Anyone catch Eddie Kramer on TechTV yesterday?

10 minute interview. *Implied* that he preferred the *sound* of analog to digital, yet states what a powerful and revolutionary tool ProTools is. Goes on to talk about what a great tool CEDAR is at removing stuff (ouch), and how he's remixing Hendrix's Isle of Wight to 5:1. Says 5:1 is "where it's at". Also, mentions a frequency splitting box that he uses to "convert" two-channel masters to 5:1 (double yuck).

There's supposed to be more stuff at the TechTV website....but I haven't wandered over there yet.

 

Unfortunately, my local cable company has seen fit to quit broadcasting Tech TV.

 

I've really kept listening to a lot of my old Cds that have now been remastered over and over since, and I seem to go with the simple realization that anything with true tonality and musical sound is what I look for. Now, I LOVE the Led Zeppelin remasters. They've definitely been EQ'd, but they sound miles better than the old issues.

I don't share Kramer's view. Many argue that his Hendrix work was a love/hate relationship, but then again, there are some DVD-A's that are DTS or 5.1 sound I've been impressed with. Not all. CEDAR does a great job on certain things that NEED it (like very old metal parts, otherwise shellacs) but you cannot generalize one method to blanket over every musical selection. Doesn't matter if it's a rare KING '78 or a damaged master of you-name-it.

Even Steve uses different tube amps to listen for the right sound for whatever he listens to, I believe. Keep your ears and mind open, but usually the simplest way in mastering something is usually the best. Anyone can agree or disagree with what Kramer does. I'd guess most people here don't like his ideas.

 

I just have to cringe a little when I see that in our collective "lust" for all things 5:1, that engineers are now going to go out of their way to synthesize these extra channels with whatever phony means it takes. I mean, if TWO channels of frequency banded and steered garbage wasn't bad enough already during the fake stereo heydey...now we can "look forward" to hearing frequency shifted, fake **** all over the 5:1 spectrum!

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with 5:1, as many do, as long as it's dervied from a discrete multi-track source. At least there, we have something that can serve as a fun companion to a basic, stereo mix. But synthesized, frequency banded 5:1 holds about as much interest for me as the old, out-of-phase Hafler Dynaquad circuit (heck, that's even mildly interesting).

I suppose, if we're strictly talking a movie theatre - a sense of space (no matter how phony it is derived) might not offend as much. An example of this might be the partially synthesized surround mix that was made of "Don't Worry Baby" in "Never Been Kissed". That is, something that was intended for a movie audience.

On the other hand, the thought of two MUSIC channels magically being synthesized into 6 (strictly by frequency) for home use...kinda turns my stomach...lol!

 

I'm not crazy about stuff being remixed to 5.1 but I can understand why some mastering engineers are running to it. They're trying to make a living.

Todd