miziq
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2001
- Posts
- 384
- Likes
- 12
My fellow headphone pals. For my local audiophile magazine i manage to get interview with Bob Katz. Please mind that those questions are mixmatched and nothing is edited. I did transledted to our language and change the orders etc. But i dont have time to corect them in english. Sorry for that, but i thougth it would be big loss if i didnt share this with you. I wouldnt give that out on no other place. Its all of you that i love and rescpect.
I hope you all enjoy the interview and find a lot of great stuff in it. Any commnets welcome.
Yours Miziq.
Dear Bob,
Here comes the questions. If you feel that there is to many of them
just
left out what you think its not important. Its rare oportunity to speak with
such a prominent person so i pumped down a lots of them. On other hand if
you feel that something should be added or discussed please write whatever
you think its should be. Make us lough and cry please
Hi, Matej. I'll try to make you laugh and cry, but maybe I don't have enough time for that
Thank you in adavance.
Questions...
How is your history and how did you start with mastering job (from start to
present... )?
I was always an audiophile and an equipment fanatic as well as a musician. I owned my first tape recorder at the age of 7, and in 1956 that was very early!
When I entered college, I started doing recording for the radio station of the school. I began as a recording engineer doing direct to two-track recording of many different types of groups. I would dare to record rock music and mix it direct to my Revox, music which most people would only dare to mix after the fact. So I became very good at knowing how to make it sound right without fooling around for hours with a mixing console after the fact. And I have always kept that ear. Then, faced with only a 2-track tape and perhaps some problems (maybe I mixed the bass too loud) I learned how to use an equalizer and other processors to make my 2-tracks sound as good as they could. This is the essence of mastering, so even before I became a mastering engineer I was mastering.
Do you consider yourself as audiophile ?
Yes. Absolutely. But a very rational audiophile. If I discover a tweak that makes the sound better, I want to learn why, and if that tweak seems to defy science, I try to discover why before I endorse it. This has resulted in lots of research on jitter and many of the poor conclusions that audiophiles have reached about it. For example, one audiophile magazine raved at a D/A converter's ability to "reveal" differences in digital cables. Which is so wrong... if a D/A converter sounds different with different digital cables, then it is defective. Unfortunately, too many converters are therefore defective
I am an audiophile and have always been one. I think the best mastering engineers are audiophiles at heart. But the best mastering engineers know how to listen better than many audiophiles. I appreciate the sense of depth and space that a good reproduction system can give. But for me (and for every good mastering engineer), tonal BALANCE has to come first ALWAYS. If the sound is not tonally balanced, then it cannot be good. There are audiophiles who will go crazy over how "detailed" or "transparent" a recording sounds, but if its tone is too bright or too thin or too bassy, then it is fundamentally flawed. Who should care if a recording has a great "soundstage" if the trumpets are screeching in your face?
With new standards coming out past few years (SACD, DVD-audio) do you think
that digital format is finnaly coming into his breakout ?
If you mean "digital" recording finally sounds better than "analog", then digital has already won out. I made over 150 44.1 kHz recordings on Chesky Records for compact disc using very customized PCM and analog equipment---whose sound (in stereo) rivals the best SACDs and DVD-audios made today. The real key is attention to detail. So for me, digital format has already broken out and others are just catching up. I recorded the very first 24 bit/96 kHz DVD years before others caught up.
The future is going to be surround sound, and it is kind of sad that people may forget that it is possible to capture great depth and space with proper use of stereo. Listen to some of my recordings on Chesky to see what I mean. But I look forward to the surround future, provided that mixing engineers learn how to use surround as more than just multichannel mono...
How is with the 192 khz recordings. Does so much information moves as closer
to the original recordings. And with more bits there probably more problems
accouring (jitter etc)?
I have not had enough experience with 192 kHz to say. I like the results I'm getting at 96 K, and in my book I make a convincing argument that it is the converter design that counts far more than the sample rate. We have always known that a well-designed 44.1 kHz converter sounds much better than a mediocre 96 kHz model. And this has always been true. I believe that a good designer will be able to make a 96K converter that sounds as good as anything at a higher rate. But designers are getting lazy, and it is cheaper and easier to get a good sound at a higher rate because the filters are less complex and easier to design. There is nothing magic about the higher rates; it's not the higher frequencies that we're hearing, but rather, more linear performance from 20-20 kHz! Keep that in mind... We really should be labelling converters by their resolution, not by their sample rate.
Do you think that sorrund has the place in audiophile watters ?
I think that surround is the future. Even my best stereo recordings suffer without the surround portion and come more alive when the space is expanded to around you. However, I have invented a very natural stereo to surround processor (available from Z Systems) that can take a well-recorded stereo recording that already has good space, and reproduce it in surround indistinguishable from if the recording had been made in surround already. This, of course, for recordings that do not have discrete instruments in the surrounds. By the way, I am a big fan of localization and too many surround recordings are making the front picture too vague for my tastes, in order to impress the casual listener.
