[Ratt Mahem]

A recent experience I had...

My band just finished its latest CD, and I wanted to get it properly
mastered. We do not have a lot of money, but I thought a day or two
at a mastering studio would be well worth it, considering all the time
and effort that went into creating the CD in the first place. I am
proud of what we have done, and I wanted it to sound as good as it
possibly could.

I contacted a highly recommended Mastering house here in town
(recommended by rec.audio.pro members, as well as personal contacts).
They sent us CD full of stuff that they had done, both pre and post
mastering for comparison

On every single track, the mastered version sounded better to my ears
and the ears of my band mates.

Then, one of us had an idea: Let's get out the sound pressure meter
and see how loud each of the tracks is. When we adjusted the volume
so that the playback was the same average loudness for the pre and
post mastered tracks, we discovered that we preferred the pre mastered
tracks slightly more than half the time.

I was shocked. It seems the only reason we thought we liked the
mastered tracks better (in half the cases anyway) was because it was
louder.

My Conclusion: Mastering can help, but it can just as easily harm.
If you like your music enough to write it, perform it, record it, and
mix it, why turn it over the a mastering engineer? It simply is not
necessary. Will mastering make your CD louder? Hell yeah. But who
cares? Will a louder CD make the difference between a hit record and
a bust? Do you really want to spend a lot of money to make your CD
worse, just so you can be like the OTHERS? I like the Chili Peppers
but I will not buy their new CDs because they have been squashed to
hell and my ears hurt after a few songs. Many new CDs have the same
effect on me. On the other hand, I would love to get my hands on the
pre-mastered mixes.



Ratt Mahem
The Mourning Sickness
www.themourningsickness.com

[Daniel Fuchs]

Ratt Mahem wrote:


On the other hand, I would love to get my hands on the
pre-mastered mixes.


Who knows, maybe we'll have "unmastered" CDs one day, like the
"unplugged" stuff of yore...

Dang, "unmastered.com" is already taken... ;-)

Daniel

[Geoff]

Ratt Mahem wrote:
A recent experience I had...

My band just finished its latest CD, and I wanted to get it properly
mastered. We do not have a lot of money, but I thought a day or two
at a mastering studio would be well worth it, considering all the time
and effort that went into creating the CD in the first place. I am
proud of what we have done, and I wanted it to sound as good as it
possibly could.

I contacted a highly recommended Mastering house here in town
(recommended by rec.audio.pro members, as well as personal contacts).
They sent us CD full of stuff that they had done, both pre and post
mastering for comparison

What was the specific mastering criteria you requested ?

If nothing, then the implicit idea was the the mastering engineer would
likely try to make it sound as similar as possible to today's 'norm'. ie
loud.

Otherwise it's a bit like sending your car off to the painters and asking
them to 'paint it'.


geoff

[Julian]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:11:10 +1300, "Geoff"
wrote:


What was the specific mastering criteria you requested ?

If nothing, then the implicit idea was the the mastering engineer would
likely try to make it sound as similar as possible to today's 'norm'. ie
loud.

One can assume that, yes. And further more most people want that.
period.

Otherwise it's a bit like sending your car off to the painters and asking
them to 'paint it'.

LOL

Julian

[Julian]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:00:39 +0100 (CET), Ratt Mahem
wrote:

When we adjusted the volume
so that the playback was the same average loudness for the pre and
post mastered tracks, we discovered that we preferred the pre mastered
tracks slightly more than half the time.

Thanks for bringing this up!

Julian

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:00:39 -0500, Ratt Mahem wrote
(in article ) :

A recent experience I had...

My band just finished its latest CD, and I wanted to get it properly
mastered. We do not have a lot of money, but I thought a day or two
at a mastering studio would be well worth it, considering all the time
and effort that went into creating the CD in the first place. I am
proud of what we have done, and I wanted it to sound as good as it
possibly could.

I contacted a highly recommended Mastering house here in town
(recommended by rec.audio.pro members, as well as personal contacts).
They sent us CD full of stuff that they had done, both pre and post
mastering for comparison

On every single track, the mastered version sounded better to my ears
and the ears of my band mates.

Then, one of us had an idea: Let's get out the sound pressure meter
and see how loud each of the tracks is. When we adjusted the volume
so that the playback was the same average loudness for the pre and
post mastered tracks, we discovered that we preferred the pre mastered
tracks slightly more than half the time.

I was shocked. It seems the only reason we thought we liked the
mastered tracks better (in half the cases anyway) was because it was
louder.

My Conclusion: Mastering can help, but it can just as easily harm.
If you like your music enough to write it, perform it, record it, and
mix it, why turn it over the a mastering engineer? It simply is not
necessary. Will mastering make your CD louder? Hell yeah. But who
cares? Will a louder CD make the difference between a hit record and
a bust? Do you really want to spend a lot of money to make your CD
worse, just so you can be like the OTHERS? I like the Chili Peppers
but I will not buy their new CDs because they have been squashed to
hell and my ears hurt after a few songs. Many new CDs have the same
effect on me. On the other hand, I would love to get my hands on the
pre-mastered mixes.



