|
Posted by HDTT on
02-10-2008
|
A special thanks to Romy for posting my new releases when they are released.
I have to be honest he can be tough with criticism on recordings but he knows what "Good Sound" sounds like
Thanks again
Romy
For who that are interested in High Rez Computer audio:
We just posted 6 new 24/96 sample downloads you can get them at: http://01688cb.netsolhost.com/samplerdownload/
They are all compressed with Flac and they are tagged.
Also you can find out more about what we offer at:
http://www.highdeftapetransfers.net/
We also sell CD and 24/96 DVD's at:
http://www.highdeftapetransfers.com/
Thanks
Bob
HDTT
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
02-10-2008
|
|
Bob, I have two questions to ask
1) Why I selected the 24/96 format? Isn’t the 48x sampling rate completely moronic rate if the 16/44 CDs are still the target?
2) Also, I wonder if you apparently so like to do it then why do not do analog LP and 78s? There are very few people who do LP and 78 transfer properly. It is not that I completely support what you do but you might consider attacking the LP and 78 problems and you might get somewhere. I think that if you investing in equipment and advertising then you might diversify your offering in term of repertoire. The Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by HDTT on
02-10-2008
|
Actually 16/44 isn't the target anymore most of my sales are 24/96 downloads or 24/96 DVD's
I'm with you with LP's but have found more success with cleaner transfers with reels and my customers also don't have the tolerance for lps noise, diversification can be a good thing but don't sell and harder too find good material to work with
Bob
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
02-10-2008
|
 HDTT wrote: | | Actually 16/44 isn't the target anymore most of my sales are 24/96 downloads or 24/96 DVD's |
|
Very good news! I with everyone adopt his rule. Still I feel that the move to 48X was absolutely not necessary – just created confusion and complexity of conversion.
| HDTT wrote: | | I'm with you with LP's but have found more success with cleaner transfers with reels and my customers also don't have the tolerance for lps noise, diversification can be a good thing but don't sell and harder too find good material to work with |
|
Bob, if your customers have no tolerance for LPs noise or no tolerance to tape hiss then your customs are idiots who need to review what they are looking for in audio. If the objectives are interesting performances then there was much more interesting recordings released in mechanical media then in magnetic media. Not to mention that whatever was released in tape (commercially) is more or less known. Anyhow, I do feel that it would be fine if you take on some selected LPs. If you insist to have “premium hi-fi sound” then there was made a lot of very high quality recordings on LP. At the same time there are many-many very interesting performances that were never properly transferred to digital, even from their mater tapes…
Well, I do not try to convince you in anything, I just know that if I was in the business of releasing my transfers then I would go for more interesting material.
The Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
02-11-2008
|
Sure, old records are noisy, bandwidth-limited, etc., but perhaps there are ways to mitigate some of these problems, to help even audiophiles get to the special performances available only through older mecanical media? If noise is the big issue, "effective" noise processing has been available for record transcription for many years now. I have not tried to keep pace with it, but my guess is that the usual technological "trickle down" will have simultaneously raised the bar and lowered the costs to regular folks who can be bothered to sniff it out. I do know that this sort of noise cancelling stuff has been used by well-endowed libraries - including the Library of Congress - for well over 2 decades.
Of course, analog people wonder what this sort of processing does to sound and, more importantly, to the gestalt of old recordings. OTOH, digital people have been open to plenty of "processing" so far; so, why not try it? My guess is that there is already +/- an active "underground" that is all over this, so it may well be that lots could be learned fast by interested/prepared parties, and perhaps material is already available for comparison or even for trade/transfer, given the right arangements.
Germane to the noise issue, I have recently been listening to a lot of mediocre re-dubs that have really surprised me in terms of what IS available from old recordings. As I mentioned in comments posted in the Musical Discussions Forum here, I am left to wonder just how good the originals might be, in terms of sonics as well as musical values, and my educated guess is, Priceless. Sure, it MAY be that the performances are so great that they simply overcome the problems. But I am generally pretty critical of sound, itself, and some of these old recordings, for all their obvious problems, somehow manage to get the musical message across in a very satisfying way, with very interesting sound, believe it or not.
Perhaps the biggest question is, are the transfers for audiophiles or music lovers? Despite the odd attraction of the notably-fickle "audiophile" as a marketing target, I would not be surprised to learn that "music lovers" account for more classical recording purchases, if cost-per-sale issues can be resolved. And while it is way outside my ken, I can't help but wonder in the context of this thread so far if the current assessment of the "target market" is a self-actualizing prediciment.
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Antonio J. on
02-11-2008
|
IMHO the important is the music, a unique performance of a work you love is really invaluable. I don't care about clicks, or other noises if the life of the music is preserved. But some other people hate those noises and don't mind about processing artifacts. OK, why not offering both versions. If the music is available as a download, you can choose the one you like better. If you purchase the physical media, you might be happy buying both versions or getting the one of your liking and being able to download the other.
