[TheSonicTruth]

If the waveforms/envelopes on the right in the following excerpt represent "mastered", I'll pass!...

I'm tired of being told by mainstream engineers that no spikes showing equates "professional" mastering!

And it makes a far greater difference in the sound quality than the leap from vinyl to CD - or from 128kb MP3 to any Lossless format or resolution.

Just saying.. Content matters.

 

[bfreedma]

If the waveforms/envelopes on the right in the following excerpt represent "mastered", I'll pass!...

I'm tired of being told by mainstream engineers that no spikes showing equates "professional" mastering!

And it makes a far greater difference in the sound quality than the leap from vinyl to CD - or from 128kb MP3 to any Lossless format or resolution.

Just saying.. Content matters.

You already created a thread for this. Why do you need to tilt at your windmill here? Particularly when you intentionally misrepresent what you’ve been told, either because you’re a mistaken evangelist or simply don’t understand the responses. You don’t even bother to post what recordings these are, which you should do in the thread you created for this topic.

In that thread, you can also feel free to quote and name the “mainstream engineers” who you’ve shown this specific example to and who have replied that this represents typical professional mastering.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

You already created a thread for this. Why do you need to tilt at your windmill here? Particularly when you intentionally misrepresent what you’ve been told, either because you’re a mistaken evangelist or simply don’t understand the responses. You don’t even bother to post what recordings these are, which you should do in the thread you created for this topic.

In that thread, you can also feel free to quote and name the “mainstream engineers” who you’ve shown this specific example to and who have replied that this represents typical professional mastering.

The image is an excerpt from the subject of this thread - the book & DVD "A User Guide To Better Sound".

http://musicandaudioguide.com

And FYI I was told that something was "not professionally mastered" unless the peaks met digital full-scale for the majority of the song or project on sites like GearSlutz.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Please Delete - Double Post, smh...

 

[bfreedma]

The image is an excerpt from the subject of this thread - the book & DVD "A User Guide To Better Sound".

http://musicandaudioguide.com

And FYI I was told that something was "not professionally mastered" unless the peaks met digital full-scale for the majority of the song or project on sites like GearSlutz.

You can’t name the music in question so that others can evaluate the legitimacy of your claims, nor can you name the “mainstream engineers” who you claimed in your previous post state that this (or similar) waveforms represent the target for professionals but instead have to resort to the tired generalization of “someone said it on the internet” as if that constitutes legitimate evidence.

Produce actual hard evidence or stop trolling.

Edit. BTW, the example you use in your post and avatar is not mastered vs. remastered, it’s quoted on Waldrep’s site as UNmastered vs. mastered. Waldep’s quote: “The left half is the natural dynamics of the piece and the right is the same few minutes mastered for release through iTunes and on CD”

Is this an oversight due to lack of careful reading or an intentional red herring? Either way, your constant reference to this being an example of bad REmastering turns out to be a false assertion.

 

[Allanmarcus]

If the waveforms/envelopes on the right in the following excerpt represent "mastered", I'll pass!...

I'm tired of being told by mainstream engineers that no spikes showing equates "professional" mastering!

And it makes a far greater difference in the sound quality than the leap from vinyl to CD - or from 128kb MP3 to any Lossless format or resolution.

Just saying.. Content matters.

I’m not sure you did your research. I beleive the image correlates with this statement from the Kickstarter page

Or how about hearing the same piece of music after being mastered with heavy dynamics compression and then comparing it against the “pure” mix with all of the musical dynamics left as they were played by the musicians?

Please do your research before posting. I beleive book's point is to show the negative aspects of dynamic compression.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

I’m not sure you did your research. I beleive the image correlates with this statement from the Kickstarter page

Or how about hearing the same piece of music after being mastered with heavy dynamics compression and then comparing it against the “pure” mix with all of the musical dynamics left as they were played by the musicians?

Please do your research before posting. I beleive book's point is to show the negative aspects of dynamic compression.

As I stated to bfreedma, I AM AWARE that they represent a mix(LH) vs a master(RH). I was just pointing out that I disagree that mastering means occupying the full amplitude digital scale.

 

[SilverEars]

Just out of curiosity, have there been any AB test of original master without such 'compression' as we call them and tracks with more variations to the dynamics?

Interesting thing I saw with a video recently regarding SQ differences between Youtube, Spotify, Apple Music, and Tidal shows the waveforms of differing amplitudes (or loudness). Which is connected to how a person perceptually hears better SQ. Louder the waveform, the better they hear of the sounds. Because you hear better do to louder peaks.

I wonder if compression is doing similar, and can AB prove statistically if one sounds better or worse?

I know a lot of audio enthusiasts are into Daft Punk RAM, and it's pretty compressed. I don't think the wave forms that are compressed necessarily mean worse in SQ, but means there's hardly any black background passages. If you listen or look at the wave forms of classical with lots of black backgrounds, you will find lots of low sounds, and it's due to particular recording types. If there are lots going on in a recording with hardly any drop in sound, it will look compressed.

Let's say that the original master had lots going on in the recording, but certain sounds were too low, and you master it to become louder, perhaps perceptually it will sound better to people. Is this necessarily wrong?

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Just out of curiosity, have there been any AB test of original master without such 'compression' as we call them and tracks with more variations to the dynamics?

Interesting thing I saw with a video recently regarding SQ differences between Youtube, Spotify, Apple Music, and Tidal shows the waveforms of differing amplitudes (or loudness). Which is connected to how a person perceptually hears better SQ. Louder the waveform, the better they hear of the sounds.

I wonder if compression is doing similar, and can AB prove statistically if one sounds better or worse.

I know a top set of tracks like by audio enthusiasts is Daft Punk RAM, and it's pretty compressed. I don't think the waveforms that are compressed necessarily mean worse in SQ, but means there's hardly any black background passages. If you listen or look at the waveforms of classical with lots of black backgrounds, you will find lots of low sounds, and it's due to particular recording types. If there are lots going on in a recording with hardly any drop in sound, it will look compressed.

That something sounds better the louder it is played back has more to do with how our hearing functions. At low listening/volume levels we are less sensitive to sounds below 1kHz and above 4kHz. Read up on Equal Loudness and the early research of Fletcher & Munson.

So a master that is more compressed and gained up closer to full scale can sound subjectively better than one that is not, mostly due to the effect of our hearing. But, that louder master can also be compromised with regards to depth and/or dynamics.

 

[Allanmarcus]

As I stated to bfreedma, I AM AWARE that they represent a mix(LH) vs a master(RH). I was just pointing out that I disagree that mastering means occupying the full amplitude digital scale.

You might also point out that chocolate is sweeter than dirt. The graph you posted represents waveforms from unmaster music and heavy compressed music. I don’t understand why you assume the heavy compressed master is being promoted by the author. I beleive the author is trying to show that that the heavily compressed master is bad, not good. The opposite of your assertion (that the author is promoting the mastering as good)

 

[TheSonicTruth]

You might also point out that chocolate is sweeter than dirt. The graph you posted represents waveforms from unmaster music and heavy compressed music. I don’t understand why you assume the heavy compressed master is being promoted by the author. I beleive the author is trying to show that that the heavily compressed master is bad, not good. The opposite of you assertion (that the author is promoting the mastering as good)

I'm not speaking on behalf of the author. I just used his visualization to underscore MY points and experiences. Stop assuming things and focus!

 

[bfreedma]

I'm aware of what they represent. And mastered does not have to mean peak-limited to full-scale.

And no, I'm not trolling(akin to “edited as this reference is beyond inappropriate”), I'm spreading awareness - among engineers, artists, and enthusiasts.

And by the way, BOTH waveforms in my avatare ARE masters(L=original master, R=remaster). I cropped extraneous imagery for simplicity sake when producing that avatar. But you are free to not believe me.

P.S. If you watched those protestors yesterday confronting AZ Senator Jeff Flake in the elevator, you might consider what they did also as "trolling". But if trying to change things or get points across is considered "trolling", more power to them!

1. So you’re saying that Mark Waldrep, on his own webpage is inaccurate? Did you not read or understand what I quoted directly from him. The title of that image is “UNmastered. Vs. Mastered. Are you claiming you are correct and Waldrep is not? How absurd does that sound? This is not a matter of believing you or not, it’s a simple matter of reading (and comprehending) what the author actually published.
2. Again, you continue to be the only one who fails to understand despite multiple responses.
3. The word troll is in no way akin to the horrendous racial epithet you continue to use. This is at least the third time you’ve referenced that word and it has no place here or anywhere else. It’s absolutely pathetic that you make that correlation, let alone reference that word. It speaks very poorly of your ethics and humanity and has no place here.
4. You aren’t spreading awareness, you’re only proving your ignorance of the topics at hand.
5. Politics, whether we agree or not, have no place on head-fi

If you can’t express yourself without resorting to that type of language, IMO, you should be banned after a 3rd use of it. Frankly, I would like to respond more bluntly but will respect the site TOS and simply say that I agree with None’s assessment of you on the site you linked in your other thread.

I’m sure you will ignore my and others posts and continue to ignorantly troll. I’m done wasting time with you as you aren’t interested and/or aren’t intellectually capable of further educating yourself on this topic. Again, it can’t be everyone else all the time...

 

[TheSonicTruth]

1. So you’re saying that Mark Waldrep, on his own webpage is inaccurate? Did you not read or understand what I quoted directly from him. The title of that image is “UNmastered. Vs. Mastered. Are you claiming you are correct and Waldrep is not? How absurd does that sound? This is not a matter of believing you or not, it’s a simple matter of reading (and comprehending) what the author actually published.
2. Again, you continue to be the only one who fails to understand despite multiple responses.
3. The word troll is in no way akin to the horrendous racial epithet you continue to use. This is at least the third time you’ve referenced that word and it has no place here or anywhere else. It’s absolutely pathetic that you make that correlation, let alone reference that word. It speaks very poorly of your ethics and humanity and has no place here.
4. You aren’t spreading awareness, you’re only proving your ignorance of the topics at hand.
5. Politics, whether we agree or not, have no place on head-fi

If you can’t express yourself without resorting to that type of language, IMO, you should be banned after a 3rd use of it. Frankly, I would like to respond more bluntly but will respect the site TOS and simply say that I agree with None’s assessment of you on the site you linked in your other thread.

I’m sure you will ignore my and others posts and continue to ignorantly troll. I’m done wasting time with you as you aren’t interested and/or aren’t intellectually capable of further educating yourself on this topic. Again, it can’t be everyone else all the time...

1. Read my posts, #23 and 27.

3. The word troll can be taken as offensively as that other word when it is used freely, and not in response eggregious actual trolling.

5. I was referring to the exchange, between the Senator and the prostesters, in that elevator - not the circumstances of the day it happened on.

 

[Allanmarcus]

If the waveforms/envelopes on the right in the following excerpt represent "mastered", I'll pass!...

This is what you said.

The waveforms on the right represent high compressed “masters” of the waveforms on the left. The illustration and accompanying files from the author illustrate the dangers of compression. You “if...I'll passs” statement implies you think the author is promoting this type of mastering, or at least that is how you statement sounds to me. The statement implies you were not aware this this image is an illustration of what not to do.

If you understood this is an illustration of poor mastering, then it’s possible you were just being sarcastic above, but gave no indication of sarcasm or humor, so I concluded you were being serious.

Would it be possible for you to clarify your understanding of the chart you posted and you understanding that this is the author illustrating poor mastering?

 

[TheSonicTruth]

This is what you said.

The waveforms on the right represent high compressed “masters” of the waveforms on the left. The illustration and accompanying files from the author illustrate the dangers of compression. You “if...I'll passs” statement implies you think the author is promoting this type of mastering, or at least that is how you statement sounds to me. The statement implies you were not aware this this image is an illustration of what not to do.

If you understood this is an illustration of poor mastering, then it’s possible you were just being sarcastic above, but gave no indication of sarcasm or humor, so I concluded you were being serious.

Would it be possible for you to clarify your understanding of the chart you posted and you understanding that this is the author illustrating poor mastering?

What the author illustrated, on the right, represents to a large degree the REALITY of modern pop mastering. I was implying NOTHING about the author's personal views. Excuse me if I was not clear in that regard.