DSD mastering and quality

[stevensegal]

I disagree in that silver disc formats multiplied just as digital formatS have. We started with basic CD players and they evolved into playing DVD, SACD, multi-channel, Blu-Ray, etc. They became multi-format disc spinners. I never had one that could play an SACD, so I’ve never listened to SACD.

Likewise, my current system can play PCM up to 24/192 and DSD64. PCM codecs are not an issue as I have never had a PCM file That it has been unable to play.

Just as with SACD, I am not prepared to buy hardware to try 128 or 256 DSD. I would need a new system as I have an integrated player. Besides the cost, it’s because virtually all my music will be PCM, that will never change, which I have enjoyed for 40 years, and do not want the paranoia of listening to formats rather than music.

I’m sure you’ve heard this all before. It’s a bit like restaurants. Some people go to 3* Michelin restaurants because of the stars, they collect them, not whether they like the menu. Some people appreciate the exceptional nature of the cooking and service, others do not. In different countries people take it more or less seriously. We’ve walked out of 2* restaurants because we did not like the menu, just as I’ve not listened through 2 of my 7 DSDs as I didn’t like the music. For me it’s only the food/music that counts.

Some people will only eat 3* Michelin, few and far between. Hopefully they like the food, but it dramatically limits your options.

[cookie]

We agree. It’s the music that counts.

For Blue Coast Records, I choose to record to DSD for personal reasons. For a long time, we didn’t release any downloads in DSD because we didn’t think there would be interest. Then, in 2010 Gus Skinas said, “You’ve got a download store, why don’t you sell the DSD downloads”. Back in 2009, we had become the first download store to sell 9624 WAV files. We didn’t think DSD would attract an audience. I was wrong. DSD files for the consumer attracted a very large niche audience and created a new market for DSD DACs that didn’t exist before that.

Our DSD masters are the original mastered fiiles. As a recording engineer, I prefer to capture in DSD256. That said, for our bluecoastmusic.com store, we realize not everyone chooses to listen in DSD256. For that reason, we sell in multiple formats so that the consumers can buy whatever audio works best in their home.

At the store, we sell DSD256/128/64, WAV192/96/48/44.1, FLAC192/86, CD (Redbook standard) and some SACDs. We also sell some MQA files.

Our label, bluecoastrecords.com, also makes our music available on Qobuz, Tidal, Spotify, applemusic and 250 other streaming services through our distributor. I’m not particularly interested to stream music, but I do enjoy youtube for checking out live performances.

The music business can be very confusing. What I’ve outlined in this post are 4 aspects of the music business.
Recording/Mixing/Mastering (production)
Record label (owns the music)
Distribution (distributes the music to stores)
Music store (sells the music to the consumer)

Usually, these would be handled by 4 different companies, but because the audiophile world is very small in comparison to mainstream music, many of us (like me and Paul) have had to build our products from the ground up.

In my case, I’ve owned and operated a recording studio for 40 years which is my main business. As an example … this weekend I was (paid) to work in Protools on a pop recording (not for Blue Coast). I don’t own the music. I don’t get a choice of what format to record in (it was 4824 by client request). Next month, I have a project where the artist is paying me to record to multi-track tape for his label. Both projects are nothing like what we do for Blue Coast Records - and that’s okay.

Blue Coast Records and Music are my passion projects. I own the label and have to pay the recording expenses. And if you’re already confused, imagine my accountant… LOL…

Enjoy your music!
Cookie Marenco
Blue Coast Records and Music

Blue Coast Music

[cookie]

Hello Jazznut, I appreciate that you are trying to understand a very difficult subject… the recording process. There are no easy answers and many stages where decisions on sound quality are made. Here is a basic outline.

Recording (capturing a performance from mics to preamps to digital or analog devices).
Mixing (a simple recording might have 8 channels of drums, 2 bass channels, 2 channels of piano, 2 channels of guitar, lead vocal and backup vocals making a total of 16 individual channels. Mixing is making decisions on how loud each channel is, what effects are used, where the instrument is panned (Left/Right), etc) which then becomes a 2 channel stereo mix (or surround, etc).
Mastering (takes the final stereo mixes, prepares and adjusts the songs to play evenly for the consumer market whether vinyl, DSD, mp3, CD).
Remastering (takes either the original final mixes or the mastered file and makes adjustments for a different sound or to reissue to an existing or different format).

That’s a very simplified version of what we do in the studio. Each step requires a lot of training, expensive equipment and years of working on different projects with artists.

I had the great opportunity to work with Bernie Grundman on many vinyl projects when I was a producer for Windham Hill Records. I consider him my mentor. Bernie’s speciality is mastering and especially for vinyl. I didn’t always agree with some choices he made on some recordings, but that is expected. He always changed it if I asked. When you’re paid by the hour, you often listen to what the client/artist wants. There is no right or wrong… there’s a lot of room for ‘acceptable’ when it comes to recording.

