Modern Mastering

[john]

Hey

You know, I know it's trendy to have louder than loud CDs, levels mastered to the hilt, but you know it really sucks the soul out the music?

To me music was always about the feel, and so much is lost by flattening the dynamics. It's sad really.

There is some great music about. Some pretty emotive tracks. I'd love to hear the pre-mastered mixes. I wonder if bands will ever get back to releasing more sympathetically mastered tracks? Even if they release ultra mastered versions for the charts, I wish the more dynamic mixes were available.

What do you think?

Cheers

John

[john]

Hey

Oh hell, I'm getting like my dad!

Yeah it does kind of bring that to mind. "you just can't hear the words" mumble, mumble...

Cheers

John

[Rudi]

I dont like compression much at all. I play most rhythm without any effects on a clean channel on stage. It allows me to hear myself correctly at all times.

I prefer the sound of live cuts from 60's & 70's for the same reason. IMO, Its only when massive amount of distortion are present that you need to address the problem anyway.

[Bitstream]

I think the majority of music listeners put in a CD and play. They don't have a musical inclination to mess with the timbre of the sound. So I would recommend post-production eq & compression. It's kind of a lemming thing

[Steve]

It's kind of a lemming thing

I applied the Lemming treatment to my last song. I chucked it off a cliff...

[john]

My problem is not EQ, or compression per se, but the over use, particularly of compression during the mastering process. The process completely changes the natural lifts etc put there by the performers.

[Bitstream]

Indeed; pre-eq recording is a no-no in my book. I always record the raw track alone and try to balance it to average 0dB; sometimes this requires a re-take and moving the slider during a take.

[john]

was thinking more of the mastering process. At recording time and during mixdown artists (though not all performers) will be at the session and have input. Final mix (pre-mastering) tends to be the most representative of performance, with all the subtleties of performance, and a dynamic track. Then during mastering the levels are all pumped and flattened ready for cd pressing/ broadcast.

This is a trend in mastering. I don't blame mastering engineers.

The role of the mastering engineer has broadened significantly in the last 2 decades to incorporate a kind of post production role. Mastering used to be more or less light eq and compression targeted at getting a cohesive album with balancing of track volumes etc, and track encoding. Now it's all that and then some.

[Prometheus]

I'm going to be contraversial here. I think compression makes a sound louder, clearer, warmer, phatter, better. It's also a great tool for shaping sound, the pumping of the kick and the bass in modern mixes comes from compression. The whole point of modern mixing isn't to hear natural sounds, it's to hear music as if you were an alien with two dozen prehensile ears that you can have flying around at will. Modern mixes are better than natural sound. Go to an orchestra when your used to hearing modern multitrack recordings and it'll sound like a mush by comparison...

Moreover, we are trained from birth by listening to tapes, CD's, radio, the television to listen to heavily compressed sounds. We don't know anything else. So I'm going to break with standard mixing engineer thinking and say compress the f**k out of mixdowns at the mastering stage. Not only does it make for a more powerful product, but it means your work will stand beside commercial products.

[john]

Nice to see you back prom!

One thing, does that mean that we (as listeners) are to be endlessly disappointed by lack lustre performances when we compare live sound to that on a CD? Modern mastering is tuning our ears to expects something that can't be created without lots of gear and a good engineer?

I think there are certainly some musical styles that don't lose much in the translation. Mainly musical styles where the dynamics are pretty flat anyway.

I'm not against either compression, or EQ, but I feel that they are not sympathetically mastered. Compression and EQ were being used in studios in the 60s, so the tools are nothing new.

I think it is also important to differentiate between the compression and EQ work the recording engineer might do, and that which the mastering engineer might apply.

Cheers

John

[Prometheus]

Hi John.

What I've noticed is that engineers seem to fall into two extremes. There are one set who use mastering compression brutally, and another who seem to have a pathological terror of it. I think the truth is that it is an essential element in mastering, but it should be examined closely for side effects caused by overuse...

[john]

Hey Graeme

I completely agree. Being fair to mastering engineers it's not the mastering engineer that is pushing for louder tracks, but record companies to aid in radio "audibility".

Cheers

John

[Nightwolf]

good point man,

Perhaps we should start another thread discussing the different styles of mix/master for different styles of Music.

