George Massenburg at AES

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Sui_City

Sorry Lucey, could you elaborate?

There are two definitions of "quality" ... one of them has nothing to do with the degradation of the audio. A great sounding 16 bit file makes a great sounding mp3 ... from the standpoint of everything except the resolution. So a great song/mix/master still stands out on mp3 as compared to it's competition.

[Sui_City]

Originally Posted by lucey

There are two definitions of "quality" ... one of them has nothing to do with the degradation of the audio. A great sounding 16 bit file makes a great sounding mp3 ... from the standpoint of everything except the resolution. So a great song/mix/master still stands out on mp3 as compared to it's competition.

Gotcha, agreed

[jpupo74]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

Was he still flogging that tired old song about "surround" being the future? He did a local AES event in LA a few years ago. They charged admission for it! He suggested to overcome the new paragrahm of MP-3 and bit reduced releases/broadcasting was to mix in surround. He suggested everyone dump their analog console, adapt to the new lower standards and use a Yamaha digital mixer, in surround. No mention on how that was to get into a boom box or Ipod.

Needless to say, he had over half the room scratching their heads wondering if George had lost it.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

Well, this means the guy know what he's talking about...
Mp3's are out there.
CBC is starting to broadcast in surround and it's working for those who have systems at home.
The analog tape rules but it's hard and expensive to get to work with.
Everybody is adapting to new digital consoles, some of them with really high standards.
The coolest stuff I listened to at the AES was Geroge's, Elliot's, Prent's and Ed's surround mixes.
Everybody has iPods.

I also think instead of people scratching there heads they were really impressed to hear George talking. It was a really nice evening with a person that really knows about what's going on in the audio industry.

As he said, some people totally agree with what he says, other don't. I think he really knows what he's talking about.

Cheers,
Pupo

[Paul Frindle]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

Was he still flogging that tired old song about "surround" being the future? He did a local AES event in LA a few years ago. They charged admission for it! He suggested to overcome the new paragrahm of MP-3 and bit reduced releases/broadcasting was to mix in surround. He suggested everyone dump their analog console, adapt to the new lower standards and use a Yamaha digital mixer, in surround. No mention on how that was to get into a boom box or Ipod.

Needless to say, he had over half the room scratching their heads wondering if George had lost it.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

I've been reading through this thread for the first time today (because of an abortive attempt to go on family hols).

This is a good point. After all we have been here and seen it all before in the early 70's. For a while in those days I was personally one of the 'tech engineers', where part of my job was to be sent to disgruntled buyers of expensive surround systems of the day and explain why they 'seemed to disappoint' but were somehow 'better' none the less. I had strict instructions to 'avoid refunds and taking systems back into stock' - but despite this I failed all too often and many refunds were given out in those days.

But I do remember the harsh words of one pretty blunt Norfolk guy who listened to all my explanations and simply retorted, "yeah, but I got a 20 year stack of my favourite records and I only got two blasted ears!! It's giving me the mother of all f***ing headaches - now take it away". Of course I had no reasonable argument against such basic and irrefutable logic :-(

Of course I do realise all too well that the technology of surround is orders of magnitude more mature now than it was back then and the new validation is synergy between film and increasingly popular home movie set ups. But your comment about 'how to get it onto my iPod' should ring a poignant and valid warning to anyone who was around and involved in the early 70's. As far as many punters will see it - we are tryng to sell the very same thing all over again - despite a previous miserable failure. What the industry does not want is people imagining that the underlying reason for the surround push might just be that it WON'T work so well on their iPods.... :-(

[Matt Kelley]

I heard that George Massenburg kind of "got into it" with Rupert Neve a little bit and that there was some "heated debate" at least from George.

Can anybody comment?

[PlugHead]

Originally Posted by cajonezzz

#1 for me was when the mod asked what he considers his biggest success and source of pride, and it was "being a good father" .

Now that, my friends is a sign of love and maturity: my respect goes out to folks like this that set a great example for us and (our) kids.

Well done on the other stuff too! thumbsup

[Mind-Over-Midi]

Originally Posted by barefoot

Personally, I don 't worry about the whole mp3 quality reduction thing. It may be a challenge for the record companies to figure out how to make money. Nevertheless, I don't think it's a long-term issue for quality recording. Consumers will always choose convenience over quality. However, if they can get better quality with the same level of convenience, they'll undoubtedly go for it. When internet bandwidth and iPod capacity increase to the point where you can download music at CD quality or better just as fast as an mp3 and still hold the same number of songs, that will be the norm. And those days are very near.

