Dr. AIX

Mark Waldrep, aka Dr. AIX, has been producing and engineering music for over 40 years. He learned electronics as a teenager from his HAM radio father while learning to play the guitar. Mark received the first doctorate in music composition from UCLA in 1986 for a "binaural" electronic music composition. Other advanced degrees include an MS in computer science, an MFA/MA in music, BM in music and a BA in art. As an engineer and producer, Mark has worked on projects for the Rolling Stones, 311, Tool, KISS, Blink 182, Blues Traveler, Britney Spears, the San Francisco Symphony, The Dover Quartet, Willie Nelson, Paul Williams, The Allman Brothers, Bad Company and many more. Dr. Waldrep has been an innovator when it comes to multimedia and music. He created the first enhanced CDs in the 90s, the first DVD-Videos released in the U.S., the first web-connected DVD, the first DVD-Audio title, the first music Blu-ray disc and the first 3D Music Album. Additionally, he launched the first High Definition Music Download site in 2007 called iTrax.com. A frequency speaker at audio events, author of numerous articles, Dr. Waldrep is currently writing a book on the production and reproduction of high-end music called, "High-End Audio: A Practical Guide to Production and Playback". The book should be completed in the fall of 2013.

19 thoughts on “Hi-Res Audio Hijinx: Part II

  • March 11, 2015 at 5:22 pm
    Permalink

    Thanks Mark. Another great pair of articles debunking the lack of a good source for Hi-Rez files to test. I hope you tried to contact Mr. Rothman with an offer to provide some good files for him to listen to.

    As with many others, I have a hard time telling the difference with my 71 year old ears between a good 320k MP3 and a good 96 khz/24 bit hi-rez file. So after many personal tests, I determined that spending the extra money for hi-rez files was a waste if I could get the same master in 320k mp3 for less money. I have bought a few albums from LINN Records in the UK that way. Besides your albums, I also like MA Recordings. They record digital end to end and without compression.

    I have recorded a lot of my old LPs to digital on my computer. MP3s are fine for those. The same is true for most of my CDs I rip. The only excption are my old Telarc albums from the 80’s. Remember when CD’s used to be defined as AAD, ADD, or DDD? Telarcs were DDD for the most part and I have ripped those to WAV files and them converted them to FLAC files. They are the only ones that seem worth the trouble to me. And they do sound good that way but obviously they aren’t hi-rez since they came from a CD but they still sound great because the source was as good as it could get for the day.

    Reply
    • March 12, 2015 at 9:27 am
      Permalink

      I thought about reaching out to the author and I will. Thanks.

      Reply
  • March 11, 2015 at 5:46 pm
    Permalink

    Mark,
    I have three NJ albums in (HDtracks) versions. The first ‘Come away with me’ is 100% 16-44.1. ‘Feels like home’ seems to be the album recorded in analog, because there is a lot of noise above 25-26 kHz. ‘ Not too late’ from 2007 is 100% digital in HD as it goes well into 38 kHz with no noise visible what so ever.
    cheers

    Reply
    • March 12, 2015 at 9:28 am
      Permalink

      Thanks for the insights…of course, we know there’s a lot more to the art of high-resolution production than just the format, but at least she’s off of the analog thing.

      Reply
  • March 11, 2015 at 6:16 pm
    Permalink

    The online (and PDF) audio magazine, Tone Audio http://www.tonepublications.com/ regularly review High Res downloaded tracks of older albums and compare them to the original (Vinyl in most cases). They often comment on the poor quality of the Hi Res version. Unfortunately they don’t review a ton of music this way, but when they do, it can be quite helpful.

    Reply
    • March 12, 2015 at 9:29 am
      Permalink

      I used to take a look a Tone…and perhaps I should revisit them. Usually, I found them so vinyl LP biased that it just didn’t make sense.

      Reply
  • March 11, 2015 at 6:50 pm
    Permalink

    I’ve been using the Dynamic Range database lately ( http://dr.loudness-war.info ), and, looking at the several versions of given album, I’ve notice two things I didn’t expect.