Just suggestions.
Rgrds.
|
|
|
|
Posted by HDTT on
02-11-2008
|
Probably more of my customers are classical music lovers then just "Audiophiles" I'd be honest we are a dying breed if you look at the releases at the Audiophile record vendors it's mostly Pop music reissues from the 60's a nd 70's.
In regards to Noise Reduction I have tried many, I mean many different types of Noise Redustion plug ins and they were not cheap, and all of them imparted a un-musical sound to the recordings either in the high freq. or the way it sapped the emotion out of the music via cutting off the tails on natural decay of instruments. The best i found is a hardware unit by Weiss Digtial the DNA-1 it's not cheap and by no means perfect but it leaves by far more of the original signal than any othe NR I have tried that is why I use it.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
02-11-2008
|
| Paul S wrote: | | … I am left to wonder just how good the originals might be, in terms of sonics as well as musical values, and my educated guess is, Priceless. Sure, it MAY be that the performances are so great that they simply overcome the problems. But I am generally pretty critical of sound, itself, and some of these old recordings, for all their obvious problems, somehow manage to get the musical message across in a very satisfying way… |
|
Well, there is a completely different definition of quality of sound. The HDTT does not operate at this level of other definition. Low noise, wide bandwidth, good tone, is fine but it is still “no cigar sound”. To get there, into the level of “other definition of quality” it requires having very different tools, use different skills, slightly different objective and to have very different type of customers. The comfortably-numb sound that HDTT gets out of tapes is just a calm sound in term of audiophile quality (means the fidelity of Sound instead of fidelity of music) but it is not what I found interesting in Audio. That audiophile sound is good enough to make the Morons of Martin DeWulf level happy but it is about all that the audiophile sound is capable. I do not blame Bob in it – he juts supply demands. There are just no marketable demands in today audio for more interesting and more fertile sound, and there is unfortunately no rational time reimbursement of the people who would go to go into the real, or more serious Sound…
Rgs, The caT
|
|
|
|
Posted by HDTT on
02-11-2008
|
I beg to differ with Romys assesment of my signature sound, one thing I found out is people are very,very different in what they like and dislike.
An example is a "quote" reviewer (which will remain nameless) did not like my Stravinsky Historic du Soldat he said, this is a direct quote "have to say, however that I feel the *Stravinsky* *Histoire* is a rather pedestrian performance in a somewhat flat sounding hall, so I think we'll pass on reviewing that one" (which Romy is familiar with this recording) and also got many rave reviews from reviewers needless to say I didn't send that reviewer any more of my releases. Love to hear some feedback from the people on this forum on what they think of the samples that I have for posted.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
02-11-2008
|
| HDTT wrote: | | I beg to differ with Romys assesment of my signature sound, one thing I found out is people are very,very different in what they like and dislike. An example is a "quote" reviewer (which will remain nameless) did not like my Stravinsky Historic du Soldat he said, this is a direct quote "have to say, however that I feel the *Stravinsky* *Histoire* is a rather pedestrian performance in a somewhat flat sounding hall, so I think we'll pass on reviewing that one" (which Romy is familiar with this recording) and also got many rave reviews from reviewers needless to say I didn't send that reviewer any more of my releases. Love to hear some feedback from the people on this forum on what they think of the samples that I have for posted. |
|
And your example with Stravinsky’s “Histoire” exactly the point of illustration. The Histoire is from my point of view is absolutely the best recording that HDTT produced so far and if the reviewer called it a “pedestrian performance” just because it was the “flat sounding hall” then it is an ultimate verification of the reviewer’s idiocy. However, the example does not indicate that people are “different in what they like and dislike”- people are different in what they looking. According to your moron-reviewer the performance of the Shostakovich 8 in London by Mravinsky should be burned out just because it has huge reflections from right and left walls of the hall. I see the point of the reviewer who did not like the over-damped acoustic in recording hall but why to it makes the performance pedestrian I have no idea. I might make the recording compromised in a way but it is a very different subject how to deal with it - the subject that obvious would be way ahead of the competence and reference points of a typical audio reviewer.
BTW, here is the qestion: what is the HDTT "Signature Sound", because it is where I feel the HDTT slips in “seriousness”.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
02-12-2008
|
Maybe I'm wasting space here, but I did a little digging, and the first noise reduction device I thought was OK was the "real time" Packburn 323, which cost about $2,500 USD in the early 80s.
While it was not entirely "transparent" in use it was not bad, really, and it really did reduce noise significantly. IMO it was less intrusive musically than the digital processing in my rather limited experience. In other words, it did impact audiophile sound just a little tiny bit but it had almost no negative impact on the music. Given the audiophile client also likes music, I think he might like the results from this thing as an effective compromise.
BTW, this is not meant as a technology thread but it is rather another feeble grasp at the great musical riches trapped on old records.
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
02-12-2008
|
|
Paul, it has nothing to do with noise reduction devices. It has also very little to do with the media on which the recording took place – would it be LF, tape or digital file. Audio it is about expression of musical spirituality through the semi-barbaric methods of electronics, mechanics and artificial acoustics. Re-mastering is no different from orchestration of original event – where the awareness of the person who do re-mastering is responsible for the sound of the final recording. It is fine to dig out not yet completely destroyed tapes, play them on a good machine into a good AD converter and re-posses it into a genetically-comfortable sound by different digital toys. It produces OK Hi-Fi result, good enough to thrill the Morons at trade shows but it is not the “serious sound” that I would like to see or be interested in.
The reality is that is that re-mastering of a serious recording has very difference with re-composition of re-performing of the paces. If a recording and performance was “loaded” then the analyses and assessment of recording’s various expressive means become itself a deeply creative process. Here is where the new definition of Audio Quality is born. Audio Quality is not an abstract temple of sonic prejudges but rather the apply set of benefits for a given musical reading. Audio Quality is not the properly of equipment but the properly of human consciousness, no different than better musical interpretation is a property of person instead of property of instrument.
So, where I was saying that HDTT does not operate in the “other definition of quality” it was that HDTT is pretty much care about the external, facade, audio transparency – something that the industry have presold to the Moron-audiophiles. There is however another level of definition of quality – the cultivating of Sound that is broken-in to the specific artistic expressiveness.
HDTT does not operate at this level. As I said above HDTT has not tools to do it. Bob I hope have learned already that any DSP alternation of digital file essentials’ ruins the “fine core” of program and diminishes the subconscious impacts that music delivers to us. So, to intrude to sound creatively it is necessary to go full analog, with RL equalization (at least the Passeq level or much better) and use a very different level of techniques and evaluations methods. Frankly speaking it is something that I would be very interested to do but there is one little gulch in all of it there is no market and need for it.
If the HDTT’s Bob spends as much time and efforts as it are truly necessary to spend for proper re-mastering (like building custom filters for each recording and mechanical removing of pops from LPs) then he would need to sell each CD for $500. There is not market for it and there are VERY FEW people who would appreciate it. So, I do not blame HDTT that they do what they do but I would also would keep belong myself the rights to call the HDTT as non-serious re-mastering. To keep the thinks honest I have to tell that I know no one company or label today that do what I call serious re-mastering. In 90 the EMI and DG did some serious re-mastering for a short time but it is gone now… Rgs, Romy the caT
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
02-12-2008
|
It's that I don't want to get it, and I don't presume to know how rare the affection and affinity for reproduced music may be.
I always hope that someone who's in or near the position to do so will somehow get it and start caring and doing something worthwhile with source material, if only because time's a wasting on some of the old media.
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by HDTT on
02-12-2008
|
Wow what a greeting to give a new forum member!!!
All kidding aside Romy I think you have to be more objective than subjective about your opinions this hobby as I have found out varies so much of what is good sound and what is bad sound.
I've had people tell me that my recordings are the best digital they have heard and I have some say they were not impressed, how can I judge there tastes?? In there mind and ears this is what they hear, I can disagree with them but how can i with such an objective media as music same as saying Furtwangler's ninth sux and Kleiber's is definitive just an opinion, of course there will be reviewers and listeners with a level of vendictivness that overides there true feelings, this is the sad part about reviewers because I have witnessed this first hand.
Another case I can come over your Romy and tell you your system sux, (I doubt that it does)how can you disagree,music also comes down to many things mental, physical etc.
What is good sound? What I produce is what "I" believe is the best I can get off of what I'm using as a transfer at that time the one advantage I have is I can come back and remaster it again as I improve my system.
I think your above comments were a little disingenuous but on this forum I think this is the norm, you have to put on a grin and bear it 
Just my 2 cents
Bob
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
02-12-2008
|
| HDTT wrote: | | Wow what a greeting to give a new forum member!!! |
|
Well, it is me. I would like do not moderate my attitude and my strictly audio judgments about audio result of the people that I do not know vs. to the people I consider as my friends in audio (and I consider you later). The values of results are the value of results and I do not treat you different from any others. Also, Bob, and let to be honest: I hate that “embracing” and “we love you” attutude that oversells any audio site. I try to keep the things “as is”, leaving my social grace for my girlfriend when she in her PMS state.
| HDTT wrote: | | All kidding aside Romy I think you have to be more objective than subjective about your opinions this hobby as I have found out varies so much of what is good sound and what is bad sound. |
|
I always puzzled that some people read my comments asking me how I can be sure that it is true. I wonder if specially for them I have to put a declaimer in from on my site remind them that each single word and opinion I say express my own point of view. Wasn’t it not self-explanatory?
