Note from Steve, Tullman isn't happy with me over a recommendation. Your thoughts?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Steve Hoffman, Feb 14, 2006.

  1. cvila

    cvila Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    But is there a middle ground?
    How about choosing between the master tape transferred flat or mastering less perfectly than SH would do it? I'm not talking about an all-out destructo job done with modern methodologies but something with less than a typical DCC/AF/S&P sound. Is there a point where there are too many warts in a "warts 'n all" flat transfer? I think some judicious mastering that is done differently from SH may be preferable to a flat transfer. Two catalogues come to mind: the most recent Yes reissues by Rhino and the Grateful Dead library. I don't think that anyone listening to these would confuse them with SH mastered discs but both have their fans on this board.

    P.S. - David, I'm not picking on you but I only quoted you because your post was the most recent that only considered the two extremes of flat transfers vs. ruined albums via bad mastering. :)
     
  2. QuestionMark?

    QuestionMark? 4TH N' GOAL

    Location:
    The End Zone
    I prefer Steve's method of taking the master and fixing it to have the best possible sound it can have. I like the sound of a well mastered disc more than I liked the sound of a bad sounding record. If I didn't I would look for the LP rather than the DCC or AF titles.
     
  3. Jeffrey

    Jeffrey Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    South Texas
    Hi Keith,

    Any CD you've heard? I like it but it would not make my Top 50 CD list.

    Take care,
    Jeffrey
     
  4. Bob Lovely

    Bob Lovely Super Gort In Memoriam

    Steve,

    I have never heard the referenced disc but, "we" are on the same page. I would rather have to master a flat transfer on my parametric EQ than have to re-master master a poorly executed rendering. And, some EQ work is almost impossible to reverse [see Mono Jan & Dean CD].

    I do think there are times when some folks forget the goals we desire here such as "un-mastered in preferable over poorly-mastered", etc...

    Bob- :)
     
  5. Tubeman

    Tubeman New Member In Memoriam

    Location:
    Texas
    Seems simple. If you're a purist you'll love the flat transfer and won't do anything at all to it but enjoy it. If you're not a purist you probably won't enjoy it when compared to the polished product.
     
  6. Sgt. Pepper

    Sgt. Pepper Member

    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    This is true, although personally, it Steve says that he is able to enjoy something the way it is, I would trust his judgement.
     
  7. Jeffrey

    Jeffrey Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    South Texas
    Hi Chris

    I do NOT consider the Grateful Dead remasters to be "middle ground". IMO, they are excellent! I believe that the original Grateful Dead CD releases were basically flat transfers and i think they are VERY GOOD! Most people in this discussion are making the choice between a flat transfer and a poorly mastered cd. You appear to be introducing the idea of comparing a flat transfer and a well mastered cd and, imo, that is confusing the issue and the point of this discussion.

    Take care,
    Jeffrey
     
  8. cvila

    cvila Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    HeyNow Jeffrey,
    Without digressing into the merits of the GD catalogue, I will say that I am completely happy with how they sound but I do stand by the assertion that they would most likely sound different if they were part of the DCC GZS gold disc series. Regarding how much mastering is required of the GD catalogue, I would point someone to the extra features on the Grateful Dead Movie; you can see the hoops Jeffrey Norman jumps through to transfer the flat tape to the final product. I think DL2 has also said in a few print interviews that a lot of mastering is done in the Dick's Picks series. As a quick aside, this thread from 2002 has always stood out in my mind as showing SH "Breath of Life" mastering distinguishing itself from other good/excellent mastering: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=2777&highlight=fixx

    Perhaps you are right. In reading SH's post over the years, I get the sense that his definition of overmastering might include what you and I would consider acceptable to excellent. I therefor thought I'd pursue the idea of middle ground mastering.
     

  9. Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks Dave.
     
  10. OldCoder

    OldCoder Well-Known Member In Memoriam

    Location:
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Steve,

    Don't change a thing! If you enjoy something, just say so. If we don't agree, that's fine.

    We all benefit a *lot* from your work, and we all have friend's who offer us opinions on music that we value - even if they are nowhere near as educated and accurate as yours.

    I don't always agree with my friends, but that doesn't diminish my regard for their opinion.

    Likewise, I may not always agree with your opinions (that's bound to happen someday), but I know no one with a better batting average. No one bats 1000 in *everyone's eyes*.

    I'll take warts and all any day - unless you "polished the diamond" on that recording already.
     
