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

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

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.

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

"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

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

"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.

"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

"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

"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.