Just to make sure that nobody missed it:
http://getimo.de/linkpage2/html/tuts_common_katz.php
One of the best tutorials about mastering available imho.
Greetings Steve.
Bob Katz: "The Secret Of The Mastering Engineer"
I agree - very informative. Always better to pay attention to industry professionals when it comes to mastering issues. They do this stuff for a living in rooms that have been set up specifically for this purpose. The equipment they typically use borders on rocket science (or black magic depending on how you look at it):-)
Having said all that (and I think I've made this point here before) is that all this technology is virtually useless unless the person performing the task knows what he or she is doing in the first place. I've heard masters from well-known mastering studios here in Chicago that sounded less than wonderful. I think most of the problem has to do with budget (or lack thereof) and yet some of my clients complained they spent thousands of dollars for their crappy sounding master. So maybe money isn't even really the issue. Maybe it's just bad luck. I don't know. Or perhaps the original studio mix was weak and no amount of mastering would help.
One of the things I've noted in many of my own personal mastering projects (when compared to state-of-the-art commercial recordings) is a sort of flatness associated with the sound. I'm not talking about an overly compressed type of flatness - just a sort of lack of breath or air or sheen or whatever you want to call it. I've agonized over mixes to the point of needing therapy and in the end, I just chalked it up to the fact that my meager home project studio lacks the hi-end technology found in the mega-bux facilities.
Yet when compared to many other types of commercial recordings, my masters stand up very well. One thing I'll say about my mastering "style" is that I've never been a big fan of overly produced, teflon finished music. I like to hear a few warts every now and then. I feel, it tends to draw the listener into the mix more. If it starts to sound like Muzak, then you start to drift off and away from the mix. Anyone agree?
So, to that end, I tend to not fret the small stuff. Most of my clients are on limited budgets and are just looking for the best sound they can afford, mainly to get that coveted weekend gig at the local saloon. Or they're trying to break out of the local bar circuit and into something a bit more lucrative. They aren't necessarily looking to knock Aerosmith or Britney Spears off the charts - just trying to get noticed at all - even by a janitor at the record company would be fine
Thanks for the link! Knowledge is power!
Having said all that (and I think I've made this point here before) is that all this technology is virtually useless unless the person performing the task knows what he or she is doing in the first place. I've heard masters from well-known mastering studios here in Chicago that sounded less than wonderful. I think most of the problem has to do with budget (or lack thereof) and yet some of my clients complained they spent thousands of dollars for their crappy sounding master. So maybe money isn't even really the issue. Maybe it's just bad luck. I don't know. Or perhaps the original studio mix was weak and no amount of mastering would help.
One of the things I've noted in many of my own personal mastering projects (when compared to state-of-the-art commercial recordings) is a sort of flatness associated with the sound. I'm not talking about an overly compressed type of flatness - just a sort of lack of breath or air or sheen or whatever you want to call it. I've agonized over mixes to the point of needing therapy and in the end, I just chalked it up to the fact that my meager home project studio lacks the hi-end technology found in the mega-bux facilities.
Yet when compared to many other types of commercial recordings, my masters stand up very well. One thing I'll say about my mastering "style" is that I've never been a big fan of overly produced, teflon finished music. I like to hear a few warts every now and then. I feel, it tends to draw the listener into the mix more. If it starts to sound like Muzak, then you start to drift off and away from the mix. Anyone agree?
So, to that end, I tend to not fret the small stuff. Most of my clients are on limited budgets and are just looking for the best sound they can afford, mainly to get that coveted weekend gig at the local saloon. Or they're trying to break out of the local bar circuit and into something a bit more lucrative. They aren't necessarily looking to knock Aerosmith or Britney Spears off the charts - just trying to get noticed at all - even by a janitor at the record company would be fine
Thanks for the link! Knowledge is power!
That´s a good point to start with, in order to mentaly prepare yourself for mastering. BK adresses the near-field monitoring problem which should really be understood. But what he didn´t mention was that there are some exeptions to his "esoteric" opinion.
Near-fields lie to you because they sound too forward... although there are some exeptions, Tannoy System-15/8 and some Event monitors. Also they aren´t bad spec´d in reference to LF response. But most of the monitors over emphasize dynamic structures, which is good for mixing but not so good for mastering. The reason why we have near-fields today is that a mid-field monitor too often had to be Eq´ed to sit right in a smaller room. Also near-fields should never be eq´ed, if you´re interested in hearing the truth. Most near-fields have some sort of equalizer built in....the usage would lead to time delays, distortions and a screwed direct-field. Personally I believe it should be possible to master whith near-fields when they do not sound too bright, are reasonably speced and are not eq´ed. Also they shouldn´t be mounted too near to the listening position, otherwise it would be like listening through a headphone (everything is bright and slams). It is not possible to put the songs in a certain order when everything "slams". So distance plays an important role to perception. In order to judge everything "unbiased" you have to keep the distance which has not much to do with the rectangular triangle you´ve set up... It´s possible to master whith near-fields when the direct-field and reverberant field do compliment each other and you manage to get the sound not too forward....and all whithin reasonable specs (including the DA converters and cables). When your monitors sound too forward you have to manage to get you room-respons smoother. Although that situation is not ideal, it could bring you to your goal.
