[Mr.Will]

Easy gang,
an exciting time - the first four tracks are off to be mastered as an EP
release.
Now, Ive sat with the mixing engineer and am going off his advice (and
numerous others) about the need for mastering - radio play etc and the final
sound, and it all makes sense, but wondered if folks in here would share
benefits of their experience.

Does mastering change the sound much? I get that it brings the average level
and the peak level closer together, so that it always sounds the same on
every system, but does it actually change things that much? Its been talked
of as if its some magic elixer for the tracks - I must admit Im happy with
how they sound now, and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......

Anyways!

Mr.Will

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 8, 8:28*pm, "Mr.Will" wrote:
Easy gang,
an exciting time - the first four tracks are off to be mastered as an EP
release.
Now, Ive sat with the mixing engineer and am going off his advice (and
numerous others) about the need for mastering - radio play etc and the final
sound, and it all makes sense, but wondered if folks in here would share
benefits of their experience.

Does mastering change the sound much? I get that it brings the average level
and the peak level closer together, so that it always sounds the same on
every system, but does it actually change things that much? Its been talked
of as if its some magic elixer for the tracks - I must admit Im happy with
how they sound now, and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......

Anyways!

Mr.Will
_______________________

Besides optimizing levels, mastering can:

1. Ensure that all elements(tracks or groups of tracks) of a song have
a "space" in the mix both spectrally and spatially, through the use of
EQ, reverb, echo, and stereo panning.

2. Ensure that all the songs on the album have close *enough* levels -
though this is subjective and the artist may have a reason for one
song or another to be louder or softer than average.

3. Create a texture for your songs or for the album as a whole, a
texture that is "you", and will set your album apart from the many
competitors it will face.

4. Make your song sound good whether played on a college student's
bookshelf speakers above the desk in their dorm, or through the
refrigerator-sized Lansings in some audiophile's basement.

The post-production mastering stage will go much smoother/faster if
your studio sessions observed all the common-sense practices: optimal
mic placement, appropriate levels through the board. Outboard
processing(reverb, echo, other FX) as well as mixer and outboard EQ
are okay, as long as used sparingly. In other words, submit something
to the mastering studio that they can work with!

-ChrisCoaster

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr.Will wrote:

Does mastering change the sound much? I get that it brings the average level
and the peak level closer together, so that it always sounds the same on
every system, but does it actually change things that much? Its been talked
of as if its some magic elixer for the tracks - I must admit Im happy with
how they sound now, and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......

It might not change anything. The mastering engineer might just say,
"these sound great, go with them as is."

It might change everything totally, just with a little bit of judicious
cutting and boosing there and there, and make things much better.

It might change the overall levels substantially without making any real
tonal changes at all.

It might also turn your material into distorted garbage in the pursuit
of the greatest possible loudness.

It depends entirely what you say when you sit down with the mastering
engineer. At an attended session, you're going to tell him your philosophy
and what you want it to sound like, and you might give him some examples
of recordings like that. He will then take that into account when he
listens to your tracks.

You want to do an attended session, rather than just sending the tracks
off to someone sight-unseen, and that's in part because you personally want
to listen to the recording on the mastering monitors and hear what the
mastering engineer is doing because it will give you some insight in what
needs to be fixed and so what you can improve the next time around.
A good mastering session should be an educational experience as well as
the last possible opportunity to make sonic changes.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/8/2011 8:28 PM, Mr.Will wrote:

Now, Ive sat with the mixing engineer and am going off his advice (and
numerous others) about the need for mastering - radio play etc and the final
sound, and it all makes sense, but wondered if folks in here would share
benefits of their experience.

Does mastering change the sound much?

Let's stop using the term "mastering" and come up with
another word. I'll use "changing. 'It depends on what it
sounds like before changing, and what's changed. By putting
your project in the hands of someone who calls himself a
"mastering engineer" you're telling him to change it in ways
that he thinks it needs changing. He may or may not be
influenced by where it's going next.

Radio airplay? Really? Spend your money on a good publicist
first, not a mastering engineer.

