Pre amps cost vs. value ... what I discovered last month.

I have a new Illusion if interested.

OP :Yeah, you are not the only one to listen to Boulder and really wonder what was going on.

Wish I understood exactly how a pre-amp accomplishes this.

Less phase shift and wider bandwidth.

It adds a degree of 3D imaging that direct to amp alone can't match.

Wish I understood exactly how a pre-amp accomplishes this.

kw6Brian pls try a Linear tube audio Micro z2 or Audible Illusion L3A or Cary Slp-98! Thanks

Interesting I wondered the same reading this thread, and with those exact same units, and not the most expensive either. None of my own modified Cary tube amps sounded as well as I had hoped until a synergy occurred with a well modified matching preamp and the right NOS tubes. My buddy has the AI L3A and enjoy my upgraded SLP-98. Have not tried LTA yet.

Results will vary depending on room acoustics, compatibility of different components/speakers being tested and personal preferences. Doesn't mean that the components involved are inferior.

Interesting complaint by the OP. Painting with a VERY broad brush. 

Interesting b/c a self-professed mastering engineer who,on the one hand, implies how expert their ears and audio equipment knowledge are. Yet, on the other hand, is unable to match a simple preAmp to their well-known 15 year old system.

Then, on top of that, not only complains about it, buy blames their own inabilities on the entire audio industry, purporting that preAmp prices are jacked up and the preAmp manufacturers are either incompetent or audio-robbers.
???

Hi Jsm71,

What amps are you running with your Mz2?

Brian pls try a Linear tube audio Micro z2 or Audible Illusion L3A or Cary Slp-98! Thanks

"How much do I have to spend on a pre-amp to get one which sounds better than no pre-amp at all?"  

If all is impedance correct between source and amp/s.
They sky's the limit, as no active preamp can equal the transparency/dynamics/lack of distortion, that direct source to amp/s feed can give.
Adding a preamp in this case only diminishes and colours these parameters. 

Cheers George

There's a fun thread on another forum roughly entitled "How much do I have to spend on a pre-amp to get one which sounds better than no pre-amp at all?" 

The mastering of an LP was done with the intention that it would sound its best in analog on a turntable. The mastering of a CD was done with the intention that it would sound its best at 44/16 through a CD transport.

IME CDs are mastered to sound its best in a car where background noise is usually present.

When we work on an LP mastering project, we try to get a file that was not mastered for CD release, so as to avoid the compression that is often present. Sometimes that file is available, sometimes it does not exist. It all depends on the producer...

Brian,  while a bit off subject, could you give a general description of what modifications you made to your 211‘s? I’ve just received a pair and would be quite curious to know where you went with them. Looking at your discussions and your body of work I would say our tastes in music reproduction are quite close. 
Thanks, Jim

Very true @soundsrealaudio

I'm having my speaker crossovers upgraded (same design, better parts) for the cost of the speakers themselves.
A lot of parts in many crossovers.

@soundsrealaudio   Often true about adding a crossover and how it can "cloud-up" the sound.  Richard Vandersteen's M5-HP remarkably results in better overall sound as using the powered Vandy subwoofer relieves the main system amp of having to do so resulting in more open, dynamic system sound.  The only rub is the cost, but it is well worth shelling out about a grand for them.  They really are that good!😁

While we are on the subject of adding a component between the amp and the speakers.we should not downplay the adverse affects of the crossover....All those electronic elements blocking the audio path.

Every record is a journey of creation, and you are hearing all the moments added up in the product, as you can tell.  That is very hard to dissect in an abstract conversation.  There are intentions, and there are results. Intentions vary and skills in getting results vary, wildly.

It’s hard to say anything without hearing a record and talking in specifics. If you heard the mix/master here it would be clear what I do.

I do not mix (panning, dynamics, relative level and EQ, distortion), record (tone, dynamics, distortion), arrange, or write.
Each step has tremendous power: Moment of Inspiration, Arranging, Performance Tracking Engineer, Mixing Engineer, Mastering Engineer.
Sure, I make everything better musically and technically (the way you’re talking about it is technical). Thus the career.   More spacious, clear, powerful, detailed, etc. Yet the way I approach mastering is about CONNECTING artists to audience. The tech side are just tools.

Thanks for your response. It is very educational to hear it from that perspective. 

