Am I wrong? It seems like there's one significant thing left that could improve audio playback for everyone

[Philbo King]

Apologies in advance if this post is meandering or unconcise, as if I need an editor, I'm going to try and write this quickly so I don't waste too much time!!!

I sometimes think about "what's next" for the advancement of audio playback and my mind keeps going back to one thing.

First, let me get this out of the way: I think that hardware is at a reasonable place. Yes, I know that transducers and electronics can and will continue to improve. Hopefully, good performance will be had for less money and more convenience in the future.

The thing that I keep thinking about is the source - as in the actual recordings. I know that this isn't a groundbreaking suggestion.
Most of us here know about the "loudness wars".
There's been a million (conservative estimate) circular arguments online that go "digital measures better", "but the vinyl masters are better", "the vinyl pressing masters have been the same as the digital masters for the last 30 or whatever years except with the bass taken out", etc.

Since the introduction of red book CD-DA we've seen plenty of new takes on digital audio:

• Hi-Res
• SACD
• DVD-Audio
• DSD
• DXD
• MQA
• Apple Spatial Audio
• Dolby Atmos
• etc

I'm sure some will disagree with me, but I've written off a lot of above for various reasons: not enough media supported, gimmicky, proprietary hardware or software required, the implementation of the media is questionable, etc.

All of this is to finally bring me to the point I'm trying to make:

I'm beginning to increasingly feel like this hobby is a futile exercise.
We could spend thousands of dollars on the newest and greatest gear.
But to play what? Our poorly mastered records?
Tidal and Apple espouse their new fancy formats that we never wanted or asked for. I get it - the formats can be used as a marketing tool for their streaming platforms, so there's actually a financial impetus there.
The labels don't want to pay money to remaster the compressed records that people are happily buying and streaming. Fair enough.
But why should I spend my money for increasingly incremental improvements when the record labels are the ones with the ability to make the biggest improvements to fidelity?

To those who actually enjoy "audiophile music" and audiophile recordings exclusively: I envy you.

Me? I'm forfeiting my audiophile membership card until there's media that incentivises me to join the club again. I'll stay on the forums tho, that's still fun.

I wrote this while listening to the following record on Spotify through my Bose QuietComfort 35. AAC Bluetooth. No EQ.

View attachment 266987

You could try listening to my music...
www.soundclick.com/philboking

Disclaimer: I created this stuff as a labour of love. Sometimes of you want it done right you have to do it yourself. I don't make money on it except once or twice a year when I sit in with a couple bands at Juke Joint Fest in Clarksdale MS. Enjoy!

 

[Sal1950]

I think myself and many others would gladly pay extra for recordings or streaming, that had the same volume from song to song.

That would involve the compression we all hate.
Music presented in its full DR will have very unequal perceived volume levels from recording to recording.
To get what you wish for without heavy compression would involve using something like the Replay Gain Tool.
In short it measures the average loudness across a recording and encodes a playback volume level to make all recordings so encoded playback at the same average level without any modification to the original file..

 

[Count Dacula]

Does remastering really improve old recordings? I thought a remaster meant "tweak the EQ a little here and there, bump up the overall volume, increase the price by 15%, include a bonus track for the customers who see through this scheme." Would rather just have the original.

Snoop told me that after seven years an artist regains ownership of a recording if it's remastered. I don't know for sure.

 

[Galliardist]

Does remastering really improve old recordings? I thought a remaster meant "tweak the EQ a little here and there, bump up the overall volume, increase the price by 15%, include a bonus track for the customers who see through this scheme." Would rather just have the original.

It covers a whole host of possibilities, including
Actually releasing the studio master
Up sampling the original and calling it high resolution
Tweaking frequencies slightly
A more dynamic cut of an LP
Compressing and equalising volume
Changing track order
A full remix from the multitrack recording, including modifying the individual tracks first
Re-recording some parts
Adding overdubs to a live recording
Upmixing
And now, using AI to pull a recording to pieces and remixing what’s there


and combinations of the above

It can be better or worse. However, the same parts of the brain that are used for music are used for memory, so changes to a much loved original can be quite upsetting, no matter what.

 

[Galliardist]

I don’t care to invest in Atmos for the same reason as I didn’t invest in DVD Audio - I don’t think it will be around long. The network effects of LP and CD are durably strong; not so much for most digital formats.

You’re forgetting BR, AR, movies. And as I said before, there are literally millions of people walking around today with equipment that can do spatial audio of various types.

No, it’s not going away this time. Consider the full potential scope of Apple’s headset. Can’t fit a full multichannel audio system, 100 inch screen in your bed sit? Can’t afford all of that, gaming console, desktop computer…? Apple plan to sell a device that does everything virtually and to do that at a fraction of the price into the bargain.So do their rivals.

But the audio HAS to work for that, so it will happen.

