Disillusioned -- piss-poor masters

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:51 pm

axel wrote:

this has nothing to do with where the whole topic went...

but there are still to many badly recorded, produced and mastered records out.

I think this is a good place to leave this discussion; it's sorta where we came in, anyway....

There are clearly many views on this topic, all of them valid, all of them based on exeperience, and all of them from pros. Not surprisingly, not all of them agree.

But that's why HoJo's made 28 flavors of Ice Cream. Laughing

Peace to all, great discussion, and glad we kept it civil. Thumbs Up

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:38 pm

So it looks like a revisit is appropriate now.

Here's a couple of my thoughts (think "Jerry Springer's closing thoughts" if you will...) and observations of key important statements here out of this entire thread.

*Turning away work is not really in anyone's best interest. I learned this the hard way by sending back for a remix just to find out, instead of a remix, they took it to another ME who just wanted the money. Fact is, if you won't do it, the client will find someone else who will.

*It's often a global problem. Mike - I think this is one of the most important things to be said about mastering and often one of the least understood. Instead of tweaking knobs like crazy on each individual track, try to find the silver bullet that will get MOST of the disc *there* then tweak the last 20% (this is obviously a loose paraphrase).

*It is the ME's job to do what the client wants. If the client wants to smash the hell out of it - okay. If you want to try to educate the client - please do. Don't lose work over it - see item 1...

*Loud mixes aren't necessarily the ME's fault. I would say this is more true in "high-dollar" productions as the ME is usually first rate as is the recording engineer. However, somewhere, someone stepped in and said "Make it louder!" What's an ME to do? In some cases (or I should say in TOO many cases), however, it IS the ME's fault. Often, lesser qualified MEs believe that all mastering is, is to run a mix through their finalizer express and squash the sh*t out of it and give it the smiley-face EQ treatment. These folks deserve to be drawn-and-quartered! They're ruining it for some good artists.

*Politics and music DON'T mix.

That's all....(reaching for flack-jacket...)

J.

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:39 pm

great discussion, peace...

and keep up the good work. Wink

axel

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:32 am

> Wouldn't it be AMAZING to hear a record - even a rock record - that went from a true whisper to a roar (and not just STAY at a roar) and REALLY took advantage of 119 db range??? God, that would be awsome. <

This is one thing I've always appreciated about Tool and A Perfect Circle. Yes, when the whole band comes in the meters are right there at 0 db, but they've usually got quite a bit of dynamics. Tool's "The Patient" comes to mind, the intro is MUCH quieter than you'd ever imagine something on the radio could be, or the intro to the Perfect Circle song "Vanishing". For a couple of hard rock bands, I think it's pretty admirable.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:24 pm

DeeDrive wrote:

119 db range

?

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:02 pm

Well, it appears there's still some folks kicking this idea around a bit, and in this month's issue of MIX (March, 2006, pg 14) they devote the entire "Letters to the Editor" Page for one long and extremely well-written piece by a guy named Francis Manzell, of Griffin Audio.

You can read all of the letter (which is actually excerpted in the magazine version) at: www.mixonline.com or:

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_letters_mix_54/

My favorite segment from his comments is this one:

I understand it's a “service business”; so is the studio design business. I've been working in the service industries related to music recording for more than 25 years. One thing I have always believed is the customer is always right, unless they're wrong! If they're wrong, then it's our job to help them understand why it's a “bad” thing to do. Shouldn't one expect a “professional” in any field — from plumber to doctor to recording engineer — to do things in a professionally sound manner and explain to you, as a client, why certain things will make your final product better? This is how I've always run my business, and it's worked quite well for me over the years.

Certainly worth a few moments of your time to check out the whole article.

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:48 pm

After reading your post, Cucco, I've decided to check out this "K system" thing that you've bought in to.

I haven't quite put my finger on it yet, but there's bells ringing in my head that the Bob Katz monitoring standard idea (the "k" scale) is a badly flawed concept, that is based on arbitrary premises that don't have any absolute meaning whatsoever.

No dis to Katz, he's a righteous dude. But there's something really wrong with that idea of his.

Yes, its true that CDs are printed too hot. Loudness is not the friend of fidelity. Point given.

But there is no absolute reason for pegging the dynamics or level of a CD to some standard, the way there was for vinyl or tape (because of the inherent limitations of those system). The same limitations don't exist for digital. (which is a different thing than saying that there are no limitations)

The only thing I agree with, is that it makes sense to establish a broadcast standard. The TV folks have been doing that for 50 years, and it just makes sense. SIngles should be printed at this standard. But albums...