I guess my questions  we’re coming from my observations while listening to multiple pieces of music from different recording artist. For example, I frequently listen to streaming music played through a very revealing, dynamic home system.  As it goes through different pieces of music I find incredible variations between the width and depth of soundstahing, And what sound like transparency of instruments and voice. 

 There are some pieces of music that reproduce the voices with such an amazing accuracy that it feels like the person is in the room. But, there are many other recordings of voices that sound bland and flat. 

On some recordings it sounds to me like instruments get layered directly on top of each other, pinpointed in the center of the soundstage. However, other times the instruments are “placed” in a sonic soundstage capturing the images as if they are standing next to each other (rather than on top of each other) on the stage between the speakers.

 There are some classical symphonic recording that create a soundstage where individual instruments are holographically positioned in space and can be easily “seen” in that stable space repeatedly during the musical piece. However, that experience is not universal by any means in other pieces of music. 

There are some jazz pieces  where the instrumental lines of music seem to  interact with each other with natural decay and rhythm that gives a sense of pace and and interaction of the instruments. But in other recordings, each instrument seems to cover the other and congeal the natural sound of each other. 

So I guess I’m asking, how much of these phenomenons that we hear is related to the work that you do and what control do you have in creating this?

no worries @simao i didn't notice.  Again, no fear of perfectionism around me, we are communicating here not posturing to be the smartest person in the room

@brhatten I'm not sure how to respond to "most natural, life like reproduction of the music that was heard during the recording process?"  Recordings in the modern world, like aways truly, are distorted and mangled and manipulated on purpose as part of the presentation.  It's an ongoing sculpture of intentional distortions and non life like filtering.  The aim of music is not the live event.  Even live recordings will never and CAN NEVER measure up to the live event.  That is a mythical unicorn that takes up too make people's time as a criteria.

Similarly I'm confused by "compromised the end product in terms of dynamics, soundstaging"  

The recording process does not end at mixing.  Everything that comes to me comes out better in terms of musicality, punch, artistic statement, clarity, soundstage, freq balance, ability to connect, etc.  Now does that mean that it has more DR? Usually no, does not. 

So if DR is your main criteria, on an island, then you will be disappointed.   Yet my argument would be that LOWER DR sounds like MORE DR when it's done correctly. 

I can get into that more if you like but if you are looking for DR at 10db or greater, I do hundreds of records a year and can't point you toward one of those.  I would say the same is true of most MEs working today.

FYI: I'm not a scattered, aliterate writer  - based on my posts above. It's just that voice to text while I'm driving sometimes isn't all that accurate. 

Brian,

You had mentioned previously that the recording artist and the producer have a strong influence on the mastering step, correct? If so, do you find that this influence at thimes compromised the end product in terms of dynamics, soundstaging, etc...? Going along that train of thought, do you have certain examples of your work where you feel that this influence didn’t deter you from creating the most natural, life like reproduction of the music that was heard during the recording process?

Perhaps these are silly questions because you may say that every one of your works is the best possible music that could have been created (which may be your answer). I’m not sure if you have some projects that you felt that the music and sound came across with in a way that audiophiles seems to think of as the most transparent and lifelike.

Cheers. Thanks for taking your time to contribute here.

Remastering can be great, sure. It’s a mixed bag. Generally the place to being with any remastering is to figure out WHO initiated it, and WHO oversaw the process creatively and WHY was it done at all? Intentions and persons matter. Some of Bob's work is excellent.  He is the granddaddy of mastering along with Bernie Grundman in LA.  

All work is approved by the artist, or label, or someone ... so factor that in always. When a record sounds great, everyone did their job well.

Brian,

in regards to remastering, can't some remastering The sound of a recording that had been previously mastered in a terrible way? Take, for example, the remastered version of Rush's vapor trails recording.   All of a sudden there were layers of sound uncovered from that recording that were on here a ball in the original muddy release. 

 And what made Bob Ludwig so good at what he did? 

@brianlucey 

Benchmark is as you describe. I use tubes also to warm things up. Thanks for the info on Solaris. I agree that there a lot of great DACs out there nowadays. It often comes down to system synergy or taste.

@shadorne I was never a fan of the original Benchmark DA, have not heard yours.  The Avocet DA is very good, yet I don't use it so can't tell you the sound of the latest generation.  All DA are very good these days it's a matter of flavor.  The Solaris is not to my taste, too dry, too cold.

