Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
I wanted to thank Fred Kaplan for the review. I also wanted to clarify a few things:
1. At Sear Sound, we transferred the tape to digital in real time, as we were playing. The tape machine has 2 heads, a record head and a play head. Therefore, you can record the signal to tape through the record head and, a split second later, send it to an A/D converter through the play head. The transfer happens while we are playing, it does not use any more time in the studio. If that was the case, the cost of studio time would more than wipe out the savings resulting from re-using the tape. Also, it would interrupt the flow of the session and that would be a real drag.
2. Doug Sax converted the files to analog for mastering, he didn't "mix" them per se. The mixing was done live by James Farber, at Sear Sound, as we were playing.
3. Doug Sax did the cutting of the lacquer himself, with Robert Hadley, on the lathe at The Mastering Lab. I have read that QRP has since bought the equipment of the Mastering Lab after Doug's death, including the lathe, but the work on my record happened much before that. Doug cut the lacquer. The lacquers were then sent to QRP and QRP did everything after that: plating, metal work, pressing.
I also wanted to take this opportunity to discuss here in more details how the album was recorded and why we made the choices we made, as I have been getting a lot of questions/comments.
The record was done all in one day. We recorded all in a room at Sear Sound, without headphones. James Farber used quite a few microphones (great vintage mics for the most part: Neumann M49 on the tenor saxophone etc) and the mixing was done live, on a Neve 8038 console in Studio A. Among other things, we used real EMT plate reverbs and also a Pultec tube preamp on the saxophone.
We actually recorded three different versions simultaneuously: one to ProTools digital at 88.2/24, one on an Ampex ATR 102 solid state tape machine, and one on a Studer C-37 tube tape machine. Both tape machines used 1/2 inch tape at 30 ips. Both machines were backed up to ProTools at 88.2/24 at the same time as we were playing. We reused a couple of tapes throughout the day, as I couldn't afford to buy enough tape to record everything without doing that. I am aware that this is a bit of a trade-off, but I have done this before and I feel it's well worth it: It allows me to use tape and I think tape sounds a lot more musical than digital in general. I also feel that the transfer at 88.2/24 is quite faithful to the sound of the tape. The converters at Sear Sound were Mytek.
During the mastering process, we listened to the three sets of files and tried to keep an open mind. We decided to use the files made from the ATR 102 tape machine. We thought they sounded the best overall, the most balanced and the most solid. The files from the Studer tape machine sounded really great too, but somehow the sax felt a bit peaky. The straight-up digital files were good but just didn't compare overall for my taste. Both sets of files from the tape sounded a lot more realistic and involving to me.
Doug Sax and Jett Galindo then gave me a few options to pick from at mastering. Since we now had digital files at 88.2/24, the main decision was whether to master in digital or convert back to analog. We tried both. Upon listening, I thought that going through The Mastering Lab's pristine analog chain sounded a lot better despite the added conversion. That's what we did in the end.
I don't think Doug did that much to the files but what he did made a big difference. He did some very effective, tasteful EQ, and just a little bit of limiting. Doug also did separate passes through his JCF converters to create the 192/24 version and the 44/24 version, thus avoiding any sample rate conversion, which, in my experience, always degrades the sound.
Doug cut the LP directly from the 88.2/24 files from the Ampex ATR 102, using the same analog chain he used before: for the LP, EQs were recreated and the same analog signal (converted from the 88/2/24 files and mastered in analog) was simply sent to the cutting lacquer, saving two additional conversions, compared to if we had we used the 192/24 to cut the LP and avoiding the one final conversion necessary to make the CD or 192/24 download. I personally think that avoiding that last conversion is a factor in the LP sounding better than the files.
So to sum things up:
CD signal path:
ATR 102 (1/2 inch, 30 ips tape) > A/D conversion at 88.2/24 (at the session at Sear Sound, as we were playing) > D/A conversion months later (for mastering at The Mastering Lab) > analog mastering > A/D conversion at 44.1/24 > dithering to 44.1/16 for the CD
Vinyl signal path:
ATR 102 (1/2 inch, 30 ips tape) > A/D conversion at 88.2/24 (at the session at Sear Sound, as we were playing) > D/A conversion months later (for mastering at The Mastering Lab) > analog mastering > cutting the lacquer
Hi-Resolution Download signal path:
ATR 102 (1/2 inch, 30 ips tape) > A/D conversion at 88.2/24 (at the session at Sear Sound, as we were playing) > D/A conversion months later (for mastering at The Mastering Lab) > analog mastering > A/D conversion at 192/24
Doug recommended I use the 192/24 sample rate for the Hi-Resolution Download, even though he was well aware, obviously, that the high frequencies present on the recording were "limited" by the original sampling rate of the digitization of the tape (88.2/24). He thought it would still be a better capture of what was, at that point, an analog signal.
Although I am proud of this record in any version, I personally think the vinyl sounds best, followed by the 192/24 (which is available on HD Tracks). That said, most of the sound of this record comes from the sound of this particular band in that particular room, captured expertly by James Farber, and Doug Sax and Jett Galindo's great work in mastering. Even though there are real differences, in my opinion, most of the sound is independent of the delivery medium.
I hope this clarifies everything. I also hope all the technical talk doesn't detract from the music, which is the most important thing!
I am grateful and humbled by the level of attention this project has been getting in the audiophile community, and, as an independent artist trying to make great records and an audiophile, I find it very encouraging.
Thank you all!
Jerome Sabbagh