from a non-professional should be dismissed.


As a general statement?  C'mon.


The same could be said for a member posting tripe about how something "happens all the time" in the professional music industry...while never citing their own credentials or any indication that it ever does.

That's acceptable, but a response from a a professional at a record company is not  Then we resort to "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..." ...in the same post even.

Apparently nobody's an authority on this matter unless the conclusion is "vinyl sucks anyway!" (...or the aforementioned "average HA contributor.")
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-27 03:04:25
The same could be said for a member posting tripe about how something "happens all the time" in the professional music industry...while never citing their own credentials or any indication that it ever does.

Arny has a long history as a professional in the audio industry.  He doesn't owe you anything.

That's acceptable, but a response from a a professional at a record company is not

According to whom?

Then we resort to "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..." ...in the same post even.

In the same post?!? Now I know you're just making shit up.

Apparently nobody's an authority on this matter unless the conclusion is "vinyl sucks anyway!" (...or the aforementioned "average HA contributor.")

No, the point is that redbook is more than an adequate delivery format for standard two-channel vinyl from the only standpoint that matters: an audible one.  Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-27 03:48:55
The same could be said for a member posting tripe about how something "happens all the time" in the professional music industry...while never citing their own credentials or any indication that it ever does.

Arny has a long history as a professional in the audio industry.  He doesn't owe you anything.

That's acceptable, but a response from a a professional at a record company is not

According to whom?

Then we resort to "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..." ...in the same post even.

In the same post?!? Now I know you're just making shit up.

Apparently nobody's an authority on this matter unless the conclusion is "vinyl sucks anyway!" (...or the aforementioned "average HA contributor.")

No, the point is that redbook is more than an adequate delivery format for standard two-channel vinyl from the only standpoint that matters: an audible one.  Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.


I can not properly quote all this so please read my responses to each of your answers above as indicated point-by-point each indicated numerically.

1. Of course he doesn't owe me anything but he surely does if he wants to participate in the discussion without just being a flamer with nothing on-topic to contribute but how bad vinyl is at reproduction. He hasn't given me anything so it's a moot point. If he's an industry professional he very well could have regaled me with all the times he saw a record pressed from a CD. He chose not to. Needs to STFU if he's not going to do anything but argue off-topic. You're a mod FFS. You could start acting like one again even if you don't wike me or wike vinyl.

2. According to you. See the next point.

3. You again. I'll quote you in full with my own emphasis: "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... "


Now I know, even though you constantly edit your posts long after non-mod users can, you can't remember anything you previously spouted when you start getting blinded by your nerd-rage saying people are "making shit up." You can't even be bothered to review your comments anymore.

4. Feel free to demonstrate that CD-R is used to press vinyl all the time, as you let agreeable members bullshittingly post unmoderated due to the fact that you reek of bias and lose all of your objectivity when it comes to a subject like this.

I started the topic and know what the point is...and it's not "Redbook is Good Enough (or Not.") My question was (now read carefully lest you think I'm making shit up again) is this the norm for pressing vinyl in the recording industry?

...seriously greynol: consider stepping down if you can't moderate this forum without prejudice. You're seriously slipping below even the most obnoxious non-mod posters here (and yes I can be obnoxious.)
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: LithosZA on 2013-02-27 05:18:04
Personally I don't care if anything was sourced from 16bit/44.1Khz. It doesn't make any difference in audible sound quality so why worry?
What I DO care about is the DRC. If the music is mastered at high dynamic range compression then...that is unprofessional which means I think most music today is done unprofesionally
Even 24bit/96Khz won't help that. Sadly some people think 24bit/96Khz is better, but it will sound just as sh**.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-27 05:25:07
@OP:

Sigh.

My comment that the record industry has some people who are even more kooky than you appear to be is hardly unfounded.  But to misconstrue this as meaning nothing offered up in this thread by people in the business is nothing short of laughable, and I mean of the snorting variety.

So I'll ask you again, plainly, who said a response from a professional at a record company was not acceptable?  You've rattled off on this more than once and now it's time for you to get called out on it.  What will come next from you, that it was said but magically edited away as if it never happened?  Yes, it's a great conspiracy.

Until you can demonstrate the audible harm of creating vinyl from redbook, your entire premise is essentially based on nothing.  Records may or may not have been pressed from redbook, even redbook from audio cd-r.  Aside from your hollow belief that it shouldn't be this way, please explain why anyone interested in audible sound quality should care.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-27 06:35:41
Sigh.

My comment that the record industry has some people who are even more kooky than you appear to be is hardly unfounded.  But to misconstrue this as meaning nothing offered up in this thread by people in the business is nothing short of laughable, and I mean of the snorting variety.

So I'll ask you again, plainly, who said a response from a professional at a record company was not acceptable?  You've rattled off on this more than once and now it's time for you to get called out on it.  What will come next from you, that it was said but magically edited away as if it never happened?  Yes, it's a great conspiracy.

Until you can demonstrate the audible harm of creating vinyl from redbook, your entire premise is essentially based on nothing.  Records may or may not have been pressed from redbook, even redbook from audio cd-r.  Aside from your hollow belief that it shouldn't be this way, please explain why anyone interested in audible sound quality should care.


Seriously greynol: I think it's admin intervention-time or something. Get a different mod in here because as I already amply demonstrated, you absolutely reek of an irrationally one-sided bias and confrontational attitude that defies the definition of moderator.