...why is it that MY album should be at the same level as YOUR album? They're different albums!

the fact that Katz has designated THREE scales is telling. why not 4? 2? 5?

I truly hate to say it, but perhaps the K scale is more about enshrining the name "Katz" than it is about solving a problem.

Or....its all about giving the audiophiles something to fuss over.

dwoz

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:34 am

JoeH wrote:

Quote:

My favorite segment from his comments is this one:

Quote:

I understand it's a “service business”; so is the studio design business. I've been working in the service industries related to music recording for more than 25 years. One thing I have always believed is the customer is always right, unless they're wrong! If they're wrong, then it's our job to help them understand why it's a “bad” thing to do. Shouldn't one expect a “professional” in any field — from plumber to doctor to recording engineer — to do things in a professionally sound manner and explain to you, as a client, why certain things will make your final product better? This is how I've always run my business, and it's worked quite well for me over the years.

Certainly worth a few moments of your time to check out the whole article.

this is on the 100% on the spot excactly what i wanted to say all the time. sorry that i was not able to put it so precise, short and nicely into words.
and it's excactly how i deal with my customers...

cheers
axel

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:37 am

dwoz wrote:

the fact that Katz has designated THREE scales is telling. why not 4? 2? 5?

I mix with a K-20 meter. If I want a 16-bit version to drop onto a CD I bring it up to K-14 with a limiter (usually just shaving a few peaks), and if I'm going to encode an mp3 for myspace or something I will use K-12 (and still rarely go above 3-4dB gain reduction).

Works great for me: I can throw together demo CDs etc with confidence that there will be no huge volume mis-matches between songs, and that it will still be easy to acheive a sensible listening level on a car stereo or small ghetto blaster.

Thumbs Up

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:36 pm

dwoz,

It sounds to me as if you have not done very much homework with the K-System. Bob Katz has come up with a really good idea. It you will take the time to read all the information on the K-System you will see what you wrote is not correct.

Just my two cents worth.

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:08 pm

Thomas W. Bethel wrote:

dwoz,

It sounds to me as if you have not done very much homework with the K-System. Bob Katz has come up with a really good idea. It you will take the time to read all the information on the K-System you will see what you wrote is not correct.

Just my two cents worth.

You're most likely right...He seems to be trying to tell me what volume I want to listen to things at...which is probably a misread on my part.

That would be absurd, don't you think?

The other mis-perception on my part is that he wants everything to be mastered the same way, to the same target.

This would be (we learn) to prevent the loudness war, to prevent anyone from getting that little slight 'edge' over the competing productions, which of course peels his skin like nothing else.

Of course, this would immediately make everyone just "play fair", and be content to simply get in line and wait their turn, in spite of all the money being thrown around to give productions every little edge they can in the marketplace.

Yeah, that'd work.

You see, my initial reaction was due to my mistaken perception that it was not really a technical standard that improved the production process, but that, krazy me, it was actually a naive attempt at social engineering.

I'm glad I got straight on that.

Smile

dwoz

EDIT----

ok, after going and reading Bob's paper, I still find myself unconvinced. I believe he's made a fundamental error of juxtaposing the needs and requirements of the film industry on the needs and and requirements of the broadcast and home markets.

Let me explain.

Film sound production has worked to a loudness standard for a long time. There's a reason for this. In a theater, you have maybe 1000 people stuck together listening to the same program. It is imperative that you make the experience enjoyable for as many of them as you can. This means finding the best happy medium of program level and dynamics, that satisfies as many as possible. Because EVERYBODY is stuck listening to the SAME SYSTEM.

In broadcast, you have the problem that you have to prevent the program level from jumping around too much, because first of all you can't exceed your transmitter power without getting a hand-slap from the FCC, and also because it makes for an inconsistent program that bothers listeners who don't want to babysit the volume control while jumping from James Taylor to Outkast to Abba. IF different albums are recorded to a different standard, then either the broadcaster has to limit the hell out of stuff to level it, or pre-process assemble each cut, adjusting levels to a standard level. In any case, the single user (the DJ or the pre-processing engineer) has a level control that he can operate as he sees fit, without having to compromise for a second or nth listener. He/she is, in effect, having to satisfy a SINGLE listener/consumer...the station transmitter.

