[Edoardo]

 
Quote:

Whatever format the recording is being releasing on, the pre-master created by the producer still needs mastering, which includes compression, EQ and various other processes. The point of mastering is to alter the original mix so that it sounds good on a variety of consumer equipment, rather than sounding good just in the studio in which it was produced.

G

 
Well there are several "schools". Those who compress and eq real-time in the analog domain and then send the mix directly to a stereo ADC, and those who pass every track directly to a multichannel ADC and then mix, glue, paste, add reverb, choruses, whatever, and then compress and put into stereo, everything digitally.
So I don't know what you mean with "original mix": one thing is to heavily compress digital tracks which may have been recorded indeed in different towns or countries for summing them up realistically, another thing is summing/mixing several channels into stereo, and then converting the signal into digital, without making any big change afterwards.
 
"rather than in the studio"... It depends what's the producer target. If he wants to make the recording sound as better as possible, he will mix it as better as possible in his studio, period... I doubt DG engineers' mix timeless masterpieces thinking about how crappy Mr Smith's rig is. Or audiophilia would not exist. I don't see the point.
Conversely, it's Mr Smith's speakers to be, most of the time, built with the intention of making sound decently anything sort of crap Mr Smith could play with them, without, of course, caring about the positioning of the speakers themselves which is also very important.
 
P.S. anyway a couple of active multiamplified monitor speakers such as Genelec or K+O, actually used by those engineers, cost less than many systems seen here on head-fi...
 
 

 

[Elysian]

Just to briefly interrupt the technical conversation, I wanted to post this clip from Scratch which plays to a completely different strength of vinyl.  There are probably easily tens of thousands of records which will never see an official digital release, and one of the things I enjoyed most about vinyl was digging.
 
I posted this in the other vinyl thread but thought it might be interesting to share here too.
 

 

[Chris J]

 
Let's not forget that vinyl can hypothetically let you hear an old analog recording in analog format without it ever passing thru a digital intermediary stage, for the example, the Blue Note Music Matters series. For better or worse, that stuff was recorded in analog and it's too late to go back and re-record it in digital.
 
Edit:  if I may paraphrase Stirling1 who started this thread:  "what's the point of buying new vinyl?" 
one Answer might be: an attempt to get old analog recordings in the purest analog form.

 

[gregorio]

Well there are several "schools". Those who compress and eq real-time in the analog domain and then send the mix directly to a stereo ADC, and those who pass every track directly to an ADC and then mix, glue and paste digitally. So I don't know what you mean with "original mix", by the way one thing is to heavily compress digital tracks which may have been recorded indeed in different towns or countries for summing them up realistically, another thing is summing/mixing several channels into stereo before converting the recording into digital.
 
"rather than in the studio"... It depends what's the producer target. If he wants to make the recording sound as better as possible, he will mix it as better as possible in his studio, period... I doubt DG engineers' mix timeless masterpieces thinking about how crappy Mr Smith's rig is. Or audiophilia would not exist. I don't see the point.
 
P.S. anyway a couple of active multiamplified monitor speakers such as Genelec or K+O, actually used by those engineers, cost less than many systems seen here on head-fi.

You don't seem to really understand the process of making a recording. You are correct that DG engineers don't mix masterpieces with crappy Mr. Smith's rig in mind. After the record is mixed my the mix engineers and producer, the result is a pre-master. This pre-master is sent to a mastering engineer. The mastering engineer, during the mastering process is where Mr. Smith's crappy rig is taken into account. Whether EQ or compression is carried out pre or post tracking is irrelevant to the process of mastering, which includes more EQ and compression.

The quality of speakers and acoustics in mastering studios is the reference standard for the world of professional audio. I doubt there are any audiophiles in the world, even the crazy rich ones, who have rooms to compare with the best mastering facilities.

Again, you have completely misunderstood professional monitoring systems. In my studio I have a Genelec monitoring system, about $20,000 worth. Yes, there are far more expensive audiophile monitors out there, but for a professional, the monitors are only a part of the picture. I've spent many times more than the cost of the monitors on the acoustic environment in which they are placed. My Genelecs in their custom made acoustic environment will out perform any audiophile (or professional) speakers on the planet in an average sitting room (even with a bit of damping or sound treatment). With high quality speakers, room acoustics are the defining feature of performance not the price!!

G

 

[Edoardo]

 
Quote:

1. You don't seem to really understand the process of making a recording. You are correct that DG engineers don't mix masterpieces with crappy Mr. Smith's rig in mind. After the record is mixed my the mix engineers and producer, the result is a pre-master. This pre-master is sent to a mastering engineer. The mastering engineer, during the mastering process is where Mr. Smith's crappy rig is taken into account. Whether EQ or compression is carried out pre or post tracking is irrelevant to the process of mastering, which includes more EQ and compression.

2. The quality of speakers and acoustics in mastering studios is the reference standard for the world of professional audio. I doubt there are any audiophiles in the world, even the crazy rich ones, who have rooms to compare with the best mastering facilities.

3. Again, you have completely misunderstood professional monitoring systems. In my studio I have a Genelec monitoring system, about $20,000 worth. Yes, there are far more expensive audiophile monitors out there, but for a professional, the monitors are only a part of the picture. I've spent many times more than the cost of the monitors on the acoustic environment in which they are placed. My Genelecs in their custom made acoustic environment will out perform any audiophile (or professional) speakers on the planet in an average sitting room (even with a bit of damping or sound treatment).  4. With high quality speakers, room acoustics are the defining feature of performance not the price!!

G

1. What kind of music do you produce???
 
2. Of course not a whole mastering facility, but I actually do know few who have switched to active multiamped speakers.
 
3. Can I ask you the model???
 
4. I haven't misuderstood about monitoring. I'm completely aware of it and completely agree with you.
 

 

[mrspeakers]

Quote:

The LSB should have nothing much in it except for random noise. It's all a bit irrelevant though as the noise floor of even the most dynamic recording is going to be at least 30 times higher than the digital noise floor.

G

Which is why I said lab(s).  With some devices the bottom 4 or even 6 lowest bits are not accurate.
 

 

[gregorio]

Which is why I said lab(s).  With some devices the bottom 4 or even 6 lowest bits are not accurate.

I think we agree, it's just a difference of terminology. The lowest bits are just as accurate as the higher bits but in practice all they contain is the recording noise floor.

G