    1. Often the 96/24 version downloaded from hdtracks.com has the lowest (worst) dynamic range of all the versions.

    2. Often the vinyl version has the highest (best) dynamic range.

    These are of course choices made in the mastering process, and not an indication of the capabilities of the medium, since the capabilities are the exact opposite.

    This explains to some degree why some people like the sound on the vinyl better–because, in at least one dimension, it is better!

    The real crime is that whoever masters the 96/24 downloads at hdtracks.com is compressing the dynamic range to something that fits in 8 bits and then sells it as 24 bits. What a lost opportunity! I think this is false advertising and approaches fraud.

    The dynamic range of the 44/16 CD version is often somewhere between the two. Which is also a crime.

    To think that after all these years we’re still not exceeding the dynamic range of vinyl, and that it’s by choice (!), just kills me. I don’t understand it.

    If you want it louder, then just turn the volume knob on your amplifier. And if you’re a producer, then depend on loudness normalization available in modern receivers, streaming services (iTunes Sound Check), and typical processing equipment in most radio stations.

    Reply
    • March 12, 2015 at 9:30 am
      Permalink

      Just a note on the HDtracks question…they don’t remaster the materials, that work is done at the labels.

      Reply
  • March 11, 2015 at 7:34 pm
    Permalink

    “Jazz, acoustic, and classical music definitely benefits from high-resolution recording and reproduction but Nirvana…not so much.”

    I know and understand the reasoning behind that comment but the popular music world deserves the attention of engineers interested in HD ever more so than the other styles listed. We have raised a generation listeners and artists that believes their mp3 players, smart phones and ear buds sound wonderful and are delivering the SOTA.
    Jazz, acoustic, and classical music are for the most part dead art forms and we need to focus our attention in the progress of High Fidelity on the groups of listeners that matter in the realm of sales numbers.
    When the Norah Jones of this world request analog tape, the Mardins of this world should be saying “well if you insist but analog tape really is obsolete and inferior quality to what we can offer you in a HD digital domain. Why don”t we do a few takes and let me show you what I me”.
    If you write off educating the by far largest music audience in the world your cutting off your nose to spite your face. We now have reasonably affordable tools in HD portable players and headphones capable of delivering HDA specs, but we need to have the software to make these tools worthwhile
    The audio engineers of this world MUST stop placating the lie that analog tape sounds better and get the giant audience that is popular music to understand the truth and become part of the techno progress that is HDA.
    It will be only by focusing on the popular music form that HDA will not fall from interest and die along with the mostly dead music styles you want to worry about, they are irrelevant in today’s sales market.

    Reply
    • March 12, 2015 at 9:31 am
      Permalink

      My point was that I can understand that certain genres of commercial and popular music require heavy handed compression…it’s part of the sound. Is there room for dynamic range in pop/rock/country…of course.

      Reply
      • March 12, 2015 at 9:25 pm
        Permalink

        Your answer confuses me???
        “popular music require heavy handed compression”
        “there room for dynamic range in pop/rock/country…of course.”
        Which is it”\?
        Popular music does not require heavy handed compression, it’s part of it’s current destruction by all those involved and not a requirement for its sound. They do it to attract attention and it’s a dollars war in reality. Popular music was recorded for decades without being crushed to death by the engineers. It’s only in the last decade that this loudness war has become the norm. It must be stopped somehow and excuses that “its part of the sound” are not exceptable. No disrespect meant Mark.

        Reply
        • March 13, 2015 at 9:51 am
          Permalink

          Maybe I should have expressed myself more clearly. Nine Inch Nails, Tool, Metallica etc depend on the massive walls of sound and their recording process must use compression. Other types of pop/rock/country would benefit from less compression during mastering.

          Reply
          • March 13, 2015 at 2:19 pm
            Permalink

            I guess we’ll have to agree to dis-agree. Heavy metal bands were recording in the 70s – 90s without using the ridiculous amount of compression they are using today. Everyone from the labels to the engineers to the artists themself have been convinced that this destruction of any type of dynamic range must be done to sell records. It’s a shame whats been done and will be there for future generations to wince over.
            I am in no way a metal fan, I just hate to see any form of music have it’s fidelity destroyed for future generations to suffer.