In home, the user has, in effect, one volume control for each listener...he/she can set the level to satisfy ONE person, him/herself...instead of having to worry about what the other 999 people in the room think. Typically, a CD produced today, whatever the level on that CD, hot or not, its balanced across all the cuts on that disc. SO the user can set the level, and listen to the whole thing, presumably without having to reset levels.

In any case, the important point is that he CAN set the level, in contrast to the situation that the moviegoer finds himself in.

The problem that I'm STILL having with Katz' system, is that he assumes that users are listening in standard monitoring environments.

THey're not.

Here's the basic rub. A mastering engineer should probably monitor at the level that the overwhelming majority of the consumers will be monitoring at...

The people who listen to nickelback will NOT be listening at the same level as the folks that listen to Faith Hill.

And its PRECISELY DUE TO THIS, and to the FACT that average level and percieved peak level change as the monitor level changes, means that mastering at a fixed standard level, will DEFACTO result in a compromise on some material when it gets to the home.

That's the reason we have the loudness control on home stereos now. play it soft, and it looses all its balls. That's because mastering engineers are NOT optimising for the level that listeners are monitoring at, they're optimising for some arbitrary defined "standard" level.

SO, my initial affinity for the idea of this K system, in that it makes possible repeatable results, rubs wrong against my feeling that music is anything BUT one-size-fits-all.

IT reminds me of my experience at the Bank ATM machine...it will let me take out $20, $60, or $100. Great. what if I actually need $50, and my account only has $58 dollars in it? I'm screwed, that's what.

dwoz (again)

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:24 pm

I find the K-System unecessary as well. For my mainly classical music recordings, it doesn't make much sense to me.

I record music with the greatest dynamic range possible, then I master it with tiny amounts of compression, if any at all, limit very rarely, then I normalise to the highest peak on the entire disk so I am using all the encoding resolution of the limited 44/16 format.

I will do this for symphonic music as well as a lieder recital. Its up to the listener to turn the volume to suit. I have maximised the signal encoding of the music to the media correctly and do not need the guidance of a calibrated metering system.

I disagree that a chamber music disk should sound softer than a symphonic disk and that I should not move the volume control on my playback system. I guess the K-system is good guidance for clueless ME's but I cannot see the use of it for my limited work.

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:32 pm

,

I think your readings of the merits of the K-System are somewhat off base.

No one is telling you to do anything. Bob Katz is suggesting that if you want to have consistency in your mastering your levels both audibly and on a meter should be repeatable. This will allow you to be more consistent in your mastering which is what most mastering engineers are trying to do.

The "K" system is for you to use or not. No one is forcing you to use it. It is a suggested set of guidelines that will help you.

My own feeling is that you do not understand what he is describing so you ridicule him.

Your sarcastic remarks are not very professional.

If you don't want to use the "K" system don't.

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:57 pm

I'm not being sarcastic. I think that the intent of this goes beyond what's been described. The eventual intent of this is to get organizations like Clear Channel to adopt it, and reject music that doesn't conform.

That goes beyond just technical re-tooling, and dabbles in social engineering, and I think that's misguided.

As I said, it makes a very great deal of sense when you've got to play the same music for a large number of people at the same time. But when your audience can all modify the volume themselves to suit their individual needs, then the underlying premise fails.

The notion of standardized monitoring levels for individual recordings is a convenience to the mastering engineer, and potentially a disservice to the public-at-large.

Yes, I AGREE that loudness has gotten silly. I agree that we should all work toward better sounding music.

But the whole premise of Katz' presupposes that its a BAD THING to use the medium to achieve a certain sound. Who's to say that isn't valid?

to summarize my position, I can see where clearly the K system would be useful in a number of situations. I also see where it could be arbitrarily parochial, and I reject some of the underpinning assumptions that Katz has made, about subjective qualities.

If you were right...that the whole thing is just a way for mastering engineers to maintain consitency, then who cares. But the day that Clear Channel rejects a CD because it hasn't conformed to the K scale, then you can thank youself for painting yourself into an arbitrary, tight little box.

dwoz

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:37 am

Have you though about bringing up your concerns to the man involved? Bob Katz participates in Glenn Meadows mastering forum http://webbd.nls.net:8080/~mastering. Why don't you post your concerns there where Bob can answer them or you could go to http://www.digido.com/portal/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=103/issuetrackingProcess=showForm and send him an email. Talking about someone without them having the chance to answer you is snipping and again is not very professional. How would you like to have someone saying things about you without you having a chance to answer their concerns?

This topic sponsored by: