Are we getting the emphasis wrong?

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Everything this forum aims for is, I’m sure, fundamentally correct. I just want to note the major issue in our listening enjoyment.

Look, we have DACs which are transparent costing $100, and yet some still pay $1,000 fa ‘better’ one which is no better at worst, and only a tiny bit better at best.

But this isn’t where the biggest problem is. The biggest problem is with the mastering. Poorly mastered, unbalanced, brick-walled, loudness wars, shoddy mastering.

Is there nothing we can do? There appear to be quite a few people in the ‘audiophile’ community with contacts to the music industry, and there do genuinely appear to be people involved who care a lot about quality.

Can we not have some sort of campaign. I mean how difficult can it be to master stuff properly, at least within a number of set parameters?

Wouldn’t the success of such a campaign give us all better-sounding music FOR FREE, without having to upgrade any of our kit?

And, on the other hand, what’s the point in listening to your favourite music through a pair of $4,000 headphones if the mastering is shoddy.

My apologies, just venting.

 

[ahofer]

WIth digital storage so cheap, it would be terrific if studios produced the usual “iPhone Master”, and a ”full dynamic range” master encoded within one file, selectable at decoding (sort of like the SACD/CD). Or go the other way and have the iPhone compress the track.

 

[julian_hughes]

If the dominant demand was for well mastered popular music then that's what the media companies would offer. But what people actually want is stuff that sounds loud on the radio and loud on low power devices and loud with the basic earbuds which came with their phone. It's not a complex issue. Record companies which cater to classical and jazz audiences do indeed offer excellently mastered, beautiful sounding CDs, SACDs and files. If they don't then their product gets rotten reviews and people don't buy it.

 

[jae]

There is still a ways to go in creating ideal products imo, even if the electronics are mature. Even if you ignore the latest snakeoil audiophile offerings, even things like otherwise well-designed DACs still ship with improperly implemented/busted filters, well measuring products can still have trivial or overlooked problems like channel imbalance, impedance, or QC issues. Not every product is going to have every feature set you want, or as many inputs as you need, or even look and feel how you want it to. There are some cheaper products that do things better than expensive ones and vice versa. There's always going to be some tradeoff or compromise and people will probably still buy and focus on new products even if they have negligible sound differences, simply because they cater to something beyond that.

The next biggest thing that needs to be worked on is normalising DSP and making it more accessible, things like custom/individualised DSP, 3d/spatial sound processing, etc. And perhaps integrating it in the hardware.

 

[restorer-john]

Everything this forum aims for is, I’m sure, fundamentally correct. I just want to note the major issue in our listening enjoyment.

Look, we have DACs which are transparent costing $100, and yet some still pay $1,000 fa ‘better’ one which is no better at worst, and only a tiny bit better at best.

But this isn’t where the biggest problem is. The biggest problem is with the mastering. Poorly mastered, unbalanced, brick-walled, loudness wars, shoddy mastering.

Is there nothing we can do? There appear to be quite a few people in the ‘audiophile’ community with contacts to the music industry, and there do genuinely appear to be people involved who care a lot about quality.

Can we not have some sort of campaign. I mean how difficult can it be to master stuff properly, at least within a number of set parameters?

Wouldn’t the success of such a campaign give us all better-sounding music FOR FREE, without having to upgrade any of our kit?

And, on the other hand, what’s the point in listening to your favourite music through a pair of $4,000 headphones if the mastering is shoddy.

My apologies, just venting.

It's the same complaint we have all had since Adam* was a boy.

Our reproduction gear became better than the artist's recording gear. We called them on it, and told them we expected more for our hard earned money. They gave us DMM, live to two track, then digital, live to two track digital, etc.

Then came laziness and a complete disdain for the consumers who paid the bills.

*Not @AdamG247 but he may have been a boy at some stage...

 

[Frgirard]

Everything this forum aims for is, I’m sure, fundamentally correct. I just want to note the major issue in our listening enjoyment.

Look, we have DACs which are transparent costing $100, and yet some still pay $1,000 fa ‘better’ one which is no better at worst, and only a tiny bit better at best.

But this isn’t where the biggest problem is. The biggest problem is with the mastering. Poorly mastered, unbalanced, brick-walled, loudness wars, shoddy mastering.

Is there nothing we can do? There appear to be quite a few people in the ‘audiophile’ community with contacts to the music industry, and there do genuinely appear to be people involved who care a lot about quality.

Can we not have some sort of campaign. I mean how difficult can it be to master stuff properly, at least within a number of set parameters?

Wouldn’t the success of such a campaign give us all better-sounding music FOR FREE, without having to upgrade any of our kit?

And, on the other hand, what’s the point in listening to your favourite music through a pair of $4,000 headphones if the mastering is shoddy.

My apologies, just venting.

Except classical music, all other types of music have never been audiophile music. These different musical currents have always obeyed the phenomena of fashion and other sound habits of the time although there are of course exceptions.
on exception here

Mark Dubosky Natural Sound Audio Services
https://gearspace.com/board/showpost.php?p=15597979&postcount=132

the audiophile world believe the business is waiting for them but they are nothing compared to the rest of the population who does not care about audiophile considerations but what is on the front page.

the audiophile should behave like a mature consumer (paradox) and boycott the current production if it does not please him. the audiophile should behave like a mature consumer (paradox) and boycott the current production if it does not please him. He doesn't have to bow to the temple merchants.

How is it that museums housing works of art hardly make any effort on lighting and that audiophiles spend a fortune on bad sound recordings listened to in defective acoustics?

I boycotte all artistes unlistenable on bandcamp and selling different masterings (streaming, 16 bit, vinyl, hires, amazon hd....)

 

[MaxBuck]

Where did you get the idea that art museums pay little attention to lighting?

 

[virtua]

When I was interested in the business, talking to producers was like talking to a brick wall, except the brick wall was more compliant. It all came down to $$$$$$$$ Jim

They must take life inspiration from the limiters they put on the master bus

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Here’s the thing. I agree there aren’t huge numbers crying out for wonderfully mastered stuff. But the masses weren’t crying out for hi-res audio, and you now get it at Amazon for free.

I think business likes big numbers and something they can sell. HDR is a bigger seller for 4K TVs than 4K resolution. I think it could be done.

 

[virtua]

I think eventually over time, mixing and mastering practice will change in terms of the trends of mixing and mastering is concerned. The main reason is that most streaming services have some form of loudness normalization having been implemented in the last 5 or so years. It will take time for the industry to realise you can afford higher levels of dynamic range due to this, as 'competing' louder, less dynamic songs will be normalized down and will inherently sound worse because of this - that's the theory anyway.

That being said, I don't always believe higher dynamic range is always better. Some music gains its aesthetic identity through the use of compression and other loudness maximizing. But at the same time, I don't really think the level of sheer compression and maximization that some popular acoustic songs go through is really suitable for the music. But it's something to keep in mind, the way things have been mixed and mastered can be as subjective as the music itself at times. Though what the loudness normalization will bring, is the creative freedom to bring back the dynamics when they are desired creatively, and not feel as if you need to compete with louder songs anymore.

 

[Frgirard]

Where did you get the idea that art museums pay little attention to lighting?

Vieille Charité Marseille: picasso exhibition with a yellowish or semi-dark light, the Quai Branly Paris Museum in the semi-darkness, Dublin National Gallery ... three examples among many others.

 

[Frgirard]

I think eventually over time, mixing and mastering practice will change in terms of the trends of mixing and mastering is concerned. The main reason is that most streaming services have some form of loudness normalization having been implemented in the last 5 or so years. It will take time for the industry to realise you can afford higher levels of dynamic range due to this, as 'competing' louder, less dynamic songs will be normalized down and will inherently sound worse because of this - that's the theory anyway.

That being said, I don't always believe higher dynamic range is always better. Some music gains its aesthetic identity through the use of compression and other loudness maximizing. But at the same time, I don't really think the level of sheer compression and maximization that some popular acoustic songs go through is really suitable for the music. But it's something to keep in mind, the way things have been mixed and mastered can be as subjective as the music itself at times. Though what the loudness normalization will bring, is the creative freedom to bring back the dynamics when they are desired creatively, and not feel as if you need to compete with louder songs anymore.

Metallica / Bob Ludwig start the loudnesswar and the streaming doesn't exist.
there are one reason : exist in noise to sell

 

[bluefuzz]

The biggest problem is with the mastering

It is? I think 99% of the stuff I listen to sounds perfectly fine. Occasionally I come across an album that is mastered a bit hot but I certainly don't find it a general problem. I think it was mostly a fad in the early 2000s that has run its course now. However, I don't generally listen to much hiphop or chart pop where the problem (if there really is one) may be more common. But chart pop has always been about mass appeal and using any trick available to attract more listens. It's the nature of the game. But even the much maligned remasters of classic rock albums I find sound invariably better than the older CD releases, and of course anything sounds better than vinyl ...

 

[Frgirard]

The biggest problem is with the mastering. Poorly mastered, unbalanced, brick-walled, loudness wars, shoddy mastering.

The producer decide not the ME. The ME is an operator under contract and he is not paid if the producer is not happy.

 

[Frgirard]

But even the much maligned remasters of classic rock albums I find sound invariably better than the older CD releases, and of course anything sounds better than vinyl ...

i hear the opposite

 

[Zensō]

Here’s the thing. I agree there aren’t huge numbers crying out for wonderfully mastered stuff. But the masses weren’t crying out for hi-res audio, and you now get it at Amazon for free.

I think business likes big numbers and something they can sell. HDR is a bigger seller for 4K TVs than 4K resolution. I think it could be done.

It seems like Apple and Tidal have tried it with “Apple Digital Masters” and “Master Quality Authenticated”. Neither seem to be of any interest to a vast majority of their paying customers who are listening on either portable Bluetooth speakers or low quality earbuds.

 

[Trell]

Everything this forum aims for is, I’m sure, fundamentally correct. I just want to note the major issue in our listening enjoyment.

Look, we have DACs which are transparent costing $100, and yet some still pay $1,000 fa ‘better’ one which is no better at worst, and only a tiny bit better at best.

But this isn’t where the biggest problem is. The biggest problem is with the mastering. Poorly mastered, unbalanced, brick-walled, loudness wars, shoddy mastering.

Is there nothing we can do? There appear to be quite a few people in the ‘audiophile’ community with contacts to the music industry, and there do genuinely appear to be people involved who care a lot about quality.

Can we not have some sort of campaign. I mean how difficult can it be to master stuff properly, at least within a number of set parameters?

Wouldn’t the success of such a campaign give us all better-sounding music FOR FREE, without having to upgrade any of our kit?

And, on the other hand, what’s the point in listening to your favourite music through a pair of $4,000 headphones if the mastering is shoddy.

My apologies, just venting.

Poor recording and mixing plays a very major role here as well. And mastering is sometimes an attempt to put a lipstick on the pig.

 

[Jim Matthews]

But this isn’t where the biggest problem is. The biggest problem is with the mastering. Poorly mastered, unbalanced, brick-walled, loudness wars, shoddy mastering.


My apologies, just venting.

Perfectly reasonable complaint, I suspect many of us have said as much.

I seek out performers I like and purchase directly from their websites.
This supports less popular artists and cuts out the homogenizer step in overproduction by committee.

 

[Jim Matthews]

Vieille Charité Marseille: picasso exhibition with a yellowish or semi-dark light, the Quai Branly Paris Museum in the semi-darkness, Dublin National Gallery ... three examples among many others.

There are valid reasons for this, due to the fading of ancient pigments exposed to UV.

Most galleries are under financial duress and have delayed installation of properly filtered LED lights.

https://www.canada.ca/en/conservati...technical-bulletins/led-lighting-museums.html

 

[HiFidFan]

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP.

OTOH, I'm often impressed with movie soundtracks. Why does the mix/DR sound (generally) so much better than when I listen to the same track from CD or download (same hardware)?