New Guidelines For Hi-Res Music Production In The Works: Good or Bad?

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by AxiomAcoustics, Jul 2, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AxiomAcoustics

    AxiomAcoustics "The enemy is listening" Thread Starter

    We're continually debating the benefits and perceived quality of Hi-Res music playback, what sample rates or bit depths are best etc, and rightly so. But one thing that is not debatable is that, unlike the Video industry, there are few guidelines for recording, mixing, transferring, mastering and encoding Hi-Res music. To make matters worse, there's much confusion, and often obfuscation, of what we are really buying, and to what we are listening.

    Recently, Bruce Botnick (yes, that Bruce) of Pono Music revealed that over 90% of their catalog was from CD rips, and a good part of the remaining titles had specious or unknown sources. And they're selling these files for $17.99, way more than what one can buy a CD for these days.
    http://www.sfgate.com/business/tech...verkill-Some-question-benefits-of-6351306.php
    While I don't agree with everything in this article the issue of what Pono is selling as "Hi-Res" is quite disturbing, if not enraging. Monsanto indeed.

    But, back on topic, in a recent newsletter it was announced that The Recording Academy Engineers and Producers Wing, along with some major industry players, are attempting to set new guidelines for digital Hi-Res production and, just as importantly to us here maybe, for the transfer of analog masters to Hi-Res formats. Will this be good? Who will police it? Too early to say but on the surface it appears to be a step in the right direction.

    The thing I found most promising was that these guidelines include rules for "provenance", which can only be a positive development. Anyhow, here's the article, let's hope for the best and also hope that it's not prohibitively difficult or expensive for the small engineers and labels to bring music to market. If it turns out to be a power grab, we all lose. And remember, always look for the Union label. :)

    http://www.mixonline.com/thewire/re...ion-guidelines-hi-res-music-production/424935
     
  2. MrRom92

    MrRom92 Forum Supermodel

    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Anything higher resolution than a cd is considered high-res. they have a new logo now for products which include a high resolution option. I think it's a good thing if things are clearly labeled and this can only bring more attention to the format in the public eye. The question is, how prohibitive will they make it for smaller labels to use this logo? And of course, how long can we accept the same ****ty recording & mastering practices in a higher quality format?
     
  3. Rockos

    Rockos Forum Resident

    They should include spectrogram images of the tracks. Any albums with no data past 22khz need to be trashed.
     
  4. cdash99

    cdash99 Senior Member

    Location:
    Mass
    A single standard that can be argued over and b!tched about is better than what we have at present.
     
  5. Ham Sandwich

    Ham Sandwich Senior Member

    Location:
    Sherwood, OR, USA
    I'd a high-res production standard needs to address the studio during recording rather than focus only on mastering and what happens after mastering. Otherwise it is not going to accomplish much.

    One of the guidelines proposed in the Mixonline article is "The value of establishing workflow protocols and procedures for recording new projects at 96K/24 bit and higher". There's hope. At least they aren't ignoring the elephant that's in the room.
     
  6. tim185

    tim185 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Australia
    Wont happen in my opinion. Genie is out of the bottle.
    There is simply too many people who couldnt give a flying rats over anything at all to do with sound quality. Only how many songs they can fit on their mobile devices.
    WE here, would make up .5% of the overall population who care, if that.
    You would be surprised how many engineers have disdain for anything other than 24/48khz as well. Its not like they are just going to change their minds because of some so called "standard". There are no "standards" in the music industry really.
     
  7. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I've met producers and engineers that boast bout the LOUD album that they wish to have after mixing and mastering is complete. Yes loud as hell!

    So I would put no faith in the current so called professionals in music production.

    Now for vintage analog records, some standards need to be addressed.
     
  8. AxiomAcoustics

    AxiomAcoustics "The enemy is listening" Thread Starter

    Yep, but I think in the case of the Pono situation they are considering anything over MP3 or AAC as "Hi-Res". I suppose in relative terms it is, but not the definition we would consider Hi-Res. Ah semantics.

    That's the concern I mentioned, the standards could be good as long as it does not become prrohibitively expensive, and quash creativity. All those majors can be concerning.
     
    MrRom92 likes this.
  9. AxiomAcoustics

    AxiomAcoustics "The enemy is listening" Thread Starter

    I generally agree, but, how do we address recording without stomping on creativity? Or the "sound" that one wants? Remember, there are hundreds of ways to mic-up a kick drum. Who is the arbiter of the correct kick sound? So that will be a tough one to address. Now, the workflow protocols? much easier, at least once things are printed to tape. Er, wait, captured in ProTools.

    Seems that the least we can demand is Full Disclosure as to the source.
     
  10. tim185

    tim185 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Australia
    Wait. Are we talking about trying to apply standards to music production? Like the kick drum talk above? Surely not. That would be laughably naieve and foolish to even suggest!
     
  11. AxiomAcoustics

    AxiomAcoustics "The enemy is listening" Thread Starter

    Right, but look how quickly and easily the "protocols" for Mastered For iTunes was adopted throughout the industry. Not saying I agree with it or like it, but it was a roll-out, and if you wanted your work represented, you had to conform. Of course conformity creates it's own problems. Either way, many mastering houses got lots of work because they follow the MFiT rules.
     
    macdaddysinfo likes this.
  12. AxiomAcoustics

    AxiomAcoustics "The enemy is listening" Thread Starter

    I certainly hope not, pointing out the potential pitfalls though, after all, music "production" includes the recording and tracking process as well.
     
  13. AxiomAcoustics

    AxiomAcoustics "The enemy is listening" Thread Starter

    Yes but those engineers are usually responding to their client's wishes for "Loud" records.
     
  14. Ham Sandwich

    Ham Sandwich Senior Member

    Location:
    Sherwood, OR, USA
    Creative freedom to make the sound the artist wants is the other elephant in the room. Some artists actually want that sound, or they have tools, or effects, or instruments that can't do 24/96 or higher. So the music will be recorded and processed at less than high-res due to valid artistic or valid production reasons. For example, Neil Young's Le Noise is effectively a 24/48 album because some of the production tools they had to get the sound that is the sound of the album could only process 24/48 max. Who is going to tell Neil Young that Le Noise isn't a valid high-res album or that the sound quality sucks because of that? I think it's an awesome album and sounds great. The sound of the album is awesome because of the processing that went on in production.

    Production standards for high-res authentication aren't going to work because of that.

    Still, things could be better than the situation we've got right now. Where high-res releases mean anything. And effectively mean nothing because of that.
     
  15. AxiomAcoustics

    AxiomAcoustics "The enemy is listening" Thread Starter

    Egg-zactly, defining the protocols of presentation, the verbiage, chain etc, rather than the creative process itself. Any instrument can be recorded to any resolution/format you wish if you have the proper hardware and/or software. You mic a guitar cab with an analog mic, it can be recorded to analog tape or 96/24 or 11.2896 DSD or 352.8/24 DXD, whatever you choose. But now what?
     
  16. tim185

    tim185 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Australia
    Yeah, but unless Im mistaken and I could be...that Mastered for Itunes just sounds like a load of marketing BS to me.
     
  17. AxiomAcoustics

    AxiomAcoustics "The enemy is listening" Thread Starter

    BS or not, it's a universally accepted model that was rolled-out to the industry. I was just using it as an example that it can, in fact be done. Whether or not that's a good thing across the board is the crux of this thread. Knowing source? Good. Knowing provenance? Good. Knowing what you are buying? Good. Those are objective. Sound quality, as we know, can be very subjective. But if I know my new $20 Hi-Res file was truly "Mastered From The Original Analog Tapes By X" I'm an informed consumer and willing to commit.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine