Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: An all-time low for mastering quality? (Read 103341 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #175 –
For giggles, I took the CD version and played with the phase (top is filtered, bottom is the original):
[attachment=8030:Free_The...filtered.jpg]

Zoomed-in (top is filtered, bottom is the original):
[attachment=8031:Free_The...d_zoomed.jpg]

I've made it available for download:
[attachment=8032:Free_The...filtered.flac]

I bet you can't ABX them, but you'll still believe they sound different in a sighted test, especially if you paid a premium for the filtered one expecting it to be more dynamic.

Here's a post by David from last April which I find quite fitting:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...mp;#entry863741

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #176 –
That's great. I'm surprised it never occurred to me to try that on a CD to try to recreate how a digitized record's waveform looks. It's even got that distinctive diagonal clipping.

I downloaded a VST plugin some time ago that is supposed to expand dynamic range (can't remember its name and I can't find it in my list so maybe I don't even have it anymore. It's not the Dominion one that somebody posted on this forum some time ago. That one actually does work, although it tends to cause some distortion) and when I cranked it up it sure did make the waveform look more dynamic, but when I'd save it and compare it with the original with the volume matched it would sound almost exactly the same. I suspect the biggest part of what it does is all-pass filter to let you think it's doing something. I think it was a free plugin so at least I wasn't ripped off. Maybe the author didn't realize it doesn't actually make it more dynamic and just believed the look of the wave after processing.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #177 –
I have some examples I just spent hours trying to find. uploading on the other thread started by Engelstaubb. I will try not to go crazy with it. Just looking for some theories as to why they sound so different. This example sounds almost the same. My own personal rips should be more close in sound, but only 1 out of 3 are mine so far, and that is the one I can't find any "proof" on. The CDs that are clipped but only by one sample at a time are the ones that are impossible. Maybe the CD is not so bad if it never makes a brick wall? IDK. I've been a purist for so long I don't even know what a good "compressed" CD sounds like. Examples of this are any Radiohead CD past Kid A(2000)...

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...mp;#entry875557
end the LOUDNESS war... please?

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #178 –
Madness.



An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #179 –
I'm trying to figure out what Greynol's mission is.

To prove that modern, DR4 dB CD's are just fine, the acme of music replay?

To prove that analogue audio, and vinyl in particular, is just shit?

What?

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #180 –
My mission is simply to inform you and the general public that the evidence you provided completely fails to support your assertion that the master used to source the vinyl was different than that used to source the CD.  Rather, your data strongly suggests that the master used to source the CD and the vinyl were one in the same.

Quote from: Skweek on
Madness.

Indeed!

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #181 –
Quote from: greynol on
My mission is simply to inform you and the general public that the evidence you provided completely fails to support your assertion that the master used to source the vinyl was different than that used to source the CD.  Rather, your data strongly suggests that the master used to source the CD and the vinyl were one in the same.


And you believe you've proved this?


WTF-ever.


You seem to be utterly sanguine about the abuse of the "red-book music carrier" (and its offspring).


I perceive you as someone who is neither moved by nor interested in music, but rather someone who worships at the alter of "technology" for its own sake.


An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #182 –
The burden of proof falls on you to support your claim that the two versions came from a different master with real evidence.  So far you've been unable to do so and based on what you've offered you probably never will.

Please re-read this discussion and the links in this post in another discussion about the same general subject:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...mp;#entry875628

You may also want to inquire about how expectation bias affects the way humans perceive what they hear.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #183 –
Quote from: greynol on
The burden of proof falls on you to support your claim that the two versions came from a different master with real evidence.  So far you've been unable to do so and based on what you've offered you will probably never will.

Please re-read the discussion and the links in this post:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...mp;#entry875628

You may also want to inquire about how expectation bias affects the human auditory system.



You are, in your own mind, a genius.
 

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #184 –
Not really, no.  There are plenty of people who understand how to draw the correct conclusion.  You just don't seem to be one of them, which is OK, I guess.

I don't think this really has anything to do with an inability to learn; rather, I think you're selling yourself short by being unwilling, which is sad.

If it is the latter, then I'd say you're done here.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #185 –
Quote from: greynol on
Not really, no.  There are plenty of people who understand how to draw the correct conclusion.  You just don't seem to be one of them, which is OK, I guess.

I don't think this really has anything to do with an inability to learn; rather, I think you're selling yourself short by being unwilling, which is sad.