What's "laughable" is that you proclaimed that I was "making shit up" and I demonstrated that I was not and now you're playing more games.

Me: (Speaking of sweeping BS statements you refuse to moderate) That's acceptable, but a response from a a professional at a record company is not  Then we resort to "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..." ...in the same post even.

You: In the same post?!? Now I know you're just making shit up.

Me quoting you from the same post: "AFAIC, opinions about what constitutes professionalism from a non-professional should be dismissed...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... "

...very plain who's full of shit before you made me quote it two or three times. But hey: my times of no value either

Yeah, you can keep playing it like this wasn't your cheap-assed way of trying to discredit an actual quote from an actual insider in the business because it's the only one in the entire thread. Nobody else has crap except for "This happens all the time and BTW vinyl sucks anyway!" IS THIS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? You and Arny here are backing it up as truth. Demonstrate or go home.

I do not have to explain to you why you should care about whether LPs are cut from CD-Rs or not. If you don't care than f___ off and let me speak to anyone that does. Your incessant need to butt in and bully regular posters, through typical snark and condescension, on topics in which you admit you lack interest is ridiculous. ALL of it. ...especially in light of the fact that you can't even moderate the most obvious BS statements because, even though they're ridiculously over-the-top and untrue, they agree with your own prejudices. You've made it perfectly clear to me and everyone else here in the past few years that you don't like vinyl. Cool. I even accept that yours and Arny's are good reasons not to like it. What's not cool is that you're such a zealot that you feel this need to keep harassing people about a medium you despise even after you've very plainly shown yourself to be full of ten times the very "shit" you accuse someone else (not even a GD moderator) being ful of.

As to whether I should demonstrate whether there is audible harm creating vinyl from CD: IRRELEVANT. There may be no harm in it but I, and the one professional I've spoken to thus far in the recording industry, would like it done from a better source since it's more than feasible. Now go ahead and pick at the word "better" instead of keeping this on my topic (because Lord Greynol has license to shit in others' threads if he doesn't like the subject matter.) Why don't you go ahead and demonstrate it since you're the one hung up on it? I just wanted to know what the norm is...but hey: tell me what I can talk about. Better yet, have a conversation with yourself and I'll just read.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-27 07:08:27
Reading comprehension escapes you.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-27 07:14:29
Personally I don't care if anything was sourced from 16bit/44.1Khz. It doesn't make any difference in audible sound quality so why worry?
What I DO care about is the DRC. If the music is mastered at high dynamic range compression then...that is unprofessional which means I think most music today is done unprofesionally
Even 24bit/96Khz won't help that. Sadly some people think 24bit/96Khz is better, but it will sound just as sh**.


I agree. DRC is a far bigger deal to me than this topic as well.

Are you talking about vinyl, though? I'm just wondering how much vinyl is pressed using a CD-R when the music was recorded and edited at a higher sampling rate and bit depth.

I find it "odd" to do so. The only record company I've thus far got a response from says they think so as well. They stated that they'd never do it. I wasn't asking for an argument about CD vs. vinyl or if I can hear frequencies beyond Nyquist or how well they're reproduced on vinyl.

Think of it this way: I invest a considerable amount of my time cleaning up needledrops of material that I feel was overly-compressed for the CD-version. It's important to me in an academic sense. (On a similar note: some vinyl IME is still overly-compressed or uses the same "master." And by "master" I don't mean a completely different master necessarily; I rather mean the same master, with an RIAA curve, that wasn't normalized to 0 dB for the CD. It doesn't cost anyone a thing or require a different "master" to screw up a CD like almost every one is now.)

I just want to know. Whether it "matters" or not. It matters (maybe for less of a good reason than I imagine) to the label I asked and it matters to me. That's all.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-27 07:16:07
Reading comprehension escapes you.


As the role of moderator and definition of moderation does you.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-27 07:46:37
Somehow as a moderator I'm not allowed to challenge baseless and silly notions about what constitutes professiomalism in the record industry or how vinyl should be mastered?  I don't get to be a regular Joe, ever?

I could just as easily let others make the case I made and then shut the thread down because of the growing lack of civility that began once people didn't agree with you.  These are people who posess a great deal of knowledge and insight about a topic in which you appear to have great interest.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-27 08:05:05
what's on the disc can hardly be more than Redbook. That's the issue.

If you can't tell the difference (and you've already admitted as much), why do you care?
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-27 08:46:31
Somehow as a moderator I'm not allowed to challenge baseless and silly notions about what constitutes professiomalism in the record industry or how vinyl should be mastered?  I don't get to be a regular Joe, ever?

I could just as easily let others make the case I made and then shut the thread down because of the growing lack of civility that began once people didn't agree with you.  These are people who posess a great deal of knowledge and insight about a topic in which you appear to have great interest.


Shut it down then. Once again: I got nothing but snark from any of these people who you say possess a great deal of knowledge about this topic. In fact, they contributed nothing to demonstrate that pressing vinyl from CD-R is a standard practice in the industry...which is fine. A few were just antagonistic and made far stupider statements than you think I did. And it was all goaded on by you. That's how you moderate...by leading a lynch mob. It's easy to espouse popular opinions, isn't it? Don't bother trying to sit in the middle where you belong and shoot down some obvious BS from the mob too. Especially if it's anti-vinyl...people can say anything no matter how unfounded or ludicrous.

