Mastering Rant:I could care less bout your Lavery converters

Snarl 12/8 · Post by **Snarl 12/8** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:23 pm

digitaldrummer wrote:I love me some 192 MP3's. Way better than 128 or 96. But if you use Beats phones you don't really even need dubly anymore.

+1000

Randyman... · Post by **Randyman...** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 3:00 pm

digitaldrummer wrote:I love me some 192 MP3's. Way better than 128 or 96. But if you use Beats phones you don't really even need dubly anymore.

Made me giggle a little, too

kslight · Post by **kslight** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 3:32 pm

If you "could" care less, then you must care at least a little... Sorry this inversion has always been a pet peeve...

dfuruta · Post by **dfuruta** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:27 pm

MoreSpaceEcho wrote:even the bats wouldn't care.

i was told by a bat specialist i knew that some species echolocate at upwards of 100kHz. guess they'd need 384kHz sampling...

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:44 am

"bat specialist" would be a good rank.

i was thinking about your question some more...

Do people find it unethical to just upsample in the box as the last step?

....and if we accept lavry's argument in that paper (i do), then it might actually be better to do the mastering at 88.2 or 96 and then just upsample the final master for the 192 release.

might. i dunno.

i've never listened to any 192 audio....how can i, i have lavrys!....but i've certainly heard enough lousy 88.2 mixes and enough amazing 44.1 mixes to know that the sample rate is hardly the deciding factor, and that higher isn't inherently better.

dfuruta · Post by **dfuruta** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:07 pm

MoreSpaceEcho wrote:but i've certainly heard enough lousy 88.2 mixes

hey!

Anyway, it's kind of hard to see what advantage one gets from 192kHz. Certainly can't hear the increased bandwidth, and the temporal resolution of pcm is, as I understand it, more limited by jitter than sampling rate.

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:03 am

not yours! you obviously take great care in assembling that impenetrable wall of distortion.

the more i think about it, the less i get 192. it just seems like a recipe for capturing more IM and RF along with your audio.

roscoenyc · Post by **roscoenyc** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 5:57 am

I think Dan is saying the earth is flat.

If I'm the customer and I want 192 Mastering, I'll find someone who can do it and do it well. What surprises me is the resistance to the idea from people who in my view are trying to do the absolute best they can for their clients.

As far as up sampling at the last stage goes, yes you can tell. It ends up in the digital fingerprint. The folks at HD Tracks test for just that.

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 8:06 am

well, there's lots of smart people who agree with dan.

if you were an ME who had 16 grand in their lavry golds, you might raise an eyebrow when suddenly those weren't good enough for someone. you might also agree with dan that 192 is basically snake oil, and therefore by working at 88 or 96 you actually ARE doing the absolute best for your clients.

but you've been making records a long time, you must know some a-list ME's who can accommodate your 192 requests, no?

here's one thing i don't get about 192.....what is the interest in capturing all that high frequency we can't hear? yeah yeah i know, you can have a much less steep anti-alias filter than with 44.1, i get that. but what's the interest in capturing frequencies up to 96k? more than 2 octaves higher than anyone can hear.

no one's interested in making sure they get 5hz on their records, in fact everyone goes to great lengths to avoid it, no one would argue that records would sound better with all that unnecessary sub, but at the other end of the spectrum it's a different story. why?

roscoenyc · Post by **roscoenyc** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 8:28 am

You can go way back to Rupert Neve saying that he needed his gear to reproduce way past what we can hear.

Also, 192/24 isn't just about high end, you could also say it's about more detail.

If people want it, I'm gonna try to get it for them and it seems that the want is out there.

dfuruta · Post by **dfuruta** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:48 am

roscoenyc wrote:Also, 192/24 isn't just about high end, you could also say it's about more detail.

How?

jimjazzdad · Post by **jimjazzdad** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:51 am

roscoenyc wrote:Also, 192/24 isn't just about high end, you could also say it's about more detail.

If people want it, I'm gonna try to get it for them and it seems that the want is out there.

The very best measurement mics top out somewhere ~ 50 kHz... studio mics seldom go beyond 20 kHz... so there is nothing to hear up there in most recordings, even if you are a bat. Some consumers want 192/24 because they have bought the pitch and are drinking the koolaid. So its about marketing rather than fidelity...IMHO.

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:57 am

dfuruta wrote:
roscoenyc wrote:Also, 192/24 isn't just about high end, you could also say it's about more detail.
How?

that whole extra octave of unnecessary IM distortion makes everything sound warm and punchy.

dfuruta · Post by **dfuruta** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:54 pm

MoreSpaceEcho wrote:
dfuruta wrote:
roscoenyc wrote:Also, 192/24 isn't just about high end, you could also say it's about more detail.
How?
that whole extra octave of unnecessary IM distortion makes everything sound warm and punchy.

"Tube-like"

roscoenyc · Post by **roscoenyc** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:39 am

I'm looking at 192 in a similar manner as vinyl.

It's a small market now but it's an actual market meaning people are willing to pay for it rather than steal it or stream it.

Message Board

Mastering Rant:I could care less bout your Lavery converters

Who is online