[mnarwold]

I find this term thrown around a lot on here. Sometimes it seems to be an audio engineer saying that one CD isn't well mastered and seems to know what he's talking about. Sometimes the person using the term doesn't seem to have a clue what it means besides, "music that sounds good".
 
In one particularly interesting review (not linked to protect the innocent) someone writes a very detailed review between two amps. In several categories, amp A is rated the better choice, but only with really well mastered material. When using more average recordings, amp B is found to be superior. His conclusion is that amp B is the better choice.
 
Can anyone (preferably with some experience in the industry) explain the difference between a good mastering job and a poor one?
 
How can you tell the difference? (Obviously one should sound better, but what exactly should sound better?)
 
I'm looking for an answer that doesn't require an engineering degree to understand, but also has some objectivity and isn't simply, "They use better equipment," or something like that.
 
Thanks,
Matt

 

[jake120]

"Mastering, a form of audio post-production, is the process of preparing and transferring recorded audio from a source containing the final mix to a data storage device (the master); the source from which all copies will be produced (via methods such as pressing, duplication or replication). Recently digital masters have become usual although analog masters, such as audio tapes, are still being used by the manufacturing industry, notably by a few engineers who have chosen to specialize in analog mastering."
 
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cd_mastering
 
My best guess would be changing the audio to CD would cause loss from the original record and the CD master's job is to ensure as minimal loss as humanely possible while keeping the integrity of the audio, and also dealing with anything that might skew a decent recording.
 
though other cases is a master taking a previous defunct recording and repairing problems I am not totally sure how that is done maybe the recording is re done using specialist tools to recreate the instrument 'feel'... and that can sometimes be an older cd called 'remastering' and thats really up to the audio engineer to decide how they play each recording and decide whats best during remastering process.

 

[mikeaj]

There are quite a few audio professionals frequenting this stretch of the forums (read: not me), so if you have patience, you can wait for one of their responses and won't need to put up with my explanations and possible questionable accuracy.  Note that recording engineers and so on, many audio professionals doing all the good stuff / dirty work, don't really or necessarily have engineering degrees in the sense of the traditional mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, etc. (heavy math / physics / science-based technical background), so the answers may not be that obtuse.  You shouldn't need an engineering degree to understand, is what I'm saying.  In fact, it really shouldn't be that complicated, though there are a lot of skills involved by those who know what they're doing.
 
 
Anyway, I get the feeling like a lot of people when colloquially talking about the mastering, are really referring to the recording and mixing as well as the mastering.  What really counts is the quality and type of input capture—think mic placement and acoustics relating to the recording space, particularly for different instruments—and then how those inputs are processed and combined;  fading in and out, EQ, relative volumes, placement in the stereo image, and so on (and then the final touches on the product).  Also, note that when somebody refers to a good master (as opposed to good mastering), that's probably referring to the finalized product, which is a combination of all of the things mentioned already and not just the mastering process itself.
 
It is very common on a lot of modern recordings to aggressively compress the dynamic (volume) range and subsequently pushing up the average volume really high, so everything sounds cruddy and homogenized, tiresome, and so on.  That would count as bad mastering to most, at least for what we would consider decent sound quality.  It's all subjective, but generally people would say that good mastering makes the end product sound more natural.
 
The part of actually transferring the final mix to a format like CD for consumption really shouldn't change too much at all.  And these days, the operations are digital, so there's no issue there.

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeaj /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
....  It's all subjective, but generally people would say that good mastering makes the end product sound more natural.
 
The part of actually transferring the final mix to a format like CD for consumption really shouldn't change too much at all.  And these days, the operations are digital, so there's no issue there.

Ah, if only.  However, you're correct about it being subjective.  There is the possibility of HUGE changes between the final mix and the CD, and the fact that its digital has nothing to do with it.
 
"Well Mastered" is really a meaningless term, as typically used by those not involved in the process.  They are applying their own subjective filter to the final product, but by the time they get to hear it, it's no longer possible to tell if the actual mastering was done well or not.  What you can be sure of is, whatever you hear was intentional, not by accident.
 
Frankly, "well mastered", to someone in the industry, means that the mastering engineer did his job well.  However, his job was defined by his client, probably a producer, but certainly the one paying the bill.  He's the one with the vision, and its his vision that ultimately gets published.  If the world were ideal and geared toward the highest quality audio, then the definition of mastering would be very different.  But highest quality isn't always the goal.  It's marketability, or appropriately made for it's target venue, which may not dictate a highly dynamic presentation.  A good mastering engineer will also advise the client if he sees the project running amok.  But the client may not listen to the counsel, it's his option, he's paying the bill. 
 
It's like the home owner that hires an interior designer.  He might say, "I want this room done in day-glow orange and hot pink!"  The designer does his best, but the owner is going to get his day-glow orange and hot pink room.  Or, he might say, "I want this to be a comfortable room that is relaxing to be in.  Do your best." and let the designer us his/her skill to achieve that general goal.  We visit the house, see the day-glow room and say "Wow, that's bad interior design" or the relaxing room and say "Now that's excellent design".  But who are we really talking about?  The skill of the designer or the demands of the client?  The same is true of mastering.  It's a paid service, and the engineer has a highly developed skill set, but if he's told to make it loud, he's going to have to make it loud.  And, if he does, and the client is happy, that too is "good mastering" in the client's eyes.  
 
In a jazz project I engineered the producer wanted to appeal to the audiophile market, so when I supervised mastering for the CD and vinyl, that was well expressed, and the mastering engineer used no compression or limiting, and EQ only to compensate for certain deficiencies in the vinyl process.  We have a nice dynamic hifi project on our hands as a result. But I did ask him what he did for other projects, and the answer was basically, whatever the project demands.  And this guy was perhaps the best of the best of the best, which is why he got our work. 

 

[mnarwold]

Quote:

Ah, if only.  However, you're correct about it being subjective.  There is the possibility of HUGE changes between the final mix and the CD, and the fact that its digital has nothing to do with it.
 
"Well Mastered" is really a meaningless term, as typically used by those not involved in the process.  They are applying their own subjective filter to the final product, but by the time they get to hear it, it's no longer possible to tell if the actual mastering was done well or not.  What you can be sure of is, whatever you hear was intentional, not by accident.
 
Frankly, "well mastered", to someone in the industry, means that the mastering engineer did his job well.  However, his job was defined by his client, probably a producer, but certainly the one paying the bill.  He's the one with the vision, and its his vision that ultimately gets published.  If the world were ideal and geared toward the highest quality audio, then the definition of mastering would be very different.  But highest quality isn't always the goal.  It's marketability, or appropriately made for it's target venue, which may not dictate a highly dynamic presentation.  A good mastering engineer will also advise the client if he sees the project running amok.  But the client may not listen to the counsel, it's his option, he's paying the bill. 
 
It's like the home owner that hires an interior designer.  He might say, "I want this room done in day-glow orange and hot pink!"  The designer does his best, but the owner is going to get his day-glow orange and hot pink room.  Or, he might say, "I want this to be a comfortable room that is relaxing to be in.  Do your best." and let the designer us his/her skill to achieve that general goal.  We visit the house, see the day-glow room and say "Wow, that's bad interior design" or the relaxing room and say "Now that's excellent design".  But who are we really talking about?  The skill of the designer or the demands of the client?  The same is true of mastering.  It's a paid service, and the engineer has a highly developed skill set, but if he's told to make it loud, he's going to have to make it loud.  And, if he does, and the client is happy, that too is "good mastering" in the client's eyes.  
 
In a jazz project I engineered the producer wanted to appeal to the audiophile market, so when I supervised mastering for the CD and vinyl, that was well expressed, and the mastering engineer used no compression or limiting, and EQ only to compensate for certain deficiencies in the vinyl process.  We have a nice dynamic hifi project on our hands as a result. But I did ask him what he did for other projects, and the answer was basically, whatever the project demands.  And this guy was perhaps the best of the best of the best, which is why he got our work. 

 
Thanks for all the input! I thought it would be subjective and client dependent. I mean, I have some classical recording that are certainly better than others, but I would blame old microphones and early recording technology, not the mastering. I think that many people feel that there is a right and wrong way to do everything, but they forget that this is an art form that really doesn't have rules. When you begin studying music you learn a lot of rules, but as you go deeper you realize that pretty much all the rules can be bent or broken.
 
Any other thoughts? Are the majority of audio engineers (those doing the mixing, etc.) going to agree on a particular way of doing things and the differences come mostly becuase of the clients or are their many opinions as to the "right" way to do things among the professionals?
 

 

[scuttle]

Read http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/californication-reissue-cut-by-bernie-grundman.291679/
 
Most important bit:
 
 

 

 
 
 

[size=11pt]  Top: A rough mixdown from multitracks ripped from Rock Band. Not what a final mix would look like but an idea as to the dynamics possible from the track.

- Middle: The rough mix bootleg. The best sounding version of the album.

- Bottom: Retail version. Yikes.

[/size]
 
 

 
I think that you can see that dynamic range wasn't used well by the official master, from the pov of sq.
 
Otoh - it did sell!
 
 

 

[mikeaj]

Quote:

 

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

Ah, if only.  However, you're correct about it being subjective.  There is the possibility of HUGE changes between the final mix and the CD, and the fact that its digital has nothing to do with it.
 
"Well Mastered" is really a meaningless term, as typically used by those not involved in the process.  They are applying their own subjective filter to the final product, but by the time they get to hear it, it's no longer possible to tell if the actual mastering was done well or not.  What you can be sure of is, whatever you hear was intentional, not by accident.
 
Frankly, "well mastered", to someone in the industry, means that the mastering engineer did his job well.  However, his job was defined by his client, probably a producer, but certainly the one paying the bill.  He's the one with the vision, and its his vision that ultimately gets published.  If the world were ideal and geared toward the highest quality audio, then the definition of mastering would be very different.  But highest quality isn't always the goal.  It's marketability, or appropriately made for it's target venue, which may not dictate a highly dynamic presentation.  A good mastering engineer will also advise the client if he sees the project running amok.  But the client may not listen to the counsel, it's his option, he's paying the bill. 
 
It's like the home owner that hires an interior designer.  He might say, "I want this room done in day-glow orange and hot pink!"  The designer does his best, but the owner is going to get his day-glow orange and hot pink room.  Or, he might say, "I want this to be a comfortable room that is relaxing to be in.  Do your best." and let the designer us his/her skill to achieve that general goal.  We visit the house, see the day-glow room and say "Wow, that's bad interior design" or the relaxing room and say "Now that's excellent design".  But who are we really talking about?  The skill of the designer or the demands of the client?  The same is true of mastering.  It's a paid service, and the engineer has a highly developed skill set, but if he's told to make it loud, he's going to have to make it loud.  And, if he does, and the client is happy, that too is "good mastering" in the client's eyes.  
 
In a jazz project I engineered the producer wanted to appeal to the audiophile market, so when I supervised mastering for the CD and vinyl, that was well expressed, and the mastering engineer used no compression or limiting, and EQ only to compensate for certain deficiencies in the vinyl process.  We have a nice dynamic hifi project on our hands as a result. But I did ask him what he did for other projects, and the answer was basically, whatever the project demands.  And this guy was perhaps the best of the best of the best, which is why he got our work. 

 

 
Thanks for the explanation and filling in a lot of holes, but whoops.  I meant to say the process of pressing / exporting the finalized audio data (the master?— not the "final mix" as I said earlier) to the distribution format, also maybe including any required downsampling or whatever else.  Downsampling or whatever digitally should have little effect.  It was implied by a previous response that actually changing the data to CD format was the process that was of concern.  That part is easy.
 
Everything involved in the mastering of course can be butchered in various ways, regardless of what kind of technology is being used.

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

 
Thanks for the explanation and filling in a lot of holes, but whoops.  I meant to say the process of pressing / exporting the finalized audio data (the master?— not the "final mix" as I said earlier) to the distribution format, also maybe including any required downsampling or whatever else.  Downsampling or whatever digitally should have little effect.  It was implied by a previous response that actually changing the data to CD format was the process that was of concern.  That part is easy.
 
Everything involved in the mastering of course can be butchered in various ways, regardless of what kind of technology is being used.

Right, making 16/44.1 out of 24/96 or whatever isn't a problem, it's all that other subjective junk in-between.  Getting the data onto an actual CD glass master is not really considered "mastering", it's part of manufacturing, and not that tough these days.  Mostly, making a commercial CD is a print job, literally.  Getting the wrap and booklet designed and printed is much harder to do than making the discs.  When I did my first CD project there were no CD pressing plants in the USA, well actually Terre Haute had just opened, but I didn't want to be the guinea pig, so we sent it to Japan.  The vinyl was done at premium pressing plant in California.  The agony was, I had to approve test pressings, and there were lots of problems, bad vinyl ingots, bad plating, etc.  Had to carefully listen to several copies each time to match up where the the ticks to see if they were pressed in or random, check surface noise, etc.  Short story is, the vinyl process was iterative, and took weeks.  The CD was a once-and-done, also took weeks, but the entire run was perfect the first time out.  
 
Ready for the punch line?  If you matched the vinyl and CD up for A/B comparison (level match, careful RIAA eq check, and timing match), they sounded exactly the same, except for surface noise.  Two projects, same results.  And in doing so I got to prove to myself first hand that the so-called vinyl sound has nothing to do with vinyl itself.  Of course after 10 plays you could pick out the vinyl as it was wearing.  
 
Sorry for the ramble off topic, or sort of.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

... The vinyl was done at premium pressing plant in California.  The agony was, I had to approve test pressings, and there were lots of problems, bad vinyl ingots, bad plating, etc.  Had to carefully listen to several copies each time to match up where the the ticks to see if they were pressed in or random, check surface noise, etc.  Short story is, the vinyl process was iterative, and took weeks.  The CD was a once-and-done, also took weeks, but the entire run was perfect the first time out.  
 
Ready for the punch line?  If you matched the vinyl and CD up for A/B comparison (level match, careful RIAA eq check, and timing match), they sounded exactly the same, except for surface noise.  Two projects, same results.  And in doing so I got to prove to myself first hand that the so-called vinyl sound has nothing to do with vinyl itself.  Of course after 10 plays you could pick out the vinyl as it was wearing.  
 

 
This is exactly the sort of real world experience that would be very educational if posted in the dedicated sources forum

  though true believers might come back with...
 
 

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

1. You nobbled the vinyl deliberately to make it as bad as the CD
2. You nobbled the vinyl through incompetence to make it as bad as the CD
3. You did not have a good enough TT for the comparison
4. ...or the rest of the chain
3. You are deaf
5. You were biased and expected to hear no difference
6. It's not noise it's air/separation/liquidity/richeriness/analogicity (take your choice)
7. You could not do it blind oops !

 

[jaddie]

I'll have an order of analogicity...to go, with nothing on it.  You know what? Super-size it.
 
If anyone nobbled anything, it would have been this guy...our mastering engineer.
 
...I don't think so...
 
Of course, I might pick the second choice #3...what?

 

[padam]

Quote:

Anyway, I get the feeling like a lot of people when colloquially talking about the mastering, are really referring to the recording and mixing as well as the mastering.  What really counts is the quality and type of input capture—think mic placement and acoustics relating to the recording space, particularly for different instruments—and then how those inputs are processed and combined;  fading in and out, EQ, relative volumes, placement in the stereo image, and so on (and then the final touches on the product).  Also, note that when somebody refers to a good master (as opposed to good mastering), that's probably referring to the finalized product, which is a combination of all of the things mentioned already and not just the mastering process itself.
 
It is very common on a lot of modern recordings to aggressively compress the dynamic (volume) range and subsequently pushing up the average volume really high, so everything sounds cruddy and homogenized, tiresome, and so on.  That would count as bad mastering to most, at least for what we would consider decent sound quality.  It's all subjective, but generally people would say that good mastering makes the end product sound more natural.
 
The part of actually transferring the final mix to a format like CD for consumption really shouldn't change too much at all.  And these days, the operations are digital, so there's no issue there.

 
Well said. Bob Katz also has an excellent book on mastering but a well-recorded and well-mixed recording shouldn't need much mastering work.

 

[proton007]

Hmmm...I mostly look for ambience, instrument separation and 3D spacing. Each instrument sounds best if it has its own 'blob', and not a mix of flat sounds. What goes in the centre, on the sides, how far apart, echo, fade (fast/slow)...etc.
 
That said, I'm not an audio engineer, and don't know how these effects are preserved/added. There are some artists that consistently have well mastered recordings, and can be used as a reference. I'm listening to Emancipator-Dusk to Dawn as of now, and its one of the best recordings I've heard in a while.  Its also important to note this album is part electronic, part instrumental, so the mixing and mastering has been done rather well.
Perhaps it can give an idea of what "well mastered" sounds like.

 

[proton007]

Hmmm...I mostly look for ambience, instrument separation and 3D spacing. Each instrument sounds best if it has its own 'blob', and not a mix of flat sounds. What goes in the centre, on the sides, how far apart, echo, fade (fast/slow)...etc.
Generally I find that sounds need a certain rise/fall time in order to sound natural, otherwise they'll sound harsh.
 
That said, I'm not an audio engineer, and don't know how these effects are preserved/added. There are some artists that consistently have well mastered recordings, and can be used as a reference. I'm listening to Emancipator-Dusk to Dawn as of now, and its one of the best recordings I've heard in a while.  Its also important to note this album is part electronic, part instrumental, so the mixing and mastering has been done rather well.
Perhaps it can give an idea of what "well mastered" sounds like.

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

Hmmm...I mostly look for ambience, instrument separation and 3D spacing. Each instrument sounds best if it has its own 'blob', and not a mix of flat sounds. What goes in the centre, on the sides, how far apart, echo, fade (fast/slow)...etc.
 
That said, I'm not an audio engineer, and don't know how these effects are preserved/added. There are some artists that consistently have well mastered recordings, and can be used as a reference. I'm listening to Emancipator-Dusk to Dawn as of now, and its one of the best recordings I've heard in a while.  Its also important to note this album is part electronic, part instrumental, so the mixing and mastering has been done rather well.
Perhaps it can give an idea of what "well mastered" sounds like.

All of those qualities are related to mixing and production.  If the ambience or 3D is bad in the original mix, "mastering" can't and won't fix it. 
 
The typical tools in a mastering studio are equalizers that can have their settings recorded and easily re-set, precision gain controls, again with repeatable settings, and a battery of dynamics processors, also resettable.  The material that is being worked with is already mixed down to stereo.  The need for repeatability in settings is very important when cutting a lacquer, because they'll have to cut several, but also useful for a digital master in case any re-release or re-mastering is possible in the future. 
 
What I think is "well mastered" might be very different from what someone else things.  The mastering engineer might define "well mastered" as a job on which he made his client happy enough to come back.  A producer might define it as achieving his vision.  An audiophile might define it as dynamic, clean, or the qualities mentioned above, not that they are related to the actual process of mastering.

 

[Magicman74]

Here are my CDs with DR15:

Eric Clapton - 461 Ocean Boulevard (MFSL)
Eagles - The Long Run
Jethro Tull - Aqualung (DCC)
Elton John - Captain Fantastic And The Brown Dirt Cowboy (DJM)
Huey Lewis And The News - Fore!
The Police - Greatest Hits
The Rolling Stones - Dirty Work
Whitesnake - Slide It In (35DP 118)
The Who - Join Together

And those with DR14:

Eric Clapton - Slowhand (MFSL)
Phil Collins - ...But Seriously
Phil Collins - Face Value (AF)
Phil Collins - No Jacket Required (AF)
Miles Davis - Amandla
Miles Davis - Kind Of Blue (SICP 1206)
Dire Straits - Love Over Gold (WG Target)
The Doors - L.A. Woman (DCC)
Bryan Ferry - Boys And Girls (WG Target)
Free - Fire And Water
Peter Gabriel - 2/Scratch (V/C)
Peter Gabriel - 4/Security (Geffen)
Genesis - Invisible Touch (V/C)
Jamiroquai - Emergency On Planet Earth
Jethro Tull - Thick As A Brick (MFSL)
Jethro Tull - A (UK Chrysalis)
Elton John - Caribou (Polydor)
Jon And Vangelis - Private Collection
Bob Marley & The Wailers - Exodus (Tuff Gong)
Bob Marley & The Wailers - Uprising (Tuff Gong)
Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark - Junk Culture
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex Magik
The Rolling Stones - Some Girls (CBS)
The Rolling Stones - Emotional Rescue (CBS)
Roxy Music - Flesh + Blood (EG)
Rush - Moving Pictures (MFSL)
Sam & Dave - The Best Of
Paul Simon - The Rhythm Of The Saints
Paul Simon - Concert In The Park
Slayer - Reign In Blood
Bruce Springsteen - Darkness On The Edge Of Town
Steely Dan - Katy Lied
Steely Dan - The Royal Scam
Steely Dan - Aja
Toto - IV (35DP-12, pre-emphasis!)

And DR 13

13 ABBA / Super Trouper
13 ABBA / Voulez-Vous
13 Various Artists / Concert For George (24/48, 5.1 -> 2.0)
13 Bay City Rollers / It's A Game
13 Bay City Rollers / Rollin'
13 Bee Gees / Spirits Having Flown
13 Black Sabbath / Heaven And Hell (2010 Deluxe Edition, CD1: Original Album)
13 Bruce Springsteen / Born in the USA
13 Bruce Springsteen / Nebraska
13 Bruce Springsteen / The River - CD1
13 Bruce Springsteen / The River - CD2
13 Bruce Springsteen / The Wild, The Innocent & The E Street Shuffle
13 Bryan Adams / Cuts Like A Knife
13 Bryan Adams / Reckless
13 Cheap Trick / Next Position Please
13 Chet Atkins & Mark Knopfler / Neck And Neck
13 Chris Rea / God's Great Banana Skin
13 Chris Rea / Shamrock Diaries
13 Chris Rea / Water Sign
13 Creedence Clearwater Revival / Pendulum
13 David Coverdale / Whitesnake
13 David Gilmour / In Concert (24/48)
13 Deep Purple / Come Taste The Band
13 Deep Purple / Machine Head (24/96)
13 Deep Purple / Perfect Strangers
13 Def Leppard / On Through The Night
13 Derek And The Dominos / Live At The Fillmore '70 - CD1
13 Derek And The Dominos / Live At The Fillmore '70 - CD2
13 Dire Straits / Communique
13 Dire Straits / Dire Straits
13 Dire Straits / Making Movies
13 Donald Fagen / Morph The Cat (24/96, 5.1 -> 2.0)
13 Eagles / Farewell I Tour - Live From Melbourne - Disc 2 (24/48, 5.1 -> 2.0)
13 Elton John / Don't Shoot Me, I'm Only The Piano Player
13 Elton John / Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
13 Emerson, Lake & Palmer / Pictures At An Exhibition
13 Eric Clapton / Just One Night - CD1
13 Eric Clapton / There's One In Every Crowd
13 Eric Clapton / Unplugged
13 Eurythmics / Revenge
13 Eurythmics / Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This)
13 Fleetwood Mac / Fleetwood Mac (24/96, 2011 Remaster)
13 Fleetwood Mac / The Best of Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac
13 Fleetwood Mac / Tusk (24/96, 2011 Remaster)
13 Gary Moore / After Hours
13 Gary Moore / Blues For Greeny
13 Gary Moore / Still Got The Blues
13 George Harrison / Cloud Nine
13 George Harrison / Live In Japan (2004 Remaster) - CD2
13 Hank Marvin & The Shadows / The First 40 Years - CD1
13 Iron Maiden / Powerslave
13 James Gang / Bang
13 Jeff Beck Group / Jeff Beck Group
13 Jeff Beck Group / Rough And Ready
13 Joy Division / Unknown Pleasures
13 Led Zeppelin / Physical Graffiti - CD1
13 Manfred Mann's Earth Band / The Best Of
13 Mark Knopfler / The Princess Bride [OST] (HDCD)
13 Marvin Gaye / The Marvin Gaye Collection (24/44, 5.1 -> 2.0)
13 Megadeth / Rust In Peace
13 Michael Jackson / Thriller
13 Michael Schenker / Thank You
13 Mike + The Mechanics / Living Years
13 Nazareth / Classics
13 Nazareth / Hair Of The Dog
13 Peter Frampton / Frampton Comes Alive - Disc 1 (24/96, 5.1 -> 2.0)
13 Peter Frampton / Frampton Comes Alive - Disc 2 (24/96, 5.1 -> 2.0)
13 Peter Gabriel / Secret World Live (24/48, 5.1 -> 2.0)
13 Peter Green / Guitar Hero
13 Pink Floyd / Delicate Sound Of Thunder - CD1
13 Pink Floyd / Meddle (1992 Remaster)
13 Pink Floyd / The Wall [OST] (16/48)
13 Prince & The Revolution / Purple Rain (OST)
13 Queen / The Miracle
13 Queen / Hot Space
13 Queensryche / Empire
13 Queensryche / Operation: Mindcrime
13 Rainbow / Bent Out Of Shape
13 Rainbow / Finyl Vinyl
13 Rainbow / Ritchie Blackmore's Rainbow
13 Robert Johnson / The Complete Recordings - CD2
13 Robert Palmer / Addictions Volume 1
13 Robert Plant / The Principle Of Moments
13 Rod Stewart / Greatest Hits
13 Roger Waters / Amused To Death
13 Rory Gallagher / Calling Card
13 Rush / Chronicles - CD1
13 Rush / Chronicles - CD2
13 Ryan Adams / Gold (24/96, 5.1 -> 2.0)
13 Scorpions / Love At First Sting (1997 Remaster)
13 Shocking Blue / At Home
13 Status Quo / Rockin' All Over The World
13 Steely Dan / Gaucho (24/96, 5.1 -> 2.0)
13 Stevie Nicks / Bella Donna
13 Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble / Couldn't Stand The Weather - CD2
13 Supertramp / Breakfast In America
13 Supertramp / Crime Of The Century
13 Supertramp / Crisis? What Crisis?
13 Suzi Quatro / If You Knew Suzi...
13 Suzi Quatro / The Best Of...
13 The Alan Parsons Project / The Turn Of A Friendly Card
13 The Beatles / Anthology 2 - CD2
13 The Beatles / Anthology 3 - CD1
13 The Cars / Candy-O (HDCD)
13 The Cars / Shake It Up
13 The Commitments / The Commitments (OST)
13 The Cult / Sonic Temple
13 The Notting Hillbillies / Missing... Presumed Having a Good Time
13 The Police / Message In A Box: The Complete Recordings - CD4
13 The Pretenders / Get Close
13 The Pretenders / Learning To Crawl
13 The Pretenders / Pretenders
13 The Shadows / Master Series
13 The Shadows / Steppin' To The Shadows
13 The Smiths / Strangeways, Here We Come
13 The Smiths / The Smiths
13 The Traveling Wilburys / Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1
13 Tommy Bolin / Teaser
13 U2 / Rattle And Hum [OST] (24/48, 5.1 -> 2.0) (1)
13 UFO / Obsession
13 UFO / Obsession (1999 Remaster)
13 Uli Jon Roth / Earthquake
13 Ultravox / Quartet
13 Uriah Heep / Sweet Freedom
13 Whitesnake / Come An' Get It
13 Whitesnake / Lovehunter
13 Whitesnake / Slip Of The Tongue
13 Whitesnake / Snakebite
13 Yngwie Malmsteen / Trilogy
13 Zephyr / Going Back To Colorado