There is still so much lp's lovers and most of them still dont find
satisfaction in new digital media. With lp's there is always some mystic or
magic around. What is you opnion on this ?
I have many LPs recorded in the 60's and 70's that sound much better than many CDs made today. But this is a matter of the quality of the technology and the recording techniques used. So many CDs made today have been ruined by overprocessing it's no wonder the old LPs sound better than most. But I have in my mastering room and have made many many CDs that sound better than any LP that was ever made. It's a matter of having the right equipment and orientation.
How is with mastering vinyl lp's, is there still much releases coming out ?
I'm afraid not. Most of the LP mastering these days are dance singles for the clubs.
How can be audiophiles asured that the final mastering dont change the
original recorded material ?
How do we know that the final mastering can't improve the original recorded material? A purist attitude assumes that the original recording is already perfect. Of all the great recordings that have come to me for mastering, only a handful sounded better before the mastering. I have produced a demo CD of before and after and you can make the judgment yourself. Was the mastering better or did it make the sound worse? You decide.
I dont rember name but recall from some interview. It was famus
producer-mixer who said that mixing in 50-60's was so easy. You could hardly
go wrong with all thos tube boards. But when he first tuched solid state
mixers in 70s he almost cried. I heard that sombe big names in today music
industry said that working with daw (digital audio workstations) this days
is even hundred times harder ?
Yes. But for different reasons. The early solid-state devices were very poor and produced a type of distortion that was unpleasant to the ear. Since tubes saturate slowly, it is much easier to mix. It's actually a form of compression! But there are some excellent solid-state mixing consoles that sound very good, but because they are so "neutral" it is harder to mix than in the tube days, because the tubes' saturation helped to "fill in the holes". It's the same with analog tape; it helps to fill in the holes and it sounds better; but not because it is neutral, because IT IS EUPHONICALLY COLORED. There is nothing wrong with euphonic coloration as long as you know how to control it.
Now when it comes to digital mixing, we have similar problems with the distortion of early DSP processes adding an unpleasant edge to the sound. But there are some excellent DSP processes, they are just expensive. The very best digital mixing consoles can sound very good if you avoid using the digital equalizers and compressors that are built in to them because they still sound cheap. But this is changing as digital technology gets cheaper. As a plain mixer, with just level and panning, the best-built digital mixers can now sound fine with 48 bit digital processing dithered to 24. But no "holes" are being filled as it was in the analog days, so if a mix needs help you have to feed external analog compressors.
The other problem is ergonomics of control surfaces, but that has nothing to do with the sound, it's just tough to mix with a mouse!
Do you also feels that today music is too loud and too much compressed ? It
seems like kind of a race who is going to be louder and phater ?
Don't get me started! I've written thousands and thousands of words on the subject.
In process of mixing - mastering in analog domain it seems that a bit of
cliping is not a problem but with digital - software limiters it all up to
surgical precission ?
A very good, double-sampling digital limiter can take 2 or 3 dB off the peaks and be totally invisible. But only if it's used right. Most mastering engineers these days are abusing the process and making it sound worse in the name of "loudness" (see the thousands of words I've written on the topic).
Do you find most of today projects sounding to digital ?
Yes, for the many reasons we've already discussed.
Did you ever had a project - recording sounds so good that you barely
touched it ?
Yes. Once in a while. It's very refreshing. Or, whatever I try to do to help it makes it sound worse so I leave it alone!
How do you see new compression methods (mp3 aac). Apple just recently
started an online downloadble shop with over 200.000 songs. They said that
songs was put in AAC format directly from masters. Some enthusiasts are
saying that certain songs even sound better that commercial cds. How do you
see this and whole global internet digitalization ?
It has to be for the better. We have to adapt. I believe in the album, not the single, most times, and I hope there will be a place for it.
Sonically, if the AAC sounds better than today's CDs that's because they may have converted clean sources that weren't ruined by overcompression. But a good CD or DVD can and will sound better than an AAC if the source is good.
Do you find a must that artist are present at mastering ?
Not always. Most times I can work at a distance and a phone call and a reference CD do the job. Then I make the corrections the artist wants and we're ready to master.
What would you say that is your best mastering work of the project you are
most proud of ?
Some of my best work is hard to find! More and more recordings are being released independently and that's where the best action and sound is. I'm very proud of my work for Marley's Ghost on the Sage Arts Label, but good luck finding the CDs. Gunnar Madsen's "Power of a Hat" is a fantastic performance-artist-album, available on G-Spot records. Also a recording of Mississippi Charles Bevels but you can't even find him on the Internet. A recording of Nick Hilscher with the Glenn Miller band you can find at http://clubalibi.com/longagoNHGMO.html. In the Latin-Jazz Field, get "Bajando Gervasio" by Amadito Valdez (of the Buena Vista Social Club), which is available from various Internet sources.
What is the reference recording - album that in your opinion sound the best
?
By other engineers.... Pick some of the recordings at the top of the Honor Roll at the digido website.
What is your equipment ?
I have so much equipment it would be very difficult to add up... I'm a fan of products by Cranesong, Weiss, Z-systems, TC Electronic, and I've made a lot of my own gear...
It seems that there is increasing use of valves-tubes preamp-amplifiers
among audiophiles. Do you think that tubes can bring something more to
listening pleasure ? How is with tube equipment in mastering process ?
Tube equipment can add a lot of pleasure, if it's well-made. I'm a fan of tube equipment designed by Fred Forssell. It's dimensional and clear as well as having tight bass. Much tube equipment made for professionals is artificially warm and fuzzy. Half the key is in the power supply design. Solid state gear can be superb if designed right; look at the Cranesong gear.
Are tape machines still important in process in this age. Do you get
recordee material mostly in digtal format or on "vintage" tapes ?
From 1990-1997 or so, I used to get 5 or 6 analog tapes a month. Now I only get one or two every couple of months. That's because digital recording is getting better, but also because a lot of project studios are too cheap to afford good analog.
What is the "standard" that audiophiles should have when trying to reproduce
the same sound you have in your studio ?
Good acoustics is the key. It should pass the LEDR test (see Chesky, test record I believe the number is JD 37). It should be neutral and in a quiet and sufficiently large room.
One could say that you have quite esoteric (audiophile) setup in your
studio: Tim De Parvinchi stuff etc...
I have a tape machine originally modified by Tim De Paravicini, but these days it's strictly a transport and has my own electronics. The rest of my analog gear is commercial gear from Millennia and Cranesong. Everything else is digital, including gear that I've designed myself. So I don't have that much esoteric analog gear at all!
What is DSD ?
DSD is "direct stream digital". Most of what is being said about it is hype, as DSD is simply a method of coding using 1 bit instead of multiple bits. As long as the slew rateof the music is not too fast for the 1-bit coding, then the sound should be the same as the equivalent rate of PCM. However, at low sample rates (up to perhaps 96 kHz) it is possible that DSD may sound better than PCM, but above that if someone tells you that DSD must be "better", it is marketing and not accurate techno-speak.
You do have to make compromises when mastering comercial projects for major
consumers. People normally dont have higend speakers and amplification. How
this differ from mastering specific audiphile project if at all ?
When the client permits it, everything I master is made to the same standards I would make an audiophile album. But when the client wants a "hot" CD, then the quality of my "pop" CDs is not as good as the audiophile albums. If you look at the best commercial CDs of ten years ago, they are a lot closer to the "audiophile" than most CDs made today. There are exceptions, from Telarc, from companies that come to me asking for no compromise, and so on. These CDs are not being pushed for level, and that's the difference.
There is lot of home recording projects going on. In theory many unsigned
artist could do a great songs with that equipmnet. For example they could
record with infinitive takes but then bring the mixes in digital format to
bigger higend studio for mixinga and later for mastering. Do you think this
is efficent and wise ?
The biggest problem with the home recording is the artists are trying to do too much. Generally a good recording is produced by a small team of dedicated individuals collaborating. When the musician is trying to concentrate on his performance, and getting a good recording at the same time, something has to give. There are some exceptions, such as Todd Rungren, who is such a good musician and producer and engineer that he can get an uncompromised product. But these exceptions are few and far-between.
The other problem is acoustics. There's nothing like a great large room where musicians can work and interact with the natural acoustics. This does not happen in 95% of typical "home recordings".
Do you see in future that clients just send you digital media over
internet-upload to server and you do the job and they download the project ?
Yes. It's already happening. Not for full albums, but largely one song at a time. There is not enough bandwidth yet to wait the number of hours to download a whole album with no data-compression (coding).
Do you like the idea of internet and what benefits it gave ?
Yes. It levels the playing field. Now independent artists can get a lot more exposure and distribution. The downside is that the consumer has no way to distinguish good from bad. There was always a system of peers where the major record company could concentrate on pushing their best artists. But conversely, this has been abused where the large record companies are only concentrating on getting speedy instant profits. The kinds of groups that make good music may only sell 10,000 to 150,000 units and the major labels have stopped being interested in them. Lyle Lovett is a good example; he makes music that is attractive and of high integrity; he should be a million-seller, but he's not. So as an independent artist he will find his audience.