I get that it brings the average level
and the peak level closer together, so that it always sounds the same on
every system, but does it actually change things that much?

That's just one thing that a mastering engineer can do to
change your recording. That's not always the goal. And it
may not even be the right thing to try to make it sound the
same on any system. It depends on so many things.

I must admit Im happy with
how they sound now, and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......

Yup. And how will you know if you're really happy? But if
you're happy now, why ask someone to change it before you
get some feedback from your customers? I'm not suggesting
that you shouldn't get it mastered, but that you should
understand what you might want to change and express that to
the person you put in charge of changing it.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[[email protected]]

On 2011-05-09 said:
Now, Ive sat with the mixing engineer and am going off his advice
(and numerous others) about the need for mastering - radio play etc
and the final sound, and it all makes sense, but wondered if folks
in here would share benefits of their experience.
Does mastering change the sound much? I get that it brings the
average level and the peak level closer together, so that it always
sounds the same on every system, but does it actually change things
that much? Its been talked of as if its some magic elixer for the
tracks - I must admit Im happy with how they sound now, and I guess
I will only know once the tracks are back......

That all depends. What mastering *will do for you is bring
a fresh set of ears to your project who is listening to your
tracks in a known environment with an ear toward how they'll
sound on a variety of systems, and how your target audience
might be listening to them. Maybe the mastering engineer
will use multiband compression and other tools to bring peak
and average levels closer and do other tweaks, but that will
depend on what he thinks they might need.

YEars ago I convinced a friend of mine who was building a
nice studio to at least go somewhere else for mastering his
tracks, another nearby room with a wider variety of
monitors, and that studio's engineer's ears, even if he
couldn't afford to go to the mastering specialists.

tHe first couple times he did that for material destined for
radio he noticed that the harder he hit his tracks with
multiband compression during his mastering sessions the less
they stood out from others on the radio.


I look at the process of mastering like your doctor looks at
caring for your health, as in first do no harm. IF I can't
make it better let it go as is, making small changes and
listening carefully before i even print and commit to them.

I'm sure you'll get other replies in this thread as well.
COngratulations.

Have you listened to the work of the mastering engineer
you're sending your tracks to? sOme who are trying to build
a rep will master one song on approval to let you give a
listen.

OH, and if you can, plan to attend the mastering session.
You'll be able to learn from the mastering engineer, and
answer any questions he has about your intentions and how
they relate to his decisions right there.



GOod luck!



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Mark]

Does mastering change the sound much? I get that it brings the average level
and the peak level closer together, so that it always sounds the same on
every system, but does it actually change things that much? Its been talked
of as if its some magic elixer for the tracks - I must admit Im happy with
how they sound now, and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......

Anyways!

Mr.Will

_______________________

Besides optimizing levels, mastering can:

1. Ensure that all elements(tracks or groups of tracks) of a song have
a "space" in the mix both spectrally and spatially, through the use of
EQ, reverb, echo, and stereo panning.


I think this task has to be done during MIXING not Mastering...

Mark

[swanny]

On 9/05/2011 10:28 AM, Mr.Will wrote:
Easy gang,
an exciting time - the first four tracks are off to be mastered as an EP
release.
Now, Ive sat with the mixing engineer and am going off his advice (and
numerous others) about the need for mastering - radio play etc and the final
sound, and it all makes sense, but wondered if folks in here would share
benefits of their experience.

Does mastering change the sound much? I get that it brings the average level
and the peak level closer together, so that it always sounds the same on
every system, but does it actually change things that much? Its been talked
of as if its some magic elixer for the tracks - I must admit Im happy with
how they sound now, and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......

Anyways!

Mr.Will



Traditionally mastering was simply that. To create a 'master' from a mix
for production on whatever the selected media was, usually vinyl or mag
tape. Each had their own set of contraints and requirements and the
mastering engineer had to tailor the mix to match the contraints.

Nowdays people think it means 'magic'.

