x
StephenMC 10 January 2009

http://www.vloud.com/

Bahahahaha. It's really sad.

Topic Tags

Comments

jammster Sat, 01/10/2009 - 08:19

I really like the sound of square waves!

Seriously, mastering is one of those things that I am interested in learning more about.

Not something thats easy.

Just like painting a masterpiece it takes knowledge of what tools you need to do what your trying to achieve.

I just checked out the free demo of Ozone 3.
Fully functional for 10 days. I was very impressed with the results and will probably end up buying it when I can scrape the money together to get it.

Thomas W. Bethel Fri, 02/20/2009 - 16:16

jammster wrote: I really like the sound of square waves!

Seriously, mastering is one of those things that I am interested in learning more about.

Not something thats easy.

Just like painting a masterpiece it takes knowledge of what tools you need to do what your trying to achieve.

I just checked out the free demo of Ozone 3.
Fully functional for 10 days. I was very impressed with the results and will probably end up buying it when I can scrape the money together to get it.

Ozone Four is out and it is a BIG improvement over three.....YMMV

Imaginaryday Thu, 03/12/2009 - 17:58

MBBCFP wrote: [quote=Thomas W. Bethel][quote=StephenMC]http://www.vloud.co…

Bahahahaha. It's really sad.

The secret to a great mastering job is hiring a GREAT mastering engineer.Please tell us what a great mastering engineer does.

Good ears. Since every track is different, a good mastering engineer needs to know what to listen for. You should think of a mastering engineer as a musical artist. No software in the world is able to make those critical decisions for you.

anonymous Thu, 03/12/2009 - 19:12

Good ears. Since every track is different, a good mastering engineer needs to know what to listen for. You should think of a mastering engineer as a musical artist. No software in the world is able to make those critical decisions for you.

Oh, that.

I understand there is much confusion over the difference between the recording process and what has become known in post-vinyl days as the mastering process. I agree, ears are the most important equipment in the combined process. Reasonably good equipment can capture a pretty good recording and a good engineer can both record and master IF he/she understands what needs to be accomplished in each process.

Much of what may be thought of as mastering can and should be taken care of during the original recording. I am not talking about compressing, eqing, etc. rather getting the cleanest, best sounding tracks possible. The better the initial recording, the less processing or mastering needs be done later.

True mastering makes (or allows) each adjoining track in a compilation to have a logical relationship with those before and after it. The tracks do not need to and should not sound the same -- BORING -- but they should belong to the same CD family. Just as the songs, pieces, tracks or whatever are chosen and their order is chosen to tell a "story," the sound should be complimentary. Complimentary could very well be a vivid contrast, but for a thoughtful reason and not by accident.

The same person may be able to provide the final touches to a CD (oh, we call that "Mastering") but that person needs some time space after doing the mixing to forget what that mental concept of the desired sound was and listen with "new ears" to what it really sounds like. Only then can one begin to fix or improve things.

That may be the overwhelming reason to hire a different ME; new ears.

IMHO

Space Fri, 03/13/2009 - 17:27

"IF " is the operator. The term mastering gets thrown around with the same frequency that "building a studio" gets thrown around. The first is mostly folks with a handful of crap that want some sugar and the other is people that acquire gear for the sake of gear. I think you can actually interchange the two and the end result is the same.

Neither is correct, as to my understanding of the words. Mind you I am a construction rat. Take it for what it is worth.

You are preaching to the choir Mike.

I guess you would have rather stood on Thomas W. Bethels' head and said your piece, but at least you said it right ;)

hueseph Fri, 03/13/2009 - 22:38

MBBCFP wrote: [quote=Thomas W. Bethel][quote=StephenMC]http://www.vloud.co…

Bahahahaha. It's really sad.

The secret to a great mastering job is hiring a GREAT mastering engineer.Please tell us what a great mastering engineer does.

You need to click on that www link under Thomas Bethel's signature. Notice that his monitoring system is likely worth more than your entire setup. Yeah. I'm not kidding. And lo and behold! Not a single Be****ger product in site!

anonymous Sat, 03/14/2009 - 14:49

hueseph wrote: [quote=MBBCFP][quote=Thomas W. Bethel][quote=StephenMC]http://www.vloud.co…

Bahahahaha. It's really sad.

The secret to a great mastering job is hiring a GREAT mastering engineer.Please tell us what a great mastering engineer does.

You need to click on that www link under Thomas Bethel's signature. Notice that his monitoring system is likely worth more than your entire setup. Yeah. I'm not kidding. And lo and behold! Not a single Be****ger product in site!

Thanks for the suggestion.

I do not argue with the truth that great mastering may be the difference between a good album and a great album. I do not argue that many have more expensive monitors than my whole rig. How high on the wall you can pee is not the question. I only said the mastering process begins with a good recording. Some recording folks CAN also master. Some, not all.

anonymous Sat, 03/14/2009 - 18:12

I don't recall questioning anyone's opinion.

If I appeared to be arrogant or supercilious, it was not intended. I am on these forums to learn, not criticize. Occaisionally, I have the, perhaps errant, thought that I can contribute a thought to the thread. I'll be more careful of my syntax in the future.

Space Sat, 03/14/2009 - 18:37

Your good, except for being supercellulose. Maybe jogging daily will help?

I often type things the same way I would say them. I often get in trouble for doing that as well. It doesn't translate, and I am loath to use emoticons : )

So you may or may not agree that reading this line "Please tell us what a great mastering engineer does." directed at Thomas who is most likely a great mastering engineer, followed by this line "Oh, that. " directed at the abysmal would be a red flag even to you, when you have had more time to study the people involved here.

It's like that old thing. Two brothers are fighting and an outsider steps in to break it up and the two brothers beat up on the guy trying to help!!

hueseph Sat, 03/14/2009 - 20:03

MBBCFP wrote: I don't recall questioning anyone's opinion.

If I appeared to be arrogant or supercilious, it was not intended. I am on these forums to learn, not criticize. Occaisionally, I have the, perhaps errant, thought that I can contribute a thought to the thread. I'll be more careful of my syntax in the future.

Well, maybe you came across the wrong way. Intentions don't translate easily to type.

Peace.

8)

anonymous Wed, 06/17/2009 - 09:57

Well, great mastering does start with a great mix! And I can't emphasize this enough. However, what separates a good mastering engineer from a great one maybe up to one's own POV.

I can't speak for the rest, but I usually go beyond the call of that duty. For instance, I always prevent musicians from committing to a bad mix for mastering. That's usually what happens when you have a bad mix and you want me to master it {Yes, I reject mixes}. Second, when in doubt {my self} of what the outcome will be, I make a free sample for the artist which it usually turns out a great deal better than what I expected. Yet, I make suggestions to improve upon the mix.

Having over 25 years doing audio engineering gives me the edge over the rookie ME's. I have developed my own personal techniques and have mentored several audio engineers who now practice my mastering approach. I also have a different concept for quality than most of my peers. The reason is I do consider harmonic frequency balance as an important characteristic in any master I deal with.

This has gotten me involved in heated debates on other forums as I rely on spectrum analysis to achieve this end {Harmonic balance}. I won't start a discussion on RTA technology here because it's OT, so please don't either.

There is also the subject of tone. I am for example a purist and do not work with many analog processors in the chain. The most I will do with analog is DA to a transparent compressor and an equalizer back {AD} to DAW. Sometimes I stay completely ITB. So, if transparency and digital precision is what you need, I consider myself the best man for the job. If someone wishes to process and add colorful tone and vibe with vintage analog gear, my neighbor would satisfy that desire {Adrian Morgan}. Sometimes is the music style that calls for it as well.

Anyway, not two mastering engineers master the same way and neither their product nor their results can be exactly the same, but they should be very competitive. In the end, it's up to you the artist/band or producer to make the subjective decision of what sounds the best.

I hope this helps and puts another perspective on the subject.

Best regards,

hueseph Wed, 06/17/2009 - 19:45

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Thanks Ed for that insightful process that is so unique to the industry. transparent processing, eq, compression, going above the call of duty by telling someone their mix isn't good, a spectrum analyzer, "harmonic balancing" (eq).

:!: ......Uh.................never mind.

anonymous Wed, 06/17/2009 - 20:55

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Thanks Ed for that insightful process that is so unique to the industry. transparent processing, eq, compression, going above the call of duty by telling someone their mix isn't good, a spectrum analyzer, "harmonic balancing" (eq).

Hi Michael, well, I am sure you're aware that transparency is, in strict engineering terms, impossible due to the addition of phase distortion inherent in the mastering process (ITB, OTB or both). So, I am using this term in the same context a gear manufacturer or a software developer does . OTOH, harmonic balance is very possible but seldom considered important.

One final point, I just don't tell someone "you mix isn't good', I tell someone why their mix isn't good which is not the same.

Regards,

Thomas W. Bethel Thu, 06/18/2009 - 05:09

music_guy wrote: Well, great mastering does start with a great mix! And I can't emphasize this enough. However, what separates a good mastering engineer from a great one maybe up to one's own POV.

I can't speak for the rest, but I usually go beyond the call of that duty. For instance, I always prevent musicians from committing to a bad mix for mastering. That's usually what happens when you have a bad mix and you want me to master it {Yes, I reject mixes}. Second, when in doubt {my self} of what the outcome will be, I make a free sample for the artist which it usually turns out a great deal better than what I expected. Yet, I make suggestions to improve upon the mix.

Having over 25 years doing audio engineering gives me the edge over the rookie ME's. I have developed my own personal techniques and have mentored several audio engineers who now practice my mastering approach. I also have a different concept for quality than most of my peers. The reason is I do consider harmonic frequency balance as an important characteristic in any master I deal with.

This has gotten me involved in heated debates on other forums as I rely on spectrum analysis to achieve this end {Harmonic balance}. I won't start a discussion on RTA technology here because it's OT, so please don't either.

There is also the subject of tone. I am for example a purist and do not work with many analog processors in the chain. The most I will do with analog is DA to a transparent compressor and an equalizer back {AD} to DAW. Sometimes I stay completely ITB. So, if transparency and digital precision is what you need, I consider myself the best man for the job. If someone wishes to process and add colorful tone and vibe with vintage analog gear, my neighbor would satisfy that desire {Adrian Morgan}. Sometimes is the music style that calls for it as well.

Anyway, not two mastering engineers master the same way and neither their product nor their results can be exactly the same, but they should be very competitive. In the end, it's up to you the artist/band or producer to make the subjective decision of what sounds the best.

I hope this helps and puts another perspective on the subject.

Best regards,

Didn't you get tossed off the Gearslutz forum recently ???

Cucco Thu, 06/18/2009 - 06:16

Personally, I like to master using a spectrum analyzer as well.
When people watch their music coming out of their CD players or iPods and the pretty colors hit their corneas with all of the right balance of luminance and chrominance, they can definitely tell it sounds better.

My favorite means of mastering though is to use small, near-field monitors in an relatively untreated room with cheap plug-ins.

But that's because I rock and I have a lot of experience - much more than the NEWBIES and other posers.

anonymous Thu, 06/18/2009 - 06:51

Thomas W. Bethel wrote: [quote=music_guy]Well, great mastering does start with a great mix! And I can't emphasize this enough. However, what separates a good mastering engineer from a great one maybe up to one's own POV.

I can't speak for the rest, but I usually go beyond the call of that duty. For instance, I always prevent musicians from committing to a bad mix for mastering. That's usually what happens when you have a bad mix and you want me to master it {Yes, I reject mixes}. Second, when in doubt {my self} of what the outcome will be, I make a free sample for the artist which it usually turns out a great deal better than what I expected. Yet, I make suggestions to improve upon the mix.

Having over 25 years doing audio engineering gives me the edge over the rookie ME's. I have developed my own personal techniques and have mentored several audio engineers who now practice my mastering approach. I also have a different concept for quality than most of my peers. The reason is I do consider harmonic frequency balance as an important characteristic in any master I deal with.

This has gotten me involved in heated debates on other forums as I rely on spectrum analysis to achieve this end {Harmonic balance}. I won't start a discussion on RTA technology here because it's OT, so please don't either.

There is also the subject of tone. I am for example a purist and do not work with many analog processors in the chain. The most I will do with analog is DA to a transparent compressor and an equalizer back {AD} to DAW. Sometimes I stay completely ITB. So, if transparency and digital precision is what you need, I consider myself the best man for the job. If someone wishes to process and add colorful tone and vibe with vintage analog gear, my neighbor would satisfy that desire {Adrian Morgan}. Sometimes is the music style that calls for it as well.

Anyway, not two mastering engineers master the same way and neither their product nor their results can be exactly the same, but they should be very competitive. In the end, it's up to you the artist/band or producer to make the subjective decision of what sounds the best.

I hope this helps and puts another perspective on the subject.

Best regards,

Didn't you get tossed off the Gearslutz forum recently ???

Me tossed from Geaslutz? Oh Please, you have to be joking :D

Look Thomas, I came across this thread by accident so, as a member of this forum I felt compelled to post. Unfortunately I really have no time to be spending it on forums, I've realized that forums can be a real waste of my time especially when unprovokedly attacked by users like you who disagree with my ideas, and more sadly, in the way you did, which was ironically at the "How Often Does An ME Recommend Remixing"(Dead Link Removed)

Someday people will judge you for the essence and the quality of your posts and comments, don't make this one a memorable one again. So, in good spirit, good luck to you Thomas.

anonymous Thu, 06/18/2009 - 07:59

Cucco wrote: Personally, I like to master using a spectrum analyzer as well.
When people watch their music coming out of their CD players or iPods and the pretty colors hit their corneas with all of the right balance of luminance and chrominance, they can definitely tell it sounds better.

My favorite means of mastering though is to use small, near-field monitors in an relatively untreated room with cheap plug-ins.

But that's because I rock and I have a lot of experience - much more than the NEWBIES and other posers.

You must have been using near-fielders all your life to trust them for mastering . Nothing wrong with that except you do need that "luminance and chrominance" you spoke about from RTAs for your own reference and even then, depending on the FFT, you may still be getting at 1/1024ms or longer, wrong read-outs on every high peak/transient response. That's why most digital spectrum analyzers are useless. Professional grade is not cheap either, but it's the only way to do any real analysis. In every RTA discussion I always recommend using one's ears first, then use the analyzer for reference only. Also, I don't recommend untreated rooms, it can be counter-productive for mastering. Finally it's ok to feel that you are better than newbies so long as you can actually help them further advance their understanding of audio engineering. You seem to be working out of a facility that takes pride for vintage analog sound, so you know that the last thing anyone needs is to process a mix with a cheap plugin algorithm as the quantization distortion would really do more damage than good. 8-)

Michael Fossenkemper Thu, 06/18/2009 - 10:52

The reason you rely so heavily on an analyzer is because you cannot hear it. It's really that simple. There are only two ways to reliably master on small near fields. 1) you filter everything they cannot reproduce. 2) you rely on an analyzer to tell you if anything is there that you cannot hear, then you clamp down on it until you can reasonably guess that it won't be an issue. visually see what your monitors/room lack, that's the benefit of an analyzer.

Every ME in the whole world will tell someone why their mix isn't good. "hey, that mix you sent.... the kick drum is too loud". that's not above the call of duty. that's called doing the job you are paid to do. If they can't remedy the mix, then it's your job to do the best you can to minimize the offense. You also have to know your client, might not be your place to tell an engineer what the mix should sound like. Heck, it might even be his job to tell YOU what it should sound like. That's why I not only communicate with the client, I also communicate with the engineer of the project. He's the one in the trenches pushing the faders to the clients wishes. Maybe that kick drum is supposed to be obnoxiously loud and you go and open your mouth that you know more than they do and that they're wrong. But that's only something you learn when you work with people that are very very good at it.

anonymous Thu, 06/18/2009 - 12:49

I am sure you are referring to its use in general and not how I should use it or what I should use it for, correct? Yes, I do use it for the reasons you wrote, but I also do for other ones. Let me make it very very clear, I do heavily rely on my ears. The RTA is just to plot frequency curves and or save headroom, pretty useful when you are asked to make a mediocre mix sound its loudest and as you said, one that can't be adjusted {yes, I get a lot of those requests for loudness, so guilty as charged}.

Now, if it was just a matter of a loud kick drum, I probably wouldn't say a word to the artist/engineer in the first place. I think any experienced ME would know how to deal with that kind of problem but, I am assuming that you are just using it as an analogy of what can happen when egos are added to the interaction and there is no trust between a client and the ME. Anyway, It would be more like "Your lead vocal track goes up and down and it's to high at some sections, please compress it at a higher ratio and a lower threshold, make sure the voice is more leveled...". Or maybe, "your lead vocal is too wet and your stereo image too narrow, reduce the effect so I can widen your mix more , or better yet, try a full re-mix and place all your instruments in a wider stereo field..." {Of course, you get an onomatopoeic word from them first, then total panic}.

It really is about communication, so we agree on that. Trust is also a big one, sometimes both are not possible from the get go. If someone is unwilling to trust your judgment, I recommend declining the work politely and moving on. I read may times on forums how "so and so" of "so and so fame" "mastered this record and it sounds like crap". They do this to big names in the industry and maybe some of these claims are truth, but these ME's work also don't depend on the web like I and others do, so one has to be careful selecting these jobs. Preferably, accept them but help these struggling musicians/engineers out with their mixes.

So, we are not talking about just a loud kick but one or more serious mixing issues, including issues that are beyond the scope of engineering such as arrangement. Typical case: an engineer uses 2 bass drums to create his bottom end, no bass guitar or synth. The whole bottom end depends on those 2 elements, only together they sounds phasey, rumbly, hummy and muddy. Even combined they don't sound fat and punchy enough. Why? Because the fundamentals are not there. Ever got one of those? So I just tell them where to filter on each kick or make a recommendation for a kick drum including its tuning parameter value. Sometime I even suggest editing out a note or two from the beat pattern. It never ceases to amaze me the difference that it makes to them and the reaction has consistently been positive.

I've never had anyone offended (at least that I know of) for giving solutions and constructive criticism to their mix/project. This has been my experience so far with the online mastering jobs. Doing person to person sessions however, a complete different ball game.

Take care, Michael.

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: The reason you rely so heavily on an analyzer is because you cannot hear it. It's really that simple. There are only two ways to reliably master on small near fields. 1) you filter everything they cannot reproduce. 2) you rely on an analyzer to tell you if anything is there that you cannot hear, then you clamp down on it until you can reasonably guess that it won't be an issue. visually see what your monitors/room lack, that's the benefit of an analyzer.

Every ME in the whole world will tell someone why their mix isn't good. "hey, that mix you sent.... the kick drum is too loud". that's not above the call of duty. that's called doing the job you are paid to do. If they can't remedy the mix, then it's your job to do the best you can to minimize the offense. You also have to know your client, might not be your place to tell an engineer what the mix should sound like. Heck, it might even be his job to tell YOU what it should sound like. That's why I not only communicate with the client, I also communicate with the engineer of the project. He's the one in the trenches pushing the faders to the clients wishes. Maybe that kick drum is supposed to be obnoxiously loud and you go and open your mouth that you know more than they do and that they're wrong. But that's only something you learn when you work with people that are very very good at it.

Codemonkey Thu, 06/18/2009 - 14:09

Cucco, did I smell sarcasm from the your post about nearfields, or was it just the line about plugins making it stink that bad?

FWIW my mastering chain is conducted on [="http://uk.europe.creative.com/products/product.asp?category=4&subcategory=789&product=15773&listby=usage"]these[/]="http://uk.europe.cr…"]these[/] with [[url=http://="http://www.aodix.co…"]this[/]="http://www.aodix.co…"]this[/]. My source mixes are all poorly levelled, have background hum, and are badly compressed.

Michael Fossenkemper Thu, 06/18/2009 - 14:09

Dude, never in all of my years have I ever heard of a ME giving out creative advice, unsolicited, on a project. You don't seem to know which hat you are supposed to wear as a ME. If I ever told one of my clients to rearrange a song to suit my likes, that would be the last time they would ever call me.

I've taken a few new engineers under my wing over the years and taught them what I know as having been one for many years. You know what never ever ever comes up? Mastering. I've had all of the top mastering engineers master my mixes when I was a mix engineer. You know what never came up? creative input from the mastering engineer.

Instrument placement so you can have a stereo field that YOU want? unbelievable. No wonder there is silence and panic, they just realized that they made a huge mistake.

anonymous Thu, 06/18/2009 - 14:29

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Dude, never in all of my years have I ever heard of a ME giving out creative advice, unsolicited, on a project. You don't seem to know which hat you are supposed to wear as a ME. If I ever told one of my clients to rearrange a song to suit my likes, that would be the last time they would ever call me.

I've taken a few new engineers under my wing over the years and taught them what I know as having been one for many years. You know what never ever ever comes up? Mastering. I've had all of the top mastering engineers master my mixes when I was a mix engineer. You know what never came up? creative input from the mastering engineer.

Instrument placement so you can have a stereo field that YOU want? unbelievable. No wonder there is silence and panic, they just realized that they made a huge mistake.

Dude? are you from LA? Well, if you have never heard about being creative with the artists, the engineers and producers, the more power to me. Also, you seem to confuse the matter. The online service brings people with poor engineering and even musical knowledge. I do admit that giving arrangement instructions is over the top but you have no idea how much a rookie composer appreciates a good suggestion. I wouldn't have this discussion with people like Cindy Blackman who is considered a top drummer in the world or with anybody of renown fame that gives me work. But , it comes with the territory, you deal with bedroom producers and you get imperfect mixes most of the time. Perhaps you and those who work with celebrities all the time have no need to make any sort of comments, naturally, these people are mixed by the best of the best. So good for you. "Dude".

Anyway, I am not your conventional ME. and I do have a musical background. If you don't appreciate that. it's your problem.

Thomas W. Bethel Fri, 06/19/2009 - 05:16

Moderators

Edward Vinatea is unconventional in many ways...

No one will ever win a fight with him because he will always find a way to twist your words around so his ideas predominate.

He is always right everyone else is always wrong.

He drove all the pro mastering engineers at Gearslutz nuts. He was warned many times about his attitude and his postings but he never listened.

I just thought you would want to know what to expect.

FWIW and YMMV

x

User login