Doug Sax -LP Mastering guru on LP vs Bluray

BlueFox

Just received the latest issue (October 2010) of the absolute sound, and it is the yearly analog issue. While I personally will, more than likely, never go back to analog, I still like to read about anything audio.

Anyway, this issue has an interview (page 24) with Doug Sax, the analog “Mastering Engineer Extraordinaire”. As the opening line says, “Doug Sax has probably made a greater contribution to LP sound quality than any other living human.” In the interview he talks of vinyl’s resurgence and future trends. However, as much as he loves vinyl, he realizes digital (not CD, but Bluray or high res files) is much better.

I personally found this quote (page 27) to be very interesting.

“Even though the LP is a technology I’m conversant and feel totally comfortable with, it’s pathetic that the best thing you can buy in 2010 is an LP – an artifact from the 1960s. For me, if I could go home and listen to a disk in 192kHz the way I hear it in the studio, you could keep your LPs.”

What he is talking about is many of the LPs he masters are recorded in high res digital.

FTGV

Interesting comment from a man of his credentials.

BlueFox

FTGV wrote: »

Interesting comment from a man of his credentials.

Yes. I thought that was very interesting since he has access to the best of both worlds. Of course, it also makes sense since analog sound reproduction is at its peak, and digital is just getting started.

I now have two Bluray music disks. The first, Tom Petty’s Mojo, is a BR music only disc in 24 bit 48kHz, and the other is Jeff Beck Live At Ronnie Scott’s, and that is a concert video disk. It also is LPCM stereo, but the sampling rate and bit size is not mentioned. Both discs also have 5.1 DTS-HD, but I have not listened to that yet.

Anyway, while my HT is not up to my 2 channel system, neither is it a slouch. Personally, after listening to both of these discs I do not think I have ever heard such good sound from the LSi15s before. Both discs really sound good, although I wish Jeff Beck still rocked. I can only imagine what 96k or 192k sampling sounds like.

pearsall001

Nice read. Probably won't sit too well with the TT dinosaurs though.

quadzilla

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Theoretically, digital has always had the potential to sound better than analog. But then the producers get their hands on the master and jack it all up. They don't do a final mix for the guy with over 10K in equipment. They mix it for people listening on $500 HTIB systems with the sub turned all the way up and people listening to 128k rips they got from itunes on their cheap earbuds. Basically, they mix it for people like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCBe7-6rw4M&feature=player_embedded

quadzilla

pearsall001 wrote: »

Nice read. Probably won't sit too well with the TT dinosaurs though.

Speaking as a TT dinosaur, I'd be quite happy with digital if it wasn't for the reasons I just cited in my previous post. Yes, digital is a lot more convenient than caring for albums. That's it's main appeal for me. The fact that, potentially, it has much higher resolution is a bonus. But right now, and as the interviewee said, the best sound you can get in your listening room is found on vinyl. Until the market changes, that fact isn't likely to change.

hearingimpared

quadzilla wrote: »

Speaking as a TT dinosaur, I'd be quite happy with digital if it wasn't for the reasons I just cited in my previous post. Yes, digital is a lot more convenient than caring for albums. That's it's main appeal for me. The fact that, potentially, it has much higher resolution is a bonus. But right now, and as the interviewee said, the best sound you can get in your listening room is found on vinyl. Until the market changes, that fact isn't likely to change.

You hit the nail on the head Bro. But's let take a look at his statement again;

“Even though the LP is a technology I’m conversant and feel totally comfortable with, it’s pathetic that the best thing you can buy in 2010 is an LP – an artifact from the 1960s. For me, if I could go home and listen to a disk in 192kHz the way I hear it in the studio, you could keep your LPs.”

That, IMHO is the key factor here; will we ever be able to hear what Doug Sax hears in the studio!?! I don't know of anyone in this club who has the money to invest to replicate Doug's studio so, it seems that LPs are still the way to go to reproduce the sound of music!

Dinosaur over and out!:D

Oh yeah and one more thing . . .Phil . . .:p:p:p:D

quadzilla

hearingimpared wrote: »

That, IMHO is the key factor here; will we ever be able to hear what Doug Sax hears in the studio!?! I don't know of anyone in this club who has the money to invest to replicate Doug's studio so, it seems that LPs are still the way to go to reproduce the sound of music!