What Paul, myself and the other DSD labels have learned is that there are few professional audio engineers or studios that understand or support DSD recording. We have learned to do the whole process ourselves, including selling directly to consumers. I’m certain many execs at Universal Music would stare at us blankly if we mentioned “DSD”.

I hope that helps.

Enjoy your music,
Cookie Marenco
Blue Coast Records and Music

Blue Coast Music

[raudio]

@cookie

Our DSD masters are the original mastered fiiles

Hi @cookie,
I am a fan of the smaller labels like yours and am asking both as a supporter and to learn.

Apologies if this has been asked before:
(A) are you mixing in analogue or DXD?
(B) If DXD, why round trip back to DSD at all? Won’t this introduce more losses? Wouldn’t the “original master” be the final DXD edit, pre-reconversion to DSD?

(Same question asked differently: What sonic benefits are gained from going back from DXD to DSD post edit?)

Thank you!
R

[stevensegal]

The HD format issue was a problem from the start, which over here was in 2007. In the UK, two of the leading promoters of DSD and PCM HD formats were Linn Records and Chandos Records, with Channel Classics in the Netherlands. These labels have had strong links with a world class roster of classical (and some jazz) instrumentalists and orchestras. They were all heavily involved in DSD from the start some 20 years ago, Linn have stopped using DSD and moved to 24/192 PCM as their standard, but Chandos and Channel still use DSD.

For very good commercial reasons, Linn and Channel are now part of Outhere Music, which is great for smaller labels. Linn used to sell other labels on their site, then went back to only selling their own output. There are clearly careful balances to be made between brand identity, quality and effective distribution at a sensible price.

This article in Gramophone explains that when Linn started selling HD downloads in 2007, the PCM format depended on the source, so a DSD source would probably have been 24/176.4 and, from what I recall, PCM sources were originally 24/96 before moving to 24/192. The article also explains that a big issue was download speeds, at least it was a big issue in the UK, and downloading high resolutions was prohibitively slow. I remember downloading Emily Barker / Dear River in 2012 or 2013 in 24/192 and it took almost an hour.

MQA was originally designed simply to make HD streaming feasible given UK internet speeds. Within 6 months of its launch speeds increased rapidly and MQA became irrelevant, so it had to reinvent itself as a new format.

I bought a DSD DAC in 2016 and sold it a few months later. Besides not appreciating any difference in sound quality, I had already been streaming lossless from Qobuz for a few years and Qobuz had already decided not to stream DSD. So investing in a new download format (DSD) when I was already streaming lossless with HD PCM downloads at half-price as part of my streaming subscription, DSD that could not be streamed with downloads costing at least 4 times the price of PCM made no sense at all.

Qobuz did not launch in the USA until 3 years later, so if I had been in the USA my choices would have been different.

[jazznut]

Interesting what you tell about your time with Bernie, as I always considered him as a genius on the one hand, but an engineer with a sometimes strange own taste for choices and no strong principles on the other hand when doing what the customer wants or being influenced. This often made his masterings a hit and miss. Most (especially in the press as one can see with Fremer, who in my perception depends on the relationship with him in terms of information source) certainly just admire him without limits and deny all deviations from this. Still many of my best recordings were remastered or mastered by him.

[cookie]

Hello Stevensegal, whatever choice you’ve made to listen to I’m sure you’re enjoying the music.

To be more clear, many of us who knew Gus Skinas had access to the Sonoma Recording system which he made available to many of us in the early 2000’s for advancing DSD recording. Gus worked for Sony at the time and did the majority of the ‘authoring’ (as it’s called) to prepare files for SACD release. Gus wanted the SACD layer to be DSD whenever possible. But, the SACD layer was often used to sell 9624 mixes that were converted to SACD. The thought being that it was a higher quality than CD of 44.1. Many classical and jazz labels appreciated and took to SACD for it’s higher quality.

The Pyramix added DSD recording to their already existing device later.

Yes, many of us were putting files on disks of higher quality for our customers to play, some were sending files directly to customers on purchase long before HDtracks came about in 2008. Yes, there were software work arounds that require some complication for playback. It was early HD audio. Yes, there was streaming HD before Qobuz as well. And yes, DSD streaming has been available since about 2015? in Japan (we did a project with IIJ in 2016 streaming live DSD256).

Thank you for that article. Always fun to remember back to 2007. What they were talking about in the article was not WAV files. The term “kbps” generally refers to mp3 files and kilobits per second. As I read the article, I only saw references to kilobits and lossless WMA files.

Is WMA a lossless format?

A digital audio file format from Microsoft that compresses an audio CD to a range of 206 to 411MB, at bit rates of 470 to 940 Kbps. It’s like a FLAC file. I didn’t see any reference to delivery of ‘Broadcast Wave’ files in the article.

All in the past now and I appreciate your bringing a little history to the forum.

Enjoy,
Cookie Marenco
Blue Coast Records and Music

Blue Coast Music

[cookie]

Hello jazznut, I would say that anyone in the profession of audio has to listen to their customer. In Bernie’s case (and often my case) our customer is the artist or the label. The consumer is not our customer in this case. That said, I’m sure if either of us is asked to do something outrageous that would damage our reputation we wouldn’t take the project (I know I’ve turned down a few).

But also, there is only so much someone like Bernie can do if the mixes and the recording sound bad. You try to salvage it as best you can so who knows just how bad those more ‘questionable’ recordings must have sounded before Bernie mastered them.

I worked with a lot of mastering engineers and one thing that stood out about Bernie was the care he took in selecting his gear and optimizing every device in the chain. That kind of clarity is what really made a difference with Bernie’s work. You could take the same notes (and I had to do this once) to another mastering house and not come out with the same great sound Bernie gave.

I still love working with Bernie, by the way. We ALMOST started a coffee importing company together back in the 90’s. Another reason to love Bernie was his coffee!

Enjoy,
Cookie Marenco
Blue Coast Records and Music

Blue Coast Music

[cookie]

Hello Raudio,

To answer your question…
A) For Blue Coast Records (my label) we mix from DSD (or tape in the old days), through an analog console and back to DSD256.

B) Why do people mix in DXD? There are a lot of reasons. I have a very expensive studio setup that was built before computerized digital audio. It also includes effects and wiring that is probably more than $500,000 of equipment. I have one reverb unit that cost $10,000 back in 1986 called a Lexicon 224XL. Today, you can get a plug in for probably less than $100. But, I don’t think the plugin sounds as good. Much of my gear purchased in the 1980’s sounded fantastic and I haven’t found anything that sounds that good as a plugin. The console as well is huge and works. Not all consoles built today sound this good.

Also, it takes up a LOT of room whereas today, things are mixed “in the box” as we say… in the computer with plugins. So, for cost and space, many people choose to mix in DXD, I understand. We are talking about very small measures of improvements that most people can’t hear unless your in the room with us.

Morten at 2L chooses to record directly in DXD, mix in DXD and converts to DSD later. His recordings sound fantastic. I believe he sells his DXD files also. I prefer to record to DSD, mix through analog and I like the sound of Blue Coast Records. The most difference is made in the actual recording/capture of the sound, in my opinion.

Enjoy!
Cookie Marenco
Blue Coast Records and Music

Blue Coast Music

[jazznut]

Great story! And yes, I also thought his dedication to the mastering chain is what makes most of his masterings.

When I mention his hit and miss, I don’t speak of recordings which might have been bad from start, but of those (like Blue Notes) which were remastered by others later, too…and always consistently. Even among Bernie’s Blue Notes series for one customer (Classic Records) there are awfully bright ones and just fine ones. I even doubted his hearing from one day to the next and don’t have a clue what it could be that makes it so variable. No other mastering engineer I experienced with his her work had any or any such variety.

Independent of this, he seems to be an extremely nice person with huge knowledge from what I got out of videos with him. And I admire most of his work.

[raudio]

Hi @cookie ,
I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. It’s clear you’re an expert in this area and it is great to learn from you. Thank you!

[stevensegal]

Linn Records, from what I recall, were offering 24-bit from 44khz and eventually up to 192khz. Currently FLAC and ALAC, but more formats were offered back in the day.

The reason why they sold lossy files as well as 16/44 and HD was because lots of us still had iPods and with 80mb of storage we needed smaller files, and they were cheaper. Plus we wanted Apple AAC files.

They were one of the first, possibly the first to have a proper online website/store for HD downloads, back in 2007. They had a massive DSD catalogue, making more DSD recordings than just about anyone else, but never offered them for download and their related audio company Linn Audio did not bother with DSD because when they started making streamers in 2009 they decided DSD had no future.

I do remember a long time ago I had a cheap multi-channel system with an Denon AV player and Boston speakers. It may have been playing SACD, because my recollection is that the discs lended themselves to multi-channel 16/44, which you could not get on a CD. But then multi-channel died a death.

There have been so many technologies, and things have changed so much since I started streaming in 2009, we forget what they were and why we needed them at the time. Even that we used iPods, or that we used FLAC simply because the files had the same data but were smaller. And here am I enjoying 16/44 WAV rips of CDs I purchased in the 1980s and vinyl.

Here’s a bit of history. My wife and I went to the second iTunes Festival gig, Travis playing at the ICA, a small conference venue near Buckingham Palace. This was 2007 and few people had any idea about downloads. So Apple decided to promote iTunes, their new music store, by arranging some gigs, people could get free tickets and were given a £15 (about $25) download card (remember them?) when you turned up. So you got a gig and free money. The best deal ever.

My wife only heard about this from Fran Healey’s wife. She had to telephone the local London evening newspaper and get our names on a list and turn up at the appointed time. No internet involved. We went to some others, but the Travis one was very memorable.

Apple Music Festival

[stevensegal]

There was another one, called the Society of Sound, a collaboration between Bowers & Wilkins, Real World Records (Peter Gabriel’s label) and many bands, including the London Symphony Orchestra. They produced some great stuff, it lasted between 2009 and 2019. You subscribed and random albums arrived from time to time for download.

Most of the LSO recordings were recorded live and I see some were recorded in 2xDSD. I understand DSD lends itself to live recordings.

One of my favourites from SoS, a stunningly good recording, is this one. I warn you, it’s sung in Welsh, which is quite beautiful.

[Paul]

Bravo, Cookie. You have it right. Thank you for this. I agree that the biggest differences are found in the studio and miking techniques, A/D converters, etc. You and Gus both prefer the sound the analog mixers offer.

What’s wonderful about all this is that we are at a sonic level that we can not only hear these small differences but we care about them and make decisions based on them. To me, this is the core of what matters.

Bravo!

[jazznut]

Yes it’s certainly a good common ground, that the recording rules and that it’s most important that one cares, independent of the kind of technology or process involved. It’s at least suitable to bury the discussion for the sake of more important topics.

For those who (aside of this common ground) partly take the otherwise gladly distributed claims/opinions about the superiority of the one or other process serious and want to get a bit deeper to the basis of them, it certainly still leaves things open for a comprehensible reason.

I learned, a part prefers the analog, another part the fully digital processing and doing so for sound quality, not only convenience reasons or similar.

Cookie mentioned the effort and quality of her analog gear and her experience of a worse sounding DXD path, you mentioned that just recently everything changed in DXD processing quality, which you previously also considered worse, which seems to be a pleasant surprise as it fits to your goal (as I understood) of staying all digital if possible.

I can close this chapter for myself, thinking, each one makes whatever comparison and decides a direction for himself/herself. It just doesn’t get clear if Paul’s analog path maybe was much worse than Cookies or than it could be and if Cookie‘s DXD experiments were done or redone under the latest improved conditions or not.

As so often it would be interesting what decision came out if things would be compared under same or extremely similar preconditions…until then nobody knows how meaningful the individual comparisons were or not, but that’s just normal. The strange thing is (at least I guess so)…if both of you would hear the same comparison, you’d have the same opinion what’s better sounding. If that would be assumed correct… then, that you in fact have different opinions, would more or less prove, you tested under quite different preconditions for yourself.

[cookie]

Thanks for your comment, Paul. If I were building a studio today I might feel differently about mixing through a console or in ‘the box’. There are a lot of digital consoles now that limit the response to 9624 and the cost for an analog console plus installation is the cost of a house. Plus the cost of the outboard gear… yikes. I’m lucky to have purchased my gear long ago. We all agree that crappy music can’t be helped by a recording format or mixing console.

[jazznut]

I don’t know the cost of the Pyramix system compared to the analog stage…do you think the analog mixing way is no option for most for simple cost reasons? Is analog mixing (with gear that really makes it superior) the premium solution for DSD, but just for those who are willing to invest a lot more than for Pyramix? It’s not possible for the innocent observer to look behind on the possibly dominating reasons for decisions. So far I treated the discussion as purely quality driven (probably naive).

[badbeef]

Jazz - love ya man, but to be considerate of those you are seeking answers from, you may be asking far more questions than can possibly be answered by people who are working for a living. Every response seems to spawn three new questions. Ted is apparently another story however

[jazznut]

Yes, I’m aware

There are topics where getting to the basis of interest would take a 3 minute talk, but 10 pages online, especially in an environment with assumed diplomatic peculiarities

[Paul]

Thanks, Cookie. All that is absolutely correct which is why we would never buy a digital console.

What we wound up with is using Pyramid for the mixer and controlling it with Avid surface controllers. For those unfamiliar with them they are basically fancy “mice” that offers up to 32 channels of fader controls (volume, balance, mute, solo) that are automated in Pyramid. So everything happens in the box (and what a box! Never had such a hot rod computer).

We don’t use plugins, all our reverb or other effects are all analog.

It’s a good combo but even this setup is not for the faint of heart financially. We’re about $1M in with build out and equipment.