Special AVS Deal From AIX Records - Page 16

I put together the summer newsletter from AIX Records yesterday and let readers know about a "Buy 2 Get 1 Free" deal. You can get the details at the SPECIALS section of the site.

I'm writing a lot at the iTrax.com Community/Front Page about issues of interest to this group. If you want to stop by, it would be much appreciated.

I'll post the full newsletter on the AIX Records site.

Jim, you've made my day...and put considerable pressure on me to get some things done. I'm still working too hard at the game start up and I try to spend a couple of additional hours everyday (and all day Saturday and Sunday) doing the AIX thing.

I must admit, that I'm with you on the 7.1 aggressive mixes...the extra speakers do allow some additional details to be put in the mixes. My difficulty is the upgrade that happened on my console about 18 months ago. What might have been as simple as pulling up the old mixes and updating them cannot happen because the old mixes cannot be brought up on the new console system. Argh.

I just don't see the trade off being worth the time it would take. It's a fair question whether Blu-ray music discs of the sort we produce will even take off at all. Remember AIX Records makes something that only a few people actually care about...and I'm grateful that you and others do.

If only I had the resources to get everyone to experience recordings made this way...and the money, clout to get the biggest artists interested.

I'll certainly keep you pitch in mind...

Thanks again and enjoy.

I cannot say with any authority what Neil is referring to in his notice...but I couldn't help noticing that HD Tracks is pushing hard their new alliance with Warner Brothers Records. They state that WB has been archiving their catalog at 192 and 96 kHz/24-bits and that "You are going to be astonished when you hear how clear these sound as HDtracks downloads, exposing previously unheard space, depth and tonal purity."

Just remember that the originals were all recorded in standard definition, analog audio on 24-track tape machines that are decidedly less than 192/96 kHz/24-bits or its equivalent. I wrote an article on the the front page of the iTrax.com Community Forum about why analog tape can never be consider "high resolution". IMHO, this is another example of marketing hype and as such only confuses and disappoints customers who are actually looking for the real thing.

Yes, they sound as good as the master tapes...which sadly don't sound anything like a good contemporary, HD recording. Another case of buyer beware.

Yes, my hope is to continue to issue Blu-ray titles with HD video AND Dolby TrueHD in 5.1 (two mixes) and 96/24 PCM stereo. From the post above it seems there is interest in 7.1 mixes and I've been encouraged by Dolby to move in that direction. It seems there is a sufficient market for 7.1 mixes.

I'm nearing completion of the next Blu-ray title, the Old City String Quartet playing Mozart (which is also a 3D Music Album). It will not have the 7.1 mixes. The Albert Lee Blu-ray title will also be just 5.1.

Ernest Ranglin is on the list too.

Yes, Dr. AIX is my super hero name! It really was a good sounding system in NY, wasn't it. I was impressed that the Theil's were completely able to handle the dynamic range, tonal variations and neutrality of our purist recordings and be so affordable!

The whole 3D thing is much more than a gimmick as some people claim, but the argument is not worth having because my products are music first and video second. I am honestly surprised that a lot of people (especially musicians) like to watch the video...after all I do try to that private concert vibe as I've said.

But at the end of the day a dark room, a glass of wine and John Gorka and band singing and playing just for me works wonders.

I'm headed off to Nashville next week to meetings with Naxos...looks like we're going to do a deal with them for distribution in North America. Looking forward to it. Thanks for coming by and please consider becoming a registered member of our iTrax.com community. I write a lot there.

So it really begs the question for me...is it preferable to set up a room like we had in Atlanta or New York?

In Atlanta, the value of the equipment used in the playback of my 3D Music Albums was near $300,000...it included mono blocks and preamps from Boulder, the top of the line 800D speakers from B&W in addition to the Oppo, DH Labs Cables and JVC 3D Projector. Of course, we encoded all of the tracks using Dolby TrueHD.

In New York, the value of the equipment was a tenth of that...or around $30,000. Instead of B&W and Boulder, we had Thiel and Power Modules along with a multichannel preamp by Bryston.

As a provider of high end recordings, I naturally like to experience my stuff on the best equipment. I've even gone back in the evening to a room like that and sat for hours listening to my tracks. However, it might be more meaningful to hear the tracks on a system that is within reach of the average audiophile.

What do you think? Go for the best of the best or keep it on a human level? I'd love to know because we'll definitely be doing another AXPONA or demo somewhere.

Thanks for the encouraging words...your favorites are a couple of mine too!

