Hi-Res Download News (HDTracks, ProStudioMasters, Pono, etc.) & Software/Mastering Part 12**

Doors singles is nicely mastered. Only issue I have with it is a minor one and pretty irrelevant if you get the hi-res. In order to keep the volume even across this set, a number of tracks have a lot of wasted headroom. I recall some tracks having peak % in the 60s.

I've only heard the Stones 50th redbook, but assuming the mastering is the same as the SACD/hi-res, the stereo has a decent amount of added compression vs 2002 and the mono sounds pretty much the same as last year's release.

 

FYI: They just sent out pre-order emails for the 50th Anniv. edition of Strange Days.

 

Since Tom Petty produced that one, that means @ryan de topanga was involved, and the hi-res is definitely a winner!

 

THIS WEEK on HDtracks...

Michael Jackson - Scream
David Bowie - A New Career In A New Town (1977 - 1982)
Stone Temple Pilots - Core (Super Deluxe Edition)
Stephen Stills & Judy Collins - Everybody Knows

plus much much more...

 

Thanks. Its nice to see a hi-rez release done with the hi-rez listener in mind. I'll put this on my to buy list!

 

Good album, sounds great.

 

The Springsteen camp is quite open about the fact that the DSD is transcoded from the hi-res PCM masters

 

A “studio master”, by definition (and common sense) has already been mastered; it’s the mastering that was done for the original (usually LP) release.

 

I'm not sure about that last part. An LP would use a cutting master, which is EQ'd and compressed differently than a CD master.

 

I always heard the final 2-track mix created by the mixing engineer refered to as the "studio master" which was then sent to the mastering house. I have never heard of a studio master that has already been "mastered". Learn something new everyday!

 

What is the point in offering PCM sourced DSD downloads?

 

No, the "studio master" is usually the flat master mix leaving the mixing studio, before mastering.

Then it becomes "the master" or "the CD master", "the LP master", etc... Add -ing to "master-" liberally to the last three examples. At least in my part of the world.

 

Please don't tell me this, I've just spent the last half-hour correcting my 2-track mixdown tapes that were incorrectly labeled "studio master" by crossing it out with a sharpie. You can't argue with common sense!

 

I remember reading a post by S.H. saying a flat transfer is essentially unfinished, but I've heard plenty of flat transfers that sounded fine as-is.

 

My understanding, at least as applicable to hi-res downloads, is that the studio master is the final mastered/remastered version before any further processing ie downsampling/dither. So if the 2 track mix is mastered/remastered at 24/96 then that version is the "studio master" and anything other than the 24/96 version is not. If it was mastered at 20/48 then that would be the studio master etc. But on reflection it is a totally meaningless term.

 

With big analogue studio productions from the 70s, many mixes sound great as is. You just need to transfer them optimally. And maybe change the levels from track to track. That can be considered mastering.

But that's a tiny part of all recorded music. In my experience, 99.5% of mixes need some form of more involved mastering to sound their best. Especially nowadays.

 

That's the marketing term the Hi-Res vendors use to indicate what they are selling is indeed the highest resolution/pre-dithered/resampled final mastered version.

In the audio production environment, the term has another meaning.

 

I can't think of a good reason and personally avoid DSD downloads when I know they are PCM sourced, so I've never actually heard one.

In the case of the Springsteen PCM-DSD it was a decision made by the mixing engineer. The original analog tapes went through plagent processing (which is PCM based) then mixed using an analog console. The DSD files were made directly from the analog console mix, without going through another PCM step first. The SPAR code for the DSD download would read something like ADADsd. It is a substantial difference than simply taking a PCM file and using software to convert it to DSD. Which analogue mixing board is used can have a huge impact on the sound of the final product, think Neve vs. SSL and how radically different they sound. I did a record once where we recorded the basic tracks and overdubs at 2 different studios. Both had the same 24track tape machine and Neve vatican console (with flying faders) and the multi-track tape sound basically the same in both studios. We then mixed the record in another studio with the same tape machine, but a different model Neve console. The change in sound was instantly noticeable, both sounded great but so different. So while I wouldn't spend my money on PCM to DSD downloads, practical experience has taught me that for example in the Springsteen situation, there would be a valid reason for capturing the final analog mix in both PCM and DSD even though there was an early PCM stage in the process. (Again, if the post-analog final mix had been only captured in PCM and THEN converted to DSD using software there would be no point at all, in my opinion.) Now, selling the download in both formats and charging $15 more for the DSD version seems like marketing BS, but those decisions are far removed from the engineer.

 

Ok, that makes sense. That's definitely different than the PCM>DSD process I was picturing.

 

In the purely analog days (pre-early ‘80’s) unfortunately often the only recording kept by the record label wa the final, mastered 2-track version used for the LP. Without a doubt the cutting engineer might then make modifications to optimize the LP cutting process and sound, but the idea would be to try to make eventual LP playback sound as close as possible to the tape playback. This is why (again unfortunately) so many classic albums from those days can now 9nly be remastered, rather than remixed and remastered. At some point between then and now, file storage became much cheaper and easier, and I’m sure the situation today and probably the last 20-30 years is as you describe. Still, most of what is currently referred to as “flat transfer” applies to those old classic analogue albums, many of which are being remastered, and some both remixed and remastered.

 

I believe the term "flat" refers to eq. It is my understanding that a studio master that is transfered from tape to hi-res without having eq or compression applied is called a flat transfer. When eq or compression (i.e. mastering) has been applied to the final mix, the tape is called an "eq copy". So an eq copy transfered to hi-res would not be a flat transfer. What you are describing is record labels discarding the studio master and instead keeping the eq copy in the vault. Future remastering are then made using the eq copy. When the studio master is used, the record label can put a fancy sticker on the album cover saying "remastered from the original studio master" vs. "remastered from original analog master tape". The term "original master recording" was challenged at one point, when it was discovered that labels were using the eq copy instead.

A good example to demonstrate what you are saying would be the Tom Petty hi-res catalog. Most of the albums they still had the studio master, however for a couple of the albums the studio master tape (or "original master recording") was unavailable and the eq copy tape was used instead. Non of the albums were released without at least a minimum amount of eq and compression added, so none of them would be considered flat transfers.

 

There can be many "masters". There's the studio master, which is the two-track stereo master that the artist typically delivers at the end of the recording process. But that's virtually never released to the public directly. Usually it gets sent off to a mastering engineer, who produces the final master. Historically I don't know offhand if those masters were typically also tweaked for vinyl's limitations at the time they were created or if there was an additional step to create a third-generation vinyl master tweaked for vinyl's limitations. I also don't know if the same tweaked-for-vinyl masters were used to make the cassette, 8-track and open reel editions of an album, or if they used a separate not-for-vinyl master. It wouldn't surprise me if both happened.

One reason why a lot of early CDs might have sounded a bit different (and not so great) would be that they used a different master than the one that was used for the earlier vinyl edition. Maybe they used the studio master, which hadn't been tweaked by one of the golden eared mastering engineers at all and so could sound kinda flat and lifeless or even harsh. Or maybe they used a master intended for vinyl but that sounded pretty harsh when rendered on CD, which didn't have vinyl's limitations. Or maybe the label did a proper remaster from the original studio master, but botched it and ended up with something that sounds worse than the original vinyl or open reel.

It's all a mess. The labels did an absolute crap job storing, tracking and maintaining their assets, and thanks to the loudness wars many recent remastering campaigns are hopelessly bungled.

 

King Crimson "Live in Chicago" 2017 is available for download FLAC before the CD I ordered. I wonder if there is much of a difference especially with DR? I'm surprised they offered this before the the CD release.

 

What's just as crazy is the amount of multi-track master tapes left at recording studios. I was buying used Ampex 2" from ebay about a decade ago and pickup a great deal from a studio, $25 a tape. All were in great shape. In fact, one even had the studio notes on the box, labeled "master" with all the ips info, etc. and it was for a song that hit #1 on the billboard charts. I thought COOL, I got a box from a hit song! I brought the box (and tape) to the studio I was working at to show my boss, who was sure the tape hadn't been erased. We put it on the Studer and what do ya know, there were all 24 tracks ready to be mixed. He was sure, because he had multi-track masters for some pretty famous bands in his store room that were left behind also. Tried to return them, but nobody in the band or the labels ever wanted them.

I can only imagine how many masters ended up in dumpsters, sold on ebay, donated to the local thrift store, lifted by disgruntled employees, etc. Like you said, it's all a mess.

 

Ha! jabronies LOL, first time that I've ever seen that word in print. I'm from the Bronx, I've heard it all my life, but never read it before. LMBO! No, I'm not Italian, I'm a BIC.