[Prometheus]

A pop producer would probably think that was a shitty mix, but I think it gives an excellt flavour to such tunes. Then theres other triphop artists that are just doing it very very cleanly and clear, and it works excellent for their lighter moody tunes. Theres reggae made today, same way they did 30 years ago, just to keep the feeling. Theres also reggae infact that goes with the new ideal.

I totally agree with that. You have to look at what instruments are in a mix and look at whether they should have powerful harmonics flattened out all the way to twenty kilohertz... Personally I'm not a fan of over shimmery mixes...

Edited August 27, 2007 by Prometheus

[Bitstream]

It is a tricky one, this.

I would have to use the mojority principle again; the majority of people listening to the final product will have a generic and low cost playback device. Take the iPod; it generally utilises mp3 decoders, and the mp3 encoding process involves an element of compression within the algorithms.

Then take the other end of the listening spectrum where the product gets played on a very expensive amplifier & speaker setup. Now it is safe to play a product that has been 'naturally' mixed! Play it on an iPod, and it will probably sound dull and flat. Therefore probably diminishing the general experience of your track, and minimising its potential to accrue interest.

[Prometheus]

It is a tricky one, this.

I would have to use the mojority principle again; the majority of people listening to the final product will have a generic and low cost playback device. Take the iPod; it generally utilises mp3 decoders, and the mp3 encoding process involves an element of compression within the algorithms.

Then take the other end of the listening spectrum where the product gets played on a very expensive amplifier & speaker setup. Now it is safe to play a product that has been 'naturally' mixed! Play it on an iPod, and it will probably sound dull and flat. Therefore probably diminishing the general experience of your track, and minimising its potential to accrue interest.

The trick is to play your masters on the cheapest, nastiest systems with the puniest dynamic range and most pitiful frequency response you can find. If you play a mix over a two inch speaker and you can still hear the kick drum you're onto a winner with that. If you play a master over one of these cheap nasty generic Aiwa systems and it doesn't sound 100% midrange you're onto a winner. By A-B comparison between this kind of system and your reference monitors, you should be able to get the right balance...

What I've found with mastering is that when you get used to the room you work in and the equipment you work on, this kind of A-B work eventually becomes unnecessary because you get to know how the sound will translate. Incidentally, the EQ in Winamp classic view is actually very unforgiving, I tend to use that one along with my ears to judge whether I am happy with the frequency response of my mixes.

[typo]

not easy to do imho. If you gear your mastering to only the worst systems, when you put it into a decent system it can sound to "hot". listening on a cheap system is a good idea but you need to balance it by listening on good systems too. One part often missed in mastering is taking account of the RIAA Compensation Curve EQ shaping employed on most home stereos. If you only listen to your mix on studio gear, you prolly wont be hearing your mix with this treatment applied.

[Nightwolf]

During the mastering process it helps to have poor quality equipment around for comparison purposes. The mastering and mixing should of course be done on the best equipment you have at your disposal, but you need to check every once in a while to make sure the lowest common denominator still makes the mix/master sound decent, every system sounds different, the goal of mastering is to make it sound decent on ANYTHING it comes out of, Once that is done, work to make it sound great on good systems

[Prometheus]

not easy to do imho. If you gear your mastering to only the worst systems, when you put it into a decent system it can sound to "hot". listening on a cheap system is a good idea but you need to balance it by listening on good systems too.

Naturally, but I like to think my studio is a "good" system... I've certainly ploughed more than enough money into it. In fact, I'm so used to the monitors that I've been using for the last five years that I very rarely get any surprises now when I play masters on other systems... When I do, they tend to be small ones. You get a feel for your equipment and workspace, like a worn leather jacket, it becomes comfortable and you know it like the back of your hand...

[Prometheus]

During the mastering process it helps to have poor quality equipment around for comparison purposes. The mastering and mixing should of course be done on the best equipment you have at your disposal, but you need to check every once in a while to make sure the lowest common denominator still makes the mix/master sound decent, every system sounds different, the goal of mastering is to make it sound decent on ANYTHING it comes out of, Once that is done, work to make it sound great on good systems

Absolutely. If everything can be clearly heard on a cheap system, and nothing sounds harsh on a good system, you're pretty much onto a winner...

of course, at the end of the day you can pick faults with any recording if you over analyse it. No one has ever made a perfect recording and no one ever will. It would be a little egotistical for one of us to think we might be the first. One of the most difficult things I found to learn was knowing when a recording / mix / master was finished...