You won´t always need to hear the subs, because you will put a highpass-filter on your mix anyway (if it´s a pop tune). And therefor only whith certain ballads and classical music or jazz, subs play a greater role in order to reproduce the naturallness of the instruments. The problem whith subs is that they only can be accuratly reproduced when the diameter of the membrane is large enough. Having something like a frequency-seperator and an additional sub-woofer can help if the subwoofer is spec´d right. IMO it´s 20% converter and equal parts monitoring and room, if it´s possible to make such a general assumption at all...
Regards,
Bernhard
Near-fields lie to you because they sound too forward... although there are some exeptions, Tannoy System-15/8 and some Event monitors. Also they aren´t bad spec´d in reference to LF response. But most of the monitors over emphasize dynamic structures, which is good for mixing but not so good for mastering. The reason why we have near-fields today is that a mid-field monitor too often had to be Eq´ed to sit right in a smaller room. Also near-fields should never be eq´ed, if you´re interested in hearing the truth. Most near-fields have some sort of equalizer built in....the usage would lead to time delays, distortions and a screwed direct-field. Personally I believe it should be possible to master whith near-fields when they do not sound too bright, are reasonably speced and are not eq´ed. Also they shouldn´t be mounted too near to the listening position, otherwise it would be like listening through a headphone (everything is bright and slams). It is not possible to put the songs in a certain order when everything "slams". So distance plays an important role to perception. In order to judge everything "unbiased" you have to keep the distance which has not much to do with the rectangular triangle you´ve set up... It´s possible to master whith near-fields when the direct-field and reverberant field do compliment each other and you manage to get the sound not too forward....and all whithin reasonable specs (including the DA converters and cables). When your monitors sound too forward you have to manage to get you room-respons smoother. Although that situation is not ideal, it could bring you to your goal.
You won´t always need to hear the subs, because you will put a highpass-filter on your mix anyway (if it´s a pop tune). And therefor only whith certain ballads and classical music or jazz, subs play a greater role in order to reproduce the naturallness of the instruments. The problem whith subs is that they only can be accuratly reproduced when the diameter of the membrane is large enough. Having something like a frequency-seperator and an additional sub-woofer can help if the subwoofer is spec´d right. IMO it´s 20% converter and equal parts monitoring and room, if it´s possible to make such a general assumption at all...
Regards,
Bernhard
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
>I've agonized over mixes to the point of needing therapy and in the end, I just chalked it up to the fact that my meager home project studio lacks the hi-end technology found in the mega-bux facilities.
Sure sounds like a good bottom line to me. In the end, mastering is nothing within a personal studio's reach... something that requires ages of training and self conditioning.. It's a whole different species of ducks they're hunting for. Actually, they're hunting for deers.
So I just tell myself that even with everything my gear has to offer, I can only go so far. Which makes the whole process interesting really. Cuz as much as I want to make final two mixes, I use many of the mastering techniques within my sample preparation phase, and use it as just another part of my tools. I'll leave the finalization for the professionals of that area. Me, I'll stick to busting up my drum samples. And with that mentality, I use whatever I know about mastering in a creative way.. making even the finalization process a part of the creative process. Dunno if it's "right" in any sense, but I think it's cool.
Though of course, the readings (like this article) I did earlier did tremendous help. And I believe there's much more reading to be done even as of now... even though I'm creating masters that I'm happily content with. There's always room for improvement, and always room for new approaches. The basics are very important though. And though I would never consider myself as a mastering pro, I really enjoy it.
Sure sounds like a good bottom line to me. In the end, mastering is nothing within a personal studio's reach... something that requires ages of training and self conditioning.. It's a whole different species of ducks they're hunting for. Actually, they're hunting for deers.
So I just tell myself that even with everything my gear has to offer, I can only go so far. Which makes the whole process interesting really. Cuz as much as I want to make final two mixes, I use many of the mastering techniques within my sample preparation phase, and use it as just another part of my tools. I'll leave the finalization for the professionals of that area. Me, I'll stick to busting up my drum samples. And with that mentality, I use whatever I know about mastering in a creative way.. making even the finalization process a part of the creative process. Dunno if it's "right" in any sense, but I think it's cool.
Though of course, the readings (like this article) I did earlier did tremendous help. And I believe there's much more reading to be done even as of now... even though I'm creating masters that I'm happily content with. There's always room for improvement, and always room for new approaches. The basics are very important though. And though I would never consider myself as a mastering pro, I really enjoy it.
-
Nestor
- Posts: 6688
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Fourth Dimension Paradise, Cloud Nine!
This is such a big topic that every two months we are talking back.
I agree 100% with you Ken: “I use whatever I know about mastering in a creative way.. making even the finalization process a part of the creative process”.
Just a few minutes before this, I’ve posted a phrase a friend of mind, composer, said to me that I think is great:
“THE COMPOSITION PROCES FINISHES WHEN THE MIX IS FINISHED”.
I agree 100% with you Ken: “I use whatever I know about mastering in a creative way.. making even the finalization process a part of the creative process”.
Just a few minutes before this, I’ve posted a phrase a friend of mind, composer, said to me that I think is great:
“THE COMPOSITION PROCES FINISHES WHEN THE MIX IS FINISHED”.