"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
scribeth thus

This morning, I had the chance to compare a
portion of the envelope from our production
master (the left-hand side of the pic) with the finished
CD (right had side)

Take a look:
It's not pretty!

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...Comparison.png


O dear!, what incompetence!.

Take it their bill isn't going to get paid?...

AFAIK the CDs will be returned and a refund
requested. I wonder what will happen if the
QC dept claim there is nothing wrong with
them:-(

CD manufacturing in the UK seems have an uncertain
future, with rumour of two major closures pending.

The UK's largest CD plant, EDC with an output
capacity of more than half a million discs per day,
closed at the beginning of this year, and transferred its
operations to Hanover. The company CEO, stated
before closure that "this was no reflection on the quality
of the work undertaken by UK employees"

Iain

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:


AFAIK the CDs will be returned and a refund requested. I wonder what
will happen if the QC dept claim there is nothing wrong with them:-(

You will be able to point out that what was specified was a bit-for-bit
copy of what they were given. Thus they are "wrong" since they fail to
provide what was ordered. Your money, your specs. They were free to decline
to take the order if they could not meet it.

UK Laws on 'fit for purpose' mean that what you buy has to meet the
requirements *you* stated when asking to buy. So far as I know, the
opinions of the seller on 'quality' are irrelevant if that condition is not
met. A bicycle may be of 'good quality' but not acceptable if you asked for
and paid for an aircraft carrier. :-)

However if you paid by credit card, get the money back that way. IIUC The
card company can refund you if you can show the goods were not as
specified. Then their problem to get it from the seller. Although such
rules may be for personal purchases. so maybe if you bought as a business
things may be different for all I know.

Also if they insist the 'quality' makes them fine for purpose, tell them if
so you will publish all the details. They can't complain about that if they
think the work is fine. It will simply 'advertise' how 'good' they are,
after all, as set by their *own* view of 'quality'. What could possibly be
wrong with doing that?... 8-]

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...


SNIP


http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...Comparison.png


The common practice of leveling has been applied, it is indeed
unpleasent and apparently is the "default" process.
Do a google using these terms:
"Fletcher-Munson curves"
"cd audio leveling"
I've never undertaken pro mastering but my understanding is that
somewhere in the contract or whatever, that it would state "leveling"
would be applied by default unless otherwise/specifically requested.
Have a look at whatever piece of paper you signed for this mastering,
I doubt you'd have legal redress...

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:13:41 +0100, "Fed Up Lurker"
wrote:


"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...


SNIP


http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...Comparison.png


The common practice of leveling has been applied, it is indeed
unpleasent and apparently is the "default" process.
Do a google using these terms:
"Fletcher-Munson curves"
"cd audio leveling"
I've never undertaken pro mastering but my understanding is that
somewhere in the contract or whatever, that it would state "leveling"
would be applied by default unless otherwise/specifically requested.
Have a look at whatever piece of paper you signed for this mastering,
I doubt you'd have legal redress...




Not sure what you are saying here. Fletcher Munson curves are a
representation of equal loudness vs frequency. That has nothing
whatever to do with this.

And neither is this levelling. It is mega compression followed by
brickwall limiting plus what looks suspiciously like digital clipping.
The whole thing is just a disaster.

d

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

I have recently been involved in a string quartet
recording. It has been a challenging project.
Everyone was delighted with the performance
and the sound on the production master which
was sent to a CD plant in the UK for 1:1 duplication.

When a run of 500 copies is required, a glass
master normally needs to be made for replication.
The client gave permission for this to be done by
the CD plant, on the understanding that no audible
changes were to be made, as the production master
was exactly what was requiired.

I asked to be informed when the finished discs had
been received. Yesterday, I received a phone call
from a very disappointed cellist.

She said, "Every nuance of our performance has
been destroyed. We sound like the musical equivalent
of ballet dancers in jack boots!"

This morning, I had the chance to compare a
portion of the envelope from our production
master (the left-hand side of the pic) with the finished
CD (right had side)

Take a look:
It's not pretty!

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...Comparison.png



Yecch!

Obvioiusly, the vendor lied - they did not give you a 1:1 reproduction run
or anything like it.

Indeed. 1:1 was stipulated.

The sad of the story is that they obviously did extra work over what was
actually required.

Probably not. I am inclined to think what Jim suggested may be correct -
this project fell victim to an automated generic pop mastering process,
where heavy compression and brickwall limiting are the norm..

