Hello jazznut, altough I haven’t done these comparison tests with Paul in the room, I have done these tests many times with other engineers and people whose ears I trust. One thing I can say for sure is that we don’t all agree on what is “good” sounding.
Music is a place where there are a lot of opinions. There is no right or wrong. It’s about finding music you like, producers you enjoy and supporting their work.
I don’t care if Paul mixes in DXD or that 2L records in DXD or that Billie Eilish recorded in her bedroom at 4824. I like the music. When I record, I get to choose the process. When I record lofi meditation music I use samples of nature from my phone and mix from Protools. When I record for Blue Coast Records, the musicians don’t get to use headphones or do overdubs. If I decide 20 years after the mix that I prefer the L/R of the surround mix for my stereo, then I get to change that… which I did.
It sounds fantastic.
One day, you might be in a position to record or mix. There are a lot of great reasons to mix in the computer. You’ll get to choose.
Enjoy!
Cookie Marenco
Blue Coast Records and Music
Thanks, yes sure…for the moment I focused the reasons to consider on pure sound quality.
As a consumer, for the reasons mentioned (recording quality rules), I practically didn’t and still don’t care much about format or mixing process within a format. It was the various claims, opinions, details and options that made me interested in what’s their effect and if there’s a common opinion (which as I understood is rather on a broader basis but not so much in the detail).
Jazznut…
There are a lot of reasons besides just cost that people mix in the computer. As Paul mentions, setting up any kind of studio is a very expensive adventure. If you’re starting a studio, it’s probably going to lead to generating revenue of some kind. It’s going to be up to each studio owner to decide what gear and equipment is going to help reach that revenue stream.
The solution for DSD is more DSD buyers. That may never happen, which is why in my studio we also have Protools, Samplitude, Logic and other digital workstations along with the Pyramix, Sonoma and tape machines. Our studio customer is the artist, record label and those that need to record/mix/master. Our customers mostly don’t know what DSD is I record DSD for me and those people who enjoy DSD…for other labels, we do mix in the box.
Let me ask… how do you listen? And on what systems? Are you streaming? Have you purchased the Blue Coast Collection and know what my label records and how? It’s not just about DSD… My apologies if you’ve answered this elsewhere. I have a hard time keeping track of what was previously said.
Enjoy!
Cookie Marenco
Blue Coast Records and Music
Oh, didn’t assume you also have a Pyramix and Sonoma in parallel…so then you probably also know the latest improved Pyramix options Paul mentioned in comparison to what you prefer…what a studio…as Paul’s too.
My system is easiest to read in my profile.
Not sure how to describe how I listen but I make a try. I listen for acoustical illusion and overall quality (music and sound, wherever the quality comes from). Mostly I experience that audio quality comes from recording and mixing/mastering skill, less the connected technology, although it certainly plays a big role when skill is given. That’s why I fully agree with your statement that it’s not all about DSD. In the opposite, due to the differing recording qualities, I can’t say that I hear a nameable quality aspect from DSD vs. a better recorded PCM recording. Reason might be that my DAC is Ted’s Directstream, which converts everything to DSD anyway.
Technically I listen full range in close midfield with large front wall distance, very exactly positioned which means everything snaps in place like a 3D picture in the sweet spot and sounds whatever elsewhere. I stream from NAS, not from a streaming service.
And yes, I have about 20 of your recordings which I enjoy very much and we had an exchange about that in the other Blue Coas thread I started
Hello Jazznut, this conversation has stretched my thinking. Thank you.
One of the most confusing things for audiophile listeners to understand is the role of the producer. It seems audiophile consumers are asking studio owners, engineer and producers to use the same gear and hear the same way.
I’d like to suggest that audiophiles consumers think of music producers more like painters… like Money, Picasso or Rembrandt instead of house painters. You wouldn’t ask Picasso to paint like Rembrandt just because he owns a brush and paint.
Paul, Morten Lindberg, Jared Sacks and myself all have the Pyramix in common. After that, we all approach the sound, recording and mixing differently. We also have in common a love for DSD. But the competition for ‘who’s better’ or who is ‘right’ in their recording methods is not good for anyone - especially for DSD. I will say that many engineers I very much respect (probaby 95% of the audio engineers working) could careless about DSD. That doesn’t mean we don’t listen to the music they make in PCM.
The studios we build are only tools to capture sound. If I get a great recording in a hotel room on my iPhone… I will probably want to share it will people. I often share youtube videos for the music I hear no where else.
I very much appreciate your support of Blue Coast Records. I’d probably recogize your name by your email.
While I’m away from the forums, maybe you could share my viewpoint that this is not a competition for who has the best gear. That is a personal choice we all make. I wouldn’t ask Picasso to paint like Rembrandt. And I wouldn’t tell Paul or Morten they were ‘wrong’ in how they record or mix. I would listen to the music and decide… would I listen to this again?
Thank you, Jazznut, for making me realize the real artistry of what we Producers do… we have opinions on sound and share them with an audience.
Hi. I would just like to thank Paul, Cookie, Jazznut and the others for the education they have provided by this thread. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has benefited from the conversation.
From most everything you wrote here so far and also how you explained your approach of different technologies used for different music styles (even an inferior one than possible, if it helps to make a recording fit to what needs to be expressed), I’d agree, you seem to be a kind of painter of your analogy, even if also you partly made quite clear, what’s the superior technology in your opinion (DSD vs. PCM and analog vs. DXD mixing) instead of “just the right technology for a certain expression”. Anyway you seem to have the rather artistic approach and mostly talk of your opinion, personal findings and what’s best for what you want to achieve, than making absolute statements.
Audiophiles are often used to rather absolute statements than just opinions (think of the analog/digital debate) which the different types of audiophiles either ignore, deny, blindly follow or take serious but maybe partly question.
My perception could be expressed as:
you seem to be an audiophile label owner while Paul rather seems to be an audiophile owning a label, if you get the difference (which is not meant judgmental, both is great). I like strong opinions and claims (too careful would be boring), but as I tend to take them serious, I also go deeper in case jigsaw pieces don’t fit together, differing opinions exist or questions remain.
Both of you talk a lot about technology aspects, only audiophiles are interested in, so I guess this is a reason why discussions especially in audiophile forums like here rather circle around technical topics and making differing statements comparable, than to purely connect them to individual artistic approaches (which is also interesting!) or seeing them as personal opinions without any claim to general validity (which doesn’t always sound so).
So finally I certainly get and agree that, even if both of you go into those details with clear statements, those details are secondary to the general quality of DSD, which is what both of you want to spread for good reason. Just sometimes it gets more into the can of worms you might have preferred to leave closed afterwards
Thank you! We’re planning a series of online and video workshops to describe our methods (and others) for recording in DSD.
The first workshop will probably be at the end of October 2022. We’re looking to see what most people are interested to learn. If you’re interested, follow this link and fill out the form to be part of collective learning experience.
It’s part of a larger presentation I used to give at audiophile and pro conventions called “The Six Degrees of Degradation”.
Truthfully, there are a LOT more than six places to degrade the sound. We all do our best to minimize that degradation while bringing a great experience to the listener.
I appreciate that you understand what I’ve presented. Feel free to pass on the artistic side on my behalf!
Personally, I feel very strongly about recording to PCM… don’t like it. But when I’m engineering outside of my label, I’m paid to take into account the needs of the artist or label, They’re not after an audiophile niche and I have to be able to make a great sounding recording from 4824 in Protools many times.
Still, I try t mix Protools through an analog console to DSD256… unless the artist requests otherwise. I have to be able to make an ‘overcompressed’ Taylor Swift sounding record if my artist wants it (and pays me enough). I’ll even use pitch correction if I have to. But those aren’t on Blue Coast Records.
Paul, Morten, Jared and myself all have our own styles of recording and opinions. And in the bigger picture, are much closer in our thinking than are apart. For instance, if you go to the NAMM or AES show VERY few engineers there know what DSD is and most of the show is geared to PCM recording devices, etc.
Thank you for letting us be artists in our studios and using different colors of paint and styles for our sonic pictures.
When I listen to live acoustic music in a small venue, nobody edits what I hear. Perhaps this is already available…I’m new to streaming/downloads…but why not offer stereo mike direct to DSD 256? Certainly, your studio is more acoustical friendly than a club and some projects are easier to mike. To be clear, this would be published without conversion to edit.
Mostly for two reasons: If you put up a pair of mics or a stereo mic in the club you were listening in, you’d often be surpised by how bad the result sounds compared to the experience of being there listening uncritically with music happening in realtime. Jazz at the Pawnshop, et al, aside. And - no one involved can make any mistakes that anyone else is unhappy with.
It is a Cool Thing however - as with Direct To Discs back in the day. When it is done well by all involved it can be a heck of a lot of fun to hear.
Understood, but I’m not suggesting a club recording and I’m suggesting only in limited, simpler environments. When I mentioned a stereo microphone, I was thinking of the Cowboy Junkies Trinity Session. Even that was a pretty complicated environment and in fact the environment helped to make the recording.
I guess what I’m suggesting is though it may seem simple/simpler, getting a great result like the handful of recordings where the stars aligned is a lot harder than it seems, or that would be the standard way of doing it rather than the exception. Going into an acoustically neutral/dry space can similarly be detrimental for other reasons and typically requires artificial creation of a “space”.
In audiophile discussions of recording there seems to be a tendency to leave the musicians out of the equation, since it is about the gear for a lot of us. But without tunes and players that can do the thing that happened - before the mics - on the the great minimalist recordings, no amount of gear or environment will get you there.
But enough of my nay-saying - Paul is absolutely free to take up the gauntlet you’re throwing down.
The recording of the Trinity Sessions was complicated. The “single” mic used was a Soundfield surround Ambisonics microphone with four microphone capsules (that is, four microphone channels in one physical microphone housing mic). Additionally, Ms. Timmins was singing into a second mic of the same type, and there was a speaker amplifying her voice near the recording mic which it picked up as well.
35+ years ago when the recording was made, the mics were ~ $15,000 each.
In summary, Trinity Sessions is far from a stereo mic recording. It is a great example of recording as both a science and an art.
Very interesting responses. Clearly, this would be a rare project and I know that the experts on this thread don’t fall prey to excessive editing and compression. I just wonder if the transition from DSD to analog…or PCM…or DXD and back to DSD changes the listening experience. I’m sure that the benefits of editing outstrip the benefits of staying in DSD…but there must be a few recording sessions that could stay DSD to the consumer.