I don't know what the future of surround is. But getting high quality audio back into the ears of consumers will just come naturally with increasing connection speeds and portable storage capacity.

Thomas

You make a very good point, which logic supports. I feel better after reading your post and am reminded how short sighted we all can be sometimes.

Originally Posted by lucey

There are two definitions of "quality" ... one of them has nothing to do with the degradation of the audio. A great sounding 16 bit file makes a great sounding mp3 ... from the standpoint of everything except the resolution. So a great song/mix/master still stands out on mp3 as compared to it's competition.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Matt Kelley

I heard that George Massenburg kind of "got into it" with Rupert Neve a little bit and that there was some "heated debate" at least from George.

Can anybody comment?

Not a shock.

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by Paul Frindle

I've been reading through this thread for the first time today (because of an abortive attempt to go on family hols).

This is a good point. After all we have been here and seen it all before in the early 70's. For a while in those days I was personally one of the 'tech engineers', where part of my job was to be sent to disgruntled buyers of expensive surround systems of the day and explain why they 'seemed to disappoint' but were somehow 'better' none the less. I had strict instructions to 'avoid refunds and taking systems back into stock' - but despite this I failed all too often and many refunds were given out in those days.

But I do remember the harsh words of one pretty blunt Norfolk guy who listened to all my explanations and simply retorted, "yeah, but I got a 20 year stack of my favourite records and I only got two blasted ears!! It's giving me the mother of all f***ing headaches - now take it away". Of course I had no reasonable argument against such basic and irrefutable logic :-(

Of course I do realise all too well that the technology of surround is orders of magnitude more mature now than it was back then and the new validation is synergy between film and increasingly popular home movie set ups. But your comment about 'how to get it onto my iPod' should ring a poignant and valid warning to anyone who was around and involved in the early 70's. As far as many punters will see it - we are tryng to sell the very same thing all over again - despite a previous miserable failure. What the industry does not want is people imagining that the underlying reason for the surround push might just be that it WON'T work so well on their iPods.... :-(

The definition of insanity: Trying the same thing that doesn't work over and over.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by jpupo74

Well, this means the guy know what he's talking about...
Mp3's are out there.
CBC is starting to broadcast in surround and it's working for those who have systems at home.
The analog tape rules but it's hard and expensive to get to work with.
Everybody is adapting to new digital consoles, some of them with really high standards.
The coolest stuff I listened to at the AES was Geroge's, Elliot's, Prent's and Ed's surround mixes.
Everybody has iPods.

I also think instead of people scratching there heads they were really impressed to hear George talking. It was a really nice evening with a person that really knows about what's going on in the audio industry.

As he said, some people totally agree with what he says, other don't. I think he really knows what he's talking about.

Cheers,
Pupo

No, not everyone is adapting to new digital consoles. Some are using high end analog stuff. Must be a reason for that. I don't know anyone with a high end surround setup, just the crappy Bose like surround crap for movies.

Yes, the top AE's in LA listening to George that day thought he'd lost it. His entire program was based on the belief that we should adapt to the new lower audio standards by mixing in surround on a crappy Yamaha 02-R!

So, to all scratching their heads, you should give up on quality for quantity, after all, 6 channels of crap is better than 2 channels of good.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[audiogeek1]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

No, not everyone is adapting to new digital consoles. Some are using high end analog stuff. Must be a reason for that. I don't know anyone with a high end surround setup, just the crappy Bose like surround crap for movies.

Yes, the top AE's in LA listening to George that day thought he'd lost it. His entire program was based on the belief that we should adapt to the new lower audio standards by mixing in surround on a crappy Yamaha 02-R!

So, to all scratching their heads, you should give up on quality for quantity, after all, 6 channels of crap is better than 2 channels of good.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

Wow I must have turned off my ears or something. I did not get that at all from George. I got that he is a big advocate of surround, and has stopped being a super outspoken person when it comes to gear. I to think surround is amazing. I do not have a super high end home theater but do have Dynaudio BM15s with Bryston amps that I use. I know of quite a few people here in the area that have very nice home theaters and listen to DVDA and SACD and wish that others would do the same.

I guess I missed the Quad days as I am only 35, and had a modest 4 track at 14. But I am glad for that because I am not jaded toward the media and I truly enjoy it.

Just my impressions.

