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.

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

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.

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…

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.

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…

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…

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 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…

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.