Waiting for the trademark registration to come back as I post this.



In 2001 I started working on a process to predominately make digital sound more like analogue. Over the years I have revisited it many times, and have made dramatic improvements until finally in 2020 in the midst of all this Covid crap I finished it. It has evolved into a fully analogue mastering process that is used to make recordings sound better. That means while it is a proprietary analog process, it has nothing to do with digital vs. analog.  It works both ways which is to say it will capture the magic of analog tape on digital files as well as improve digital masters prior to printing to tape.

Anyway I'm really pleased with the final result so I extend the following offer: If you have a great recording on 24bit digital or analog tape that you think can't get any better, send it to me and I will remaster a copy of it for your comparison. The process is fully adjustable giving it the ability to overcome recordings with limiting like virtually all streaming music today. Of course if you have non-limited masters that is what we would prefer.

As you might expect it's an extremely purist process, all point-to-point wired. What it's not is a rack of pro-audio components, processors, cables, computers and plastic - quite the opposite. This process is the Zen of processing if you will, its simplicity is no different than our amplifiers and equally stunning.

Thought I would start 2021 with a bang!

Steve

Love the name.  The logo is distinct in that it has a look that is unlikely to get confused with another brand...a good thing.  So, I find it both unique and professional looking.

This is very intriguing and I will absolutely be following your developments.  I will definitely take you up on your offer and will send a file that checks the boxes in order to experience your process.  Certainly the end product of either improving digital files or positively influencing digital recordings prior to going to tape can only bring positive outcomes.  

Not knowing anything about what you have developed, it seems damn cool!

Congrats Steve! Looking forward to how this will unfold. Maybe someday it could be something that we can plug between our streamer and the amp Something like a zrock++

The process is just about the recording.  It works on digital and analogue alike.  I am presently testing on 2nd generation analog masters that were live 2 track with no mixer.  The acid test if you will.  Hopefully I'll be able to post the results and let you pick which one you think sounds best.  I plan on posting several blind A/B tests here in the forum to see if we all pick the same favorites or what kind of diversity there will be.  Should be great fun!

Steve

INFORMATION BELOW ABOUT THE POLL AT THE TOP OF THIS THEAD

So as I prepare the first A/B test, I've been working with Ed Pong of UltraAnalogue Recordings because in my experience he makes the highest resolution, most pure live two track recordings on the planet.  (I'm pretty sure he and I would both love it if I were wrong because you can't have enough of this kind of recording quality / musicianship / acoustics on the planet.). I'm pretty sure I'm right though.

Anyway, the ultimate acid test for the High Fidelity Sound Labs process would naturally be one of Ed's recordings, because if you can take something that is virtually perfect and make it better or different without ruining it, well, trust me, that would be the ultimate achievement.  

Remember the process is designed to create audiophile versions of existing masters that for whatever reason sound congested, dry, perhaps a little flat, or cold, or hard. Hard is the worse one.  Basically, designed to make less than perfect recordings sound better. So that obviously leads one to wonder what will happen if it's applied to recordings that don't need any help, or are otherwise unimproveable?

I realized many years ago during the Spring Street Studio years that when it comes to recordings, the information is in there. The recording is like a code that contains the information, and your playback system is like the decoder. It's all about phase angles across the frequency band at every stage of the chain that both create the code and solve the code.  So it is usually possible to extract good sound from seemingly hopeless recordings if you have the tools to make the adjustments.

So the first attempt at creating this acid A/B test basically failed.  It failed because Ed's tape didn't sound right.  It sounded hard.  Dimensionality was congested and compressed, the Piano, stage left, was struggling and didn't sound anything like Ed's actual piano.  Yet, you couldn't actually find anything wrong with it.  How many times has that happened to you?

Nevertheless, desperate to hear the damn tape sound good on that particular night, I decided to apply the process to it and monitor it live which I did.  That made it sound good which was a real achievement, at least to me, even though I traded some top end deliberately out of desperation, to the average listener it would probably sound better.

I have since found the cause of the less than perfect sound from the tape, and believe it to have been a cable connection on the left channel on the particular night.

So to let you experience in real time the testing of this process with the final results still unknown, I though it would be fun to start with the damaged recording and my attempt to fix it.  Sample A and Sample B respectably.  Then we'll get to the real stuff.  So in the next post I will set up a poll where you can listen to both Sample A and B on headphones or your stereo and vote on which one you like better overall.