If it is the latter, then I'd say you're done here.


No.

The "correct conclusion" would seem to be that you have no liking, let alone love of music, and that you are a vindictive zealot.

Am I done?

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #186 –
Dude, he did present extremely strong evidence you were wrong. It's not going out on a limb to call it proof, in fact. The record has clipping where the CD has clipping, it's just been misshapen by the various transformations that must happen when pressing and recording a record, though it is still distinguishable through all that (kind of impressive, actually. Vinyl is at least accurate enough that clipped peaks don't become undetectable even through all that cutting, stamping, playing, and recording). I downloaded the clips he cut out of your example and they sound even more similar than I'd expected them to. No extra anything in the vinyl but noise. He even showed how all-passing the CD creates a very similar-looking waveform. If you don't understand how he showed you to be wrong, he linked to other posts that explain even further. If you're reacting that way because of his jibes at your hyperbole that is now known to have been wrong, say that. Don't say he's wrong. Don't say he worships at the altar of technology instead of enjoying music. That's just stupid. He certainly shouldn't get more enjoyment out of your recording of the vinyl because a bit of extra noise isn't really that exciting.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #188 –
One thing i often read like above is how people love and enjoy music because of its vinyl handling, making big efforts of keeping it alive and maybe invest tons of pointless time in doing a halfway decent digital recording of it.
Sorry when to me that simply prooves people love theirself playing with the vinyl toy and their gear. This is absolutely no sign of loving the music itself. More the other way around. When i like music i simply press play as often i like
Insulting greynol for not liking or loving music is at least strange. He moderates in a forum dedicated to audio science and did a superb job.
You may better join a manga forum and get excited about super powers.

btw. glad to see you back in business greynol!!
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #189 –
Quote from: Skweek on
Quote from: _if on
Dude, he did present extremely strong evidence you were wrong. .....


Oh.

OK.

Problem with what I said?

EDIT: Oops, I have a problem with what I said. He didn't link to the other informative posts in this thread, it was here. Apologies, got the two threads mixed up in my mind. Wouldn't blame you if you didn't see that.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #190 –
Quote from: _if on
Dude, he did present extremely strong evidence you were wrong. It's not going out on a limb to call it proof, in fact. The record has clipping where the CD has clipping, it's just been misshapen by the various transformations that must happen when pressing and recording a record, though it is still distinguishable through all that (kind of impressive, actually. Vinyl is at least accurate enough that clipped peaks don't become undetectable even through all that cutting, stamping, playing, and recording). I downloaded the clips he cut out of your example and they sound even more similar than I'd expected them to. No extra anything in the vinyl but noise. He even showed how all-passing the CD creates a very similar-looking waveform. If you don't understand how he showed you to be wrong, he linked to other posts that explain even further. If you're reacting that way because of his jibes at your hyperbole that is now known to have been wrong, say that. Don't say he's wrong. Don't say he worships at the altar of technology instead of enjoying music. That's just stupid. He certainly shouldn't get more enjoyment out of your recording of the vinyl because a bit of extra noise isn't really that exciting.


OK;

all we need to do to make the DR4 CD of "1000 Forms ..." BLAST out of our speakers in all its dramatic glory - the bass-guitar lines, the tom-toms, the marimbas - is to apply Greynol's patented filtering to it!

Yay!

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #191 –
He didn't claim to improve the sound quality at all. He didn't make any claims about sound quality except the implication that the vinyl does not sound better than the CD. You're mischaracterizing him as claiming the opposite of what he's claiming.

EQ might make it sound better. Often people think their recordings of records sound better even though the master is the same as the CD, probably because they like the sound of their cartridge, which functions effectively as an EQ. It might boost bass and treble and therefore sound different, even clearly better (subjectively) due to that, not because of an inherent higher fidelity. I'll say though that I was surprised that at least the clip of your recording didn't sound that different from the CD. That's actually a good thing from an objective standpoint.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #192 –
Greynol, when are you going to make this "filter" of yours available as a plugin for FB2K et al?

Then we can all stop fretting about our DR4 CD's and be happy ever after!

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #193 –
Quote from: _if on
He didn't claim to improve the sound quality at all. He didn't make any claims about sound quality except the implication that the vinyl does not sound better than the CD. You're mischaracterizing him as claiming the opposite of what he's claiming.

EQ might make it sound better. Often people think their recordings of records sound better even though the master is the same as the CD, probably because they like the sound of their cartridge, which functions effectively as an EQ. It might boost bass and treble and therefore sound different, even clearly better (subjectively) due to that, not because of an inherent higher fidelity. I'll say though that I was surprised that at least the clip of your recording didn't sound that different from the CD. That's actually a good thing from an objective standpoint.


FFS.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #194 –
You can find a similar "placebo filter" as a VST plugin in one of the links in this post, which I gave you earlier.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #196 –
Quote from: Skweek on
Quote from: _if on
He didn't claim to improve the sound quality at all. He didn't make any claims about sound quality except the implication that the vinyl does not sound better than the CD. You're mischaracterizing him as claiming the opposite of what he's claiming.

EQ might make it sound better. Often people think their recordings of records sound better even though the master is the same as the CD, probably because they like the sound of their cartridge, which functions effectively as an EQ. It might boost bass and treble and therefore sound different, even clearly better (subjectively) due to that, not because of an inherent higher fidelity. I'll say though that I was surprised that at least the clip of your recording didn't sound that different from the CD. That's actually a good thing from an objective standpoint.


FFS.

I'm genuinely confused as to what you find so intellectually offensive about what I say. Can you explain where you see me going wrong?

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #197 –
Quote from: Skweek on
No.

The "correct conclusion" would seem to be that you have no liking, let alone love of music, and that you are a vindictive zealot.



Um...no.  That's really a quite bizarre nonsequitur you've composed there.

The correct conclusion is that 'while it's certainly possible for a CD mastering to be separate from and more compressed than a vinyl mastering of the same recording, Skweek's example does not necessarily demonstrate that'

Quote
Am I done?


I don't know.  Do you understand yet?

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #198 –
Quote from: Wombat on
One thing i often read like above is how people love and enjoy music because of its vinyl handling, making big efforts of keeping it alive and maybe invest tons of pointless time in doing a halfway decent digital recording of it.

As an ex vinyl user, I can understand the first part very well. There is a ritual associated with using vinyl that adds to the entire experience. Plus, the engineering in things like turntables is there to be seen for itself and at work. I gave up when the ritual became more hassle and less fun to me.
What I can't understand is making digital recordings from it - unless of rare/hard to find music of the same mastered quality. For all else what's the point in listening to usually suboptimal sound without the ritual that makes the experience?

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #199 –
Quote from: _if on
Quote from: Skweek on
Quote from: _if on
He didn't claim to improve the sound quality at all. He didn't make any claims about sound quality except the implication that the vinyl does not sound better than the CD. You're mischaracterizing him as claiming the opposite of what he's claiming.

EQ might make it sound better. Often people think their recordings of records sound better even though the master is the same as the CD, probably because they like the sound of their cartridge, which functions effectively as an EQ. It might boost bass and treble and therefore sound different, even clearly better (subjectively) due to that, not because of an inherent higher fidelity. I'll say though that I was surprised that at least the clip of your recording didn't sound that different from the CD. That's actually a good thing from an objective standpoint.


FFS.

I'm genuinely confused as to what you find so intellectually offensive about what I say. Can you explain where you see me going wrong?

There's nothing of that sort. All it is is that Greynol pissed him off by saying something he can't refute and in a way he doesn't like, and you are either with Greynol or against Greynol. It's literally a matter of picking sides, like on a playground.


Quote from: KumarK on
Quote from: Wombat on
One thing i often read like above is how people love and enjoy music because of its vinyl handling, making big efforts of keeping it alive and maybe invest tons of pointless time in doing a halfway decent digital recording of it.

As an ex vinyl user, I can understand the first part very well. There is a ritual associated with using vinyl that adds to the entire experience. Plus, the engineering in things like turntables is there to be seen for itself and at work. I gave up when the ritual became more hassle and less fun to me.
What I can't understand is making digital recordings from it - unless of rare/hard to find music of the same mastered quality. For all else what's the point in listening to usually suboptimal sound without the ritual that makes the experience?

I don't have any problems with people who like the ritual. I've seen and heard of many weirder, and more destructive things. The problem is when a person that likes vinyl won't face reality. For example, they'd think that vinyl is just superior to digital in basically every single way that counts. OH EM GEE STAIR CASE STEPZ. That annoys me. And then people might be tempted to brand me as a hater. Well, I don't hate the hobby or the ritual, I hate denial of reality...