Mastering differs from each style, as it also differs from each project with-in a given style. Basically, mastering pertains solely to the project at hand & the artist's vision of final product. Mastering with any studio, home or world class, the approach is to make all material one complete CD or album. This includes getting the song order lined up that blends right into each song, the desired spacing between them, making any fade ins/outs. The more in-dept techniques are to have all the tracks have similar/consistant sonic characteristics, and loudness between all tracks unless you are wanting some of the material to be different.
Taking this approach with any project is completely independant on the material you have & what you need it to become. You aren't going to get the same results with home set up as you will in world class facility, quality of equipment, acurate monitors, & skills of engineer will differ completely. There are amazing little tricks these pros develope that add life in various ways. Don't expect to get those kinds of results by yourself at home, but it's fun exploring what might help your project sound it's best.
After your mixes are as good as you can get, throw the songs together and compile as a whole finished project & if it works for you go for it. If not send them away to a specialist.

Thanks for the reply mistrals. I was, however, more thinking about the general approach to recording classical music - where you might not hesitate to mic up an acoustic bass in a jazz ensemble with four microphones, capturing a full symphony orchestra with a pair of high quality omni condenser microphones isn't unusual either.

Apart from, as you say, spacing the tracks correctly, fading in and out, etc, I've read about master compression, EQ, enchancing, etc. in the average mastering studio. All common ways of treating rhythmical music - but not well seen in classical music.

Are any of the pros in here doing mastering of classical music?

Hello E

For almost four decade I've been sending my projects to one mastering engineer and letting him worry about what's needed. When I started mucking around with a DAW (*much* easier than splicing tape) I asked him almost the same question. His answer: "Less is more."

(I record traditional music around the world, either stereo or Mid-Side, so I have only two tracks to worry about.)

This this sort of music, as well as Western classical, we want to retain the silky detail and subtleties. This takes experience, a very great deal of it, and really educated ears, as well as gear that won't interfere with the sound. This particular engineer spent, I believe, in excess of $100k for stereo speakers alone, and gobs of money for a surround configuration.

So it boils down to experience, lots of it, and the knowledge and cash to create an accurate mastering studio.

In the '50s and '60s mastering engineers developed their skills by cutting LP lacquers. Then with the introduction of CDs, they became comfortable handling combinations of analog and digital processing equipment.

All this takes time and commitment.

Good luck, David L

davidl wrote: Hello E

For almost four decade I've been sending my projects to one mastering engineer and letting him worry about what's needed. When I started mucking around with a DAW (*much* easier than splicing tape) I asked him almost the same question. His answer: "Less is more."

(I record traditional music around the world, either stereo or Mid-Side, so I have only two tracks to worry about.)

This this sort of music, as well as Western classical, we want to retain the silky detail and subtleties. This takes experience, a very great deal of it, and really educated ears, as well as gear that won't interfere with the sound. This particular engineer spent, I believe, in excess of $100k for stereo speakers alone, and gobs of money for a surround configuration.

So it boils down to experience, lots of it, and the knowledge and cash to create an accurate mastering studio.

In the '50s and '60s mastering engineers developed their skills by cutting LP lacquers. Then with the introduction of CDs, they became comfortable handling combinations of analog and digital processing equipment.

All this takes time and commitment.

Good luck, David L

I too agree with the premise that less is more. I do a lot of classical mastering and people do trust my ears and my skills to do their mastering for them. I was the director of audio services at a famous conservatory of music for 26 years before starting my own mastering business so I know classical music from all the angles

I don't use a lot of compression (if at all) and don't really do a lot of EQ unless there is a problem. Most times I make sure the fades are correct, the spacing is correct and the selections all are consistent in level (still keeping with the feeling of the music) Sometimes on compilation disks (all works from one composer done at different times and in different locations) I may add some reverb to one piece if all the other pieces are reverberant just to keep everything sounding similar.

I also do a lot of live classical recording on location and have developed a reputation for capturing the music so that you feel as if you are attending the concert. My mastering philosophy is "keep it simple and less is more" and it has worked well for me over the years.

I also do a lot of contemporary composition recording and have to say that sometimes this music is the most challenging to record and to master as sometimes the dynamic range is quite wide and one may go from a ppp to a fff in one three note phrase.

I enjoy classical mastering and recording but find that in today's market it only makes up a very small part of what I do and I find that very sad. Non classically trained people seem to be listening to less and less classical music and since it is no longer taught in the vast majority of schools it seems to be dying a slow death which is too bad. Maybe someone will "rediscover" it and it will again be something that the masses will listen to but I kinda doubt it.

If you have more specific questions I would be most happy to answer them.

Thanks for the reply Tom. I was just interested in hearing how people handle classical music versus pop/rock music in professional mastering studios - whether one would try to actually 'shape' the sound, to what extend effects like master compression, reverb, enchancers, etc, are used. I have access to some nice gear and effects, including some T.C. Finalizer and the Waves Platinum effects bundle, and as I acquire the gear I need for recording I would try to experiment a little bit with that stuff.

About classical music, I can't see why it would have any kind of renaissance within the near future. It simply doesn't suit our age very well - by far the greatest market for music is young people accustomed to the MTV culture. Few songs last any longer than three to four minutes, and it seems like the stars are more important than the music, which tends to be in the background everywhere around, but not as something to be specifically noticed. As long as our culture is so fast-moving, there doesn't seem to be any general need for the incredible emotional values of the classical music that cannot just be consumed - it has to be EXPERIENCED, and it doesn't come automatically. I think it will remain underground, but likewise I can't imagine it will actually die.

Here in Copenhagen we've found a nice use for our classical heritage: The constant playback of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven chamber and orchestra music in the central railway station scares all the drug addicts and homeless away, so it still DOES have a purpose!

Do you happen to know the Czech violin professor Milan Vitek at Oberlin? He moved over there some years ago, he used to teach at the Royal Danish Conservatory of Music in Copenhagen. He was my old teacher - a great capacity, can't understand why they let him go.

I work on all kinds of music which I conceder myself lucky to do. Some engineers don't feel comfortable with certain kinds of music. I have been fortunate to have the variety come through the studio.
The first big differences with classical I notice is in the client. There expectations and needs are often different. Classical is almost always recorded digitally since the advent of the DAT machine. Many people start coming to me because of the great analog gear. They want to get the color and overall sound it can provide.

Many times classical producers, engineers are hesitant to use analog gear. They come from a mindset that digital is the best and want to work with the best digital has to offer. I don't mind working this way because I have great digital processing. But sometimes I suggest going through a Tube line amp or EQ because the material may need the color. I always ask if they want to hear the difference and we go from there.
As far as my processing approach goes for classical, I usually do less compression and or limiting. I think more braud strokes eq wise. Unlike pop wereI may have to do very specific things to get a vocal to sit properly, I start with an overall balance eq wise.
As always there are no rulse. The recording and mix determin what is necessary more so than the music style.

Yesterday I got a call from a musician that wanted me to do some mastering on some classical tracks he had just recorded. The recording is of a cello and piano. The recording was done at a local studio and the main problem with the recording is that it does not sound "classical" in nature since it was done in a dead room and reverb added to simulate a concert hall. The musican wants me to make it sound better. It will be an interesting mastering session. FWIW

Are you into PT or similar daw? Under OS 9.2 you can asign two sends and add Lexiverb and Tc megareverb for your session.
It will smooth the performance alittle bit more. You may also try some hardare box, PCM91/300L or with IR stuff like the new Waves or the Altiverb nice IR´s.
I´ve masterd a few classical and horn abnds albums. Even inside each category things may vary imensely. A Joe pointed out, it depends on the producer, conductor, the room where it was tracked and so.
I myself had a little more luck with 2 of the four albums Because the master was not sent to those Finalizer CD Plant rooms.

I just want to add to the many excellent comments here about recording and mastering classical music.

Little or no compression, if at all possible is a big rule of thumb. (Of course with DAW's capabilities and excellent recording gear these days, there are many ways to get around this, and still turn out some wonderful product.) I'm sure we could trade techniques and stories for pages and pages here....I hope to read more, actually!

I don't agree at all with the statement that Classical Music is dead, but of course it IS on the ropes in some areas. But let me state right here and now that the more music becomes push-button, overly sampled and looped, dumbed-down to MP3 ipod players, the inverse will always be there for anyone with more than half a brain and the desire to find it: REAL, LIVE, MUSIC, played by flesh and blood people. Whether it's folk/bluegrass, Jazz or Classical, the human need to hear the real sound coming out of a living breathing body, accompanied by wood, catgut and tin in real time will never go away, and IMHO will only become more and more rare and wonderful. (Ie: Valuable.) For all people who make a living recording music: Ignore this at your peril.

Consider that one of the main difference between classical music and other genres is that (for the most part) most players get it right on their own, IN FRONT OF the mic. This is getting rarer all the time. The work and effort involved in a great classical recording lies less than in overdubbing (rare) and more in enemble performance. I often joke that my job as a classical recording engineer/producer is to NOT screw it up. (That's truer than you may think, if you've not yet worked with a professional classical ensemble.) It can be a lifetime discipline, in terms of the many genres, styles and instruments out there, from mastering a voice/piano recital, to a full blown symphony orchestra for broadcast.

You're dealing with anywhere from 1 or 2 to 100 players, all at the same time, (often on a union contract) with paid hours, specified breaks and end-times, and you'd BETTER have your sh*t together long before the session or concert starts. A typical concert or session with a small chamber orchestra can run $10,000 for the day. Gear should be pro, noise-free, of the highest quality specs and reliability. You'll be recording longer pieces of music, for longer periods of time, and advance preparation is crucial.

In my experience, no one wants 'PHAT', "Dope" or other trendy, dated or, unprovable gimmics that only muddy the true sonic image. Keep it all clean and basic (I always say: "I want a straight wire with gain.") Avoid the fad of the week, and stick to tried and true gear and concepts when tracking and mastering, no matter if it's digital or analog. Both have their advantages.

EQ and compression are tools to handle problems, not toys to fool with; something that doesn't need making it "Better". (Trust me, the musicians are doing that on their own.) If it ain't broke....

Very often, you're working with people handling instruments that cost in the six (and SEVEN!) figures, so it's important to be VERY careful in everything you do, including moving mics and stands around.

The editing & Mastering process is like nothing most rock/pop people are used to as well. You're not building things track by track, but more likely assembling various sections of movements or works. In editing, very often, you're working with a conductor or composer (or both) with a score and/or timing markings present, not a guitar player who wants "more of me" in the mix. It also helps to be able to read music, including knowing your way around a big score. Patience and a love of that kind of music doens't hurt either.

Of course you'll be using every modern convenience known, including digital storage and editing. (Even classical people now know how useful THIS is!) Digital reverb and surround mixing are part of the game now, and of course hi-def classical recordings are selling well, too. (SACD and DVD-A recordings are THE BEST way to hear some of the world masterpieces.)

Classical music is only scary (or boring) to those who haven't delved into it, and learned the overall approach. If you think it's dead and gone, then I thank you....you're only leaving more potential clients without a studio & engineer.....and that's fine with the rest of us. :-)

...where did that came from?!?
Some of it is true.
But SACD and DVD-A is certainly not the best way to enjoy classical music.

yes of course, LIVE PERFORMANCE is indeed the best way to enjoy classical music, but as for the next best thing....

After all the effort that goes into 24/96 recordings, it's nice to hear them without compromise, no SRC, no dithering, etc., via DVD-A or SACD.

If you're happy with 16/44 on CD, that's certainly fine, too. There's plenty of well-done CDs out there, for sure.

He he :lol:
Welcome to the forum JoeH!

To me the loss of quallity lies in imperfections in the equipment and not as much in the format used.
DVD-A or SACD is just another way to put the numbers on a chip and then simulate a waveform at a so called higher bit and sample rate.
+ you can't really get the good converters for DSD and DVD-A yet(not to talk about processing), so why use it?!

If i was an artist about to make a very high quallity classical album using the best engineers, I would use CD redbook for a number of reasons.

can you tell us the reasons? sorry, I might be missing the point here...

The reasons are:
SACD/DSD: I've heard bad things from end users right up to equipment makers and mastering engineers that have tried the format.
This can be related to the format/processing... converters.... or who knows?!

DVD-A uses PCM format in a higher bit and sample rate witch is ok...

My experience is just that the biggest problem with CD Redbook is in the equipment and signal transfering, not in the bit- and samplerate.
If you use the headroom and just consentrate on making a really good sounding CD(with optimised equipment), then this CD would kick the hell out of typical DVD-A and SACD productions today.
If you then used the same methods and created one CD, DVD-A and SACD you would be surpriced by how close they would be in sound quallity.... unless there really is a problem with one of the formats.... SACD? I don't really know but I'm sure you can hear that it's a different format.

Best Regards,
Henrik

I disagree.
SACD and DVDA are superior audio formats to 16bit Redbook audio. Unfortunately there are bad sounding disc's that have come out on the format along with many stumbling blocks for both formats. I have heard plenty of lousy sounding CD's but that doesn't mean the format is bad. But when done correctly from beginning to end there is no denying they are both superior to the current CD standard.

I don't know what will ultimately happen with either. But it's lack of success has everything to do with fighting each other and public confusion. If the consumer demand was there you would see software and converters, EQ, Comps coming out everywhere. The reason it's hard to get it now is because the company's are afraid to waste money.

I was just at Telarc Records and heard some of their new SACDs and they sounded AWESOME in surround! Michael Bishop is an amazing engineer. There are some bad SACDs out there but so are there bad CDs as well.

I don't think you can generalize as to the quality of SACDs. It is also a very new medium so people are still learning and need to again "reinvent the wheel" if you will to decide what works in surround and what does not. I was involved in surround sound back in the late 70's early 80s and all that equipment was suppose to be the ultimate but of couse it was not and we had to wait for the technology to catch up.

DVD-A is also a good format and now with Wavelab 5.0 supporting it there maybe a lot more people willing to try using it for recording and mastering. Only time and the market place will determine the ultimate winner (if there is one).

Give it a while to mature and you may be very surprised as to what it will sound ultimately sound like.

MTCW

Maybe those formats will come one day.... or maybe not.

This thing with SACD and DVD-A just reminds me about peoble that buys very expensive new equipment but never things as long as to what cables they use.
I think the money would be better spent on optimising the rest of the chain. The recieve and transfer electronics are some of the things that could be improovet.

But if I should stomple over something one day that sounds better than what i have today then I will switch over right away.

It's just that right now I see no link between SACD/DVD-A and sound quallity. It's like when the first audio amp with transistors was invented... it was the work of a mad scientist not a listener.

Well, I just had to say my view about all this...

Best Regards,
Henrik

I can think of only 2 people that i know of that aren't in the music industry that have a system where you would be able to hear a difference. A difference between MP3 and SACD. Now if they took that money and put it towards their system, they might even be able to enjoy the difference between 128 and 190 mp3's.

JoeH wrote: I just want to add to the many excellent comments here about recording and mastering classical music.

And thanks for another great input. It continues to surprise me how great this group is!

JoeH wrote:
I don't agree at all with the statement that Classical Music is dead, but of course it IS on the ropes in some areas. But let me state right here and now that the more music becomes push-button, overly sampled and looped, dumbed-down to MP3 ipod players, the inverse will always be there for anyone with more than half a brain and the desire to find it: REAL, LIVE, MUSIC, played by flesh and blood people. Whether it's folk/bluegrass, Jazz or Classical, the human need to hear the real sound coming out of a living breathing body, accompanied by wood, catgut and tin in real time will never go away, and IMHO will only become more and more rare and wonderful. (Ie: Valuable.) For all people who make a living recording music: Ignore this at your peril.

I know what you mean. However, I'm still worried: Only very rarely have I seen a sold out concert hall here in Copenhagen or around. Christian Zimmermann gave a concert in the Tivoli hall in Copenhagen recently - surprisingly, such a big-star artist couldn't sell it out. Lots of empty seats were also to be found at the final concert of the biggest national chamber music competition in the Danish Radio, in spite of all the media focus. If one takes a quick glance over a typical audience at a typical classical concert, at least 90% of the audience has gray hair. Not a good sign for the classical music, and it makes me wonder if there's still a need for classical violinists in twenty years.

Yet, we DO need live music. But who's there to tell people about it? The radios are not going to do it, because classical music doesn't sell. The newspapers skip the classical music; I could hardly believe it that none of the major Danish newspapers did more than to write a brief note about the winner of the international Nielsen Violin Competition in Odense briefly. (South Korean boy virtuoso violin bulldozer, obviously; those Koreans will surely start the third world war, if not because of their atomic program, then because of their violin program!)

The lack of media attention probably means that the musicians themselves carry the responsibility to promote the classical music. It's an interesting discussion - how to dust off the classical music without spoiling the fine tradition of the music; and how far can we go in order to get the music out?

JoeH wrote:
Of course you'll be using every modern convenience known, including digital storage and editing. (Even classical people now know how useful THIS is!) Digital reverb and surround mixing are part of the game now, and of course hi-def classical recordings are selling well, too. (SACD and DVD-A recordings are THE BEST way to hear some of the world masterpieces.)

Oh yeah, electronic reverb is a hit among us! I've done rough demos in a dry room, on purpose, and gotten really satisfying results smacking on reverb afterwards.

JoeH wrote: Classical music is only scary (or boring) to those who haven't delved into it, and learned the overall approach. If you think it's dead and gone, then I thank you....you're only leaving more potential clients without a studio & engineer.....and that's fine with the rest of us. :-)

Amen!

interesting..Here we have the Brazilian Camerata Florianópolis Orchestra. I have been with them since the first album and their shows are always crowded.

Here in a small college town in the middle of some cornfields (with one of the best Conservatories in the US - IMHO) concerts use to be well attended. I remember Yo Yo Ma doing a sell out as did Itzhak Perlman and the Cleveland Orchestra but lately these types of concerts are less well attended than they were in the past and as someone said most of the people attending are "gray haired" or students and fauclty at the Conservatory.

Some of the non attendance has to do with economics and some with our busy lifestyles that don't allow for 3 hours of time sitting listening to music in a concert hall.

I was amazed when I talked to students in the Conservatory about live music a number of years ago and found out that many of them PREFERRED listening to music on CD. They could read, cut their toe nails, sit around in their underwear or make love while listening to a CD but they could do none of those things when going to a concert. They could also listen to the CD over and over again which they could not do if they attended a live concert.

The students also did not like the distraction of the audience coughing and or rustling and the players some times made MISTAKES which they never did on CDs. They also told me that at the Conservatory lots of students would go into the listening lab and listen to the CDs and TRY and find mistakes in playing so they could tell everyone that so and so make a B flat in to a B natural in measure 34 of the second movement of Brahms. Not the kind of answers one would expect from upcoming, soon to be professional - classical musicians

I for one still enjoy going to live concerts but financially cannot afford to go to too many any more because for a ticket to even a an up and coming artist you are talking BIG BUCKS. If I want to hear good music I go to a student recital or one of the recitals put on by the Conservatory which are free. With the quality of the faculty and students here it is just like going to a concert I would normally have to pay for.

Too bad Classical Music is going nowhere fast but some of it has to do with the incredible amounts of money that the big names now want to perform. Pavarotti wanted $50,000.00 to do a one hour concert here and since the concert hall only holds about 1250 people each one would have had to have paid approximately $50.00 per person.

It is also to bad that classical music is no longer taught in most schools and most high schools who use to have large music programs now have only a marching band and would not have that if it were not for the football games. Much of this is due to cut backs due to funding problems but some it also due to lack of interest on the part of the students.

Sorry to say it but the future of classical music in America looks somewhat bleak. Maybe someone somewhere will think of a marketing idea that will bring the classical music back into mass popularity but I would not hold my breath.....

with all the crap that MTV puts out... the younger generations might prefer to watch their Britneys, RAP heroes, One album Rock Posers, etc.

Sorry to say it but the future of classical music in America looks somewhat bleak. Maybe someone somewhere will think of a marketing idea that will bring the classical music back into mass popularity but I would not hold my breath.....

Yes, indeed it does...However, Community Colleges, Universities, Tech Schools (with advanced music programs) and Civic Orchestras are the saving grace. More engineers out there make the jump to live recording of these venues, more exposure and more attendance will occur.

As far the debates of formats, CD, MP3, SACD, DVD=A...the highest resolution transfers I have are originally recorded 2 channel to 24/96 and 24/192K to DVD-A for playback. The format wars are a pity and a shame. We have equipment designers out there that are SOLD that nothing above 20Khz matters at all and I guess they simply are stuck on theroums and old papers and text and really have not endevioured in the "real world" experience of recording, mastering and transfer. SACD is a fine format..it is simply an overpriced option for manufacture. (for me) Sony has again dem0onstrated their ability to leave the format to the "exclusive club" and not entertain the idea for indie classical recordist that work within reasonable budgets. Folks like myself who do Classical and Symphonic recording have to be practical of what format we are encouraged to final with. CD is universal. SACD with the CD layer imbedded is also universal. DVD-A will work on any DVD player as the downconversion is DVD compatable...you simply cannot access the higest rez tracks unless you have a DVD-A machine. Believe me, the lack of bandwidth restrictions are certaily audible to me and to many others who have seen their project get pressed on both DVD-A and redbook CD from the same masters.

Now, in mastering classical, one must have some real insight of the genre. Someone trying this first hand, first time may be met with critisism that will teach a few lessions. I remember my very first recording session and transfer of this wonderful genre back in 1976. The complaint I got from the conductor was "could you make the sound more round and not as brassy?" was the comment.

Microphone placement and the quality of the microphone amplifiers and microphones themselves: NUMBER 1!

Second comes a realistic dynamic structure for reproduction on more than just the "finest" of systems. I have had concerts with 74dB(!) Signal to signal ratio. Quietest sound to full creshindo of ffff (I saw six "f" on a score once which would translate to "FULL BLASTING). Obviously, these need to be mastered with some form of consumer system limitations in mind. Compression?? Does the word "heresy' come to mind? Well we have to be realistic. No home audio playback system in a confined space such as a room of home size is going to sound anywhere near close to good with that dynamic range. 74dB is magnitudes of Millions in power. 3dB=PowerX2.

Noise floor requirements around -82 should be a good place to be. Hard to get, it is being done.

Reasonable dynamic range encompasses an extrapolation of what is acceptable for reproduction VS acceptable for enjoyment. That light brush on a triangle VS the full bombardment of the concert bass drum, for the triangle to be heard as the conductor hears it VS reproduction of the concert bass drum in "actual" power would send amplifiers into clipping and loudspeaker voice coils on fire. Some form of reason must be used and that of the engineer in accordance with their skills in mastering and experience can render this in a perspective that can satisfy both the hard core audiophile and the stuggling musician with a meager home systems of 40 watts with bookshelf loudspeakers.

Power response areas and tonal balance are the keys to a well rendered classical reproduiction.

semi related question

i work for a company that compresses audio files into MP3's on a large scale and had a general question. Why does it seem that encoding a classical CD to MP3 takes soo much longer than a normal pop cd? Is it because the sound wave is more complex, there are more frequent highs and lows? I do realize that MP3's don't have good quality, I was just wondering if you pros could help me out.

Thanks,
Rajan

Classical music running time in minuites is generally longer than singles.

I use http:// and VBR for "good sounding" MP3's

Right but why does it take longer to encode a 60 minute classical CD vs pop? I know there is something about the complexity or perhaps an other characteristic of the wave file which is the reason (or so i suspect)

Any ideas?

Strings seem to be one of the most difficult to process and sound good. At least that's the case with other processes so I imagine that it could be similar.

Actually, since you made it clear as to time issues being the same, I ran an experiment and watched the code. It is dynamic differences that take far longer to process. The more dynamic range, the more processing strength it takes. This is verified.

Makes sense, thanks for doing the test TeeMe.

Thomas W. Bethel wrote:
I was amazed when I talked to students in the Conservatory about live music a number of years ago and found out that many of them PREFERRED listening to music on CD. They could read, cut their toe nails, sit around in their underwear or make love while listening to a CD but they could do none of those things when going to a concert. They could also listen to the CD over and over again which they could not do if they attended a live concert.

Actually, I am not surprised, considering how little live music is truly non-verbal communication today. We are obsessed with the bark on the trees, and don't even see the forest. All the right notes, played perfectly, with little true feeling. This may well be the legacy of the American obession with technical perfection. It is also why I now prefer to listen to European orchestras-- Berlin, Vienna, and most of the London bands are now on a par with our Big 5, but still manage to musically communicate more.

As to why it has come to this, I am not sure. one factor is that most professional musicians are as concerned with the check as anything else, and of course one must eat. But the attitude is pervasive and poisonous. We got into music because we loved it, but I have come to the point of thinking that music is too wonderful a gift to screw it up by doing it for a living!

This is now QUITE a leap from the original thread, but things are now at the point where a string quartet project of mine is AVERAGING one edit per bar! What has become of phrasing and communication? And these are VERY capable players, but they are OBSESSING with pitch!

If any of this can connect with the original question on classical mastering, it is that you as the engineer must help the musicians try to stay focussed on the music more than the notes, and some the of techniques Bob Katz describes in his great book can help the "big picture".

Now exiting "soapbox mode".

Rich

Rich, I follow you. I don't necessarily agree with European orchestras being better than American orchestras, or more honest (or less perfect), but it sure is a tendency that everything must be as close to perfect as possible. The level of virtuosity has been increased ubelievably over just twenty years. Recently, my fellow student and I sat down listening to some recordings of the major violinists from the beginning of the 20th century, you know, the kind of recordings where you really have to be all ears just to be able to pick out the violin from all the noise, and we were almost rolling on the floor laughing. With that number of mistakes and notes out of tune, few of them would have made it into a conservatory today.

But the competition is really dead tight. I tell you, all the Asian wunder-kids and violin machineguns are pushing the limits to the extremes. Lots of them are the most awkward people I've ever met - they're more ghosts than humans, practicing twelve-fourteen hours a day. But it means that talent is not at all enough, and what you say about one edit in average per bar in a string quartet recording describes that pretty well.

At any time, though, I would MUCH prefer listening to a real musician, someone who truly enjoys playing by his or her heart, who has a personality and who is humble to the music, rather than some Korean-style pitch-perfect crystal clear CD-version of Sibelius violin concerto.