  11. barzzz

    barzzz Forum Resident

    Location:
    rochester ny
    I have always been happy with Steve's advise. Also, I don't think Dave, the former gort will ever steer you wrong. These guys have taught me more about recorded music in the 7 months I have been here than I learned elsewhere in 40 years of listening.
     
  12. Someone tell Tullman that I'll buy that SACD off him at cost because of Steve's recommendation. I'll take a flat transfer with-missing-midrange-intact anyday over, say, the bad eq on my Pet Sounds DVD-A or the awful eq on my Ziggy Stardust SACD!
     
  13. Jeffrey

    Jeffrey Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    South Texas
    Hi Chris,

    I think that if we were sitting down in SH's living room having this convo then everybody would be on the same wavelength and your point would create a great discussion. It would, of course, require everybody to maintain focus and listen to exactly what the other person is trying to convey. Let's face it, that does not always happen here. As a result, it is usually better to keep messages simple and easy to understand.

    Nevertheless, i'll take a run at your point, and see if i am hearing you correctly, by putting it in my own words. IMO, if Gastwirt and SH were to sit down and listen to the GD masters they would probably agree on the areas needing improvement. Let's say their concerns were at 4k & 10k and they felt the need to add to the mid's and possibly address hiss. Keeping it simple... if Joe would add 4 db's at 4k and take away 2 db's at 10k then SH would probably be more prone to only add 2 db's at 4k and take away 1 db (or maybe/probably none) at 10k. Is that basically your point? I certainly feel that Joe is more aggressive than Steve but i think that Joe has really gotten very good at understanding the sound of The Grateful Dead and has become the best choice for their music. As Bobby sez... practice makes perfect.

    The reality is that very few mastering engineers have spent as much time w/ one artist's music as Joe has The Grateful Dead's. In general, until a mastering engineer has that extreme knowledge level, i would be more prone to want a flat transfer than the mastering engineers haste/uneducated effort. Even then, some of those turkeys could spend a life-time with one artist's music and i would still prefer a flat transfer. :laugh:

    Take care,
    Jeffrey
     
  14. 22dRow

    22dRow New Member

    Location:
    USA
    I'm happy with your recommendations. I don't expect the CDs you recommend to sound perfect. If the artist intended his album to sound bassy (like Pet Sounds does, for example), that's the way I want to hear it. I always have the option of EQ'ing if I can't stand it, but I'd rather see the painting the way the artist intended. Thanks for the recommendations, and I hope you don't let one person's disapproval stop you from continuing to point out the good stuff that's out there.
     
  15. Doug Hess Jr.

    Doug Hess Jr. Senior Member

    Location:
    Belpre, Ohio
    I guess I'm one of those that was confused by the whole uproar. I read what Steve wrote, understood what he meant and wish I could hear it, but don't have an SACD player if I did own it.

    Don't change a thing Steve. Just be prepared that once in awhile someone might not quite catch what you mean.
     
  16. Tullman

    Tullman Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston MA
    Oh my gawd! I can't believe Steve started a thread over this.

    1. I'm not mad at Steve. I love Steve, even though I have never met him personally. :wave:
    2. I appreciate Steve's work, opinion and advice. I have hundreds of cds mastered by Steve. I have also purchased cds on Steve's recommendation and have always been pleased.

    My problem on the Carole King thread was that Steve first said that the sacd sounded great and was like a flat transfer. Then, later he said he prefered the flat transfer so he could master it himself and get rid of the midrange suck out. In my mind this cd cannot both sound great, and have midrange suck out. Which is it? It sounded great because Steve could do a beautiful job fixing it? Steve should know that all of us do not have high-end eqs and mastering equipment to fix our cds.

    Really, it is no big deal. I was just questioning two posts that I thought contradicted each other. :cool:
     
    Ridin'High, CraigC and FritzL like this.
  17. hoover537

    hoover537 Senior Member

    Location:
    Florida
    Steve, please don't change a thing. Like many others here. I have learned everything I know about mastering and what to listen for from you and everyone on this board. It's not about preference of EQ'd or non EQ'd discs. For me it's about knowledge. I can't thank you enough for your knowledge and recommendations. It has literally changed my life and the way I enjoy music.
     
  18. jpm-boston

    jpm-boston Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Steve, why limit yourself to just music recommendations. Why not do what Oprah does and start a "Steve Hoffman Book Club". ;)
     
  19. Gary

    Gary Nauga Gort! Staff

    Location:
    Toronto
    I've always been happy with Steve's recommendations. Please don't change a thing! I love the Tapestry SACD!

    Incidentally, I had the Tapestry remaster.... a digital horror!
     