| HDTT wrote: | | I've had people tell me that my recordings are the best digital they have heard and I have some say they were not impressed, how can I judge there tastes?? |
|
And why should you care? You should not try please the needs and demands of judge but rather to please the needs and demands of sound as you understand it.
| HDTT wrote: | | Another case I can come over your Romy and tell you your system sux, (I doubt that it does)how can you disagree,music also comes down to many things mental, physical etc. |
|
And what is wrong with that? It is exactly what calls: educational experiences. If you point of that my shortcomings of my results and would be able to point of the specifics that I did not reach yet then I would be very grateful. To surprise of many people - I have a bigger fish to fry then to build up my ego via the means of funny cable elevators.
| HDTT wrote: | | What is good sound? What I produce is what "I" believe is the best I can get off of what I'm using as a transfer at that time the one advantage I have is I can come back and remaster it again as I improve my system. |
|
Bob, it is exactly the point. I do understand and respect what you do from a perspective of own system improvement and the perspective of own involvement into performing art. However, from a perspective of Authored, Signature, Tailored Sound what you do does have a room for … Authorship. I am very prepared to talk about it if you wish, I try to imply it. Tel me that I am not diplomatic? :-)
Anyhow, I do not know where this conversation is going, patricianly if you become to be defensive. I am happy to upload at my site your new addition to your catalog and I would be happy to buy them if the recordings that suspect might come become available. I would even prepare to offer what I offered in past to all folks who do transfers: I would like to pay premium for a copy of the digital masters - the very first raw not processed files. However, I still would like to keep my loyally of my opinion and my judgment not to the interests of my valet and not to the interests of my friendships but to the interest of Sound. OK, now I am overwhelmed with myself and I need to sign off… Rgs, Romy the Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by HDTT on
02-12-2008
|
Romy I do consider you a audio friend and believe me, not offended or defensive just stating some observations, actually find your "bluntness" refreshing.
Just some clarification on a few points: I really don't care what people say about my recordings or how they sound I master my sound to what I feel is closest to the source and also "I think" I have no "signature" that is my goal.
Just a little advice don't get so pent up over audio reviewers I can picture your blood pressure going throught the roof!! Just a little advice for health reasons 
Talk to you soon
P.S. Download the samples I posted and throw me an e-mail let me know what you think
Bob
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
02-12-2008
|
| HDTT wrote: | | Just some clarification on a few points: I really don't care what people say about my recordings or how they sound I master my sound to what I feel is closest to the source and also "I think" I have no "signature" that is my goal. |
|
And it is exactly what I consider is wrong. You know very well that the recordings, and particularly what we are able to get in many case are not good technically. Improper speed, improper balance, improper mic positioning, improper accents, improper EQ… I might go on and on. If you have a disk recorded at wrong speed with Bach's violin partita for instance then would “the closest to the source” approach permit you to let the A string to sound at 380Hz? The “the closest to the source” is not the closer to source of recording but to closer of the expressed musical idea. I agree that very few, if any, serve that “signature” in audio.
| HDTT wrote: | | Just a little advice don't get so pent up over audio reviewers I can picture your blood pressure going throught the roof!! Just a little advice for health reasons |
|
It is because you never met me. I actually laugh about it much more then you think.
| HDTT wrote: | | P.S. Download the samples I posted and throw me an e-mail let me know what you think |
|
I have no operational playback for weeks as my preamp is out. I do not play audio lately but juts complain about others audio people.
|
|
|
|
Posted by mats on
02-14-2008
|
In an interview on NPR, David Lynch talks about "catching ideas, falling in love with some of them, staying true to the ideas while translating them to the medium of film, and ultimately making the films for the ideas themselves".
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12840729
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
04-02-2008
|
|
I got my HDTT newsletter with announcement of HQCD:
“High Definition Tape Transfer is proud to announce HQCD, a new standard in digital disc quality and fidelity. HQCD, or High Quality Compact Disc, is a state-of-the-art disc made from special materials and dyes which results in the best possible data transfer rates during the data burning process.“
http://highdeftapetransfers.com/
I have no idea what it is but it is interesting that Bob went to it after 24/96. I did not look into the process deeper as the HDTT page features a link with the audiowhore Albert Porter’s sealing his garbage. Very said and discouraging business association… The caT
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
07-06-2008
|
|
Baba,
I have a question to ask, it is not that I looking any commercial ventures but I just curios. I know that you researched the legal right subjects, so what right I have over my FM recordings? For instance if I put together a DVD with 10 fragments that I recorded of air and begin to sell it then does violate any copyright? Let me to put a spin on it – I do not sell the broadcasted recording but I might market my selection and “editing” or “mastering” of what I have vested to “produce” the DVD. The Cat
|
|