@astewart8944

+1 on sample rate or high resolution.

With the right DAC there is no audible benefit to higher sample rates.

Unfortunately, most DACs are rather non-linear and a higher sample rate actually helps “randomize” noise from these poorly constructed non-linear DACs. The result is a whole industry around software (like Roon) to upsample when the problem is with inadequate hardware. Nearly everyone reports an improvement from upsampling a low resolution file - nearly everyone has a DAC with limited performance.

http://www.mlssa.com/pdf/Upsampling-theory-rev-2.pdf

@charles1dad my only thought is that DR is only a number not an actual quality rating of the mastering.  Listen to the music, and if it moves you, it moves you.   Modern music is more compressed and limited in mixing.  Mastering is then asked to go further in many cases.   It can still be good music and great mastering ... or not.   And it IS ALWAYS AS THE ARTIST INTENDED.  Don't blame the ME, we are service providers.  Those who sign off and drive the train are the artists and sometimes labels, but usually artists and producers.

@astewart8944 you have hit the nails on the head in each aspect. FYI, I print with the Pacific Microsonics AD at 44.1.  That converter in the modern market would take a retail of $70k to create, and it's my fave AD by far.  Sounds great at 44.1.  I like the low end density and there is plenty of air in the sound of the box.  Actually I have 5 of them (model one and two), just in case, as there is only one man in the world who can do repairs.  Thank God for him, the sweetest and most honorable tech you could hope to find.  Mohammed Kahn.

We agree that a database of sample rate and bit depth (mostly 24 but not always back in the day) is what is needed to be hearing the mastering session as intended.  If only that were the case.  Instead there is fear based greed in the midst of our quest to hear the masters.  My work, again, always 24/44.1.  MQA screws it up.  MFiT, screws it up.  Universal was for years putting an audible watermark (yes, audible) on all their digital releases.  I'm told that has stopped.  CDs are the safe way to go for my work.  Others print at 96k, etc.  To each his/her own.

Bob Katz compares the Cranesong Avocet to Benchmark DACs in his review!

So, what does the Avocet sound like? For digital (PCM) sources, its DAC sounds indistinguishable from the Benchmark, one of the best DACs I’ve heard regardless of price....

I use a Benchmark DAC 3 but I hear the new Cranesong Solaris is something very special. Have you heard the Solaris and compared it to Bricasti? I would love to hear your thoughts. I totally respect Audio Professionals - they have more experience then I can ever hope to get in a lifetime. Primarily I use pro equipment because of the proven track record with you golden-eared pros!

@rsf507 yes 2 inputs and 1 output all balanced

@brianlucey Specifically, I agree that SR appears to be a manufactured market manipulation designed to convince the consumer that there is "more and better" to be heard at higher SRs whether it be via HD Tracks or MQA. While it seems there is something different to possibly be heard, different is not necessarily "better" or worth more. It would be helpful if the consumer could know, before purchase, the SR used during recording/mastering of the original recording. I want to know what the musicians and recording/mastering engineers wanted the audience to hear when they listened to the recording. I'm not interested, at all, in what a record company wants to convince me of so they can sell me multiple versions of the same "recording." I always assumed, prior to being able to purchase HiRez formats, that the music was mastered to sound best via a particular medium.  The mastering of an LP was done with the intention that it would sound its best in analog on a turntable. The mastering of a CD was done with the intention that it would sound its best at 44/16 through a CD transport. I find that, for the most part, well recorded/engineered RBCD sounds very good with a high quality DAC and the recording's overall SQ does not routinely improve in HiRez formats. In essence, HiRez becomes a crap shoot where the customer often is left paying more for something that sounds no better or sometimes worse than the RBCD the customer already owns or could easily obtain much cheaper in the used CD marketplace. 
Regards
Al        

Brian,
Okay I understand your view of  relating Wide dynamic range to an older style/era of sound. I enjoy recordings that preserve dynamic range as it heightens emotion and realism.  I can also recognize that not everyone feels this way and may prefer the more "modern"  compressed sound. Certainly a case of to each their own which is okay with me. 
Charles 

Looks like the new version of Brian’s controller is still reasonably priced..
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/AvocetIIa--crane-song-avocet-iia

Brian excuse me if this sounds like a newbie question but when you say Bricasti is close to releasing a pre with 2 IN & 1 OUT does that mean it will only accept 2 sources?

@charles1dad  um, about your comment that others "have not succumbed to this recording technique"
Firstly, I didn’t say large DR sounds dull, or bad, I said it sounds dated and like an older era of music. Not current.

Secondly, I said that mastering is a service job. We are not here to put the genie back in the bottle. "Make it louder" has been around since vinyl, there was simply a physical limit to what was possible. In 2018 I find most records I print are approved where I would like them to be, and the client has the say. Again, if you want a list of my records where there is lower DR and it sounds great I can provide. DR measurement, like all measurement is a bit of a mythical standard of goodness. Each record is uniquely worked, we have to look at the whole.
Yes, some clients push me past sanity and I can say something if it would matter, and sometimes I do. 99% on deaf ears. Fear and ambition are the driving force in these cases. Can’t stop humans from that.

@soundsrealaudio Bricasti is close to releasing a 2 IN and 1 OUT pre amp.  Balanced.

I recently bought a very inexpensive tube preamp... 154$ new... to use until my Mcintosh pre showed up and honestly just for some cheap fun and experimenting with tube rolling etc. I have been a working musician for more years than I want to admit and have always used very high quality hand built tube amps to gig with so hence the cheapo pre for fun... I replaced all tube with nos ax7’s and a nos rectifier tube also... total tube cost 35$. I had the ax7’s.

  The Mac shows up and she is amazing.  Plug in the tube pre... VERY VERY close! Very. With a black curtain test I would be unsure which was which 100% of the time. Now... the big difference is in the image and staging. Not much but it is there. Again I couldn’t do it 100% of the time. I have since run my CD player into the tube pre and it was great. Really warmed things up. I dont use it much but it was a great lesson... and yes the Chinese can make some really nice gear.

  

PS, it seems like we have moved into the "anything goes" portion of the thread, so if anyone wants to banter re: anything related to mastering, I'm game

@antinn the Sonics Allegra speakers (older birch not the newer and better Canalis Allegra in bamboo with better parts) were actually only $5000 used, although I am currently having my spare pair rebuilt internally for more money than they were new. Every part in the crossover and every wire in the box new, tip top parts ... Jeff @ Soniccraft in Texas doing the Xovers in an external box (easy to ship to him to tweak, holds larger caps) with a low end and a mid/high input post. Basically upgrading the Xover while ALSO matching it to the amps that he previously upgraded as well. The Avocet’s designer Dave Hill agrees with you that there is "different" but not "better" so I am staying as is on the pre for now. It has feature and familiarity that make any changes sideways not worth the cost to practicality. Analog VU meters for example, follow my input source selection, and VUs are still better than digital meters for overall volume/RMS.
@audiorusty I appreciate the kind words. Have been told I have a unique way of speaking about these things, which some people like, some don’t. I am daily working in the connection and elevation business. Taking approved mixes to other levels of awesomeness. That’s what music does, connects an artist with a listener and connects listeners to each other in the live moment. This elevates us. Joy. That’s the game. Not feeling alone. Music is about connection and elevation. There is no perfect human, perfect music or perfect system. Perfection is actually a fear-based mindset, built on proving things to others and external validation and fear of not being good enough, not measuring up. We all struggle with it, but overall fear is not a good way to live. Fear is a very bad idea when it comes to music, makes thing ignorable, unoriginal and worse. One of my clients The Black Keys, on "Brothers" 2010 intentionally left some imperfections in the performances in order to connect better. That was a fearless and intelligent decision. Vocal performances today always deal with this line in the sand, so does every other stage in production with the modern tools available. Not all styles have so much room to play with imperfections but in this era everything from pitch to time to tone can be perfected and it can all goo way too far, losing the humanity that connects us to an artist. This balance is always style dependent and about this one release, this one moment in time for the artist and their relationship with the market and their audience (current audience and potential audience)
@brhatten given my room acoustics and overall playback system, I have never heard a better room in a studio or home. When I go to the shows I’m always shocked how terrible everything sounds in those rooms, with a few exceptions per show that are almost good. My speakers are VERY dynamic and that’s something I don’t hear in most speakers, for example. What I listen for in good or bad rooms is the integrity of the music coming through. That’s translation. My room is tuned to my ear, so it’s the best, to me.  When it comes to building a home listening room I'm always sad to see people chasing things based on concept and not their own relationship to the room.  We only need to upgrade the one thing that is bothering us.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it !   Enjoy it.
@astewart8944 what exactly did I say on SR that got you excited? That’s a topic I’m passionate about. My interest is in respecting the integrity of the masters that have been approved by the entire creative team. All this post processing of masters is disrespectful, profit driven, and built on using fear of missing out to engender sales. MQA for example, all my work is being batch processed for sale as "Master Quality Authenticated". It’s neither master quality nor authenticated. Cynical marketing manipulation. Not happy at all with that business model.
Thanks all for the good banter. I like online friends in agreement or in argument while I work, keeps me in a good place.

The Avocet sounds like an interesting piece. I decided to go looking for one on line and see how its laid out. 

Unfortunately it does not seem to be configured in a way that makes it usable in a home audio environment. 

If there is a more user friendly arrangement I would seriously consider giving one a whirl, as I am in the market for a different pre amp. I just cannot see using that one in my living room. A pity, as it sounds quite promising. 

Nothing is perfect or repeatable in music playback across rooms, time, temperature, pressure, etc. Translation means that something has it’s integrity in ALL playback forums. There is no one perfect playback situation.

 As far as "flat" this and "flat" that I am 100% opposed to such nonsense on 2 basic levels. 1. nothing is truly flat or truly neutral, there are many flavors of vanilla, there is no straight wire with gain, not even in a cable or a capacitor. 2. the goal of music is CONNECTION and ELEVATION of humans, not PERFECTION. We are not doing a science project here.

Thanks Brian.

I know this is not what you came here to talk about and I apologize for helping to keep this thread off topic but I have not seen any other statements that have been more true or important on these boards than what you have stated and I needed to acknowledge that.

To everyone here, please take some time to go to OPs site and review the hardware he has, except for his preamp it is VERY high end.  The amps are $20k a pair before mods, the DACs are $10k each, and I would bet the speakers are >>$25k, and all of this is in a designed acoustic space.   The real question is how many really hi-end home systems  can equal his system, and the answer will be very few.  This thread started on the question of cost to value for high end preamps.  It is entirely possible that if his Avocet was placed into a fancy case and marketed in a traditional dealer network, that the price would be 2-3 times higher.  That said, much of what is being recommended is somewhat variations of the same design theme.  Brian, to better what you have may be more an exercise in something different, but not better.  Otherwise, Spectrum with their very fast wide bandwidth design, or the Differential Balanced transformer design of Sonus Veritas would be different but the costs are breathtaking.   Given your talents, a custom unit maybe your only alternative, but if it is not broken why fix it. Otherwise, your assessment of SR and MQA is why I said adios to digital and went back to vinyl, but it has taken 2 years to get it right (for me).  However, you have peaked my interest enough for me to spend my money to buy albums you have engineered. Thank-you.

Kudos playmore

OP, Recently I went on an in depth search to replace my Parasound P 5  preamp(MSRP $1095). Aside from fitting my budget, the 2 main reasons were; it has separate XLR E/O circuitry, and a separate bass control circuit, which I was hoping to control the ridiculously sensitive VCs on my 2 SVS powered subs. Alas, it turned out to be of no help.. I also discovered that piggybacking off my main amps with speaker wire to the subs sounded much cleaner, but does not help with VC.

It seems upgrading from the P5 means jumping up to the $4K range, and if I could find a used Parasound JC 2 it's in the $3K range. The lack of funds headed me back to passive preamps. Decades ago I owned several, including an autoformer, but that was long before I replaced all my rca kit with XLR. You think your thread brought out the uglies, try discussing rca v XLR

Moving on, I found 2 PPs that caught my eye; the Hattor and the Tortuga, who uses LDR instead of resistors. Their XLR version looks to be very high quality with lots of I/Os, and is reasonably priced at $2495 with a 30 day return, but it was out of my budget. Still, worth consideration. The Hattor is also extremely well made: their LR version MSRP is $995. Bingo. It fit my budget, and after 9 days I still love it, though it ruthlessly exposes inferior recordings.

I know nothing about your ICs, but David Salz of WireWorld has been making inroads int the mastering/recording studio market. They too offer a money back

. 

