![]() |
A picture paints a thousand words
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 Iain |
A picture paints a thousand words
In article , Iain Churches
wrote: 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. [snip] Take a look: It's not pretty! http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...Comparison.png There are no scales on the plots, but the implication is fairly clear! I presume you won't be paying the CD plant since they failed to supply what you specified? I guess under UK law you'd have to return all the discs and instruct them that they must be destroyed as their release would be a breach of copyright, and potentially harmful to the authors/artists. Or will they now do as specified by the paying client? If not, perhaps you can 'name and shame' the plant so others will be warned off! 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 |
A picture paints a thousand words
Have you used that duplicator before? Did you pay in advance?
-- *Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
A picture paints a thousand words
In article , Iain Churches
scribeth thus 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 Iain O dear!, what incompetence!. Take it their bill isn't going to get paid?... -- Tony Sayer |
A picture paints a thousand words
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Iain Churches wrote: 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. [snip] Take a look: It's not pretty! http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...Comparison.png There are no scales on the plots, but the implication is fairly clear! Indeed. The master peaks at the standard -10dB FS used for classical music, and,although the dynamic is not huge, (it's a string quartet) it is probably close to an order of magnitude greater than the CD. I presume you won't be paying the CD plant since they failed to supply what you specified? Most manufacturers require payment with order. AFAIK this invoice was paid by CC so reclaim should not be too difficult. I don't want to get too involved in this aspect, but it is sad to see ones effort destroyed at the final stage:-( The choice of manufactrer was nothing to do with me. I imagine that the shipment will be returned. I guess under UK law you'd have to return all the discs and instruct them that they must be destroyed as their release would be a breach of copyright, and potentially harmful to the authors/artists. Yes. Or will they now do as specified by the paying client? If not, perhaps you can 'name and shame' the plant so others will be warned off! If a refund can be obtained, probably the best thing to do would be put this down to experience, learn a lesson, and find another plant. Thee are plenty of them. Most plants provide a small number of test pressings (usually ten) I wonder why this was not done in this case. I have been told by one of my colleagues in the UK that classical labels there usually have their mastering done in Germany. Iain |
A picture paints a thousand words
In article , Iain Churches
wrote: Most plants provide a small number of test pressings (usually ten) I wonder why this was not done in this case. I wonder if they were the 'lowest bidder' and to save money/time simply ran the entire production in one go though an 'automated' process. Not touched by human hand or thought about by human brain. 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 |
A picture paints a thousand words
"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 Iain Pretty dreadful! If they'd only normalised it to -1dBFS or even, at a push, 0dBFS at least it would have preserved the dynamic range, but what they did was nothing but vandalism. S. |
A picture paints a thousand words
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message ... Take a look: It's not pretty! http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...Comparison.png Iain Pretty dreadful! If they'd only normalised it to -1dBFS or even, at a push, 0dBFS at least it would have preserved the dynamic range, but what they did was nothing but vandalism. My guess would be compression maybe 6:1 then considerable make up gain and brickwall limiter at Inf:1 at OdB FS for a hard ceiling. Many pop CDs are mastered like that. Iain |
A picture paints a thousand words
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Iain Churches wrote: Most plants provide a small number of test pressings (usually ten) I wonder why this was not done in this case. I wonder if they were the 'lowest bidder' and to save money/time simply ran the entire production in one go though an 'automated' process. Not touched by human hand or thought about by human brain. Maybe, an automated process was used here, Jim (See my reply to Serge) because what was done to this CD is very typical of the way pop CD's are mastered. Iain |
A picture paints a thousand words
"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. The sad of the story is that they obviously did extra work over what was actually required. 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. Obviously, they could have raised the peak levels up into the 3-4 dB range or even -1 dB or anyhing below digital FS without trashing the content so irrevocably and grotesquely. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk