Neil Young Mastering and Tech Notes

[DSpec1]

Don't know if anyone has seen this, but click on the link for some very interesting tech notes on mastering, transferring, AD/DA conversion on classic Neil Young projects.

Greatest Hits Technical Notes Menu

[Silver Sonya]

These remasters sound positively perfect. I was just enjoying them today.

- c

[jackthebear]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

These remasters sound positively perfect. I was just enjoying them today.

- c

Thank you for that......re-tweeted.....

[ed littman]

Cool stuff.
However isn't 176.4khz down to 44.1 & 192khz down to 96khz unnecessary due to the fact the conversion up samples way above that fq range? Or is it that the Pacific Microsonics works best in multiples?
Ed

[Ruairi]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

These remasters sound positively perfect. I was just enjoying them today.

- c

Why do you do that? Your posts and attitude are so so cool but every time you link to a tweet I feel like a moron for clicking through. Are we just pawns in a game of building up stats? I don't get it.

Sometimes your post is like "I really like the new XXXX album" and then you link to something and it's a f***ing tweet with almost exactly the same text???

Is there something I am missing? Totally respect you dude but this drives me nuts.

Cheers,
Ruairi

[Silver Sonya]

Ha! Relax, it's just laziness. Don't want to type the same links/text, etc. It's like when you post the same thing to Facebook and Twitter simultaneously. It's not a big deal and certainly nothing to get seething about.

cheers,
c

[Silver Sonya]

I wish all artists had the same agenda as Neil Young when approaching remastering. Preserve the source material with the highest resolution you have available and maybe add some judicious/conservative EQ.

"Remastered" is now often just a a public signifier for "We made it loud now!"

- c

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by ed littman

Cool stuff.
However isn't 176.4khz down to 44.1 & 192khz down to 96khz unnecessary due to the fact the conversion up samples way above that fq range? Or is it that the Pacific Microsonics works best in multiples?
Ed

The use of upsampling to the 4xFs rates and then back down again for the 2 tracks that were sourced from 16bit/44.1kHz archives was a definite head scratcher for me as well.

I'd venture to say there was no valid reason to do this at all - just a case of people buying into the "more is always more" fallacy that just doesn't work in the case of PCM.

Other than that this seems like an extremely well thought out and cared for release.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Waltz Mastering]

Couldn't find a mastering credit for the re-masters or the new album "Le Noise" being released tomorrow. Anyone know?

[loujudson]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

Couldn't find a mastering credit for the re-masters or the new album "Le Noise" being released tomorrow. Anyone know?

Not about the old stuff but I'd just bet Daniel Lanois did it all on Le Noise.

First Listen: Neil Young, 'Le Noise' : NPR

L

[recall]

LeNoise mastered at Bernie Grundmann's but not by BM. The writing is in tiny dark grey on black on the CD itself which is now spinning in my player. Its not nearly as "dubbed" as some of the dissenters in the "3xBCM" thread claim. Actually sound very open. One of the songs has the vocal almost completely disappear in mono though.

[Jesse Graffam]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

It's like when you post the same thing to Facebook and Twitter simultaneously.

God forbid using something like FriendFeed to "simulcast" all of your networks together, so one post anywhere shows up in like 50 places at once.

[Silver Sonya]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

The use of upsampling to the 4xFs rates and then back down again for the 2 tracks that were sourced from 16bit/44.1kHz archives was a definite head scratcher for me as well.

I'd venture to say there was no valid reason to do this at all - just a case of people buying into the "more is always more" fallacy that just doesn't work in the case of PCM.

I think it falls under the "Why not?" category.

- c

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

I think it falls under the "Why not?" category.

- c

Because unnecessary sample rate conversion can in fact be detrimental to the sound.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Silver Sonya]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

Because unnecessary sample rate conversion can in fact be detrimental to the sound.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

You know what? I didn't read very closely. I thought you were referring to transferring analog tapes at 176k and then coming down from that.

You're right.

- c

[Ruairi]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

Ha! Relax, it's just laziness. Don't want to type the same links/text, etc. It's like when you post the same thing to Facebook and Twitter simultaneously. It's not a big deal and certainly nothing to get seething about.

cheers,
c

Hi Chad,

I'm not as wound up as I sounded in my post but it does drive me nuts! Love the posts and attitude though, one of the few posters whose posts I almost always agree with.

Rock on,
Ruairi

[ed littman]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

The use of upsampling to the 4xFs rates and then back down again for the 2 tracks that were sourced from 16bit/44.1kHz archives was a definite head scratcher for me as well.

I'd venture to say there was no valid reason to do this at all - just a case of people buying into the "more is always more" fallacy that just doesn't work in the case of PCM.

Other than that this seems like an extremely well thought out and cared for release.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Good point Steve.
I was actually referring to the fact they captured at 4x the destination sample rate & was questioning the the benefit of the multiples(44.1x4=176.4 etc.) I was under the impression that Conversion up samples way beyond those higher sample rates so using multiples of the destination rate is irrelevant.

Ed

[Bob Olhsson]

The Pacific Microsonics hardware works best at multiples. I'm sure that they did a lot of listening in order to decide how it would be done.

[monkeyxx]

I don't know a lot about mastering, yet, but man, the Le Noise master sounds great! I know it's not just a good mix, there's got to be more to it than that. It just has that kind of solid "glow" to it that always seems to indicate a high dollar production done right. Now I'm curious about the remasters.