Mastering opinions?

[jimfisheye]

It seems like it might be appropriate to go a bit higher in level (a little into brick-wall with a limiter) for a CD (16/44.1) version of a master compared to the 24/96 or 24/88.2 version which should not go into brick-wall territory. Now that CD has become the lossy quickie format and the mp3/portable crowd usually makes their mp3's from the CD version and all that.

My thinking is that since the industry has started selling these new reduced dynamic range devices (portables and best buy stereos), that I have to start providing content for them since normal dynamic range (what I consider normal anyway) is beyond their capability.
So I guess what I'm proposing is to start considering the CD format the vehicle for this. And this might actually make more sense to my brain than just keeping the CD format around as a reduced quality format.

I want to continue to turn my nose up at the crushing loudness war thing as well as the idea that it's somehow OK to sell reduced quality (CD) in 2012. This way I could say "Here's the album. Oh, you need a version for a portable player? Sure, we made one of those too."

Opinions?

[albee1952]

You may want to check out iTunes mastering(I think there's some talk in the General Discussion section). Its an interesting read. Personally, I do all mastering in WaveLab and work at the original sample rate/bit depth of the session until the last process, but I only master when forced to by project budgets(try to get clients to go for the real thing). With PT10, I may need to experiment with 32 bit audio

[jimfisheye]

Originally Posted by albee1952

You may want to check out iTunes mastering

Well, this is just another lossy mp3-like thing. The idea is it's better than mp3 (or Apple's AAC) but it's still lossy. The hype I've seen behind this is based on the falsehood that studio quality music is still impossible to deliver to the end user. Anyone can listen to 24/96 flac files (stereo or 5.1 surround) in any media player now.

What I'm suggesting is to make a lossless master that is specifically reduced in dynamic range for limited hardware. The 'mastered for itunes' lossy format would be just another end-user format that the dynamically-reduced master would be appropriate for. (But still an unnecessary reduction.)

Or to put it another way...
People are kind of doing that right now with their masters (the loudness war thing). I'm suggesting mastering for full dynamic range and keeping that master in full quality (24 bit, 96kHz for ex). Then reduce the dynamic range (make it louder) for that CD reduction.

This suggestion is based on the premise that any 'audiophile' would avoid any reduced quality copy and only be interested in the studio quality master anyway. This might also be a positive way to expose and curtail this recent marketing practice of releasing ONLY reduced quality CD copies of an album and hoarding the master quality version with the aim of selling the album twice (1st in reduced quality because it's the consumer's only choice).

This would come out as:
audiophile = win
low end consumer = win
riaa = lose

right now we have the opposite of those 3

[panamajack]

Originally Posted by albee1952

...I do all mastering in WaveLab and work at the original sample rate/bit depth of the session until the last process...

For burning CDs, I am looking at buying Wavelab, although for a while I was considering Sound Forge.

On another forum, there was a discussion by someone who hated Logic's bounce process, and believed a mix-down should be to new audio tracks, then imported into Waveburner, and dithered there. For Pro Tools, if one wants to burn a CD, another program comes into play, so the question is whether the mastering process is just better handled elsewhere.

Is a bounce in Pro Tools equivalent to outputing into WaveLab, or does the bounce process produce an inferior result?

[jimfisheye]

I'm not so much interested in discussing favorite DAW choices or bugs in certain software. The question is in approach.

The CD format is obsolete in that recording studios operate at high res digital now (and for the last 20 years). And the consumer copy is now an exact clone of the high res digital master. So the CD format has become this extra processing step that specifically lowers quality and it's now being used as this bait & switch marketing scam thing.

Two things:
1. I want to make this more obvious to the consumer. And in a positive way by emphasizing that the high res master is the real product and any CD copy is a compromised budget item.
2. Maybe the CD format still has a use? Since these reduced dynamic range portable devices (and best buy stereos) exist, maybe designating this format for their use is a more honest and positive approach than having this format exist for dishonest marketing practices.

[albee1952]

Originally Posted by panamajack

For burning CDs, I am looking at buying Wavelab, although for a while I was considering Sound Forge.

On another forum, there was a discussion by someone who hated Logic's bounce process, and believed a mix-down should be to new audio tracks, then imported into Waveburner, and dithered there. For Pro Tools, if one wants to burn a CD, another program comes into play, so the question is whether the mastering process is just better handled elsewhere.

Is a bounce in Pro Tools equivalent to outputing into WaveLab, or does the bounce process produce an inferior result?

This is somewhat of a can of worms. Since I am not an expert, all I can offer is my thought process for consideration. Bouncing, fo me, has always sounded fine(and always sounded the same). I can't explain why some users find the BTD file sounds different or worse. I always bounce to disk in PT and always at the session sample rate/bit depth, and usually with nothing on the master track. My goal is simply to make the best sounding mix(destination be damned for the moment). Then I bring the mixed file into WaveLab(or program of your choice) and massage the mix with the tools that get me as close as I can to commercial quality(a mix of volume, EQ and maybe some gentle band limiting). I know some that (as you are suggesting) will steer the process toward a specific end(iTunes, radio or whatever), but maybe its just my old age(or old habits) that makes me try for the best overall product, rather than being so "target specific"(which may actually be a better goal at this point in time). Of course, having said all this, maybe if something I do ends up on iTunes, and I download it and find myself going, ""WTF happened to my mix???", then I'll be back here eating crow

Ultimately, What sells a song for me has always been a factor of a great song, a great performance, a killer message, an irresistable hook, a new sound that makes you go "WOW"(remembering the first time I heard the flanging on Ichycoo Park)...........hmmmmm, notice I never mentioned the bit depth, or the sample rate, or the mic/preamp choices...................Just one old dog's 2 cents

[panamajack]

Originally Posted by jimfisheye

...
Two things:
1. I want to make this more obvious to the consumer. And in a positive way by emphasizing that the high res master is the real product and any CD copy is a compromised budget item.
2. Maybe the CD format still has a use? Since these reduced dynamic range portable devices (and best buy stereos) exist, maybe designating this format for their use is a more honest and positive approach than having this format exist for dishonest marketing practices.

Whenever DVDs hit the market, and I cannot remember when, I wanted to set up a 5.1 setup and see if I could hear the enhanced resolution. I bought a Carver 5-channel amp with 100 watts per, some decent JBL surround speakers, and a Klipsch 800w subwoofer.

Upon auditioning the first Pierce Brosnan 007, my son remarked he could hear James Bond's footsteps squishing on the carpet (as could I...) as he walked through Moneypenny's reception area. And, some years later, during the cannonball sequences in Master and Commander, the wife entered the room screaming, "Turn it Down!" By then I was listening to DTS, which was even a step up from Dolby.

I am pretty sure that DVDs are shipped at 24 bit 96KHz quality, and I can definitely hear the difference. My DVD preamp has a separate send for each channel, I think the resolution drops back to 48KHz if you hook your player up with lightpipe. But even a Michael Jackson CD getting played back in stereo, on a pair of premium speakers, sounds worlds better than through the boom box I cart around in my boat. And live concerts played back on a DVD setup sound super.

What about Super Audio CD? Seems like the public just passed it up, sort of like the way Beta lost out to VHS. I think even S-VHS was ok, if played through a nice set of speakers. When I watched S-VHS movies, I played them back through a pair of sixties-vintage, 12" Altecs that were taller than a coffee table and probably would not fit in most cars nowadays.

The Super Audio CD phase almost ensnared me, but the selection of titles was slim. I have yet to buy even a BluRay player, even though my video software will let me burn home movies in that format.

I do not own an MP3 player either, and I just bought a 3LP set of Bartok string quartets. Not that I am a vinyl enthusiast, but a good recording is still just that, and tape hiss and grooves are what I grew up with.

My gripe with CDs is how they will skip while listening to an FM radio station. Totally bites. But vinyl records would occasionally skip, too.