This begs the question: "Did anyone actually listen to the music?"


They either hate classical music, or they thought they were doing you a
favor.

The may have been stimulated to rework your master since the peak levels
were so low.

The peak levels were at the standard used for classical masters and
pre-production masters -10dB FS


Iain

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


Have you used that duplicator before?

No. Neither was the choice made by me.

Did you pay in advance?

Cash/CC payrment with order is normal these days

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

I have recently been involved in a string quartet
recording. It has been a challenging project.
Everyone was delighted with the performance
and the sound on the production master which
was sent to a CD plant in the UK for 1:1 duplication.

When a run of 500 copies is required, a glass
master normally needs to be made for replication.
The client gave permission for this to be done by
the CD plant, on the understanding that no audible
changes were to be made, as the production master
was exactly what was requiired.

I asked to be informed when the finished discs had
been received. Yesterday, I received a phone call
from a very disappointed cellist.

She said, "Every nuance of our performance has
been destroyed. We sound like the musical equivalent
of ballet dancers in jack boots!"

This morning, I had the chance to compare a
portion of the envelope from our production
master (the left-hand side of the pic) with the finished
CD (right had side)

Take a look:
It's not pretty!

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...Comparison.png



Yecch!

Obvioiusly, the vendor lied - they did not give you a
1:1 reproduction run or anything like it.

Indeed. 1:1 was stipulated.

The sad of the story is that they obviously did extra
work over what was actually required.

Probably not. I am inclined to think what Jim suggested
may be correct - this project fell victim to an automated
generic pop mastering process, where heavy compression
and brickwall limiting are the norm..
This begs the question: "Did anyone actually listen to
the music?"

They either hate classical music, or they thought they
were doing you a favor.

The may have been stimulated to rework your master since
the peak levels were so low.

The peak levels were at the standard used for classical
masters and pre-production masters -10dB FS

That would be a local standard.

Masters and pre-production masters are not distributed media. The peak
levels I typically *observe* on distributed classical CDs is typically
from -4 dB to FS. There might be tracks wil peak levels well below that in
the case of a symphony with a quiet movement, etc.

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Probably not. I am inclined to think what Jim suggested may be correct -
this project fell victim to an automated generic pop mastering process,
where heavy compression and brickwall limiting are the norm..

It's the norm for some little tin pot duplicating company to do this sort
of 'mastering'? I find that beggars belief.

This begs the question: "Did anyone actually listen to the music?"

This whole mastering thing has always confused me (except for vinyl). If a
mix is produced in the studio that satisfies the client, why is that
messed with afterwards?

--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


Have you used that duplicator before?

No. Neither was the choice made by me.

Ah. Hope you said 'I told you so' ;-) Where they the cheapest?

Did you pay in advance?

Cash/CC payrment with order is normal these days

No test 'pressing' first?

--
*The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Probably not. I am inclined to think what Jim suggested may be correct -
this project fell victim to an automated generic pop mastering process,
where heavy compression and brickwall limiting are the norm..

It's the norm for some little tin pot duplicating company to do this sort
of 'mastering'? I find that beggars belief.

Most mastering facilities have modern facilities with an "impressive"
array of equipment. Considerable investment has been made.


This begs the question: "Did anyone actually listen to the music?"

This whole mastering thing has always confused me (except for vinyl). If a
mix is produced in the studio that satisfies the client, why is that
messed with afterwards?

Indeed. A question I have been asking myself for many years.

Gus Dudgeon (producer for Elton John and David Bowie) whom I
knew well from my Decca days, summed it up nicey when he stated
"whether we like it or not, CD mastering has become an extension
of the creative process"

And that's the difference, in a nut shell. The objectives are not the same.
In vinyl disc mastering the aim was to copy the information from
analogue tape as accurately as possible to acetate disc. Giving the
shortcomings of the medium, the results achieved were often amazingly
good.

In CD mastering, this "extension of the creative process" and an
attempt to give the public what (they think) they want, can often
result in severe overprocessing..

This is a problem seldom encountered in classical and jazz
recordings. I have often been at pop mastering sessions,
invited by the artist or the client as a neutral pair of ears, and
come away bewildered at the seemingly irrepressible desire
to inflict GBH to what was a perfectly presentable studio master.

However, this is the first time that such a thing has happened
to a project in which I have been involved. And as there was
no mastering session (the production discs were to have been
made 1:1 from a CD sent to the plant, via a glass master) I
shall be interested to hear their explanation.

Iain