There are two samples:

One is the Direct Dump From Tape 24/96 wav format that I suspect was crippled by a cable.

The other was the High Fidelity Sound Labs process inserted between the tape and digital recorder in an attempt to fix the sound. 24/96 wav format.

Here are the links to the files:

SAMPLE A - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xKFXm6YEDORKF4hOdt0ib-WaV2Eikvka/view?usp=shari...

SAMPLE B - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xmaFKr0tZ87ZWRt5CnElAx2nT8UNncTg/view?usp=shari...

Listen to these both and then vote in the pole.  A great way to do it is to load each into an audio player on the computer so you can hit play on one then hit pause... hit play on the other then hit pause... and go back and forth as many times as you want to do direct A/B comparisons measure by measure.

I am intersted in peoples results on all types of playback systems, lo-fi, mid-fi, hi-fi and on both headphones and speakers.

Thanks your participation is appreciated.  This test will be repeated once we get sample A sounding so good it would be stupid to mess with it.  Of course that is all on the playback side.  Tonight I am listening to it without the cable issue and having a hard time staying in my body.


Steve

Thank you to the guest who voted.  We now have one vote for Sample B.

On my 8 year old laptop playing through the speakers,. I played Sample B first which was fine. Then when Sample A hit I wanted to turn it off, which I did. I was browsing the internet so wasn't really listening.

Still browsing the internet, I Airplayed to a BlueSound Node 2i which is hooked up to my main system. Sample B first, which was again pleasant. Sample A I looked up and thought sounds like a hot radio edit. The violin really just jumped out screeching. I listened to the entire Sample A without turning it off.

So on Lo-Fi and Mid-Fi I would say Sample B wins for enjoy-ability.  

Steve,
Would you like commentary in this thread or would you prefer us to vote and hold off until you close the poll?

I don't think anyone is going to be swayed by commentary enough to actually pick a sample they don't personally like so go ahead and comment all you want.

Sample A sounds a bit more upper-mid heavy to me.  It is more in your face.  Sample B sounds more airy and more even in the mid register in comparison to Sample A.  It gave me the impression that the recording of Sample B included both close mic'ing and ambient mic'ing, and the latter used for a natural reverb.  The recording in Sample A is as if it was recorded only with ambient mic'ing and I do not hear much body in the instruments.

I am not sure if the volumes of the two samples were matched, Sample B sounds a tad louder to my ears.  Also, I feel like Sample B has a tad more room reverb.

Between the two I prefer Sample B.  But please note that this is through my  iPhone in-ears via an iMac.  For a more detailed analysis, I have to listen to it on my UFO25!

Cheers,

Alper

Listening on my computer -- nothing fancy.  I was prepared to hate A but it's the one I prefer.  B sounds muted, under water and not as "live."

Within three seconds I knew I would prefer Sample B. Compared on Apple MacBook laptop speakers.

Via current generation ipad and hifiman 400’s, version A sounds like a real violin and piano in the room.  Nice dynamics.  Excellent rendering of details, especially from the violin.

Version B sounds as if both instruments are in a closet with a heavy blanket covering the door.  Dynamics are non-existant.  The sound is completely lifeless.

I guess I have a reference point that is rather unique, having been part of the audience at Ed Pong's concert venue during a live performance and recording of a world-class pianist and cellist.    

I chose A because it brought me right back to the concert that evening. The instruments in A sounded real, and true to life as though I was in the room with them again.  

Listening preferences being subjective, I could understand why some would choose B, but A sounded superior on my system knowing what piano and strings sound like at Ed's place. Like a couple others have noted, I too felt as though B was a bit rolled off, our "round."  It seemed as though there was a bit of Hall effect, ever so slightly, in the B recording.  Anyway, it was a fun exercise and I'm curious to learn more about each file.

Sample A seems to be lacking something on my system.  The very first note where the second tone adds a fullness to the sound is so much more pleasing on Sample B.

Sample B gets my vote.


I downloaded the files
used Foobar to UNP into my Allo Piano PI dac
Played back on my second system.

Interesting, that in just this little group there are so many that REALLY like B and so many others that REALLY like A.  Hard to build something that people like when people's tasted are so different.

Dan

......wondering how many of us realize the high level of abrasiveness inherent in violin playing.  Having lived 30 of my 62 years with two budding violinists—violinists that ultimately majored in violin performance at university—I can confirm that even the sweetest most tender violin playing is grating on listeners, especially when in close proximity to the player.  

In the case of our poll music, the short excerpt chosen by Steve is from Tchaikovsky’s violin concerto in D, and it was written to be played extremely aggressively, with what many consider to be harsh bowing, as if the violin is being attacked by the bow.  We’re talking heavy coarse violent bowing such that the solo violinist dominates the entire orchestra.

Would this information move anyone’s vote from B to A?   Not lobbying for A.....just curious.

Here are the votes so far ...

I preferred A.  

B sounds just a bit muffled to me.

That's what happens when you don't read the top of a thread!  

In my case, I listened with a 'middle of the road' set of cans plugged into a Samsung phone. A sounded lifelessly thin while B sounded full and vibrant. After reading some of the comments on this thread, it seems the details can also shine with A and become bloated with B  system dependant. Somehow I can picture it!
John

This isn't really about these 2 digital Samples, but a fantastic concert that was streamed yesterday by violinist Alena Baeva in Paris, playing the same Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto (in these 2 Samples...)

Of course, only YouTube sound, but a great performance of a great piece of music!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSPbD_BocsE&t=423s

Enjoy

Ed

Mike,

Thanks for your having a listen & kind words! I'm very happy that DSD128 downloaded sounded better than your best SACD..! I had a friend with some Khorns & they sounded great with the right amps. Congrats on a great system!

On Steve's sample A&B, if I'm reading this thread right, sample A is the file which has a problem with an interconnect... so I think we need to wait till Steve puts up the proper sample A, then his mastering of this A to see the real effects.

Personally, A sounded a bit bright & thin at times, with more high frequency energy but "closer" to what it should be, but it was still far from my digital download sound. B sounded a bit soft & rolled off, the brightness was gone & likely some may prefer that sound... it's easier to listen to.

Ed

NEW SAMPLES!


Since Ed was kind enough to send me a 24/192 file of Sample A made from the actual master tape -- that will be our New Sample A.

The process I use contains two basic areas; 1) Basic Tone Repair which leaves everything original but with more tone and does it without EQ.  2) Manipulation using four triodes which changes textures, dimension, feel.  This is obviously the interesting part of the process and would be the only part applicable to such a perfect recording.  

Since there is no need for tone repair on Sample A that part of the process was simply skipped again.

To really wrap your head around what this process can do, compare each sample at 1:40 back to back a few times and you will see that the bowing is changed.  Of course that's impossible, yet there it is. Actually I don't know if 'bowing' the right term, but it actually sounds like someone else is playing it.

I wouldn't say that the New Sample B is any kind of an improvement over the New Sample A, it only demonstrates it's ability to change something.

And in fairness, the High Fidelity Sound Lab process would never have been conceived if all music on the planet sounded as good as Ed's recordings, and we already know that really virtually none ARE better.

We'll get into more samples as this goes on, samples that do need help, or sound better completely rearranged.

The New Sample A and Sample B are uploaded to the same folder as before.

THE OLD POLL was 15 for sample B and 11 for sample A.  I have cleared all the volts so please vote again using the new samples!

Thanks,

Steve

NEW SAMPLE A https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YvBMRZzYhGQdNc0X80JdS301-_EZTTGh/view?usp=shari...

NEW SAMPLE B https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bGstzymk-QVkde4L5GW4JNuqOQ48Oz4-/view?usp=shari...

Steve,
Thanks for these new Samples! Definitely fun stuff you're doing!
Without being specific, my sense is, B sounds like you're "looking" at a beautiful scene, but the window is covered with a slight mist...

A sounds like there is no glass in the window...

I think this demonstrates just how much any component, wire, tube, etc can change the sound... Everything has an effect... just what is it.
I'm sure what you've come up with is a fantastic way to have some control over the sound.

It confirms how important the recording & playback sound path is...

A good example is your first Sample A. It came from this tape, but just an interconnect was off & it changed the sound completely.

I'm interested to hear it's effects on a bright nasty sounding digital recording...

Ed