 

[goat76]

It covers a whole host of possibilities, including
Actually releasing the studio master
Up sampling the original and calling it high resolution
Tweaking frequencies slightly
A more dynamic cut of an LP
Compressing and equalising volume
Changing track order
A full remix from the multitrack recording, including modifying the individual tracks first
Re-recording some parts
Adding overdubs to a live recording
Upmixing
And now, using AI to pull a recording to pieces and remixing what’s there


and combinations of the above

It can be better or worse. However, the same parts of the brain that are used for music are used for memory, so changes to a much loved original can be quite upsetting, no matter what.

I just want to annoyingly point out that some things you've listed are not part of the mastering/remastering process.

"A full remix from the multitrack recording, including modifying the individual tracks first" and "Adding overdubs to a live recording" is part of the mixing process, while "Re-recording some parts" is part of the recording process. None of those got anything to do with mastering or remastering.

 

[Ricardus]

Since the introduction of red book CD-DA we've seen plenty of new takes on digital audio:

• Hi-Res
• SACD
• DVD-Audio
• DSD
• DXD
• MQA
• Apple Spatial Audio
• Dolby Atmos
• etc

I'm sure some will disagree with me, but I've written off a lot of above for various reasons: not enough media supported, gimmicky, proprietary hardware or software required, the implementation of the media is questionable, etc.

All of this is to finally bring me to the point I'm trying to make:

I'm beginning to increasingly feel like this hobby is a futile exercise.

But why? What is your endgame? What is it you're trying to achieve? Is it getting those fools with audio youtube channels who lie to you to get you to sign off on your official "audiophile" membership card?

I am not interested in most of those takes on audio either, which is why I have a 2 channel system and a 2.1 channel system and I just enjoy listening to music.

 

[Galliardist]

I just want to annoyingly point out that some things you've listed are not part of the mastering/remastering process.

"A full remix from the multitrack recording, including modifying the individual tracks first" and "Adding overdubs to a live recording" is part of the mixing process, while "Re-recording some parts" is part of the recording process. None of those got anything to do with mastering or remastering.

Thanks for being annoying. I'd reply that there are examples of each of these being done and the resulting products being called remasters. It's late in the evening here so I'm not going to start hunting them down now.

If an album though has been released many years ago, and the things you pulled out are done and a new master results, it's a remaster. So Peter Gabriel Plays Live has overdubs on the first release, that isn't a remaster. There are differences as you say.

 

[goat76]

Thanks for being annoying. I'd reply that there are examples of each of these being done and the resulting products being called remasters. It's late in the evening here so I'm not going to start hunting them down now.

If an album though has been released many years ago, and the things you pulled out are done and a new master results, it's a remaster. So Peter Gabriel Plays Live has overdubs on the first release, that isn't a remaster. There are differences as you say.

More annoying things coming up, sorry.

What the resulting product is being called depends on what has been done, and at what stage of the production the changes has been done.

Some examples:
• If the changes are done to an already downmixed and finished mix, it’s part of the mastering process.
• If the changes are done to an already downmixed and finished mix that already had an original master, it's a remaster.
• If some sound elements are added to, removed from, or moved around in the mix, it’s called a remix.

So with your example of Peter Gabriel:
• If the overdubs are part of the original mix that was mastered for the first time, we can call that the “original master”.
• If nothing is changed in the mix for a new release and all the sound objects like overdubs stays untouched and no sound elements are added, removed from, or moved around in the mix, but sound-altering things have been done to the overall sound of the complete original dowmixed and finshed mix, then we have a remaster.
• But if those overdubs are removed or moved in the mix, or if anything else is added to, removed from, or moved in the mix, then we have a remix.

 

[Galliardist]

More annoying things coming up, sorry.

What the resulting product is being called depends on what has been done, and at what stage of the production the changes has been done.

Some examples:
• If the changes are done to an already downmixed and finished mix, it’s part of the mastering process.
• If the changes are done to an already downmixed and finished mix that already had an original master, it's a remaster.
• If some sound elements are added to, removed from, or moved around in the mix, it’s called a remix.

So with your example of Peter Gabriel:
• If the overdubs are part of the original mix that was mastered for the first time, we can call that the “original master”.
• If nothing is changed in the mix for a new release and all the sound objects like overdubs stays untouched and no sound elements are added, removed from, or moved around in the mix, but sound-altering things have been done to the overall sound of the complete original dowmixed and finshed mix, then we have a remaster.
• But if those overdubs are removed or moved in the mix, or if anything else is added to, removed from, or moved in the mix, then we have a remix.

I guess I should have been more specific, and referred to things that get called "remasters".

Thanks for being annoying. It's good to be called out on such.

 

[pseudoid]

Thanks for being annoying.

Very clever approach at a reply!

 

[ozorfis]

I wrote this while listening to the following record on Spotify through my Bose QuietComfort 35. AAC Bluetooth. No EQ.

Don't punish yourself like that. Get an old HTC 10 or LG V35 phone, Koss Porta pro headphones with Yaxi pads and put some SACD images, of which there are plenty good ones, on the SD-card. Then go riding your bike and enjoy. I have thousands of dollars in all kind of equipment, but above cheap setup provides me with 90% of the audiophile bliss I need.

 

[mppix]

A -21 or -24 LUFS loudness standard would be something.
True high-res production without compression, dithering, or sharp filters.

Maybe.some.day.

 

[Philbo King]

More annoying things coming up, sorry.

What the resulting product is being called depends on what has been done, and at what stage of the production the changes has been done.

Some examples:
• If the changes are done to an already downmixed and finished mix, it’s part of the mastering process.
• If the changes are done to an already downmixed and finished mix that already had an original master, it's a remaster.
• If some sound elements are added to, removed from, or moved around in the mix, it’s called a remix.

So with your example of Peter Gabriel:
• If the overdubs are part of the original mix that was mastered for the first time, we can call that the “original master”.
• If nothing is changed in the mix for a new release and all the sound objects like overdubs stays untouched and no sound elements are added, removed from, or moved around in the mix, but sound-altering things have been done to the overall sound of the complete original dowmixed and finshed mix, then we have a remaster.
• But if those overdubs are removed or moved in the mix, or if anything else is added to, removed from, or moved in the mix, then we have a remix.

Unless it comes from the Masteur region of France it has to be called 'Sparkling Musique'..

 

[pseudoid]

Unless it comes from the Masteur region of France it has to be called 'Sparkling Musique'..

Au contraire, Mon Ami,
I don't know what the French equivalent of NIMBY is but 'Sparkling' would be qualified as such.
Revision suggestion: "Pétillant Muzaque"

 

[mppix]

 

[egellings]

I 'spoze, if your hearing is failing, that could be true.

 

[Peterinvan]

How useful is a baseline defined by one’s individual experiences and preferences (regardless if it’s yours, mine or someone else’s)?

Personally I find most live venues lacking in acoustics and sound setups and find the actual recording much better. Now what?

I like to go to small "unplugged" classical or jazz venues. My favourite is to sit up front near the cellos or the double bass.
I call it "calibrating my ears"

IMHO, acoustic instruments have a unique "voice" that I haven't heard in electronic music.

Listening through a PA system can be enjoyable, but I would not consider it as any sort of "baseline".

 

[Sal1950]

I like to go to small "unplugged" classical or jazz venues. My favourite is to sit up front near the cellos or the double bass.
I call it "calibrating my ears"

IMHO, acoustic instruments have a unique "voice" that I haven't heard in electronic music.

Listening through a PA system can be enjoyable, but I would not consider it as any sort of "baseline".

All very true, but in the end the only true "baseline" is your source material and you mostly depend
on your system to be accurate in it's reproduction. (or not). On only one in a million recordings can we
be reasonably sure the recording attempts to offer an exacting reproduction of a live event. AKA the circle of
confusion.
But classical or rock, there's nothing like the sound of live music.

 

[jbags]

I'm left using streaming as an example in most cases... but the first four tracks of "Nothing but the Truth" by Pineapple Thief, which was demonstrated to me late last year, comes to mind as something I've heard probably as downloads. Excellent Atmos, lousy stereo.

Adele's 30 has been quoted as good in Atmos... not my scene, but it's absolutely crap on the main streaming services (and by all accounts CD). I got it

The last Tears for Fears album had similar treatment as reported here and elsewhere, unless you got one of the very limited edition Steven Wilson mix copies. I've not heard the Atmos but I've heard the stereo release as a download. Oh, dear.

A 5.1 set, some at least of the Fish era Marillion albums: the stereo versions invaded Qobuz and they are bad. My sister's a fan: she bought and promptly sold a couple of releases in that series. She listens regularly to internet radio on an Echo Dot(!) and it takes a lot to upset her. She doesn't have multichannel. I can't confirm the quality of the multichannel releases apart from a quick casual listen to part of the first album, it seemed OK.

I'm guessing, but I suspect if you look there are quite a few more of these around. I hope not. I never ran into a lot of this with SACD which I still occasionally buy when I come across them (but most of mine are classical).

Personally I've reached the point where I hope that all music is multichannel mastered first in the near future, despite my only having stereo: it's time you have to reduce reliance on upmixing, and downmixing dynamic versions would do us stuck in stereo some good. I still may find a way into multichannel, but in my present room it won't happen easily

Still, I'm on a mid 1800's romanticism dive at the moment so I doubt it will bother me for a few months in any meaningful way, fortunately.

And if you know of music (any genre!) where an Atmos mix has sparked an improved stereo remaster, I'd like to know a couple of those examples as well. It would really cheer me up!

Thanks for The Pineapple Thief hint. It sounds great to me in stereo.