  20. ec461

    ec461 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Somewhere
    Steve: I don't think you understood what Tullman and I were trying to say. While we prefer an unfutzed transfer from the master tape, we would like to know whether, in your opinion, the disc has that magic touch or breath of life, like DCCs do (ok, I know nothing can stand up to a DCC, but you get what I'm saying, right?), or if it's just a flat transfer (like you say Target CDs are). I'm assuming pretty much anyone can make a flat transfer if they have the basic knowledge (it's a completely different issue that they don't), but if a flat transfer were the best, you would be out of a job. ;) I'm sure you'll agree that a flat transfer is not *necessarily* the best, even if it's better than a compressed/maximixed/boosted/smiley-face EQ/whatever transfer. Basically, I think you worded it incorrectly and some members, including me, were confused.

    All this does not mean that I want you to stop recommending things to us. Heck, I won't complain if you push your own stuff on to us :) I've learnt all I know about quality audio from you and the other guys on this forum. And like most of the others on this board, I look up to you and really really appreciate your work and advice. I've heard the DCC Hotel California and lemme tell you, I have never heard that song sound better!

    Don't take our fretting so seriously. Relax. We still think you, your advice, your work are great :)

    P.S. - I just pre-ordered the Bad Company. :D
     
    Ridin'High likes this.
  21. musicalbeds

    musicalbeds Strange but not a stranger

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I concur, and I should add it's also drastically changed the balance of my bank account, and not for the better. :D

    I understand what Tullman is saying, or at least, what he says he meant to say when he said it, and what he was saying when he said it was Steve was saying something that contradicted what he already said.

    How'd I do? :p
     
  22. Sckott

    Sckott Hand Tighten Only.

    Location:
    South Plymouth, Ma
    This is so silly.

    There's:

    1. How the tape sounded
    2. How Steve might like it
    3. How YOU might like it and
    4. How EVERYONE else thinks it sounds good.

    Remember, there's freedom of choice and freedom FROM choice. What would you rather have, and does that mean that just about any CD is going to sound better?

    I like the way the SACD sounds. I DON'T like the way the orignal US ODE LPs sounded. However, there are people who disagree.

    Who's right? There IS no right.
     
  23. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host Thread Starter

    People,

    Thanks for all of your intelligent thoughts on these subjects. I do appreciate the input.
     
  24. MrPeabody

    MrPeabody New Member

    Location:
    Mass.
    At the risk of losing sight of the thread here...

    I do think Steve is correct in the "fix it if it needs it" approach. There are, I'm sure, plenty of tapes that sound terrible on their own. But to people who say they only want flat transfers... what's the bloody point of a mastering engineer then? There's a talent in knowing when to leave something alone, and when not to.

    The other thing I don't think anyone's addressed is: What are people listening to these CDs and SACDs on? I would guess that some people's systems and listening rooms on this board are not exactly tweaked perfectly. Mine certainly isn't studio-quality, but I know what to listen for. But to say, "This CD has no midrange!" "This CD's high end takes my head off!" all the time, the problem might be staring you in the face... or ears.

    I've not heard any remaster of Tapestry. All I have is the original CD from 20 (?!) years ago. Judging from that CD alone, I thought all this time that that recording engineer was damn near incompetent. Ya got piano & vocal. How hard is this to do WITHOUT distortion? It's time for me to revisit this and hear how the original tapes really sound. He might be a better engineer than I gave him credit for.

    While I do think Steve's approach is quite valid, my Tapestry CD taught me that sometimes it's not the ME. There are a lot of inept recording and mix engineers out there. And for any ME or listener to put their faith in the belief that these guys always know what they're doing (and therefore always want a flat transfer) is misguided, IMHO.

    You may fire when ready, Gridley. :hide:
     
  25. emkay

    emkay Senior Member

    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    I think this is germ for a FASCINATING idea! I would love to see a regular location where folks (especially Steve) could offer their tweaks to popular, but flawed, CDs. This could be particularly beneficial in cases like this Carole King recording.

    I, for one, just love the way "flaws" in different recording/mixing setups influence how mixed masters sound. There is truly something to be said for flat transfers, but recommendations might be better received with the tweaks that would make for a more optimal listening experience.

    PLUS -- we could ALL learn a lot about how to fix recordings for ourselves -- and also to detect the flaws with our own ears through the examples of others. It would be like a living extension to Steve's primer on EQ - folks can try stuff out and really HEAR what Steve's talking about!

    Think about it.... It would be AWESOME!
    -mk
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine