Steven Wilson: "there’s no excuse not to record at 96/24". -- Great article.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/features/interview-steven-wilson-on-high-res-hand-cannot-erase/

Interesting stuff, including how he does not allow his albums or reissues to be mastered.

 

Good article. And Fragile is coming!

 

Gee, Steven thinks the audiophile market is growing? That's the opposite of what I hear from other quarters. I hope Steven is right. Maybe the robust headphone-based system growth among the younger people is starting to make its mark.

 

Is it now okay to say "96/24", since Steven Wilson says it? (So do most HiRez sites.) I often see "24/96" around here.

 

Is it now okay to say "HiRez" (when we all know it is "Hi-Res")?

 

The spell check's condemning red underline says it's not okay for me to say "HiRez", and that I should say "Hi-Res", so no.

 

If it's recorded and mixed properly, initially, then there's no reason to make adjustments through mastering. That's an interesting perspective. At least there'll be no need to buy his work multiple times to get it right!

 

You know, I'm not interested in Steve Wilson's own music - for some reason it doesn't do it for me.

But when it comes to his opinions about technology and care with regards classic rock, I can't help but love the guy.

 

Which is of course nonsense, but whatever.

 

Interesting:

What’s nice about this move to 96/24 is the amount of things that are coming out in flat transfers — no compression, and no mastering engineers f#cking up the sound. That is a very, very good development in the history of music.

 

Well, if you have some insight to share as to how the Raven Blu Ray audio could've been improved, do share.

 

I've no idea what "the Raven Blu Ray" is, so I'll pass. The notion that music shouldn't be mastered for release, because it "should have been mixed properly in the first place" is laughable. Back to reality...

 

It would be this:
http://www.amazon.com/Raven-Refused...+raven+that+refused+to+sing+and+other+stories

Even if you were unaware of its existence, the album was at least cited in the article. Then again, you probably didn't bother to read.

Personal opinion is that it couldn't have sounded better. Possibly you're better informed.

Yes, it is laughable. Actually, we were face-to-face with Alan Parsons just a few weeks ago, after one of his own performances. Maybe you've heard of him? He was the recording engineer on that project. If it was lacking, the reason for mentioning it is that maybe you could've offered him some advice on to do his job properly. Of course there's no point of reference with a blank information page on your profile. Here, you offer nothing but sarcasm and a smug attitude.

 

Good article.

So I'm thinking we'll see Fragile by July?

 

I am a big SW fan and find his perspective refreshing, but... that's a big IF.

Wilson makes mixing and EQ choices knowing that there won't be a later mastering step. In this case, a flat transfer makes total sense, because he's already made de facto mastering decisions. When someone makes different choices during the mixing stage with the assumption that the mastering will compensate, a flat transfer can sound lacking (or godawful). The HDTracks release of Drama by YES comes to mind.

 

I think it's just a matter of time. Listening tastes seem to be cyclical. MP3 grew only because non-compressed files were to big for the memory available on affordable players, the ear-buds couldn't reproduce fine sound anyway, and brickwall mastering was the only way you could hear everything in noisy environments. But memory is cheaper and teens are growing up and realizing better sound can be had.

 

It didn't seem that he was attempting to be misleading about his approach. If the results sound great, as with Raven and presumably the new one, who are we to argue with his methods?

Believe me, this isn't coming from somebody who thinks that he walks on water, as with some of the other forum members. Most of his mixing work is excellent. Exceptions are In the Court of the Crimson King. The vocals blare from the center channel. No balance. On King Crimson - Discipline, the song "Frame by Frame" the surround panning of Bruford drum fills, at one section near the beginning, sounds like it's a mile a way in the front. Also no problems from here with the 5.1 on the Fragile DVD-A.

 

Now if he could just tell everyone else this great revelation!

 

My personal opinion is that the Raven instrumental mix sounds better. Actually Steven mastered the standard stereo mix by using a limiter, and even some very light EQ if I'm not mistaken...

Knowing the man my guess is that he meant that no mastering is necessary on some "Classic" old analogue stereo mixes were the recording technique was great, the sound sweet with the tape itself acting as a natural compressor (and his work obviously).
"Unfortunately, a lot of people who started listening to music on CDs have never heard how these albums are supposed to sound, or did sound, or should sound. So it’s been great to go back and put that right, in a sense."

Nowadays 99% of the digital mixes I get desperately need some mastering to sound acceptable, because most of them don't come from hi-end studios or hi-end engineers.

Apart from that I'm in total agreement with the guy. In fact I have been bothering everyone I know that works in he musical industry with it for years: use Hi-Res!

And of course: better no mastering at all than bad mastering!

 

Really? Finally!

 

I don't fully agree with him regarding 24/96, but his mixes (presumably left unmastered) sound exceptional.

Though I always thought his Tull/Yes/KC remixes went through Peter Mew afterwards. ???

 

I agree; there is no excuse not to record at 96/24. Even if there is NO difference in perceived sound quality, at least it will make audiophiles who have convinced themselves that they can hear unhearable sounds at 24/96 happy. That means more record sales.

 

No, Tull just Aqualung and Brick > Peter Mew, others unmastered.
Yes > unmastered
King Crimson > Simon Heyworth

Peter Mew is retired since 2012.

 

I suspect that there's a confusion here that SW is not doing anything to dispel. What I think he means is that he can do the mastering as part of the mixing so he doesn't need a discrete stage for a mastering engineer. Hearing someone on an internet forum (even this one) describe what SW has to say about mixing and mastering as laughable is, however, surreal. If your interpretation of what an obvious expert has to say is that it's laughable, that is surely a moment to consider whether your interpretation isn't wrong?

 

I think my computer would explode if I recorded every single track of a song at 96/24. Not to speak of synthesizers that use samples at a lower sample rate.