Ratt Mahem
The Mourning Sickness
www.themourningsickness.com

Mastering is more than running everything through a multiband comp limiter.

It's about cleaning up heads and tails.
It's about the space between each cut.
It's about the relative volumes of each cut.
It's about trying to save some mixes that can be saved so tracks sound like
they are all well balanced and come from the same universe (unless otherwise
directed).
It's about the bottom.
It's about the top.

and a few other things.

I've kicked some mastering jobs back to mixing simply because the damage
can't be repaired by mastering and I don't want my name on the ugly thing.

Mastering is not a "Hail Mary, fix it after we couldn't fix it in the mix"
thing.

It's not the place where you make everything so bright (or loud) that your
teeth hurt. They did a pretty nice job on Steely Dan's "Aja" many years ago.
The point being, put "Aja" on and note how loud and in your face it is.
Notice how it actually breathes. Put it though a multiband comp limiter and
listen to how nasty it becomes. Louder, yes, but nasty.

Put on something else that's been squashed. It's louder but doesn't breath.
Some of the stuff is absolutely relentless and exhausting. That's not why I
listen to music.

It took me a few sessions to learn that I had to back off on some EQ during
mixing if I was going master because the artifacts of mastering would
EMPHASIZE the edges of everything and make the mixes sound too harsh.

Gruel for thought.

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Federico]

When we adjusted the volume
so that the playback was the same average loudness for the pre and
post mastered tracks, we discovered that we preferred the pre mastered
tracks slightly more than half the time.

I was shocked. It seems the only reason we thought we liked the
mastered tracks better (in half the cases anyway) was because it was
louder.

That is obvious!
You are listening at the same RMS two versions: one with dynamics (the
original pre-master) and one without it (the probably-hyper-compressed
version).
BUT since you cannot go to the people-that-buy-your-CD houses and turn up
their volume you'll have to stick with your mastered version...
F.

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg]

"Federico" wrote in message
...
:
: When we adjusted the volume
: so that the playback was the same average loudness
for the pre and
: post mastered tracks, we discovered that we
preferred the pre mastered
: tracks slightly more than half the time.
:
: I was shocked. It seems the only reason we thought
we liked the
: mastered tracks better (in half the cases anyway)
was because it was
: louder.
:
: That is obvious!
: You are listening at the same RMS two versions: one
with dynamics (the
: original pre-master) and one without it (the
probably-hyper-compressed
: version).
: BUT since you cannot go to the
people-that-buy-your-CD houses and turn up
: their volume you'll have to stick with your mastered
version...
: F.
:
And with a lot of "high-end" systems these days,
especially those where they plug the CD into the AMP
without a preamp, there will not be enough gain to get
an equal RMS value from uncompressed audio on a CD. And
with stuff like Bob Katz K-20 recordings they can not
even get it loud enough to enjoy.


peace
dawg

[Scott Dorsey]

Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
And with a lot of "high-end" systems these days,
especially those where they plug the CD into the AMP
without a preamp, there will not be enough gain to get
an equal RMS value from uncompressed audio on a CD. And
with stuff like Bob Katz K-20 recordings they can not
even get it loud enough to enjoy.

No problem, they just need more efficient loudspeakers!
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Andy Eng]

On Feb 24, 7:25 am, Ty Ford wrote:

snip

Gruel for thought.

Good gruel...

Been prosumer mixing awhile without the privilege of a recognized (?)
"mastering" tool and got by with a "mixing" tool. In retrospect,
spent perhaps too much time working on the mechanical aspects of
hammering tracks into the end product using just the mixing tools
(i.e. relative levels, tails, etc). Not complaining, it was good
apprentice work and the end products were okay (for us at the time).

Picked up a mastering tool a couple weeks ago and amazed with just how
much the "mechanical" fitting aspects of the work flow improved. The
thoughts of reprocessing older compilations with this new tool is
overwhelming. :-)

Moreso, discovering how the mastering tool is very capable of
reshaping the original mix has been a mixed overdose of excitement and
angst in redefining what sounds good and reworking prior products.
Guess it's time for another set of monitors and other listening room
improvements.

Andy

[Roger Norman]

You are listening at the same RMS two versions: one with dynamics (the
original pre-master) and one without it (the probably-hyper-compressed
version).

This is an ultimate fallacy. Why people want to blame mastering engineers I
don't know, unless those doing the mastering have no reputations to uphold.
No mastering engineer of any quality would waste their reputation on their
own judgement about running a CD up into the last -.01 dB of dynamic space
without having been told to do so. Mastering isn't bringing up the level.
Or more accurately put, if the level is brought up at all it is because the
overall dynamics of the music, plus the repair that a mastering engineer
does required bring up the level.

For instance, if one mixes a CD based on bass shy speakers, it is likely
that any RMS meter is going to show a relatively consistent range based on
the misapplied bass. But if a mastering engineer hears this hyped bass and
brings it down relative to the rest of the product, then the overall volume
would have to increase to make the product seem to be within the range one
would hear on radio or CD. And it could easily maintain the same RMS range
as the original.

Is this the fault of the mastering engineer, or the fault in the mixing
process? When one uses a reputable mastering engineer, of which we have
many, then the question disappears because the answer IS obvious, but
obviously not the determination you have come to.

And unless you missed the obvious answer, it is that mastering engineers
(good ones) don't make determinations on how the final product sounds. The
record companies do, or the producer or the mixing engineer or the band.
Were I try to master some product, the last thing I'd want to do is make it
loud just to be loud.

What the OP should be listening to is whether there is a collapse of the
stereo image or whether smearing is ocurring because of the mastering. If
the original sounds better than the mastered version, then the mastered
version is wrong and it becomes the problem of the mastering engineer to
make it right. On the other hand, if the mastered version sounds better
than the original then the mastering engineer did the job, overall volume
notwithstanding.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Federico" wrote in message
...

When we adjusted the volume
so that the playback was the same average loudness for the pre and
post mastered tracks, we discovered that we preferred the pre mastered
tracks slightly more than half the time.

I was shocked. It seems the only reason we thought we liked the
mastered tracks better (in half the cases anyway) was because it was
louder.

That is obvious!
BUT since you cannot go to the people-that-buy-your-CD houses and turn up
their volume you'll have to stick with your mastered version...
F.

[Geoff]

Roger Norman wrote:
You are listening at the same RMS two versions: one with dynamics
(the original pre-master) and one without it (the
probably-hyper-compressed version).

This is an ultimate fallacy. Why people want to blame mastering
engineers I don't know, unless those doing the mastering have no
reputations to uphold. No mastering engineer of any quality would
waste their reputation on their own judgement about running a CD up
into the last -.01 dB of dynamic space without having been told to do
so. Mastering isn't bringing up the level. Or more accurately put,
if the level is brought up at all it is because the overall dynamics
of the music, plus the repair that a mastering engineer does required
bring up the level.
For instance, if one mixes a CD based on bass shy speakers, it is
likely that any RMS meter is going to show a relatively consistent
range based on the misapplied bass. But if a mastering engineer
hears this hyped bass and brings it down relative to the rest of the
product, then the overall volume would have to increase to make the
product seem to be within the range one would hear on radio or CD. And it
could easily maintain the same RMS range as the original.


Where lodness and dynamic range separate is with the overall loudness of
each separate element of a complex mix.

Like, you could has the classic flat-topped envelope of a hyper-compressed
piece of music that has vital and audible elements 60dB down and lower.
That has an overall high level, plus a wide dynamic range at the same time,
no ?


geoff

[Federico]

No mastering engineer of any quality would waste their reputation on their
own judgement about running a CD up into the last -.01 dB of dynamic space
without having been told to do so.

You may be right, but in the 90% of the times they are paid to do so.


Mastering isn't bringing up the level.

It isn't it?
Do you know any mastering engineer that doesn't limit at least a couple of
dB mastering commercial music?

F.

[Roger Norman]

Do you know any mastering engineer that doesn't limit at least a couple of
dB mastering commercial music?

Yes I do. In fact, I know a lot of mastering engineers that could easily
give you back a mastered product without having touched the apparent
loudness of the product itself. I also know that these same people argue
continually against cramming everything into the last 10th of a dB of
physical CD space because once a product goes out to broadcast then most
likely Robert Oram's broadcast compression is going to reverse the situation
and create an untenable product on the airways. Bob has said the same thing
here.

The Bob's (Katz, Ohlsson and Ludwig) have said many times that bringing a
product up to be the loudest on the radio is a study in self destructive
tendencies.

Pay for what they do best and leave it up to the user to use the ****ing
volume knob.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Federico" wrote in message
...

No mastering engineer of any quality would waste their reputation on
their
own judgement about running a CD up into the last -.01 dB of dynamic
space without having been told to do so.

You may be right, but in the 90% of the times they are paid to do so.


Mastering isn't bringing up the level.

It isn't it?

F.

[Richard Crowley]

"Roger Norman" wrote ...
Yes I do. In fact, I know a lot of mastering engineers that could easily
give you back a mastered product without having touched the apparent
loudness of the product itself. I also know that these same people argue
continually against cramming everything into the last 10th of a dB of
physical CD space because once a product goes out to broadcast then most
likely Robert Oram's broadcast compression is going to reverse the
situation and create an untenable product on the airways. Bob has said
the same thing here.

Perhaps you mean Robert Orban?

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush

Is that your excuse?