The mistakes of the major record labels will be their undoing. The instant-profit mentality will be their undoing.
For example if you would at present time have to do field recording of
totaly acustic enviroment let we say small church, what would you use to
record this in best posibly audiophile manner ?
If the church has great acoustics, the answer is "as few mikes as possible", with the musicians ideally located. But I am not afraid to use more mikes if the music calls for it. But it has to be done in good acoustics to work with few microphones, and the engineer has to know how to place the microphones.
Often this days happend that old analog master tapes are in bad shape. What
is the process in bringin them back to life, and how to deal with them if
its have to be cut to vinyl?
If the tape is an Ampex and sometimes Scotch or BASF from a certain time period, then it has to be baked to relubricate the formulation. Tapes from before about 1970 don't have this problem. Ironically, the oldest tapes actually sound better. The rest is the use of good electronics, steady tape guides, tension, and heads and the knowledge of how to adjust the Equalization, azimuth and zenith to get the most out of the tape.
Do you think that is possible achiving the same experience as live act on
the recorded media - playback system? Did you ever heard any recording that
good that it stuned you ?
Yes. I've heard great recordings that stun me. But every time I go to hear the group live in front of me with no amplification, I think that we are so far away from the live experience that we will never have that experience.
What is the compromise to be made by normal budget audiophile to achive the
best possible playback with ordinary budget equipment ? Is this possible or
do we all need higend gear?
I think it can be done for $10,000 to $20,000 US. Anything below that is probably a compromise. But a class B system at less than $7500 U.S. can produce excellent results. It may surprise you that my D/A converter, line amplifier (preamp), power amplifier, and loudspeakers, subwoofers and sub amplifier cost no more than $25,000 U.S., probably less and I consider it Class A+.You don't need $100,000, and if I doubled or tripled the amount of money I've put into the reproduction equipment it would still be class A+, just a little better-sounding A+
Some esoteric audiophiles say that using best studio monitors with like top
quality preamp is top combitnation. Other say that monitors are just studio
instruments and as such they are not to be used for serius listening. Would
you say that something like powered genelecs or other is a go?
There are very few Studio-branded loudspeakers that sound as good as the best audiophile models. Many Mastering engineers prefer the audiophile models, surprisingly, over the studio models. There is some overlap, Dunlavy (which is no longer made) was popular both for audiophiles and mastering engineers. KEF, ATC, Dynaudio also make both professional and audiophile models. But most of the rest of the studio speakers, including the brand you mentioned, are too colored for me.
In my humble opinion tubes and analog vinyl can present some magic. How do
you see it ?
This is partly a repeat of the above. Magic comes from the performance first, then from the use of components whose distortion is consonant and not dissonant. The cheap digital processors tend to be dissonant. But digital processors from Weiss, for example, properly used, can also produce Magic.
When the day ends what are you go listen at...?
I go out to clubs and try to watch live music!
This my comes as hard questions, but most of popluar music sound really bad
comparing to some audiophile recordings. It cannot be the budget cos they
are brandnames. I never could quite understand why this is happening. How do
you see this ?
Most recording engineers have no idea what natural sounds like. But if you listen to the best popular music recordings of the past 60 years, some of it sounds just as good as the audiophile. You just have to be careful and picky!
In 50 and 60 music like Loius Armstron, Ella Fitzgerlad, Jazz, BLues and
specialy Classical music (Rca living etc.) was captured almost like magic.
Would you feel the same and what was their magic ?
When the performers are performing all at once, the magic is easier to happen. But Ella and Frank Sinatra and Louis were one of a kind performers whose magic could have happened if the recording was made with two tin cans and a piece of string!
I just found the test some studio owners did. They want to see if there is
really difference between analog and digital summing (ssl desk, logic audio,
02r, protools). The outcome was suprising to all. The differences was so
small that some didnt even recognize them. So this led to conclusion that
what does difference is compression and EQ.. right ?
The major difference is NOT in the summing, but in the processing. Digital compression and EQ generally require more power than is available INSIDE a typical DAW.
But doesnt to much compression kill the music. Where is the limit ?
I've written entire articles on the subject. For home listening, a popular music recording with a reasonable peak to average ratio of somewhere between 20 and 14 dB is a place to start. However, even heavy metal benefits from some dynamic range, and if you listen to the analog-recorded metal of 20 years ago it generally sounds far more magical than that of today, because of the overcompression, however, analysing the older recording, probably only has about a 6 to 10 dB peak to average ratio, which may be just right for "metal" genre.
In last few years there is amazing growth of really quality headphones and
headamps. Do you think that is is a path for higend sound at quite normal
price tag ?
For headphones? Sennheiser's HD600 are very good and can be very satisfying, but I'll take good speakers in a good room every time.