[Mr.Will]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 5/8/2011 8:28 PM, Mr.Will wrote:

Now, Ive sat with the mixing engineer and am going off his advice (and
numerous others) about the need for mastering - radio play etc and the
final
sound, and it all makes sense, but wondered if folks in here would share
benefits of their experience.

Does mastering change the sound much?

Let's stop using the term "mastering" and come up with another word. I'll
use "changing. 'It depends on what it sounds like before changing, and
what's changed. By putting your project in the hands of someone who calls
himself a "mastering engineer" you're telling him to change it in ways
that he thinks it needs changing. He may or may not be influenced by where
it's going next.


That makes sense - I guess I just have to see where it goes and if I like it
or not!

Radio airplay? Really? Spend your money on a good publicist first, not a
mastering engineer.


Sorry if I gave the impression I thought that would lead to more radio
airplay.
I have several things lined up already, and that was the advice I was given
for when the tracks are played.
Not that I expected mastered tracks to get me more airplay or anything.

I get that it brings the average level
and the peak level closer together, so that it always sounds the same on
every system, but does it actually change things that much?

That's just one thing that a mastering engineer can do to change your
recording. That's not always the goal. And it may not even be the right
thing to try to make it sound the same on any system. It depends on so
many things.

I must admit Im happy with
how they sound now, and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......

Yup. And how will you know if you're really happy? But if you're happy
now, why ask someone to change it before you get some feedback from your
customers? I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't get it mastered, but
that you should understand what you might want to change and express that
to the person you put in charge of changing it.

I get you, I will speak to the mixing engineer again - he seemed convinced
and he has done such a great job so far that Im convinced.
You are right though I havent any idea now about this realm!
Thanks bro

Mr.Will

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 9, 5:28*pm, swanny wrote:


Traditionally mastering was simply that. To create a 'master' from a mix
for production on whatever the selected media was, usually vinyl or mag
tape. Each had their own set of contraints and requirements and the
mastering engineer had to tailor the mix to match the contraints.

Nowdays people think it means 'magic'.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
_______________________
Sometimes I wish those constraints were still around - having to mix
everything below 60Hz(50?) to mono for a LP master. Having to boost
and compress the highs for a Dolby Cassette master.

Digital certainly has liberated us from some of these things, but
simultaneously it has unleashed a vicious loudness competition. It's
not uncommon to see songs - on a digital scale here - with a dynamic
range of -3 -1!! Not much to tap your head or knod your foot to,
but it SURE IS LOUD! ! ! ! lol.

Digital can really sound good, if we just pull back in our trade, and
not allow any peaks over -5, with an average level of -12dB VU. I
noticed that the movement of the meters becomes more natural as I
lower the recording level in Audacity. No longer when the meter surges
up does it seem to "slow down" or hit an invisible ceiling.

Perhaps this will teach people how to actually "listen" to music!
Instead, with the previous example, amps, speaker/headphones, and EARS
are being taxed as never before in the history of recorded sound.
Squashed dynamic range actually concentrates too much sonic energy
into too narrow a field, and this is actually not biologically or
artistically healthy.

Once consumers hear a correct recording or see a calibrated image -
their first complaint is either "It's not loud enough" or "It's too
dim".

-CC

[Phil W]

"Mr.Will":
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/8/2011 8:28 PM, Mr.Will wrote:

I must admit Im happy with how they sound now,
and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......


"Mastering" is often used to add a "final polish" to the tracks. If this
makes an audible difference or is just level matching throughout and some
other technical necessities (like keeping all peak levels below 0 dBFS, to
avoid digital clipping), depends on the quality of the mixdown-2-track and
the engineer´s decision.

A good mix is a good starting point for "mastering", anyway.

A lot of "mastering" guys offer to "process" 1 track as a "free sample".
These are probably mostly starters, but if they deliver a good job and you
think, that it improves the sound over what you have now, give it a go...

Yup. And how will you know if you're really happy? But if you're
happy now, why ask someone to change it before you get some feedback
from your customers? I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't get it
mastered, but that you should understand what you might want to
change and express that to the person you put in charge of changing
it.

I get you, I will speak to the mixing engineer again - he seemed
convinced and he has done such a great job so far that Im convinced.
You are right though I havent any idea now about this realm!

There´s a good book by Bob Katz "Masterin Audio - The Art and the Science".
More than necessary for you, though.
Anyway, the guy has a website with a free FAQ, that might give some insight
on the subject and some techniques

http://www.digido.com/audiofaq.html

Don´t worry, not everything is important for a start! ;-)
Check out something on EQ, dynamics (see also "loudness") and the following
articles

http://www.digido.com/audio-faq/m/ma...ifference.html
http://www.digido.com/audio-faq/m/ma...echniques.html


Hope that helps,

Phil

[Mark]

Squashed dynamic range actually concentrates too much sonic energy
into too narrow a field, and this is actually not biologically or
artistically healthy.



it would not surprise me if they eventually find out that listening to
overcompressed music and watching frenetically edited video hour
after hour contributes to ADHD.

Mark

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 5/9/2011 9:41 PM, Mark wrote:

Squashed dynamic range actually concentrates too much sonic energy
into too narrow a field, and this is actually not biologically or
artistically healthy.



it would not surprise me if they eventually find out that listening to
overcompressed music and watching frenetically edited video hour
after hour contributes to ADHD.

Mark

Well studies have shown that Transcendental Meditation
mitigates ADHD, so the converse wouldn't be much of a
stretch.


Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Frank Stearns]

Mark writes:


Squashed dynamic range actually concentrates too much sonic energy
into too narrow a field, and this is actually not biologically or
artistically healthy.



it would not surprise me if they eventually find out that listening to
overcompressed music and watching frenetically edited video hour
after hour contributes to ADHD.

I think you're on to something. If it hasn't been done already (and perhaps few are
listening or understand what's going on), it would be interesting to correlate the
rise in use of "make it LOUD" compression in audio everywhere, along with "edits per
second" in visuals everywhere, to the rise of ADHD and similar problems.

There is little visual or acoustical space left where one can let those senses (and
affiliated brain parts) catch a breath. You have to actively seek it out -- turn off
the TV (gasp!) and turn off the ipod or radio (double gasp!)

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[swanny]

On 10/05/2011 5:53 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Mark writes:


Squashed dynamic range actually concentrates too much sonic energy
into too narrow a field, and this is actually not biologically or
artistically healthy.



it would not surprise me if they eventually find out that listening to
overcompressed music and watching frenetically edited video hour
after hour contributes to ADHD.

I think you're on to something. If it hasn't been done already (and perhaps few are
listening or understand what's going on), it would be interesting to correlate the
rise in use of "make it LOUD" compression in audio everywhere, along with "edits per
second" in visuals everywhere, to the rise of ADHD and similar problems.

There is little visual or acoustical space left where one can let those senses (and
affiliated brain parts) catch a breath. You have to actively seek it out -- turn off
the TV (gasp!) and turn off the ipod or radio (double gasp!)

Frank
Mobile Audio

Check out Rupert Neve's lecture where he discusses some research being
done in Japan that correlates the lack of HF (ie 20kHz) in digital
recordings (mp3, CD, Video) with agitation and frustration. The same
pieces being listened to from the an analogue tape master with a wide
bandwidth (100kHz) signal chain apparently excited the areas of the
brain to do with relaxation and enjoyment.

[Scott Dorsey]

swanny wrote:
Check out Rupert Neve's lecture where he discusses some research being
done in Japan that correlates the lack of HF (ie 20kHz) in digital
recordings (mp3, CD, Video) with agitation and frustration. The same
pieces being listened to from the an analogue tape master with a wide
bandwidth (100kHz) signal chain apparently excited the areas of the
brain to do with relaxation and enjoyment.

Please, please don't take any of the Kanagawa Institute "research"
seriously. To say it is poorly-conducted is an understatement. Also
funded by Pioneer....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Phil W" wrote in message
...
"Mastering" is often used to add a "final polish" to the tracks. If this
makes an audible difference or is just level matching throughout and some
other technical necessities (like keeping all peak levels below 0 dBFS, to
avoid digital clipping),

Hah, mastering pop music these days usually means reducing the dynamic range
to less than 10dB with ultra compression, and then pushing the whole mix so
far onto clipping that everything is totally flat topped. Just rip any
Brittney Spears, Lady Ga Ga, Katy Perry etc. CD to the wave editor of your
choice for a good example.

Of course classical music is different, and rarely requires "mastering"
these days now that the inadequacies of vinyl no longer need to be
considered. Anyone can simply normalise the levels before burning to CD,
although a mastering engineer can add all the proper CD codes a recording
engineer may not necessarily be familiar with I guess.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"swanny" wrote in message
ond.com...
Check out Rupert Neve's lecture where he discusses some research being
done in Japan that correlates the lack of HF (ie 20kHz) in digital
recordings (mp3, CD, Video) with agitation and frustration. The same
pieces being listened to from the an analogue tape master with a wide
bandwidth (100kHz) signal chain apparently excited the areas of the
brain to do with relaxation and enjoyment.

Wow, what analog tape recorder is that??????

Wouldn't it be far easier to simply use 24/192 digital recording instead?
(I bet any actual scientific proof is nowhere to be found of course)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Uh, there's not that much 20KHz stimulus in real life

Actually there is lot's, it's just not relevant to humans however.


nor in any recorded material, analogue or digital. And for most folks,
you can LPF at 14KHz and they won't be able to tell the difference.

Except for 10YO girls, who don't seem to care anyway.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill wrote:

Uh, there's not that much 20KHz stimulus in real life nor in
any recorded material, analogue or digital. And for most folks,
you can LPF at 14KHz and they won't be able to tell the difference.

Actually, there's a lot of it in real life... stuff well into the hundreds
of KHz comes off a violin (although it drops off pretty quickly with distance).
You can't hear it, but cats can.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

swanny wrote:

Thanks for the heads-up Scott, I had not found any of the research
papers themselves so was unable to read them and determine how it was
conducted. It was just a passing comment by Neve, who claims that we can
perceive frequencies above those that are audible.

That's not to say that we _can't_ perceive ultrasonics, but those studies
aren't much good. And Neve's anecdote about the unterminated transformer
causing audible effects (which were only determined through an ultrasonic
sweep) are also pretty much irrelevant. An unterminated transformer will
have plenty of effects in the audible band even if they aren't ones you will
see on a swept sine test.

This has been an ongoing discussion in this newsgroup for almost 25 years now,
and there's really no good evidence either way. Still, if ultrasonics did
alter perception of lower frequency sounds, you'd think we'd have noticed it
more strongly by now.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

This has been an ongoing discussion in this newsgroup for almost
25 years, and there's no good evidence either way. Still, if ultrasonics
did alter perception of lower frequency sounds, you'd think we'd have
noticed it more strongly by now.

It's easy to imagine that ultrasonics might "beat" due to nonlinearities in
the ear. In fact, systems using these nonlinearities to generate audible
sound /at the ear/ have been shown. But is the effect audible with ordinary
orchestral sound?

[Scott Dorsey]

Trevor wrote:
Hah, mastering pop music these days usually means reducing the dynamic range
to less than 10dB with ultra compression, and then pushing the whole mix so
far onto clipping that everything is totally flat topped. Just rip any
Brittney Spears, Lady Ga Ga, Katy Perry etc. CD to the wave editor of your
choice for a good example.

Of course classical music is different, and rarely requires "mastering"
these days now that the inadequacies of vinyl no longer need to be
considered. Anyone can simply normalise the levels before burning to CD,
although a mastering engineer can add all the proper CD codes a recording
engineer may not necessarily be familiar with I guess.

Right. The thing is, the majority of music out there falls into the range
in-between pop music and classical. Your jazz or folk release (or even
hard rock release) can be treated like either extreme or like something in
between. How it gets treated depends on what you ask for.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Trevor wrote:

Digital recording alone is not the cause of the loudness wars, and if those
early limitations remained, thing would not be any different, perhaps even
worse. Digital recording and playback gave us much increased dynamic range,
and it's simply an "artistic" choice to reduce it instead.

As someone who used to fight with the other crew about who could make the
loudest possible 45 and still have it play on a jukebox without skipping, I
agree this is definitely the case.

However, the particular tools used in the digital world to bring levels up
are a bit more insidious than the tools that will work in the disc cutting
world.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 11, 3:00*am, "Trevor" wrote:

and it's simply an "artistic" choice to reduce it instead.

Trevor.
_________________
And that is a shame. It's like listening to fu@$ng PUDDING.

Watching an analog VU meter hover right around zero while a song is
playing doesn't seem natural to me.

-CC

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 10, 3:53*am, Frank Stearns
wrote:


There is little visual or acoustical space left where one can let those senses (and
affiliated brain parts) catch a breath. You have to actively seek it out -- turn off
the TV (gasp!) and turn off the ipod or radio (double gasp!)

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
*.
_____________________
The best medicine is to put on a period CD release of vintage Steely
Dan(not a post-2000 "Digitally Remastered" one mind you), but one from
back in the 80s. Or a contemporary David Grusin CD.
Those dynamics will cure ya..

-CC

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 11, 12:53*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


However, the particular tools used in the digital world to bring levels up
are a bit more insidious than the tools that will work in the disc cutting
world.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
___________________
Thanks Scott. And there's NOTHING "artistic" about THAT. lol!

-CC

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Les Cargill wrote:

Uh, there's not that much 20KHz stimulus in real life
nor in
any recorded material, analogue or digital. And for most
folks, you can LPF at 14KHz and they won't be able to
tell the difference.

Actually, there's a lot of it in real life... stuff well
into the hundreds
of KHz comes off a violin (although it drops off pretty
quickly with distance). You can't hear it, but cats can.


Here's a real world take on attenuation by the air.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-air.htm

gives 54 dB attenuation per 100 meters @ 20 KHz with 50% RH and 20 degrees
C.. Far worse at higher frequencies. The HF falls off linearly with
distance, so we're talking about 18 dB per 100 feet.

gives 132 dB attenuation per 100 meters @ 40 KHz with 50% RH and 20 degrees
C.. The HF falls off linearly with distance, so we're talking about 43 dB
per 100 feet or 10 dB for 25 feet.

Equally scary is the off-axis fall off of even those few speakers that have
fair response @ 40 KHz.

Finally, there are only a fairly small number of mics that are flat to 40
KHz, and very few people are actually using them to record. Many of the
omnis in that rare category are fairly directional at 40 KHz.

Intersting factoid: A subcontractor who was retained to transcribe SACDs and
DVD-As for an online download music strore discovered that about half of the
100's of recordings he processed were obviously from legacy sources that
simply had no response above 22-24 KHz or so.

Then there are the effects (in humans) of spectral masking. Any recording
with substantial energy in the 8-16 KHz range will obliterate our ability to
hear in the 16-24 KHz range unless the energy is strongly rising with
frequency, which is characteristic of only a miniscule fraction of all
musical instruments. None of them are the cymbals that are usually used in
the western world.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor" wrote in message
u
"swanny" wrote in message
ond.com...
Check out Rupert Neve's lecture where he discusses some
research being done in Japan that correlates the lack of
HF (ie 20kHz) in digital recordings (mp3, CD, Video)
with agitation and frustration. The same pieces being
listened to from the an analogue tape master with a wide
bandwidth (100kHz) signal chain apparently excited the
areas of the brain to do with relaxation and enjoyment.

Wow, what analog tape recorder is that??????

AFAIK it was digital.

http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full

Wouldn't it be far easier to simply use 24/192 digital
recording instead?

Yes.

(I bet any actual scientific proof is nowhere to be found of course)

This is now a relatively easy experiment to do, and basically mission
impossible to obtain positive results from unless you have something fairly
nonlinear at high frequencies in the playback chain. Then the positive
results don't really count.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Here's a real world take on attenuation by the air.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-air.htm

gives 54 dB attenuation per 100 meters @ 20 KHz with 50% RH and 20 degrees
C.. Far worse at higher frequencies. The HF falls off linearly with
distance, so we're talking about 18 dB per 100 feet.

gives 132 dB attenuation per 100 meters @ 40 KHz with 50% RH and 20
degrees C.. The HF falls off linearly with distance, so we're talking
about 43 dB per 100 feet or 10 dB for 25 feet.

Right, but most bats still cope.


Equally scary is the off-axis fall off of even those few speakers that
have fair response @ 40 KHz.


Do the bats care? Certainly not humans anyway.


Intersting factoid: A subcontractor who was retained to transcribe SACDs
and DVD-As for an online download music strore discovered that about half
of the 100's of recordings he processed were obviously from legacy sources
that simply had no response above 22-24 KHz or so.

ONLY half! ?? The other half were probably just distortion components
anyway :-)


Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor" wrote in message
u
"swanny" wrote in message
ond.com...
Check out Rupert Neve's lecture where he discusses some
research being done in Japan that correlates the lack of
HF (ie 20kHz) in digital recordings (mp3, CD, Video)
with agitation and frustration. The same pieces being
listened to from the an analogue tape master with a wide
bandwidth (100kHz) signal chain apparently excited the
areas of the brain to do with relaxation and enjoyment.

Wow, what analog tape recorder is that??????

AFAIK it was digital.

Swanny said "from the an analogue tape master ", so I was asking him what
analog audio tape recorder he thought had good response to 100kHz?
(I was just joking of course :-)


(I bet any actual scientific proof is nowhere to be found of course)

This is now a relatively easy experiment to do, and basically mission
impossible to obtain positive results from unless you have something
fairly nonlinear at high frequencies in the playback chain. Then the
positive results don't really count.

Right, it's so easy to do accurate *verifiable* positive results would have
been obtained LONG ago if it were so.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Trevor wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor" wrote in message
u
"swanny" wrote in message
ond.com...
Check out Rupert Neve's lecture where he discusses some
research being done in Japan that correlates the lack of
HF (ie 20kHz) in digital recordings (mp3, CD, Video)
with agitation and frustration. The same pieces being
listened to from the an analogue tape master with a wide
bandwidth (100kHz) signal chain apparently excited the
areas of the brain to do with relaxation and enjoyment.

Wow, what analog tape recorder is that??????

AFAIK it was digital.

Swanny said "from the an analogue tape master ", so I was asking him what
analog audio tape recorder he thought had good response to 100kHz?
(I was just joking of course :-)

ATR-100 is down 3dB at 35 KHz, at 15 ips no less. Mind you it drops like
a rock after that, but it means flat phase response out to 20 KHz.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Swanny said "from the an analogue tape master ", so I was asking him what
analog audio tape recorder he thought had good response to 100kHz?
(I was just joking of course :-)

ATR-100 is down 3dB at 35 KHz, at 15 ips no less. Mind you it drops like
a rock after that,

Right, a LONG way short of 100kHz!

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Swanny said "from the an analogue tape master ", so I was asking him what
analog audio tape recorder he thought had good response to 100kHz?
(I was just joking of course :-)

ATR-100 is down 3dB at 35 KHz, at 15 ips no less. Mind you it drops like
a rock after that,

Right, a LONG way short of 100kHz!

Less than two octaves short!

When you consider 20 Hz to 20 KHz is more than ten octaves already....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Swanny said "from the an analogue tape master ", so I was asking him
what
analog audio tape recorder he thought had good response to 100kHz?
(I was just joking of course :-)

ATR-100 is down 3dB at 35 KHz, at 15 ips no less. Mind you it drops
like
a rock after that,

Right, a LONG way short of 100kHz!

Less than two octaves short!

The WHOLE argument is about whether anyone can hear those extra 2- 2.5
octaves!!!!!!!!! So they are kind of important in that context surely?


When you consider 20 Hz to 20 KHz is more than ten octaves already....

20 -20k is MORE than ten????? (Perhaps you really mean 20-22kHz?)
But why stop at 20Hz, CD can handle another couple of octaves below that.
Now you can argue how important they are :-)

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

Trevor wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor" wrote in message
u
"swanny" wrote in message
ond.com...
Check out Rupert Neve's lecture where he discusses some
research being done in Japan that correlates the lack of
HF (ie 20kHz) in digital recordings (mp3, CD, Video)
with agitation and frustration. The same pieces being
listened to from the an analogue tape master with a wide
bandwidth (100kHz) signal chain apparently excited the
areas of the brain to do with relaxation and enjoyment.
Wow, what analog tape recorder is that??????
AFAIK it was digital.

Swanny said "from the an analogue tape master ", so I was asking him what
analog audio tape recorder he thought had good response to 100kHz?
(I was just joking of course :-)

I had an Akai X-IV portable until my last house move that would play
back the crossfield bias signal. Would that count?


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson"
wrote in message ...

I had an Akai X-IV portable until my last house move that
would play back the crossfield bias signal. Would that count?

I find it amazing that the bias was actually recorderd. However...

The crossfield machines were spec'd at recording to 13kHz at 1.875ips. That
means they had the potential to reach 100kHz at 7.5ips.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


ATR-100 is down 3dB at 35 KHz, at 15 ips no less. Mind
you it drops like a rock after that, but it means flat
phase response out to 20 KHz. --scott

Just guessing but probably the only way to obtain that sort of response @ 35
KHz is to record the tone at -10 or -20 dB, rewind the tape, and adjust the
playback head while you measure the recorder's output. Good chance that the
played back tone will have a random bounce of serveral dB.

Will you get that sort of performance if you use yesterday's adjustment of
head azimuth? ;-)

Is the so-called flat phase response from the ATR 100 as good as those shown
here?


http://home.comcast.net/~arnyk/pcavt...644-xfus10.gif

or

http://home.comcast.net/~arnyk/pcavt...192-xfus10.gif

??

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
"John Williamson"
wrote in message ...

I had an Akai X-IV portable until my last house move that
would play back the crossfield bias signal. Would that
count?

I find it amazing that the bias was actually recorderd.
However...

The crossfield machines were spec'd at recording to 13kHz
at 1.875ips. That means they had the potential to reach
100kHz at 7.5ips.

Huh?

Tape bandpass usually goes up linearly with tape speed, or less, right?

1.875 x 4 = 7..5 ips

13 KHz x 4 = 52 KHz.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"John Williamson"
wrote in message ...

I had an Akai X-IV portable until my last house move that
would play back the crossfield bias signal. Would that count?

I find it amazing that the bias was actually recorderd. However...

The crossfield machines were spec'd at recording to 13kHz at 1.875ips. That
means they had the potential to reach 100kHz at 7.5ips.

Yes, the record and playback electronics were the real limiting factors.

Residual bias is often recoverable, actually. It's very handy... the folks
at Plangent are using it for flutter removal on old tapes. But, they also
have very narrow-gap heads and give up a little low end response in the
bargain.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


ATR-100 is down 3dB at 35 KHz, at 15 ips no less. Mind
you it drops like a rock after that, but it means flat
phase response out to 20 KHz. --scott

Just guessing but probably the only way to obtain that sort of response @ 35
KHz is to record the tone at -10 or -20 dB, rewind the tape, and adjust the
playback head while you measure the recorder's output. Good chance that the
played back tone will have a random bounce of serveral dB.

Nope. The needles are rock steady.

Will you get that sort of performance if you use yesterday's adjustment of
head azimuth? ;-)

Yes. That's the very, very cool thing about the machine. No more re-alignment
every morning. I check it weekly against the ref tape and do the record
alignment but I have not had to pull out the allen wrench since last July,
believe it or not.

If only the DAT and DTRS machines were so stable....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."