Mike

[guru007]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

I don't know anyone with a high end surround setup, just the crappy Bose like surround crap for movies.
Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

Jim,

Your example rings true...but I suspect this will change with the onslaught of HD in the coming months/years. A lot of folks in the Home Theater space are sitting on their hands as the A/V offerings get more reasonable and standardized.

Speaking as someone in the film world, the demand for surround from my clients is tied to the demand for HD - and no one is knocking down their doors to provide an HD version of their film - yet...

Having said that, I'll be upgrading my control room to surround setup on the next film, 'cause as we all know, the client usually needs it yesterday

guru007

[DaInGaIlToAgL]

... if you can mix, then you can mix in a format that is not the most hi-fi thing out there. I wonder if maybe part of his point was that if we are going towards a world where everything is mp3 (or crappy yamaha digital) quality, maybe we should start mixing with that in mind?

I mean, don't you think that if you monitored through an mp3 (or aac...) compression algorithm, hearing exactly how it was coming out as you mixed, that you would mix differently and the resulting mp3 would sound better? You would fix dynamic range issues that get screwed up, finesse the high frequency information in the mix to sound not so crunchy in the end, etc...

Besides the push toward the surround format, I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the direction he was heading. I mean, quite honestly there is all possibility that some day there will be a new format (maybe a new way of getting sound into the human perception?) that will blow away what we currently are doing, possibly making our current "hi-fi" standards sound like what we currently percieve mp3 to be.

Just a thought, and it's not just an "if you can't beat them join them thing." If a high percentage of the sales of whatever you are mixing are going to be sold on mp3, then you should be very sure you know what that mp3 is going to sound like. Remember, we do work in a consumer driven industry where most of the people buying this stuff can't tell the difference between 96/24 and 128kbps aac.

[dokushoka]

Originally Posted by DaInGaIlToAgL

... if you can mix, then you can mix in a format that is not the most hi-fi thing out there. I wonder if maybe part of his point was that if we are going towards a world where everything is mp3 (or crappy yamaha digital) quality, maybe we should start mixing with that in mind?

I mean, don't you think that if you monitored through an mp3 (or aac...) compression algorithm, hearing exactly how it was coming out as you mixed, that you would mix differently and the resulting mp3 would sound better? You would fix dynamic range issues that get screwed up, finesse the high frequency information in the mix to sound not so crunchy in the end, etc...

Besides the push toward the surround format, I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the direction he was heading. I mean, quite honestly there is all possibility that some day there will be a new format (maybe a new way of getting sound into the human perception?) that will blow away what we currently are doing, possibly making our current "hi-fi" standards sound like what we currently percieve mp3 to be.

Just a thought, and it's not just an "if you can't beat them join them thing." If a high percentage of the sales of whatever you are mixing are going to be sold on mp3, then you should be very sure you know what that mp3 is going to sound like. Remember, we do work in a consumer driven industry where most of the people buying this stuff can't tell the difference between 96/24 and 128kbps aac.

What happens when audio compression starts to sound better and you mixed for some shitty sounding mp3? How DO you mix for mp3, anyways? No offense, but I believe your thoughts may be a bit misguided.

[blaugruen7]

i think it is only a matter of short time that lossless audio standards will be the norm in digital music. forget about mixing for mp3.

[DaInGaIlToAgL]

Originally Posted by dokushoka

What happens when audio compression starts to sound better and you mixed for some shitty sounding mp3? How DO you mix for mp3, anyways? No offense, but I believe your thoughts may be a bit misguided.

I wasn't saying that should be the only version of the mix, but if something you are working on just doesn't sound right once the conversion has happened, for whatever reason, I think it is a valid idea to tailor the mix to that format.

[dokushoka]

Originally Posted by DaInGaIlToAgL

I wasn't saying that should be the only version of the mix, but if something you are working on just doesn't sound right once the conversion has happened, for whatever reason, I think it is a valid idea to tailor the mix to that format.

So far, in my experience, if you make the mix sound good, the mp3 will hold up just fine. I'm not sure its something to really worry about.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by DaInGaIlToAgL

I wasn't saying that should be the only version of the mix, but if something you are working on just doesn't sound right once the conversion has happened, for whatever reason, I think it is a valid idea to tailor the mix to that format.

That's called "Mastering".

You make a mix and then alter it for the format - vinyl, cassette CD etc. There's nothing wring with mastering for MP3. I used to master for RealAudio years ago.