Brian,

Thanks for sharing your obersations. It’s such a wealth of info from an insider. I would love to know your observations when you’ve heard your music on a truly “high end” home system. How has it differed from your studio sound? Has it sounded “better” (understanding that is such an objective observation). Really, what I’m asking is when you’ve heard it on a system that is “attempting to be the absolute state of the art” (and typically with a huge price tag to go with) what were your thoughts during the experience (compared to what you heard in the studio)?

"Men like to measure, and are plagued by fear of not measuring up"
A keen observation. .
Charles 

Ah...on 06.09.18 at 5:11pm OP hammers the nail directly on its head.  IMO this is a great post on SR and its relationship to what we hear.

As far as DR, please do not blame the ME, we are service providers. We are not running the show on DR. My comments are based on the reality today, not my view on it per se. My chain adds punch at the DA and the tube EQ and can sound great at low DR thanks to the elements in it. So again, I have some loud records that are punchy and not obnoxious. 80s CDs were lame, 90s were overcompressed. I don’t compress as a rule, unless it’s needed. I limit and EQ all day long.
As far as DA (yes I love the M7 verb for mixers) I have 2 x M1 SE DAs. As said above, I helped them to tune the filtering 4 years into it’s market life, hearing some issues with it the immediately fixed and that are not sold as standard, with free upgrades to all past owners. Bricasti is a great company. I was happy to help them to master their DA if you will.
As far as how do things sound here vs there, no idea what you have there. Yet who cares No two systems are ever alike as was said, and there is no perfect anything, including the perfect system.

Further point since we are way off topic ... I have no issue with 16 bit audio and no issues with 44.1 when the converter and engineering are great. I print 44.1 with the Pacific Micorosonics AD for 15 years. The whole HD market is like the remastering market, mostly BS to make money and evoke fear in audiophiles that they are missing out. Remastering is a huge topic on it’s own. Most of it is not great IMO. Sample rates also a huge topic. Higher rates alter the presentation of frequencies and the details up top are greater, but details are not music and higher SR do NOT ALTER THE QUALITY of a converter. The box is the box, Clock, Chip, Analog path, Filters. Those 4 don’t improve at higher sample rates. A cheap AD can sound better at higher SR but a great AD at 44.1 or 96 is still great, just a different layout of energy. I prefer 44.1 for the low end density, actually. Mastering is about the gear and the engineer not the SR ... this is a massive marketing myth that is taking up too much time in too many lives, IMO. When you have very dynamic and very spacious music then the details up top matter more, but for 99% of the music out there, pop types, it’s not a real thing. And even for highly spacious and dynamic musics the converter and the engineering are WAY WAY WAY more important than the SR. Men like to measure, and are plagued by fear of not measuring up. Yes, I mean that in every way. SR is a red herring. Higher quality is not found in more samples per second.  What you want to buy and hear is the SR and bit depth of the mastering session, not higher, not lower, not more, not less, just the file that was done in the room. That is the ONLY THING that is true to the source, and even then, it’s always new in your room.  P.S. there is no "improving" that approved master file.  MQA is beyond BS, it's a near criminal enterprise, looking to take over the audio market for streaming income.  People who are dead in the water on the video market, here in 2018.

Tomcy6,
I don’t believe that your views of music compression/loudness is the minority you think that it is. If it is that doesn’t diminished the validity of your comments. I respect Brian’s stance regarding this topic however I’m certain that there are other Audio/Mastering engineers of similar talent and experience who share your concerns regarding compression and dynamic range.

Recordings that preserve dynamic range hardly sound dull to me, to the contrary is the case. Even amongst the professional audio engineers there’s definitely different points of view. Not every engineer has succumbed to this recording technique.
Charles

Hi Brian, I just want to follow up on dynamic range. I agree that judicious use of compression can add some punch to an album and I know that bringing the bass up in the mix will reduce dr while possibly improving the sound of an album. But a steady blast of in your face sound like the Stones recent "Blue & Lonesome," dr 7 and an otherwise fine album, just gets tiresome.

Loudness in music, especially live, has gotten out of control and has led to hearing loss in musicians and people working in the recording industry. That may have something to do with why albums with wider dynamic range sound dull and old to you and the artists. Music that is too loud and has no dr hinders me from connecting with the artist. But I guess people like me are in the minority. I know this won’t change your mind, but I had to put a word in for more nuanced, less in your face music while I had the chance to speak to a real mastering engineer.