I think it has more to do with the fact that he's listening to the master and not the distribution mix. If it was purely the sound system that was the deciding factor, then the source would be a bit less of a factor, since all other things would be equal. Or he may be referring to the dearth of 192k/24bit material available to the public. Even DTS and TrueHD are usually downsampled to 48k or 96k @ 24bit, with most CDs still at 44.1k/16bit. All the upsampling in the world won't put back the missing material once a recording has been downsampled. And then there's the whole "compress it as much as you can so you can keep the record level as hot as possible" thing. Seriously, when CDs come out with less than 10db of dynamic range present, how is that going to sound good on anything other than the cheapest of systems?

Look, for example, at these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

Two versions of the same song (Give It Away by Red Hot Chili Peppers) as mastered in 1991 (top) and then again in 2003 (bottom).

Is it any wonder that anyone that actually cares about music reproduction is disgusted by the crap producers do to recordings?

hearingimpared

UGH! You had to remind me. I have a four LP set of Red Hot Chile Peppers "Stadium Arcadium" and the music is fantastic but it is so horribly compressed I can't listen to it.

Hmmm. . . was he indeed talking about the master? I mean that's not what I got out of it and I think if he was talking about compression why would he say "it’s pathetic that the best thing you can buy in 2010 is an LP – an artifact from the 1960s."

IMHO compressed music on LPs sound a hell of a lot worse to my ears than it's digital counter part.

Masters sound awesome! Unless while making the master the engineer eff'd around with it too much then they sound like ****. I think a perfect example of bad mastering was the initial release of Led Zepplin's "Mothership" or what Jesse wrote about SHM-SACD Dire Straits "Dire Straits."

I've yet to hear a bad release of an MFSL Original Master Recording LP. That's not to say they don't exist but I have heard one yet. I'm sure if I had the pleasure of listening to the original tape they used in the studio, my jaw would be dragging on the floor compared to the LP. I've heard R2R tapes that were supposed to come directly from the master and was blown away. I've also own a lot of direct to disc LP most notably Sheffield Labs and am always left in awe!

quadzilla

hearingimpared wrote: »

UGH! You had to remind me. I have a four LP set of Red Hot Chile Peppers "Stadium Arcadium" and the music is fantastic but it is so horribly compressed I can't listen to it.

Hmmm. . . was he indeed talking about the master? I mean that not what I got out of it and I think if he as talking about compression why would he "it’s pathetic that the best thing you can buy in 2010 is an LP – an artifact from the 1960s." IMHO compressed music on LPs sound a hell of a lot worse to my ears than it's digital counter part.

Yeah, but the guy doing the LP mix is usually not the same guy doing the digital distribution mix. There was a study done a while back, I think here, where someone compared the normalized versions of the same album in SACD, CD and vinyl format, and found that the greatest dynamic range was actually found on the vinyl.

hearingimpared

quadzilla wrote: »

Yeah, but the guy doing the LP mix is usually not the same guy doing the digital distribution mix. There was a study done a while back, I think here, where someone compared the normalized versions of the same album in SACD, CD and vinyl format, and found that the greatest dynamic range was actually found on the vinyl.

I hear ya Bro but once the master is made and it's hot or any other lousing playing around with it, the guy doing the LP mix can't change the way the master was recorded no matter what gizmos the engineer has at his disposal, no?

doctorcilantro

This is a very interesting discussion. I have been reading about this elsewhere on the possability that
many modern-day, dual format releases result in the LP being sourced from the Cd mastering. For example, stev Hoffman has made it a point to master unique mixes for CD and LP respectively. So buyin an LP to get dynamics and better sound may be a moot point for the majority of new releases.

I just bought Ray lamontagne's new album on vinyl. It's only 40-45 minutes yet is a double LP! Maybe in order to allow the pressing of a very hot and compressed CD master.

Some are also discussing the possability of RIAA encoding currently being done digitally.

hearingimpared

doctorcilantro wrote: »

This is a very interesting discussion. I have been reading about this elsewhere on the possability that
many modern-day, dual format releases result in the LP being sourced from the Cd mastering. For example, stev Hoffman has made it a point to master unique mixes for CD and LP respectively. So buyin an LP to get dynamics and better sound may be a moot point for the majority of new releases.

I just bought Ray lamontagne's new album on vinyl. It's only 40-45 minutes yet is a double LP! Maybe in order to allow the pressing of a very hot and compressed CD master.

Some are also discussing the possability of RIAA encoding currently being done digitally.

Doc is that Lamontagne LP indeed recorded hot? or did they just make allowances on the two LPs incase it was recorded hot and/or compressed?

quadzilla

hearingimpared wrote: »

I hear ya Bro but once the master is made and it's hot or any other lousing playing around with it, the guy doing the LP mix can't change the way the master was recorded no matter what gizmos the engineer has at his disposal, no?

There's not just one "master". There's a multitrack master that's all the individual instrument and vocal tracks, minus any track bouncing of course, then that gets mixed down into the distribution master. If a separate mixdown is done for vinyl, then the engineer doing that may not use as much compression as what's done for the CD. But you do have a valid point in that if they use the same distribution master for both, then the album will sound no better than the CD. So, like most things, it depends.

hearingimpared

Just an after thought Doc. I have I believe it is a Shim's album or maybe it an Arcade Fire LP where they have two LPs in the album. Half of the second LP is blank. Neither are recorded hot or compressed. I find it very interesting.

hearingimpared

quadzilla wrote: »

There's not just one "master". There's a multitrack master that's all the individual instrument and vocal tracks, minus any track bouncing of course, then that gets mixed down into the distribution master. If a separate mixdown is done for vinyl, then the engineer doing that may not use as much compression as what's done for the CD. But you do have a valid point in that if they use the same distribution master for both, then the album will sound no better than the CD. So, like most things, it depends.

Gotcha. That's makes tons of sense.:)

BlueFox

quadzilla wrote: »

But right now, and as the interviewee said, the best sound you can get in your listening room is found on vinyl. Until the market changes, that fact isn't likely to change.

Good points all. Glad to see there are still a few intelligent comments left on this forum.

I left out the first sentence in the quote above since I am a hunt and peck typer. The point he is making is that there is a better technology available for music reproduction, but it is not yet in wide-spread use. It really isn't a money thing. We all know reasonably good sound can be had for a modest investment of research and money.

First sentence from the answer to the question; "Beyond the LP what do you see?"

"The other thing I hope takes off is high-resolution music on Blu-ray. You can put non-comppressed 24 bit/192kHz audio surround or two channel on it, and I'm hoping that's where it goes."


In answer to the question; "What about surround?"

"You can quote me on this. Properly done, surround is meaningful, particulary in popular music when it is done creatively like The Dark Side Of The Moon in SACD-surround..... I have surround here. I'll play it for anybody and mouths drop open. It's also music that lends itself to surround. But to not make it available on Blu-Ray? This industry has been so myopic. It requires a unanimity of format, and players that are compatible worldwide. It's going to be up to the consumer to decide."


This line is scary. "It's going to be up to the consumer to decide." :eek:

We are in big trouble.

hearingimpared

Well I've heard classical music on 5.1 surround and it really did give me the feeling of being in the concert hall . . . the ambiance and all that.

DSOTM fun to listen to on surround but I need to hear what Sax is talking about because with surround it sounds like "sound effects" to me rather than real music but that excludes classical to my ears. I guess I should listen to more music done in surround before I make anymore statements. Although my HT rig is inferior to my 2 ch rig I think it does produce music well enough where I could form an opinion.

Nice post BF!

hearingimpared

BlueFox wrote: »

This line is scary. "It's going to be up to the consumer to decide." :eek:

We are in big trouble.

:eek::eek::eek: Boy I wish he didn't say that unless of course he's talking about music lovers and audiophiles but I doubt it.:(

quadzilla

hearingimpared wrote: »

Well I've heard classical music on 5.1 surround and it really did give me the feeling of being in the concert hall . . . the ambiance and all that.

DSOTM fun to listen to on surround but I need to hear what Sax is talking about because with surround it sounds like "sound effects" to me rather than real music but that excludes classical to my ears. I guess I should listen to more music done in surround before I make anymore statements. Although my HT rig is inferior to my 2 ch rig I think it does produce music well enough where I could form an opinion.

Nice post BF!

DSOTM is kind of a contradiction for me. I enjoy that one on SACD in surround in some ways more than the vinyl edition. With the guitars mixed into the side channels and the way some of the effects swirl around, it becomes quite intoxicating on my system. That said, my HT is also my 2 channel for now, so I've optimized it for music as much as possible. On the other hand, with a good mix, there are times I'm listening to something strictly in 2 channel and have to look at the AVR to make sure I didn't accidentally switch it into NEO:6 or something, I get such an enveloping sound field.

Sadly though, in reply to the comment about the consumer deciding, yeah... that would be the ipod and HTIB crowd, since that's the majority of systems. With very few exceptions, even the people I know with really high-end receivers and top-of-the-line flat screens have HTIB systems because "that's all the wife will allow". They also think their systems sound great. And the few that I manage to drag over to hear something a bit better tell me there's no way their wife would even allow something so much as bookshelves and di-poles in the living room. So basically, it's only those with extremely tolerant wives (like mine) or with dedicated media rooms that their wife hasn't taken over that will be left to try to drive the direction of consumer media. But we're, obviously, very much in the minority. Or so it seems to me.

hearingimpared

quadzilla wrote: »

DSOTM is kind of a contradiction for me. I enjoy that one on SACD in surround in some ways more than the vinyl edition. With the guitars mixed into the side channels and the way some of the effects swirl around, it becomes quite intoxicating on my system. That said, my HT is also my 2 channel for now, so I've optimized it for music as much as possible. On the other hand, with a good mix, there are times I'm listening to something strictly in 2 channel and have to look at the AVR to make sure I didn't accidentally switch it into NEO:6 or something, I get such an enveloping sound field.

I get that enveloping sound field with my 1.2TLs but I'm sure not as much as with surround. However the quality of the sound of music is so much better on my 2 ch rig because as I stated above, my HT is inferior to my 2 ch rig.

Although, I have to admit, that if I spent the time tweaking and dialing in my NAD T765 and tweaked my RT2000Ps, CS350 LS, and the RT/FXs including placement like I do with my 2 ch rig I could probably get a hell of a lot better and closer performance. Hmmmmm!

quadzilla wrote: »

Sadly though, in reply to the comment about the consumer deciding, yeah... that would be the ipod and HTIB crowd, since that's the majority of systems. With very few exceptions, even the people I know with really high-end receivers and top-of-the-line flat screens have HTIB systems because "that's all the wife will allow". They also think their systems sound great. And the few that I manage to drag over to hear something a bit better tell me there's no way their wife would even allow something so much as bookshelves and di-poles in the living room. So basically, it's only those with extremely tolerant wives (like mine) or with dedicated media rooms that their wife hasn't taken over that will be left to try to drive the direction of consumer media. But we're, obviously, very much in the minority. Or so it seems to me.

AHAAAA! The mystery has been solved. This past decade we've been blaming the kids of today for the loudness wars and the production of compressed music but instead we find it's all the wives fault.:eek::D

quadzilla

hearingimpared wrote: »

AHAAAA! The mystery has been solved. This past decade we've been blaming the kids of today for the loudness wars and the production of compressed music but instead we find it's all the wives fault.:eek::D

No, that part is still pretty much the kids....

Norm Apter

hearingimpared wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek: Boy I wish he didn't say that unless of course he's talking about music lovers and audiophiles but I doubt it.:(

I think this is a key point. I'm afraid we're seemingly past the point of no return when it comes to loudness and compression on a popular level, exemplified by the two waveforms of a song from the RHCP Blood Sugar Sex Magik posted above.

I'm afraid that's here to stay, so basically what will drive or not drive this high-resolution technology will be the "audiophile class" and those who might not qualify themselves as such but care about sound (not just beats and bass), each of which comprises a rather small percentage of the listening population.

You never know. Vinyl has made a big resurgence in the past 5 years, but things can change if people start thinking of blu-ray as something more than a video delivery system and, in the age of the sale of ever-dimishing physical units of music, whether demand will support production of a decent array of titles.

For me, super high-resolution CDs/DVDs won't mean much without careful mastering -- I still see the mastering as the foundation of a good sounding object, be it LP or CD in whatever format (e.g. XRCD, SACD, DVD-A, HDCD).

Someone brought up Steve Hoffman in one of the threads above as well. Lately I've been listening to some early Miles Davis CDs (Workin', Cookin', Steamin') which he remastered in the early 90s for the DCC label. They're not SACD or anything, but they sound just tremendous (and I've listened to them against other versions which pale in comparison). To give a counter example, putting the RHCP Californication in a super high-resolution format with its current mastering would be of absolutely no benefit...maybe even more painful. Just something else to consider.

hearingimpared

Norm Apter wrote: »

I think this is a key point. I'm afraid we're seemingly past the point of no return when it comes to loudness and compression on a popular level, exemplified by the two waveforms of a song from the RHCP Blood Sugar Sex Magik posted above.

I'm afraid that's here to stay, so basically what will drive or not drive this high-resolution technology will be the "audiophile class" and those who might not qualify themselves as such but care about sound (not just beats and bass), each of which comprises a rather small percentage of the listening population.

You never know. Vinyl has made a big resurgence in the past 5 years, but things can change if people start thinking of blu-ray as something more than a video delivery system and, in the age of the sale of ever-dimishing physical units of music, whether demand will support production of a decent array of titles.

For me, super high-resolution CDs/DVDs won't mean much without careful mastering -- I still see the mastering as the foundation of a good sounding object, be it LP or CD in whatever format (e.g. XRCD, SACD, DVD-A, HDCD).

Someone brought up Steve Hoffman in one of the threads above as well. Lately I've been listening to some early Miles Davis CDs (Workin', Cookin', Steamin') which he remastered in the early 90s for the DCC label. They're not SACD or anything, but they sound just tremendous (and I've listened to them against other versions which pale in comparison). To give a counter example, putting the RHCP Californication in a super high-resolution format with its current mastering would be of absolutely no benefit...maybe even more painful. Just something else to consider.

That's just it Norm, are they going to release the thousands of albums I have on LP or CD for that matter in Blu-Ray? Once I've heard what all the hullabaloo of Blu-Ray music sounds like and if I really like am I going to try and replace my collection with Blu-Ray music discs? Hell just about the only titles they made available when CDs came out were that of my classical music collection and even then there was a lot to be desired.

I tried that once when CDs hit the stage until I realized how crappy they sounded way back then.

Quite the expensive conundrum.

nooshinjohn

I for one will not be spending thousands of dollars to change formats from vinyl to bluray any time soon. 750 lp's x $15 bucks a pop for a BRa(bluray audio) That will never happen.

hearingimpared

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I for one will not be spending thousands of dollars to change formats from vinyl to bluray any time soon. 750 lp's x $15 bucks a pop for a BRa(bluray audio) That will never happen.

That was basically my point in the above post. How do they expect a Blu-Ray music disc to take off when people are going to have to spend buku bucks to replace their music collection AGAIN like with CDs back in the '80s!

I don't see it happening. It's just like the DVD-A fiasco. Great music delivery system, awesome sound, but no-one wants to spend the moola on hardware and replacement costs for their music collection. SACD? well that's a bit of a different story.

BlueFox

Music on BR will be like movies on BR. For example, I have replaced my really favorite, and even a few marginal favorites, DVDs with BRs, but 99% are still DVD. However all new purchases are BR. I suspect the same model would be followed for music.

As a side-note, the Tom Petty Mojo BR disk came with a free one-time download of the CD in either FLAC or Apple Lossless. That is nice, especially if it becomes the norm. Then you can burn and play the CD in places (car) that does not have a BR.

Before, I will get heavily into BR music, assuming it happens, there will have to be a decent player with balanced stereo ouputs I can use in my two channel system. I can live with a no video option, but that might make it too much of a niche product.

FTGV

BlueFox wrote: »

As a side-note, the Tom Petty Mojo BR disk came with a free one-time download of the CD in either FLAC or Apple Lossless. That is nice, especially if it becomes the norm.

Interesting, I like that idea.How does the material on Mojo stack up?I have been disappointed in his last few releases.

polkfarmboy

I was hoping BR would give us high quality but after reading the post it seems like its the producers faults

Maybe there will be an hdmi dac converter box coming out that could down mix the signal into balanced stereo outputs

hearingimpared

BlueFox wrote: »

Music on BR will be like movies on BR. For example, I have replaced my really favorite, and even a few marginal favorites, DVDs with BRs, but 99% are still DVD. However all new purchases are BR. I suspect the same model would be followed for music.

As a side-note, the Tom Petty Mojo BR disk came with a free one-time download of the CD in either FLAC or Apple Lossless. That is nice, especially if it becomes the norm. Then you can burn and play the CD in places (car) that does not have a BR.

Before, I will get heavily into BR music, assuming it happens, there will have to be a decent player with balanced stereo outputs I can use in my two channel system. I can live with a no video option, but that might make it too much of a niche product.

Just and FYI every LP I've purchased from new bands also come with a free one-time download of the CD. However I don't remember the formats offered.

BlueFox

FTGV wrote: »

Interesting, I like that idea.How does the material on Mojo stack up?I have been disappointed in his last few releases.

I have been an on and off Tom Petty fan since the mid 70s. All in all this seems up there with earlier releases, altough no tunes really jumped out and got me. I mainly bought it to give Blu-ray music a try. From that perspective it sounds great.