Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 92336" data-attributes="member: 126">Re: Audio Files - best qualityPerhaps you should read some of my old columns from the &#039;80s. I often ended up an apologist for CD technology that was not immediately embraced for some of these reasons.In the days of vinyl recording, there were multiple post processing stages after the mix down was &quot;finished&quot;. Sweetening and mastering engineers tweaked the recording (EQ and Dynamics) to better work with the vinyl media. There were also examples of CD remasters that were not treated as carefully (it cost money), some even kept the HF boost that was added on the original master, to compensate for the vinyl processes expected HF loss (from sitting before it gets plated with metal to stabilize it. The longer it sits the more HF goes away). Keeping the now unnecessary HF boost results in a too hot mix (harsh?) on flat playback media. Vinyl as a medium was not somehow better, but a CD print could sound like crap if the content was not treated with the same respect. There are reported cases of mastering and sweetening engineers dramatically changing a recording for the better, sometimes saving a marginal drug-addled mix-down session, and mostly without any public credit. While the record companies appreciated those guys I don&#039;t think it&#039;s even a profession now. I can imagine if some of those suspect master tapes didn&#039;t get cleaned up before releasing it as a CD, or worse yet just getting squeezed for loudness by some young puke with no ears..&nbsp; Don&#039;t confuse the limitations of the medium for how the content was handled, or mishandled.JR</blockquote>

[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 92336, member: 126"] Re: Audio Files - best quality Perhaps you should read some of my old columns from the '80s. I often ended up an apologist for CD technology that was not immediately embraced for some of these reasons. In the days of vinyl recording, there were multiple post processing stages after the mix down was "finished". Sweetening and mastering engineers tweaked the recording (EQ and Dynamics) to better work with the vinyl media. There were also examples of CD remasters that were not treated as carefully (it cost money), some even kept the HF boost that was added on the original master, to compensate for the vinyl processes expected HF loss (from sitting before it gets plated with metal to stabilize it. The longer it sits the more HF goes away). Keeping the now unnecessary HF boost results in a too hot mix (harsh?) on flat playback media. Vinyl as a medium was not somehow better, but a CD print could sound like crap if the content was not treated with the same respect. There are reported cases of mastering and sweetening engineers dramatically changing a recording for the better, sometimes saving a marginal drug-addled mix-down session, and mostly without any public credit. While the record companies appreciated those guys I don't think it's even a profession now. I can imagine if some of those suspect master tapes didn't get cleaned up before releasing it as a CD, or worse yet just getting squeezed for loudness by some young puke with no ears.. Don't confuse the limitations of the medium for how the content was handled, or mishandled. JR [/QUOTE]

Verification