x
kmetal 21 October 2014

It seems to me like we have things a little backwards as a whole. Under the assumption sounds aren't gojng to just be replaced. Shouldn't the most accurate control room in the whole project be during tracking, and mixing? Or mixing and tracking? Why are mastering where your supposedly just putting the final 2% the ones going down to 10hz and picking up things you never heard? Why does it make sense to go a whole project not hearing something? Would the ideal control room be a mastering room? I'm just kinda zoning out on this kinda idea. in a lot of article in mags it seems like there's a lot of stuff being kinda tracked 'everywhere' and then mixed in room usually more noted for its board or deck, tha the acoustics, then to the scientific space ship mastering room and speakers? It seems contrary to the ire of not polishing a turd and getting right at first, and commitment.

Lol there's a huge typo in the title, my iPad flipped for a sec and I missed it. I dunno how to edit the title.

Topic Tags

Comments

pcrecord Tue, 10/21/2014 - 09:37

Here are my theories :

  1. A control room for tracking needs to have space for more people and it's often filled with a lot of gear and this forced the designs from being perfect.
  2. Having that big window to see the musicians is an acoustic problem you don't need in a mastering room
  3. A tracking/control room kind of need to impress musicians and producers. So, having that board is more impressive than having this % of sonic accuracy. (not that it's important for me to impress, but I guess that's the way the industry made it over the years)
    class="xf-ul">
    In the end, a near perfectly tuned room would be good for mastering, mixing and even tracking instruments that you don't want a room reverb in it.

    I wouldn't hesitate to track and mix in a mastering room if that's the only room I've got. ;)

x

User login