JayTerrance, post: 428321, member: 49019 wrote: All very good points you brought up, indeed. Some of which I was unaware of when comparing the submissions.

I do think that learning and comparison goes hand-in-hand. Some of the best learning experiences are obtained by what someone else does compared to what I do, for instance. And though some of these learning experiences may get somewhat of a defensive feeling as people hash out the details of their work/labor...as long as it is constructive (& instructive), it's a win-win for everyone.

right on.

Re side info... Its easy to add info on the side channels, really easy. The question is, how does it sum in mono. The reason why I mix into a master, rather than "master", is because you really cannot do much with side imaging in a master like you can in a mix. ME that use widening tools know this and also know, its a fine line between fooling and doing the right thing. Left and right are left and right. The question is, did the ME increase the volume on the sides and how did it effect the middle.

Once you take an MP3 and compress it, you are also removing a lot of the side information. So, again, even mentioning the ME version here is really WAY off the trail of even being valuable. No disrespect but even mentioning that is once again, absolute nonsense. he had the full bandwidth to work with. Do you understand what that means?

I guarantee the mass here could master this mix MUCH better if we had the stems or individual tracks over the 2 track version the ME was given/ especially the 320 bitrate MP3 we used lol.. Talking about the ME version in this thread is seriously ridiculous.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I agree with most of your conclusions. I was just trying to lighten the tone :/ I'm just a deaf guy with too much time on his hands! I'm no pro, and I was just tossing the ME version out there. I'm still learning. Learned a lot from this discussion already.

freightgod, post: 428327, member: 48902 wrote: Hey, don't get me wrong, I agree with most of your conclusions. I was just trying to lighten the tone :/ I'm just a deaf guy with too much time on his hands! I'm no pro, and I was just tossing the ME version out there. I'm still learning. Learned a lot from this discussion already.

no worries, the only tone is clarification and that comes in one flavour. Say it the way it is. :)

The music is done on this thread, the learning and discussing will go on for years...

freightgod, You sound pretty pro to me. What you keep missing is this is also a forum about improving through problems we pick out and discuss. This is something none of us are exempt from.

Donny said it well one time, which was a description of how people who learn well have the ability to keep learning without taking things personally. We really need to put that into our "About Us" page. DonnyThompson , did you catch the time I said what you wrote was perfect! Please perfect the wording so we can add it to our About Us?:love:

RO is a place of no BS. Over the years people have disliked my approach, which is just like this, I'm always smiling (I love music) but in the smile lives a guy who does not BS myself. That doesn't make me right or that my way is the only way, but I too am passionate and passion comes in many tones.
I never got into this business to hide behind a mask.
That is my approach to learning and doing business. I am not in this business to be shilled or played and I love a good debate.
The reason RO is so awesome: We nip misinformation in the bud when we see it. Some of us are better at nipping it. I tend to ramble on.

Anyway... now that you get the mp3 vs the full bandwidth, I don't have to say it over. Next time this comes up, you know what to say.
We need to have a good discussion on midside. Maybe the next mix, one of us can mess around with it and see how it can fool us into thinking it made the track wider...

I use MideSide a lot, but I spend my time removing subs on the sides to better direct the bass right down the middle. I love MS. But it can really mess a mix up in the wrong hands, especially at the mastering stage. But, thats also where it can do a lot of good too.

audiokid, post: 428330, member: 1 wrote:

We need to have a good discussion on midside. Maybe the next mix, one of us can mess around with it and see how it can fool us into thinking it made the track wider...

And just to be absolutely clear from me... I didn't say the mix sounded wider... I said the ME mix sounded "larger". I think there is a huge difference of simply using mid/side to make things wider versus a more precise and complicated route to have a mix sound "larger".

Width is simplicity...and can lead to many problems.

Larger is the word.

JayTerrance, post: 428334, member: 49019 wrote: Larger is the word

Point taken.(y)
Its all because of the large bandwidth difference. I say sides because thats what gets effected in the MP3 as well as top and bottom.

44.1 vs MP3 + Volume makeup or am I wrong?

The ME had the opportunity to use the 44.1 (or greater?) and make it what it is. We got the MP3 and are going with what it is. Which is fun, but a smaller sample of the version the ME had to start with. Do you see the correlation to my reference as in sides, top bottom ( Larger) etc etc.. ?
that because it is more convient here.

.

Speaking of Larger. Here is another topic that is sure to inspire some debate.

Some claim analog mastering will never produce a Larger mix to ITB (first generation). Maybe why Bob Ludwig chooses SPL or Dangerous consoles. Both those companies make excellent transformerless gear.
But they also have a few other gems with trannies? ... I'm told, if we are going otb, the first thing we need is stellar converters and a console that is completely transparent. This will have the least impact of loss.

There was a time I would disagree with my opinions on ITB, today I hear it different and now say nothing rivals ITB for big, larger sound. But, there are ways to change audio OTB to soften and add character which can be perceived as larger and warmer. I love how analog adds just the right amount of something too.
I would love to get into a good conversation over this some day. Manley gear is special. Chuck, you use Manley right?

The DAD pass alone will loose something. Character comes at a price which is, size > (smaller)

As soon as we go OTB, we are loosing something. From my understanding, the more perfect a mix is, the less reason we would "need" to go OTB ?

I'm guessing thats why ME require the best analog and digital gear on the planet. How do we know when to use analog in a mastering chain?
I wonder if most ME have a similar process all the time or how they decide when and why to go OTB ?
I'm guessing this is part of the secrets of mastering.

And to think, I just wanted to play my guitar at parties. :eek:

audiokid, post: 428336, member: 1 wrote: I wonder if most ME have a similar process all the time or how they decide when and why to go OTB ?

I had a discussion with an ME about this very topic after a long session mastering one of my mixes. He agreed with me that it all comes down to style, in various ways.

There is the style of the particular mastering house that you choose, in that good houses get a name for certain ways of mastering and the setup of their mastering room. I like to think I can always spot a "Bob" master (Ludwig or Katz), as both of these two are very different from one another but stand out from the rest in the styles for which they are famous.

The other major style is that of the music being mastered, and that goes without saying, at least most of the time.

Both of the Bobs have preferred ways of working (usually OTB?), but are flexible enough to change part or all of their method for a particular job if in their opinion the music style demands it. The interesting point is that their individual sound is still recognisable whatever method or way of working they use. To my mind, this says a lot about what they do as an ME rather than how they do it.

Boswell, post: 428343, member: 29034 wrote: The interesting point is that their individual sound is still recognisable whatever method or way of working they use. To my mind, this says a lot about what they do as an ME rather than how they do it.

Absolutely agreed. The true professionals - those whom you mentioned certainly being among that class - respect the artistic end first, and work within a frame that enhances what the artist does (although the mix engineer plays a large part of that as well) - instead of changing them or altering their musical style to fit a certain criteria, or limiting themselves to just one method or style.

Although, I wouldn't limit this to just mastering... I think that this could be said for all stages of audio production. IMO, you'll never go wrong if you stick to a vision that reflects who and what the artist is, and make sure that everything that you do compliments and enhances that vision.

I'd imagine that this might be difficult to do sometimes, too. I know that as a small time producer, it can be difficult for me sometimes, but the Katz's and the Ludwig's - and others of their caliber - always seem to be able to compliment that which they work on... as opposed to taking an approach or using a workflow alternate to what is best for the artist, or that which could change the overall vibe of what the artist is really all about.

I would think that guys like those mentioned are pretty flexible, and that they don't limit themselves to working just one way - that they would most likely use whatever method(s) or workflow that they think is best for the style and the project.

Of course, on that level, these cats are using some serious gear, too - the best in OB processing, ADDA conversion, monitoring, summing, etc. So, when they are determining the best way to approach a project - ITB, OTB, or a hybrid workflow, they aren't having to deal with one workflow being better or worse than another. They have the absolute best gear for all the formats they offer, (It's not as if these guys have $99 Behringer or Samson compressors in their OB rack, and a pair of $150 M-Audio AV Monitors in front of them - although I bet they could use them successfully if forced to ... LOL.) ;) and, they know how to use all the gear they have to its optimum, too, regardless of the platform.

Along with the gear is also having an exceptional and accurate listening environment, and all of those things make a major difference. Add into that their skill, talent, and as Bos mentioned, the "what" - that ability to find the best sounding method for a particular project/style, and you have guys who deserve the recognition and respect they are offered. ;)

IMHO of course,

d.

once digital replaced analog, the necessity for "mastering" evaporated. with analog, mastering is a step that's required to go from tape to disk.

numbers are numbers ...... now with digital, we can do as we like. no limits. finally, i don't need someone else telling me, "it needs this at that and that at this"..... really? what gets sold / distributed is the same thing that i produce. numbers ... why do i need someone else to change them?

future shock? ........ what's ahead for the art of mastering? who's the new crop of ME's? Ludwig and Katz can't work forever .... and will a new crop bring the same "cache" as old schoolers? with new standards and limits set for internet streaming, will mastering be necessary? .... mix it the way you want it and that's it. too loud? the "program" fixes it! too quiet? sameo-sameo ... pretty soon they will be correcting for tonal balance as well. won't that be special?

whoops! there goes another rubber tree plant ....

how long before there's an"AUTO-MIX" (r) 2015 (it was my idea!) program where tracks are recorded and based on a "model" of a Bob Clearmountian or Butch Vig mix or who ever else you might like, a mix is generated including compression and eqs ... just print and that's it? mixing for dummies and the deaf ... it's coming i guarantee it!

Kurt Foster, post: 428365, member: 7836 wrote: numbers are numbers ...... now with digital, we can do as we like. no limits. finally, i don't need someone else telling me, "it needs this at that and that at this"..... really? what gets sold / distributed is the same thing that i produce. numbers ... why do i need someone else to change them?

Personally, I like that I can rely on another set of well-tuned ears, who can come into the project fresh, and who can "check" me.

I can only speak for myself of course, but by the time the project comes to the mastering stage, I'm generally so burnt out on the mixes, that I can't critically listen any longer with any sense of objectivity... depending on how dense the project is, and how much time I have into it, I can get to a point where I can't really hear potential problems anymore. Having a second pair of trained ears, who also knows their listening environment and monitoring to a T, gives me added confidence.

I choose Pro mastering engineers for this, because they have the tuned rooms, the quality monitoring, and, the ability to perhaps hear things that I cannot in my "average-at-best" mixing/listening environment.
They also have the knowledge to check for potential issues - and the gear and the skill to fix those issues as needed - in a way that I cannot.

Now... I'm talking about pro cats here. I'm not referring to those 5 minute online "mastering"services, which really don't do anything other than to take a mix and then make it as LOUD as possible.
Anyone with any kind of limiter plug-in can do that. But to me, that's not mastering - and IMO, it never has been.

Kurt Foster, post: 428365, member: 7836 wrote: future shock? ........ what's ahead for the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.artproau…"]ART[/]="http://www.artproau…"]ART[/] of mastering? who's the new crop of ME's? Ludwig and Katz can't work forever .... and will a new crop bring the same "cache" as old schoolers? with new standards and limits set for internet streaming, will mastering be necessary? .... mix it the way you want it and that's it. too loud? the "program" fixes it! too quiet? sameo-sameo ... pretty soon they will be correcting for tonal balance as well. won't that be special?

I can only wager a guess, based on my own recent in-depth research - and my own forecast is that M.E.'s are going to get back to mastering in a way that preserves much more of the dynamic range in music. I also think that older recordings that were mastered poorly in those first few initial years of analog to digital conversion, will once again be put into the hands of engineers, but who will now re-master all those songs/albums... but this time with a different approach, which will mainly be to open up the dynamic range. But, I think that there will also be some restorative measures taken as well. The early days of digital were pretty dicey - ADDA conversion systems weren't nearly as good as they are now, and there are also many restorative tools now available - both software and hardware based - that weren't available in those initial early years of transfer for the new medium at that time - which was of course, the Compact Disc. Remember - we're talking about technology that, when it was new, is now 30+ years old. In terms of audio technology, that's a long time... it's ancient now.

I really wish you would have been able to view and listen to that Carpenter's YouTube example that I posted a few weeks ago. It was amazing how fantastic that stuff sounded, after it had been re-mastered by someone who was obviously skilled ( and who I'm sure had some great tools to work with) and who were not only allowed - but who were actually encouraged - to approach the project with the goal of preserving the music, and making it sound as good as possible, without being bound by the prohibitive restraints of the "loudness war" trends as being the "facilitating" factor in what they could turn out as the final.

So, I guess that my opinion is, that there will likely be a resurgence of sorts in mastering - but in more of a restorative approach - ( obviously, it's already started to happen) and undoing the "damage" caused by those, who in those early years ( and beyond) destroyed the sonics in music, all in an effort to simply make things as loud as possible - and, to fix some of those problems that occurred as a result of the limited technology ( and knowledge) that was available at that time.

But.. that's just all IMHO, of course. ;)

d.