No matter how hard I try to play ball according to your rules you still cheat. This is an ongoing thing between you and I. The last time I had to talk to the Ump (you) it was because some dick was cross-thread harassing me over nearly the same thing. Another poster made some stupid claim about how he never heard a vinyl master that sounded different from the CD. I politely asked him to tell me what vinyl he was listening to and that that was far from my experience. (Predictably no reply because the poster was full of it.) I even started a thread attempting to give examples of all the vinyl I had recorded to attempt to draw some sort of conclusions. Same poster followed me thread-to-thread harassing me with more baseless crap. Harassed me about the price of a record brush I linked to...you happily jumped on top of that too. The price of a brush FFS. I apologized for nothing to play nice but it never ends. My efforts are in earnest even if I'm just stupid like you'd have me to believe through your condescending "moderation." You just have this raging hard-on for certain posters where we must toe some poorly-defined line while others can say ridiculous crap and contribute nothing on topic.

You're the mod here. You're staff but you're not interested in helping...just leading a bunch of people with pitchforks and torches. You don't have to like that I care about the bit/sample used to press vinyl. My only question is about the norm...not whether I'm stupid for caring. Now if you and your experts (Arny and GeSomeone, I'm guessing) can go ahead and convince me what that norm is I'm all ears. Statements like "this happens all the time" are demonstrably at odds with the only expert statement presented thus far in this entire thread. I'll bet you'd rather my ilk just f___ off over to Hoffman's forum, but here I am trying my ass off to have some meaningful discussion in a forum ruled by those unfriendly to anyone who likes vinyl.

So...if we're going back to the beginning I'd just love to hear from anyone who can say with some authority that they've seen vinyl pressed from Redbook or what the specifics are. I would love for somebody above you to read all of this and see what they think. Otherwise just shut it down if you're afraid or need to be that guy. Save me from wasting anymore of my time.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-27 09:42:53
You're sure pinning a lot on a sample of only one, and while it probably doesn't mean much, I've never even heard of that label. Still, I never dismissed the comment, nor did anyone else AFAICT.

I did dismiss your idea of professionalism since it is clear you've never participated in the process.  You're entitled to your opinion, but when you throw it out there, don't expect everyone will cow to you and "STFU" if they don't agree.  Perhaps I'm simply wrong in believing that professionalism in how business is conducted is defined by the professionals.

Those are two separate issues. Slamming them together as you did was disingenuous.

That I felt the need to defend our community against your disrespectful insults was yet another issue.  When I suggested that our community knew more about the technical aspects than many in the record industry, I made sure to point out that I wasn't talking about anyone in particular, meaning those involved in the discussion (the record company or the new poster who is affiliated with an indie label).  While I don't believe the people at the record company you attacked (and now herald as your example of how business is done and should be done in the industry) will be able to justify their comforting assurances on technical grounds, I certainly don't doubt that they might have such a policy.  Again, I have never claimed otherwise.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2013-02-27 10:15:09
I don't really read the Hoffman forums unless a Google-search sends me there for something. I wouldn't have crapped myself if they said they were mastered from 24/44.1. I'm surprised they even told anyone that.
This guy cut the vinyl...
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/search/1394390/ (http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/search/1394390/)

We already had our own thread here...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....75&start=75 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=97241&st=75&start=75)


btw, in asking for proof that "pressing vinyl from CD-R is a standard practice in the industry" - aren't you setting up a straw man there? I mean, whether the source is a CD-R, a pressed CD, some 16/44.1 files off a DAW, 16/48 off a DAT back in the day, etc - they're all (what I think you believe to be) comparatively low resolution sources.

None of us have a large enough sample to claim what the majority practice is these days, but using those as sources for vinyl releases is certainly common practice. Signal analysis proves it. Some engineers admit it. As you said, given the market, "I'm surprised they even told anyone that" - well, indeed - which is why you can't always believe claims that higher resolution sources have been used. Sometimes, on various formats, such claims have been conclusively debunked.


It is not unexpected that no one here really cares. No one has ever proven an audible difference (other than vinyl can have obvious flaws). The entire point of HA is to improve what makes an audible difference, and ignore what does not.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Kees de Visser on 2013-02-27 10:38:17
Emil Berliner Studios has re-introduced vinyl mastering a few years ago.
One of the options is direct-to-disc vinyl, which seems to offer higher-than-redbook quality audio, at least in theory.
Looking at their analogue suite equipment, it seems also rather likely that hi-res audio is quite common. Plenty of DAW's and analog gear.

http://www.emil-berliner-studios.com/en/vinyl.html (http://www.emil-berliner-studios.com/en/vinyl.html)
http://berliner-meister-schallplatten.de/en/direct_to_disc (http://berliner-meister-schallplatten.de/en/direct_to_disc)
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: probedb on 2013-02-27 10:55:36
The entire point of HA is to improve what makes an audible difference, and ignore what does not.


I think HA needs that as a tag line  So many people don't seem to get it.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-27 11:00:12
...
That I felt the need to defend our community against your disrespectful insults was yet another issue...


Absolute BS. The insults didn't begin with me and you very well know it. In fact the person with the most and biggest insults in this thread is you...the moderator. You tried to gloss over some of them or be vague with others...but many were very blatant. The only person I really insulted was you...and that was on the basis of your blatant bias and the way you "moderate." I called Arny Dr. Krueger because he was disrespectful and insulting most of all by playing psychologist over an internet comment.

(Edit: "...the record company you attacked (and now herald as your example of how business is done and should be done in the industry..." I fairly admitted being mistaken or jumping to conclusions already. My ego will allow me to confess that I was wrong and I stated more than once that I regretted starting the topic. Mostly because of that.)

You weren't defending anyone from my insults. You were the most egregious example of disrespect here. Frame this differently now but all it comes down to is your petty grudges against certain members and your outrageous biases that blind you to the most BS statements in the thread are unfitting of the very word "moderator." If I were to truly insult you I'd call you a hack. You've acted like one here, but I won't.

Garf? Anybody??

@Kees de Visser: thanks for your input

@David: thanks for yours as well. I understand that many here won't care. That's why I was really hoping I could post something about vinyl (perhaps it should have gone in that forum?) without getting OT trolled by the usual suspects (not referring to you.)

Perhaps I've created a strawman. but it was a mere response to unchecked BS about how it always happens. It clearly does not.

Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: noiselab on 2013-02-27 12:06:31
I'm just wondering how much vinyl is pressed using a CD-R when the music was recorded and edited at a higher sampling rate and bit depth.

I find it "odd" to do so. The only record company I've thus far got a response from says they think so as well. They stated that they'd never do it. I wasn't asking for an argument about CD vs. vinyl or if I can hear frequencies beyond Nyquist or how well they're reproduced on vinyl.

Think of it this way: I invest a considerable amount of my time cleaning up needledrops of material that I feel was overly-compressed for the CD-version. It's important to me in an academic sense.

I just want to know. Whether it "matters" or not. It matters (maybe for less of a good reason than I imagine) to the label I asked and it matters to me. That's all.


Quote
Yeah, I'm not trying to play that "16 bits is more than enough for vinyl!" flame-fest. That's not even what I'm getting at.

So tell me how it's handled. I believe it should be handled at at least 24/48. I don't think I need to be a musician to state that.

...but enlighten me. Seriously. I'm not above being wrong.

I'm not stating that Redbook isn't adequate as a delivery-format. I'm also aware that some labels were said to have used lossy for mastering CDs. That's even bigger crap...but this is still completely unprofessional IMO.

So you're saying anything less than 24/48 is unprofessional because of? ...of loss in sound quality? (hard to see why else lossy could be relevant)

If so, then "CD vs vinyl" relevant to the topic. Because most people here believe there is no loss in sound quality, at least any that's of audible substance.

Quote
My entire thing is that IMO there's no reason not to use higher than Redbook until it goes to Redbook.


But if there's no reason to use higher than Redbook either, what's there to be shocked about and why are the band dumbasses?

What you think is unprofessional or odd comes across as completely arbitrary to most of the people in this forum. (And IIRC, you think DRC is a problem and yet at the same time refer to record labels as a reliable authority?) This is why you're being questioned on why it matters to you. This forum cares about scientific validity, so you can't just make arbitrary statements or opinions or questions, and then expect no one will try to argue with you. And you can't just ask for enlightenment and a productive conversation (or did you?), while expecting not to hear about "CD vs vinyl" when it's relevant to very nature of topic.

I believe what I believe because of the sources below. I'm personally more keen on believing audio engineers of academic merit who give reasoned explanations and arguments, rather than a record label reps who know more about business than science.

why the bit depth doesn't matter for vinyl:
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil....html#toc_1bv2b (http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_1bv2b)
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...ble_frequencies (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29#Vinyl_has_greater_resolution_than_CD_because_its_dynamic_range_is_higher_than_for_CD_at_the_most_audible_frequencies)

why the sample rate doesn't matter for vinyl:
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil...g.html#toc_gmye (http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_gmye)
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...s_can_reproduce (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29#Vinyl_is_better_than_CD_because_it_reproduces_higher_frequencies_than_CD_and_avoids_anti-aliasing_filter_issues_at_the_frequencies_CDs_can_reproduce)
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-27 12:26:10
...
So you're saying anything less than 24/48 is unprofessional because of? ...of loss in sound quality? (hard to see why else lossy could be relevant)

If so, then "CD vs vinyl" relevant to the topic. Because most people here believe there is no loss in sound quality, at least any that's of audible substance.
...
I believe what I believe because of the sources below. I'm personally more keen on believing audio engineers of academic merit who give reasoned explanations and arguments, rather than a record label reps who know more about business than science....


Lossy was relevant because I was referring to a much talked about thing here regarding Century Media using MP3 sources to press CDs. You should check out my copy of Sentenced "The Cold White Light." ...you weren't expected to know that. It's cool. But it's not what you thought it was.

CD vs. Vinyl is not a relevant topic in this discussion. There's plenty of threads devoted to that. This is not one of them.

I only followed the first link you provided because (nothing to do with you) I've completely tired of this and should have had the common sense to just let it go a long time ago.

I'm quoting exactly what you directed me to here: "It's true that 16 bit linear PCM audio does not quite cover the entire theoretical dynamic range of the human ear in ideal conditions. Also, there are (and always will be) reasons to use more than 16 bits in recording and production."

First of all there's no real byline here let alone any indication that this is written by an "audio engineer of academic merit." All I see is -Monty. Could be Monty Hall for all I know. Not seeing a proper accreditation let alone the lofty credentials you've assigned to this seeming blog.

Second: what I just quoted doesn't seem to bolster your assertions at all. Read it again, please with special emphasis on that last sentence.

Thank you.

Edit: I just followed the other non-HA Wiki (not accredited to any audio engineer of academic merit either) link and was a bit dismayed to see -Monty again all the way at the bottom. Would somebody please help me out and tell me who this Monty is?
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: db1989 on 2013-02-27 12:59:30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Montgomery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Montgomery)
The “xiphmont” in the links posted immediately adjacent to the links to the wiki might be seen in retrospect as a handy clue.

If I were to truly insult you I'd call you a hack. You've acted like one here, but I won't.
Although having precisely no desire to get involved in the catfight spirited debate between you two, I will say that it’s almost unbelievably naïve for anyone to think that s/he can be innocent of throwing an insult by framing it in hypothetical terms. The phrase “You can’t have your cake and eat it too” comes to mind.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-27 13:09:56
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Montgomery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Montgomery)
The “xiphmont” in the links posted immediately adjacent to the links to the wiki might be seen in retrospect as a handy clue.

If I were to truly insult you I'd call you a hack. You've acted like one here, but I won't.
Although having precisely no desire to get involved in the catfight spirited debate between you two, I will say that it’s almost unbelievably naïve for anyone to think that s/he can be innocent of throwing an insult by framing it in hypothetical terms. The phrase “You can’t have your cake and eat it too” comes to mind.

Cool. Xiphmont seemed to say exactly the opposite of what noiselab was thinking he said.

It wasn't naive. It was an insult. I am an unprofessional unworthy of commenting on what I think is professional and can't read. greynol moderated this entire thread like a hack. The italics on the word won't (which you left out while quoting me) should have been the clue that I was to be understood as calling him a hack in a clever way.

I appreciate your handy clue though.  Edit @noiselab: I'm still not seeing his credentials as an "audio engineer of academic merit." Sounds like the guy's a helluva programmer though. (Seriously...)
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: noiselab on 2013-02-27 13:24:41
To the first - I'm not really fussed about credentials to begin with, so I shouldn't have mentioned that part, sorry (Or is audio programming not considered audio engineering? oops). I meant to emphasize reasoned explanations, which I'm having a hard time finding from you or the label on why a cd source matters for vinyl.

You think the cd-r format, and anyhting less than 24/48, is unprofessional and odd, why? You think CD-sourced vinyls would shock people, and that it matters to you and label, why?
Only sensible answer I can think of is loss in audio quality. So cd vs vinyl seems pretty relevant. Or you're being arbitrary, which is self-defeating.

To the second - Those reasons do not include vinyl. Read it again, please with no selective reading lol ...and special emphasis on "no loss in sound quality, at least any that's of audible substance."
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-27 13:58:34
...
You think the cd-r format, and anyhting less than 24/48, is unprofessional and odd, why?...Only sensible answer I can think of is loss in audio quality. So cd vs vinyl seems pretty relevant. Or you're being arbitrary, which is self-defeating.

To the second - Those reasons do not include vinyl. Read it again, please with no selective reading lol ...and special emphasis on "no loss in sound quality, at least any that's of audible substance."


"It's true that 16 bit linear PCM audio does not quite cover the entire theoretical dynamic range of the human ear in ideal conditions. Also, there are (and always will be) reasons to use more than 16 bits in recording and production.

None of that is relevant to playback..."

The person you wanted me to read gave a very good reason to not produce a non-Redbook playback format from a source that he admits is less than ideal for production. Cutting records is not playback. ...and there's no reason not to use the theoretical best that you can.

If you want to start a topic about CD vs. Vinyl be my guest. This one has already been OT-crapped in enough. I'm tired of more than this and going to sleep. It's not you...you're just late to the party and it's already been crashed and turned into a huge drama fest. If you want to argue now I'm just going to say you're absolutely right tomorrow and move on. I've pretty much had it with one person in particular and judging by correspondence outside the thread, I can rest assured I"m not alone. That's not you and I apologize that you caught the tail-end of it.

Just start a new thread or something please.

Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2013-02-27 14:21:37
The reasons for using more than 16-bits during production do not apply to cutting vinyl.

24-bit production is to 16-bit digital release what 16-bit master is to vinyl release: more than sufficient quality headroom.

There would be no harm in using more though, and as I've mentioned already, there would be circumstances when "more" (bits or Hz) would be detectable in the final output (though not necessarily using human ears as the detector).

To clarify: 16-bits really us more than enough to master vinyl, but optimal 16-bits usually uses noise shaping, and that noise shaped around 20kHz might be visible on a spectrogram of vinyl replay. You could avoid that either by not using noise shaping (result would still be better than vinyl = noise floor would be quieter than vinyl), or by staying at 20 or 24-bits. No audible differences any which way IMO; YMMV

Cheers,
David.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: frozenspeed on 2013-02-27 15:11:07
Who cares what the vessel looks like, in this case it's the bits inside that counts.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-02-27 15:22:41
"This actually happens all the time" is a pretty sweeping statement and I called bullshit. You can +1 Google-style all day long but until someone can back such a statement up it remains in the realm of bullshit from someone who said it always happens as if they know.


In the above sentence we see "This actually happens all the time"  (in US English idiom meaning it happens very often) transmorgified into "it always happens". Sorry for speaking in my native idiom, what you interpreted is not what I meant to say.

Quote
I reasonably asked for any credible indication that this is true in the face of what little I have from just one record co. that claims otherwise.


I explained to you why its hard to do better, and after watching this thread spin on for a while, I see that as expected nobody can do better because its simply that difficult to find out.

BTW your record company is hardly a household name while the record company that was paying the bills for much of the work I related was Motown.

Quote
Nobody has even attempted to back it up. ...until such time as one can reasonably demonstrate this then bullshit it is.


Until you've done better yourself, then you are indicting yourself.

BTW, the technical statements you misrepresented as just my personal opinions are easily backed up  with referreed papers in the IEEE and AES transaction. Or, just get your hands dirty and transcribe any of the goodly number of test LPs that are available onto digital and measure the capabilities of the format for yourself. Just guessing, but I suspect that doing the lab work or even just interpreting the technical papers would be well beyond your competence with audio technology, as basic chores as they are.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-02-27 15:27:17
The reasons for using more than 16-bits during production do not apply to cutting vinyl.

24-bit production is to 16-bit digital release what 16-bit master is to vinyl release: more than sufficient quality headroom.


16 bit digital is to the analog signal coming off of the mixing console what 24 bits is to 16: more than sufficient headroom.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-02-27 15:43:46
"This actually happens all the time" is a pretty sweeping statement and I called bullshit.


Call it what you will.

It is clear that you have even less reliable information to share than we have.


Again, sir I beseech thee: Where. Is. Your. Information?!


It is in my post.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: krabapple on 2013-02-27 19:18:10
Shut it down then. Once again: I got nothing but snark from any of these people who you say possess a great deal of knowledge about this topic. In fact, they contributed nothing to demonstrate that pressing vinyl from CD-R is a standard practice in the industry...which is fine.



Is cutting vinyl from a Redbook-limited master (including CD-R) ever done?  I'm sure it is.  Is it 'a standard practice'?  I don't know.  Do I care?  Should anyone?  Nope, or a least, not because it's *Redbook*.  A digital master (Redbook included) will be a technically superior source (in terms of even frequency response, available dynamic range, pitch stability, low distortion, within the audible band) than analog tape ever could be.  So it's not an automatic  'fail', as you rather dramatically suggest it is in your thread title.

If the master (of any kind -- analog or digital) has been burdened with bad recording or bad production or bad mastering, that's the fault of the people involved, not the format.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: krabapple on 2013-02-27 19:21:43
The reasons for using more than 16-bits during production do not apply to cutting vinyl.

24-bit production is to 16-bit digital release what 16-bit master is to vinyl release: more than sufficient quality headroom.

There would be no harm in using more though, and as I've mentioned already, there would be circumstances when "more" (bits or Hz) would be detectable in the final output (though not necessarily using human ears as the detector).

To clarify: 16-bits really us more than enough to master vinyl, but optimal 16-bits usually uses noise shaping, and that noise shaped around 20kHz might be visible on a spectrogram of vinyl replay. You could avoid that either by not using noise shaping (result would still be better than vinyl = noise floor would be quieter than vinyl), or by staying at 20 or 24-bits. No audible differences any which way IMO; YMMV

Cheers,
David.



Monty notes in http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml (http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml),  than analog tape has at best 13-bit performance, and that's including noise reduction.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-27 22:06:19
"This actually happens all the time" is a pretty sweeping statement and I called bullshit. You can +1 Google-style all day long but until someone can back such a statement up it remains in the realm of bullshit from someone who said it always happens as if they know.


In the above sentence we see "This actually happens all the time"  (in US English idiom meaning it happens very often) transmorgified into "it always happens". Sorry for speaking in my native idiom, what you interpreted is not what I meant to say.

...
Just guessing, but I suspect that doing the lab work or even just interpreting the technical papers would be well beyond your competence with audio technology, as basic chores as they are.


Regarding "this happens all the time:" that's strange what you're doing now...it wasn't even you that said it but now you're owning it as your own words? To give me a lesson in my native language??  Even if it happens most of the time or a lot of the time or much of the time it seems at odds with the only things presented here from modern record companies. That's pretty sparse thus far, but I quoted one and so did Kees de Visser.

"...nobody can do better because its simply that difficult to find out." (Now that you said.) That's a glaring contrast to "This happens all the time" whether the phrase is idiomatic or not. ...or is my English failing me again?

When Porcus calmly asked a moderator to explain his statement that "AFAIC, opinions about what constitutes professionalism from a non-professional should be dismissed." ...he was dismissed with a professional "YAWN." It's already evident that two of you can not be troubled to have a conversation with the little people here but this is the best one yet:

"...just interpreting the technical papers would be well beyond your competence with audio technology, as basic chores as they are." ...arrogance is one thing. My only response to this (since it's going unmoderated as well) is you can take your past psychoanalysis, present English-lesson, and this little morsel here and shove them. You must be a sad little man if you think you know people based on some internet comments. If I were to sit and pretend I know who you are and what you're capable of I'd first ask you if you even went outside yet today.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-27 22:09:04
A digital master (Redbook included) will be a technically superior source (in terms of even frequency response, available dynamic range, pitch stability, low distortion, within the audible band) than analog tape ever could be.

Have you ever heard any claims that vinyl now sounds better than it ever has thanks to hi-res digital masters?
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-27 22:23:14
Even if it happens most of the time or a lot of the time or much of the time

It only has to happen regularly.

it seems at odds with the only things presented here from modern record companies.

Ahem, things?!?  Somehow examples given by David don't count?  Please realize that some of them even rise above the level of anecdote.

When Porcus calmly asked a moderator to explain his statement that "AFAIC, opinions about what constitutes professionalism from a non-professional should be dismissed."

First, he didn't ask me to explain anything.  Second, calmly?  How can you divine such a thing?  Was it because he told me to "C'mon"?  No, he chose to ask me if my statement should be taken out of the context of this discussion.  I chose to ignore his off-topic troll-bait.

Look, there hasn't been one active person in this discussion to agree with you on just about anything having to do with your outrage that vinyl may have been pressed from redbook.  I suggest you cut your losses now.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2013-02-27 22:50:39
Even if it happens most of the time or a lot of the time or much of the time

It only has to happen regularly.

it seems at odds with the only things presented here from modern record companies.

Ahem, things?!?  Somehow examples given by David don't count?

When Porcus calmly asked a moderator to explain his statement that "AFAIC, opinions about what constitutes professionalism from a non-professional should be dismissed."

First, he didn't ask me to explain anything.  Second, calmly?  How can you divine such a thing?  Was it because he told me to "C'mon"?  No, he chose to ask me if my statement should be taken out of the context of this discussion.  I chose to ignore his off-topic troll-bait.

Look, there hasn't been one active person in this discussion to agree with you on just about anything.  I suggest you cut your losses now.


It can't even be said that it happens regularly.

Yes, things. Kees de Visser's example was a thing as well. The example of the Beatles was 24/44.1...that is not by definition Redbook. Golly gee, I wish you'd just be honest in your responses because I know you knew that.

"...taken out of the context of this discussion." What was the context then? You're seemingly incapable of ignoring a legitimate question unless it's "ignore through condescension."

By "one active person" you must mean people who will take the time to return to this mess of insults presided over by yourself. I count at least three who tried to add productively to my side of the issue. David, who disagrees, in my opinion has tried as well without resulting to childishness, arrogance, and insult.

I suggested that you step down since you can't act like a moderator, moderate insults, or stop with your petty grudges against certain members who've crossed you in the past. That's not going to happen though due to your ego and refusal to just say "I'm sorry for insulting you instead of moderating" (unless you're amending a comment long after you've made it in an attempt to cover yourself over insults. That's not a conspiracy; anyone can go back in the thread and see it along with your edits of almost everything for whatever reason.)

If by "cutting your losses" you also mean not answering one more word of Kruger's or your condescending, arrogant, and insulting shit in this thread consider it as of now done. I know you really mean you don't want me to reply to this thread any further. Done.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-02-27 23:07:39
Monty notes in http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml (http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml),  than analog tape has at best 13-bit performance, and that's including noise reduction.


Maybe yes, maybe no.

I'm under the impression that the latest technology high speed wide track analog tape without noise reduction can achieve approximately 11 or 12 bit performance (66-72 dB). Dolby SR noise reduction is claimed to improve that by 25 dB for a total of 91 to 97 dB. That corresponds to 15-16 bits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_SR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_SR)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reel-to-reel_..._tape_recording (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reel-to-reel_audio_tape_recording)

"In the late 70s there was also the German Telefunken-made HighCom NR system, a broadband compander, which was technically very advanced and reached a signal-to-noise ratio in the range of a CD (approximately 100 dB)."
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-27 23:52:02
Look, there hasn't been one active person in this discussion to agree with you on just about anything.

I edited that long before you made your reply, perhaps only a minute or so after my initial post.

It reads:
Quote
Lookm there hasn't been one active person in this discussion to agree with you on just about anything having to do with your outrage that vinyl may have been pressed from redbook.

...and it still is 100% true.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-27 23:58:33
Anything else being argued (the game is rigged, the moderator is a cheat, people are being mean to me) are all diversions of the real issue at hand: this entire thread stemmed from the religious belief that redbook isn't good enough to source vinyl.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-02-28 00:00:02
"...just interpreting the technical papers would be well beyond your competence with audio technology, as basic chores as they are." ...arrogance is one thing. My only response to this (since it's going unmoderated as well) is you can take your past psychoanalysis, present English-lesson, and this little morsel here and shove them. You must be a sad little man if you think you know people based on some internet comments. If I were to sit and pretend I know who you are and what you're capable of I'd first ask you if you even went outside yet today.


Out of context quote followed by an attempt at a diversion from the issue at hand.

What I actually wrote is:

"Just guessing, but I suspect that doing the lab work or even just interpreting the technical papers would be well beyond your competence with audio technology, as basic chores as they are."

Operative words being guessing and suspect

The anger that was tapped by mere guessing and suspicion pretty much answers any questions I may have had.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: greynol on 2013-02-28 00:03:52
Out of context quote followed by an attempt at a diversion from the issue at hand.

I see I'm not the only one noticing a pattern.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-02-28 00:29:19
It reads:
Quote
Lookm there hasn't been one active person in this discussion to agree with you on just about anything having to do with your outrage that vinyl may have been pressed from redbook.

...and it still is 100% true.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_mastering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_mastering)

"From the 1950s until the advent of digital recording in the late 1970s...."

The format of the recordings used for digital mastering in those days ranged from 44/16 to 50/16.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_recording (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_recording)

"In 1978, Sound 80 Records of Minneapolis records "Flim and the BB's" (S80-DLR-102) directly to digital before pressing the vinyl LP. The mastering engineer is Bob Berglund. The recording system is a 3M Digital Audio Mastering System."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundstream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundstream)

"
Soundstream Technical Specifications
Frequency Response   Flat from 0 Hz to 21 kHz
Total Harmonic Distortion   Less than 0.004% at 0VU
Signal-to-Noise Ratio   Better than 90dB RMS, Unweighted
Dynamic Range   Better than 90dB RMS, Unweighted
Crosstalk   Less than -85dB
Sampling Rate   50,000 per second
Digital Format   16 bits linear encoding / decoding
"

http://www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf (http://www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf)
'
Those were the final specs, commercial recordings were produced on earlier versions that used 37.5 and 42.5 KHz sampling

Mitsubishi Pro-Digi X-80 used in Japan for LP mastering was based on a 50.4 KHz sampling rate

http://mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fam...8-EM-Mastering/ (http://mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1978-EM-Mastering/)

The 3M Digital mastering system was 16-bit, 50 kHz audio, contingent on a critical manual adjustment that was often done incorrectly.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/7417193-post18.html (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/7417193-post18.html)
"regarding our GZ Vinyl processing methods: all source WAV/AIFF files, CD-Audio discs, DAT tapes or DDP files are carefully checked by our operators with a help of our dedicated vinyl mastering software."

http://www.duplication.ca/indexae.htm (http://www.duplication.ca/indexae.htm)
"
We can work from the following sources:

CD
Vinyl (playback on Linn LP12 turntable)
Audio cassette
Minidisc
1/4" half-track reel-to-reel tape at 15, 7.5, and 3.75 inches per second.
DAT
WAV, AIFF, MP3 and any almost other computer file (24-bit files preferred if processing required)
Vinyl Mastering

The ideal source today for vinyl is 24bit WAV or AIFF files at 44.1 or 48kHz sampling rate..."

http://productionadvice.co.uk/vinyl-mastering/ (http://productionadvice.co.uk/vinyl-mastering/)

"Regardless of what you may have been told, most vinyl these days is cut directly from a CD production master – and it’s been that way for years."

http://gottagrooverecords.com/faq/ (http://gottagrooverecords.com/faq/)

"f you are providing your audio master in a digital form, we prefer either 24 bit wav files (if uploaded via our website) or a data disc containing either wav files or (at the least) redbook format (16 bit) audio. "

http://www.alphavinylrecordpressinginc.com...-vinyl-records/ (http://www.alphavinylrecordpressinginc.com/index.php/frequently-asked-questions-about-vinyl-records/)

"It is common today to have masters on CD, we can cut off 24 bit data CDs (our preference) as well as 16 bit audio, these are most common."

etc.

Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: krabapple on 2013-02-28 16:33:24
Emil Berliner Studios has re-introduced vinyl mastering a few years ago.
One of the options is direct-to-disc vinyl, which seems to offer higher-than-redbook quality audio, at least in theory.
Looking at their analogue suite equipment, it seems also rather likely that hi-res audio is quite common. Plenty of DAW's and analog gear.

http://www.emil-berliner-studios.com/en/vinyl.html (http://www.emil-berliner-studios.com/en/vinyl.html)
http://berliner-meister-schallplatten.de/en/direct_to_disc (http://berliner-meister-schallplatten.de/en/direct_to_disc)



I'm not familiar with exactly what DTD offers in theory, but I see nothing on that site at that suggests 'higher-than-redbook' quality for their DTD vinyl. 

'Higher than redbook quality' would mean, to me, at minimum, a dynamic range better than ~96dB, a ruler-flat frequency response from 0 to beyond ~20 kHz, as well as the zero interchannel bleed, perfect pitch stability and ultra-low distortion offered by CDs

Their DTD vinyl products *might* have one of those, but all of them?
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: Cubist Castle on 2013-02-28 16:51:49
Emil Berliner Studios has re-introduced vinyl mastering a few years ago.
One of the options is direct-to-disc vinyl, which seems to offer higher-than-redbook quality audio, at least in theory.
Looking at their analogue suite equipment, it seems also rather likely that hi-res audio is quite common. Plenty of DAW's and analog gear.

http://www.emil-berliner-studios.com/en/vinyl.html (http://www.emil-berliner-studios.com/en/vinyl.html)
http://berliner-meister-schallplatten.de/en/direct_to_disc (http://berliner-meister-schallplatten.de/en/direct_to_disc)



I'm not familiar with exactly what DTD offers in theory, but I see nothing on that site at that suggests 'higher-than-redbook' quality for their DTD vinyl. 

'Higher than redbook quality' would mean, to me, at minimum, a dynamic range better than ~96dB, a ruler-flat frequency response from 0 to beyond ~20 kHz, as well as the zero interchannel bleed, perfect pitch stability and ultra-low distortion offered by CDs

Their DTD vinyl products *might* have one of those, but all of them?

The process before the vinyl should have be capable of all of those characteristics since there is no intermediate storage medium. The disc itself, yes, will not. I think the real advantage to this process is a musical one rather than a technical one - it's pretty fun going straight to two track with decent musicians when they have to give their all and can't rely on studio wizardry to "correct" the human performances.
Title: Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail
Post by: krabapple on 2013-02-28 17:02:59
The process before the vinyl should have be capable of all of those characteristics since there is no intermediate storage medium. The disc itself, yes, will not. I think the real advantage to this process is a musical one rather than a technical one - it's pretty fun going straight to two track with decent musicians when they have to give their all and can't rely on studio wizardry to "correct" the human performances.



But no one disputes that vinyl can be and has been cut from 'hi rez' masters .  The only dispute here, if any, is how often this happens, and whether this has any audible benefits when the rock is scraped over the plastic disc in the listener's home.


As for the excitement of direct to disc performance, well, for me it would depend *a lot* on who is doing the playing, and what the music is.  As a player myself, I'm not all that enamored of listening to live mistakes.  I make enough of them on my own, thanks