In our name and on the behalf of our readers we thank you for your time. I
wish you many years with your Golden years and God bless you.
An unintentional pun on your part! My Golden ears better have some more golden Years or I'll be in trouble!
Best wishes,
Bob
I hope you all enjoy the interview and find a lot of great stuff in it. Any commnets welcome.
Yours Miziq.
Dear Bob,
Here comes the questions. If you feel that there is to many of them
left out what you think its not important. Its rare oportunity to speak with
such a prominent person so i pumped down a lots of them. On other hand if
you feel that something should be added or discussed please write whatever
you think its should be. Make us lough and cry please
Hi, Matej. I'll try to make you laugh and cry, but maybe I don't have enough time for that
Thank you in adavance.
Questions...
How is your history and how did you start with mastering job (from start to
present... )?
I was always an audiophile and an equipment fanatic as well as a musician. I owned my first tape recorder at the age of 7, and in 1956 that was very early!
When I entered college, I started doing recording for the radio station of the school. I began as a recording engineer doing direct to two-track recording of many different types of groups. I would dare to record rock music and mix it direct to my Revox, music which most people would only dare to mix after the fact. So I became very good at knowing how to make it sound right without fooling around for hours with a mixing console after the fact. And I have always kept that ear. Then, faced with only a 2-track tape and perhaps some problems (maybe I mixed the bass too loud) I learned how to use an equalizer and other processors to make my 2-tracks sound as good as they could. This is the essence of mastering, so even before I became a mastering engineer I was mastering.
Do you consider yourself as audiophile ?
Yes. Absolutely. But a very rational audiophile. If I discover a tweak that makes the sound better, I want to learn why, and if that tweak seems to defy science, I try to discover why before I endorse it. This has resulted in lots of research on jitter and many of the poor conclusions that audiophiles have reached about it. For example, one audiophile magazine raved at a D/A converter's ability to "reveal" differences in digital cables. Which is so wrong... if a D/A converter sounds different with different digital cables, then it is defective. Unfortunately, too many converters are therefore defective
I am an audiophile and have always been one. I think the best mastering engineers are audiophiles at heart. But the best mastering engineers know how to listen better than many audiophiles. I appreciate the sense of depth and space that a good reproduction system can give. But for me (and for every good mastering engineer), tonal BALANCE has to come first ALWAYS. If the sound is not tonally balanced, then it cannot be good. There are audiophiles who will go crazy over how "detailed" or "transparent" a recording sounds, but if its tone is too bright or too thin or too bassy, then it is fundamentally flawed. Who should care if a recording has a great "soundstage" if the trumpets are screeching in your face?
With new standards coming out past few years (SACD, DVD-audio) do you think
that digital format is finnaly coming into his breakout ?
If you mean "digital" recording finally sounds better than "analog", then digital has already won out. I made over 150 44.1 kHz recordings on Chesky Records for compact disc using very customized PCM and analog equipment---whose sound (in stereo) rivals the best SACDs and DVD-audios made today. The real key is attention to detail. So for me, digital format has already broken out and others are just catching up. I recorded the very first 24 bit/96 kHz DVD years before others caught up.
The future is going to be surround sound, and it is kind of sad that people may forget that it is possible to capture great depth and space with proper use of stereo. Listen to some of my recordings on Chesky to see what I mean. But I look forward to the surround future, provided that mixing engineers learn how to use surround as more than just multichannel mono...
How is with the 192 khz recordings. Does so much information moves as closer
to the original recordings. And with more bits there probably more problems
accouring (jitter etc)?
I have not had enough experience with 192 kHz to say. I like the results I'm getting at 96 K, and in my book I make a convincing argument that it is the converter design that counts far more than the sample rate. We have always known that a well-designed 44.1 kHz converter sounds much better than a mediocre 96 kHz model. And this has always been true. I believe that a good designer will be able to make a 96K converter that sounds as good as anything at a higher rate. But designers are getting lazy, and it is cheaper and easier to get a good sound at a higher rate because the filters are less complex and easier to design. There is nothing magic about the higher rates; it's not the higher frequencies that we're hearing, but rather, more linear performance from 20-20 kHz! Keep that in mind... We really should be labelling converters by their resolution, not by their sample rate.
Do you think that sorrund has the place in audiophile watters ?
I think that surround is the future. Even my best stereo recordings suffer without the surround portion and come more alive when the space is expanded to around you. However, I have invented a very natural stereo to surround processor (available from Z Systems) that can take a well-recorded stereo recording that already has good space, and reproduce it in surround indistinguishable from if the recording had been made in surround already. This, of course, for recordings that do not have discrete instruments in the surrounds. By the way, I am a big fan of localization and too many surround recordings are making the front picture too vague for my tastes, in order to impress the casual listener.
