What Constitutes a "Different" Mastering?

This topic came up in another thread, so I thought it wise to start a new thread for this purpose.

 

If one is to judge by ears alone, the dynamics can sound different between discs, enough to where it's quite obvious. It's more than just a boost in volume. Obviously those that follow will get more in-depth, but it's being able to tell a difference on how the master recording was treated as they created a master for the CD (assuming we're limiting this to just CD's).

 

I think we should define exactly what properties are used in mastering first. You know.. eq.. compression..


Steve, I think the topic has come up because of the debate(?) whether or not ( small)volume changes constitutes actual mastering changes.

 

2 of the same release on CD, that came from the same digital master with slightly(or more than slightly) changed peak levels between them. I think this is what George is getting at.

 

It is.

The gist of the discussion is when a CD mastering is used to make a new CD and only seems to differ in it's levels (say 2, 3 dB) how different is it?

 

The other thread says if you have two CDs, each from the same files but one is .2dB lower in volume (like with some targets and Japanese CDs) it should be considered a new mastering. I can't bring myself to think that way. Purely a semantic argument in my opinion.

 

Thank you.

 

Agreed. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

short thread... easy peesy


wait... now what the @&#&% am I going to do with all those damn targets!

 

That's a great way to put it. I agree.

 

My perspective, stated in the other thread as well, is that even the tiniest change made to a CD master at 16-bits results in much more than the change itself. There is truncation of low level information.

Change the level (at 16-bits) by 1/1000th dB and no one will hear the level change but the loss of fine detail, shortening of reverb tails, coarsening of instrumental timbre that accompany truncation are another story altogether.

In short, I'll go with the standard dictionary definition. If it is not the same (meaning exactly the same) it is different. "Same" and "different" are antonyms. Something is either the same (not different) or it is different (not the same).

It only becomes "semantics" when folks see "slightly different" as equivalent of "the same". Of course a tiny level change in itself qualifies as "slightly different" (still not "the same"). Taking fine detail away, shortening reverb tails, coarsening instrumental timbre don't fall (to me anyway) under "slightly" or anything other than completely and utterly different.

This is just my perspective. Clearly there are different (that word again ) views on this. I suggest considering the importance of the lost information and not just small level differences in isolation, which is an abstract and not at all the only thing that happens when a CD master is altered after the fact.

All are free to call 'em as they hear 'em of course. For me, if someone changes my work, I no longer consider it my work.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

If you had a 1630 CD master, copied it and sent it off to Japan would the Japanese CD be inferior? What if you digitally lowered the level .2dB like so many of the Japanese CDs had done? Would you need a copy of both CDs?

A simple topic that has been made into a confusing topic.

 

Hi Steve,

Effectively, yes.

In the other thread, we were talking about changes made to a CD master after it arrives at the pressing plant. For example, one plant presses from the CD master with no changes and the other plant decides to make some level alterations (no matter how small) to the CD master.

I contend they do this at 16-bits. I will stand corrected when someone can offer testimony from a plant that took the original and did a Save As to a longer word length, made their changes and used a fine dithering algorithm to get back to 16-bits.

And two more things:
They'd have to explain why they took it upon themselves to make such a change in the first place when they received a finished, approved master.
And they'd have to explain why they dithered an already dithered master.

Of course, if the changes were made at 16-bits, as I strongly suspect, I say folks are getting mislead by looking only at level changes and ignoring the sonic consequences of making any changes at 16-bits, which will far outweigh those level changes.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

I tell you what, if a duplication plant changed my master, even .1dB, I'd be pretty upset.

 

Hi Jamie,

I believe what makes it appear confusing is that some folks are arguing simply about level changes. I'm talking about the sonic consequences of those changes, apart from and much larger than the level.

If you alter the level on a 1630 CD master (does anyone still use those) or any other CD master, even by 1/1000th dB, low level information goes away. You trade detail, spatial information and instrumental timbre for that small level change.

I'm not talking about something subtle here. The change is considerably larger than the differences I've heard between pressings (when the program has not been altered).

If someone I liked told me their engineer did any processing at 16-bits, no matter how small, to their mixes, I'd suggest they bring me new mixes, made by another engineer. (I'd demonstrate it for them so they'd hear it for themselves.)

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi Steve,

Understood.
Would you still call it your work? (I wouldn't.)

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi Jamie,

Hey, wait a minute!
Have you changed your point of view?
What's a .1dB level change?

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Just a sympathetic point of view. I had a plant add gaps between the tracks before even though the songs cross faded. We made them re-do the whole run.

 

I guess there would be no practical way of finding which CD of a given release is the "Real McCoy" as the supplied master, then.