  • March 12, 2015 at 12:33 pm
    Permalink

    Its to bad a number wasn’t included on the high res badge that confirmed the provenance of the song being purchased.
    A third party (such as yourself) would need to review them individually but in my opinion this should be done anyway if they’re going to label them high res.
    A new rating system, say a scale of 1-100, would need to be implemented but it would remove some of the guess work in a purchase. It would be critical that the reviewer be unbiased and not judge the song from their personal preference but rather only judge the provenance.

    Reply
    • March 12, 2015 at 1:59 pm
      Permalink

      This is exactly what I’m working on.

      Reply
  • March 13, 2015 at 2:41 pm
    Permalink

    Hi Mark, I was just wondering if you have read the Pono player review and general Pono overview in this month’s Stereophile magazine. John Atkinson is certainly a very, very experienced person in this capacity.

    Funny that almost everything I’ve said about the pointlessness of poking holes in a man who has the public’s ear and makes clear his wish that better sound quality become widely available was repeated by Mr. Atkinson. I guess I’m not the only one who flat-out cannot understand the largely baseless negativity that has been aimed at not just Pono, but hi-res in general by ill-informed journalists who probably wrote the travel article the week before and have ears filled with mud.
    Oh, and he also makes very clear the exceptional sonic beauty of the Pono player w/ electronics by Ayre. That’s why I bought it, and not for any other major reason; I don’t have 400.00 to throw away. The folks who know and appreciate your label don’t have to be protected from anything; they generally know their way around the audio block, and can make their own judgements; the facts are out there for all to weigh.
    Pono has and will continue to succeed.I’d stop wasting energy on the Pono thing were I you, and turn negative energy into positive by proclaiming the knockout sonic qualities of your stuff. Dumping on someone else’s product has never been a good way to sell one’s own.

    Reply
    • March 13, 2015 at 3:01 pm
      Permalink

      I’m certainly glad that you like your Pono player. No, I haven’t yet read the piece by John Atkinson. I have had a chance to read an inside and confidential review of the player by a well known acoustician and professional that was asked by Pono for his opinion. He sent it to me this morning after following up from the AES Conference last weekend. It’s confidential but in general is positive…it’s not stellar but very well designed for a portable device. It doesn’t really compete with the real thing.

      You’re a broken record on this issue. I’m not going to stop reporting on Pono with facts and opinion. Pono and PonoMusic are struggling financially, I know that. I will not be surprised if they aren’t around in 6-12 months. Their model is flawed, their integrity questionable, and their offerings misrepresented.

      Reply
  • March 13, 2015 at 5:32 pm
    Permalink

    All I have ever tried to get across is that by denigrating Neil Young’s efforts, you may or may not be hampering your own. I have continually espoused “better sound for everyone” as the most important consequence of the hi-res buzz,not the ins and outs of it, and while neither Tidal nor Deezer is hi-res, someone obviously figured out that folks will happily pay more for CD 16/44 sound than for 128 MP-3, and I have wireless steaming products in my shop that do 24/192..
    This is called genuine progress, and the Pono thing has been the spoon that stirred the pot. As I’ve said, no matter how fine your work, or David Chesky’s work, it’s invisble to the majority of music fans. If your label was as well known as Neil Young, you wouldn’t be complaining because you’d be too busy going to the bank.

    As for the future of Pono, I will here happily bet you 100.00 that Pono will outlast your prediction of doom.

    Reply
    • March 13, 2015 at 5:49 pm
      Permalink

      Craig, I’ve reported on what I know about Pono and PonoMusic…that is doesn’t match your assessment is yours to like or not. But it’s not denigrating to report facts. I don’t give Neil that much credit…I believe he’s done far more negative to the effort for high-resolution audio than he’s done to make it real.

      We’ll have to wait and see on the longevity of the company…but the word behind the scenes is not good.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight + nine =