There is still so much lp's lovers and most of them still dont find
satisfaction in new digital media. With lp's there is always some mystic or
magic around. What is you opnion on this ?
I have many LPs recorded in the 60's and 70's that sound much better than many CDs made today. But this is a matter of the quality of the technology and the recording techniques used. So many CDs made today have been ruined by overprocessing it's no wonder the old LPs sound better than most. But I have in my mastering room and have made many many CDs that sound better than any LP that was ever made. It's a matter of having the right equipment and orientation.
How is with mastering vinyl lp's, is there still much releases coming out ?
I'm afraid not. Most of the LP mastering these days are dance singles for the clubs.
How can be audiophiles asured that the final mastering dont change the
original recorded material ?
How do we know that the final mastering can't improve the original recorded material? A purist attitude assumes that the original recording is already perfect. Of all the great recordings that have come to me for mastering, only a handful sounded better before the mastering. I have produced a demo CD of before and after and you can make the judgment yourself. Was the mastering better or did it make the sound worse? You decide.
I dont rember name but recall from some interview. It was famus
producer-mixer who said that mixing in 50-60's was so easy. You could hardly
go wrong with all thos tube boards. But when he first tuched solid state
mixers in 70s he almost cried. I heard that sombe big names in today music
industry said that working with daw (digital audio workstations) this days
is even hundred times harder ?
Yes. But for different reasons. The early solid-state devices were very poor and produced a type of distortion that was unpleasant to the ear. Since tubes saturate slowly, it is much easier to mix. It's actually a form of compression! But there are some excellent solid-state mixing consoles that sound very good, but because they are so "neutral" it is harder to mix than in the tube days, because the tubes' saturation helped to "fill in the holes". It's the same with analog tape; it helps to fill in the holes and it sounds better; but not because it is neutral, because IT IS EUPHONICALLY COLORED. There is nothing wrong with euphonic coloration as long as you know how to control it.
Now when it comes to digital mixing, we have similar problems with the distortion of early DSP processes adding an unpleasant edge to the sound. But there are some excellent DSP processes, they are just expensive. The very best digital mixing consoles can sound very good if you avoid using the digital equalizers and compressors that are built in to them because they still sound cheap. But this is changing as digital technology gets cheaper. As a plain mixer, with just level and panning, the best-built digital mixers can now sound fine with 48 bit digital processing dithered to 24. But no "holes" are being filled as it was in the analog days, so if a mix needs help you have to feed external analog compressors.
The other problem is ergonomics of control surfaces, but that has nothing to do with the sound, it's just tough to mix with a mouse!
Do you also feels that today music is too loud and too much compressed ? It
seems like kind of a race who is going to be louder and phater ?
Don't get me started! I've written thousands and thousands of words on the subject.
In process of mixing - mastering in analog domain it seems that a bit of
cliping is not a problem but with digital - software limiters it all up to
surgical precission ?
A very good, double-sampling digital limiter can take 2 or 3 dB off the peaks and be totally invisible. But only if it's used right. Most mastering engineers these days are abusing the process and making it sound worse in the name of "loudness" (see the thousands of words I've written on the topic).
Do you find most of today projects sounding to digital ?
Yes, for the many reasons we've already discussed.
Did you ever had a project - recording sounds so good that you barely
touched it ?
Yes. Once in a while. It's very refreshing. Or, whatever I try to do to help it makes it sound worse so I leave it alone!
How do you see new compression methods (mp3 aac). Apple just recently
started an online downloadble shop with over 200.000 songs. They said that
songs was put in AAC format directly from masters. Some enthusiasts are
saying that certain songs even sound better that commercial cds. How do you
see this and whole global internet digitalization ?
It has to be for the better. We have to adapt. I believe in the album, not the single, most times, and I hope there will be a place for it.
Sonically, if the AAC sounds better than today's CDs that's because they may have converted clean sources that weren't ruined by overcompression. But a good CD or DVD can and will sound better than an AAC if the source is good.
Do you find a must that artist are present at mastering ?
Not always. Most times I can work at a distance and a phone call and a reference CD do the job. Then I make the corrections the artist wants and we're ready to master.
What would you say that is your best mastering work of the project you are
most proud of ?
Some of my best work is hard to find! More and more recordings are being released independently and that's where the best action and sound is. I'm very proud of my work for Marley's Ghost on the Sage Arts Label, but good luck finding the CDs. Gunnar Madsen's "Power of a Hat" is a fantastic performance-artist-album, available on G-Spot records. Also a recording of Mississippi Charles Bevels but you can't even find him on the Internet. A recording of Nick Hilscher with the Glenn Miller band you can find at http://clubalibi.com/longagoNHGMO.html. In the Latin-Jazz Field, get "Bajando Gervasio" by Amadito Valdez (of the Buena Vista Social Club), which is available from various Internet sources.
What is the reference recording - album that in your opinion sound the best
?
By other engineers.... Pick some of the recordings at the top of the Honor Roll at the digido website.
What is your equipment ?
I have so much equipment it would be very difficult to add up... I'm a fan of products by Cranesong, Weiss, Z-systems, TC Electronic, and I've made a lot of my own gear...
It seems that there is increasing use of valves-tubes preamp-amplifiers
among audiophiles. Do you think that tubes can bring something more to
listening pleasure ? How is with tube equipment in mastering process ?
Tube equipment can add a lot of pleasure, if it's well-made. I'm a fan of tube equipment designed by Fred Forssell. It's dimensional and clear as well as having tight bass. Much tube equipment made for professionals is artificially warm and fuzzy. Half the key is in the power supply design. Solid state gear can be superb if designed right; look at the Cranesong gear.
Are tape machines still important in process in this age. Do you get
recordee material mostly in digtal format or on "vintage" tapes ?
From 1990-1997 or so, I used to get 5 or 6 analog tapes a month. Now I only get one or two every couple of months. That's because digital recording is getting better, but also because a lot of project studios are too cheap to afford good analog.
What is the "standard" that audiophiles should have when trying to reproduce
the same sound you have in your studio ?
Good acoustics is the key. It should pass the LEDR test (see Chesky, test record I believe the number is JD 37). It should be neutral and in a quiet and sufficiently large room.
One could say that you have quite esoteric (audiophile) setup in your
studio: Tim De Parvinchi stuff etc...
I have a tape machine originally modified by Tim De Paravicini, but these days it's strictly a transport and has my own electronics. The rest of my analog gear is commercial gear from Millennia and Cranesong. Everything else is digital, including gear that I've designed myself. So I don't have that much esoteric analog gear at all!
What is DSD ?
DSD is "direct stream digital". Most of what is being said about it is hype, as DSD is simply a method of coding using 1 bit instead of multiple bits. As long as the slew rateof the music is not too fast for the 1-bit coding, then the sound should be the same as the equivalent rate of PCM. However, at low sample rates (up to perhaps 96 kHz) it is possible that DSD may sound better than PCM, but above that if someone tells you that DSD must be "better", it is marketing and not accurate techno-speak.
You do have to make compromises when mastering comercial projects for major
consumers. People normally dont have higend speakers and amplification. How
this differ from mastering specific audiphile project if at all ?
When the client permits it, everything I master is made to the same standards I would make an audiophile album. But when the client wants a "hot" CD, then the quality of my "pop" CDs is not as good as the audiophile albums. If you look at the best commercial CDs of ten years ago, they are a lot closer to the "audiophile" than most CDs made today. There are exceptions, from Telarc, from companies that come to me asking for no compromise, and so on. These CDs are not being pushed for level, and that's the difference.
There is lot of home recording projects going on. In theory many unsigned
artist could do a great songs with that equipmnet. For example they could
record with infinitive takes but then bring the mixes in digital format to
bigger higend studio for mixinga and later for mastering. Do you think this
is efficent and wise ?
The biggest problem with the home recording is the artists are trying to do too much. Generally a good recording is produced by a small team of dedicated individuals collaborating. When the musician is trying to concentrate on his performance, and getting a good recording at the same time, something has to give. There are some exceptions, such as Todd Rungren, who is such a good musician and producer and engineer that he can get an uncompromised product. But these exceptions are few and far-between.
The other problem is acoustics. There's nothing like a great large room where musicians can work and interact with the natural acoustics. This does not happen in 95% of typical "home recordings".
Do you see in future that clients just send you digital media over
internet-upload to server and you do the job and they download the project ?
Yes. It's already happening. Not for full albums, but largely one song at a time. There is not enough bandwidth yet to wait the number of hours to download a whole album with no data-compression (coding).
Do you like the idea of internet and what benefits it gave ?
Yes. It levels the playing field. Now independent artists can get a lot more exposure and distribution. The downside is that the consumer has no way to distinguish good from bad. There was always a system of peers where the major record company could concentrate on pushing their best artists. But conversely, this has been abused where the large record companies are only concentrating on getting speedy instant profits. The kinds of groups that make good music may only sell 10,000 to 150,000 units and the major labels have stopped being interested in them. Lyle Lovett is a good example; he makes music that is attractive and of high integrity; he should be a million-seller, but he's not. So as an independent artist he will find his audience.
The mistakes of the major record labels will be their undoing. The instant-profit mentality will be their undoing.
For example if you would at present time have to do field recording of
totaly acustic enviroment let we say small church, what would you use to
record this in best posibly audiophile manner ?
If the church has great acoustics, the answer is "as few mikes as possible", with the musicians ideally located. But I am not afraid to use more mikes if the music calls for it. But it has to be done in good acoustics to work with few microphones, and the engineer has to know how to place the microphones.
Often this days happend that old analog master tapes are in bad shape. What
is the process in bringin them back to life, and how to deal with them if
its have to be cut to vinyl?
If the tape is an Ampex and sometimes Scotch or BASF from a certain time period, then it has to be baked to relubricate the formulation. Tapes from before about 1970 don't have this problem. Ironically, the oldest tapes actually sound better. The rest is the use of good electronics, steady tape guides, tension, and heads and the knowledge of how to adjust the Equalization, azimuth and zenith to get the most out of the tape.
Do you think that is possible achiving the same experience as live act on
the recorded media - playback system? Did you ever heard any recording that
good that it stuned you ?
Yes. I've heard great recordings that stun me. But every time I go to hear the group live in front of me with no amplification, I think that we are so far away from the live experience that we will never have that experience.
What is the compromise to be made by normal budget audiophile to achive the
best possible playback with ordinary budget equipment ? Is this possible or
do we all need higend gear?
I think it can be done for $10,000 to $20,000 US. Anything below that is probably a compromise. But a class B system at less than $7500 U.S. can produce excellent results. It may surprise you that my D/A converter, line amplifier (preamp), power amplifier, and loudspeakers, subwoofers and sub amplifier cost no more than $25,000 U.S., probably less and I consider it Class A+.You don't need $100,000, and if I doubled or tripled the amount of money I've put into the reproduction equipment it would still be class A+, just a little better-sounding A+
Some esoteric audiophiles say that using best studio monitors with like top
quality preamp is top combitnation. Other say that monitors are just studio
instruments and as such they are not to be used for serius listening. Would
you say that something like powered genelecs or other is a go?
There are very few Studio-branded loudspeakers that sound as good as the best audiophile models. Many Mastering engineers prefer the audiophile models, surprisingly, over the studio models. There is some overlap, Dunlavy (which is no longer made) was popular both for audiophiles and mastering engineers. KEF, ATC, Dynaudio also make both professional and audiophile models. But most of the rest of the studio speakers, including the brand you mentioned, are too colored for me.
In my humble opinion tubes and analog vinyl can present some magic. How do
you see it ?
This is partly a repeat of the above. Magic comes from the performance first, then from the use of components whose distortion is consonant and not dissonant. The cheap digital processors tend to be dissonant. But digital processors from Weiss, for example, properly used, can also produce Magic.
When the day ends what are you go listen at...?
I go out to clubs and try to watch live music!
This my comes as hard questions, but most of popluar music sound really bad
comparing to some audiophile recordings. It cannot be the budget cos they
are brandnames. I never could quite understand why this is happening. How do
you see this ?
Most recording engineers have no idea what natural sounds like. But if you listen to the best popular music recordings of the past 60 years, some of it sounds just as good as the audiophile. You just have to be careful and picky!
In 50 and 60 music like Loius Armstron, Ella Fitzgerlad, Jazz, BLues and
specialy Classical music (Rca living etc.) was captured almost like magic.
Would you feel the same and what was their magic ?
When the performers are performing all at once, the magic is easier to happen. But Ella and Frank Sinatra and Louis were one of a kind performers whose magic could have happened if the recording was made with two tin cans and a piece of string!
I just found the test some studio owners did. They want to see if there is
really difference between analog and digital summing (ssl desk, logic audio,
02r, protools). The outcome was suprising to all. The differences was so
small that some didnt even recognize them. So this led to conclusion that
what does difference is compression and EQ.. right ?
The major difference is NOT in the summing, but in the processing. Digital compression and EQ generally require more power than is available INSIDE a typical DAW.
But doesnt to much compression kill the music. Where is the limit ?
I've written entire articles on the subject. For home listening, a popular music recording with a reasonable peak to average ratio of somewhere between 20 and 14 dB is a place to start. However, even heavy metal benefits from some dynamic range, and if you listen to the analog-recorded metal of 20 years ago it generally sounds far more magical than that of today, because of the overcompression, however, analysing the older recording, probably only has about a 6 to 10 dB peak to average ratio, which may be just right for "metal" genre.
In last few years there is amazing growth of really quality headphones and
headamps. Do you think that is is a path for higend sound at quite normal
price tag ?
For headphones? Sennheiser's HD600 are very good and can be very satisfying, but I'll take good speakers in a good room every time.
In our name and on the behalf of our readers we thank you for your time. I
wish you many years with your Golden years and God bless you.
An unintentional pun on your part! My Golden ears better have some more golden Years or I'll be in trouble!
Best wishes,
Bob