There are some refinements that should be pointed out in your post. We have released our HD music tracks on DVD-Audio/Video, Blu-ray, Blu-ray 3D and as uncompressed 96 khz/24-bit downloadable files (at itrax.com).

We always produce our stuff the same way. During the original sessions we capture the music/singing at 96 kHz/24-bit PCM without any processing. We mix these native HD tracks to 5.1 surround and 2.0 channel stereo and then author them to one of the formats listed above.

This differs from many other so-called HD providers in that the original sessions are captured in HD. There are some rave reviews about the re-release of Rush's Moving Pictures on Blu-ray as being a model for an HD release. The fidelity of the tracks on this recording were made on analog tape, which is decidedly not an HD recording medium. So how could a transfer to Blu-ray at 96/24 suddenly make the sound better than the specs of the original track...it can't.

We need record companies to state the production path of their "so-called" HD releases. That's the only way to know what to expect in terms of fidelity. I've written at length about this on the front page of the Community forum at iTrax.com.

You won't know how good real HD music can sound until you actually hear it...and as much as I love Rush, it's not a good example of HD audio.

You make my point exactly, the industry or music producers have not agreed on a meaningful definition of HD audio like the video people have. An old recording put into a 96/24 bucket cannot/should not be called an HD track because it cannot meet the standards of the new productions.

It's just about being transparent about the production path of a particular track.

Tom,

I have always agreed that everyone will have their own preferences and tastes when it comes to the delivered sound. My push is for reviewers, record labels and pundits to agree on a set of reasonable definitions.

When you state that something sounds better than CD and therefor is HD, that's a very soft interpretation for these purposes. If you say a great looking print of Citizen Kane playing on your standard NTSC TV would that qualify as HD. It could according to your definition.

I take standards more rigorously than that. I'm on the CEA Audio Board and 3D TV Working Group...we haggle over definitions all the time. But what is interesting about these discussions is that their is no emotion.

Many interpret HD Audio as a relative comparison to CDs (although this is not appropriate as CD can sound very good...better even than vinyl or tape!)...in this case something is "better than" rather than having a spec that actually means something like what I propose.
If a track is recorded using HD equipment at the time of the original session than it can be fully dynamic and extend to the actual frequency response. If it was recorded on analog tape, then it fails the HD test because there is compromised dynamics and limited frequency response. It can sound better but it will always remain SD no matter what container it is sold in.

Companies should included the provenance of a particular track...I believe it will benefit everyone in the market.

Tom, thanks for the comments. I do understand the attachment that individuals have to the various formats for delivering audio. It's very hard to have "upgrade" conversations with people that have invested time and money in a system in their system be it vinyl, CD, analog tape or HD Digital. My point is about realizing the maximum potential of each format and recognizing that "when done right" there are very real levels of performance that can be assigned to each generation of equipment. When I see a list of "fidelity potential" on another web site that places analog at the top and states that HD Digital "almost approaches the sound of analog", I have to wonder what the person has been listening to...PCM HD Digital has the "potential" to produce better and more accurate dynamics and frequency reproduction than any other format. Sure, there have been disasters released in so-called "HD" or 24-bits but likewise there have been great sounding vinyl releases. It's about the quality of the sound that each of us prefers...and many like the euphonious nature of vinyl. I'm all about giving people the right to choose. Just don't tell me that a 1950's track transferred to HD PCM Digital is going to output the same quality as a new HD PCM recording.

Nathan...I would be careful about calling an older master transferred to HD as anything other than SD. Forget about whether a CD can sound incredible or not. The dynamic range and frequency response of the older master will never exceed 50-60 dB and 16-20 kHz...not to mention the other problems of analog masters. When I read that a particular producer sticks with analog as their format of choice I had to assume that like the sound of analog tape...no argument. But don't then go ahead after a transfer to 96 kHz/24-bit PCM Digital and tell me that the fidelity is anything but SD...the dynamic range of tape doesn't exceed 12-13 bits.

mgpt6 - I have actually considered putting out "analog" transfers of my stuff. Is there a market for vinyl...apparently yes. Is it big enough for someone to license our tracks and distribute the tracks. I'm not so sure. What I can do and would be willing to do is to transfer one of our recordings to 1/4" analog tape on my Swiss made Nagra IV-s machine and sell them to the same people that purchase tapes from The Tape Project. They get $500 per album from second and third generation copies...imagine what you could get from a 96/24 master to first generation analog tape. This is an idea that I would seriously consider. The results would be less fidelity than playing the DVD-Audio or BD from a $500 Oppo player but it might engage some tape fans. Any thoughts?