my master will go on vinyl

[alex]

In the last years i've done a lot of pre-mastering jobs for low budget
local bands, but all on CD.
Now one of them asked me if is possible to get the work printed on vinyl
too.
I'm sure we need to do another specialized premastering. I never done
this before but i'm intrigued on the task.

So i'm here to ask you some advice on sources of informations, hints,
books or whatever will help me to accomplish the task, wich may range
form the sound itself to the way to present it to the pressing facility.

thanks in advance
alex

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>In the last years i've done a lot of pre-mastering jobs for low budget
>local bands, but all on CD.
>Now one of them asked me if is possible to get the work printed on vinyl
>too.
>I'm sure we need to do another specialized premastering. I never done
>this before but i'm intrigued on the task.
>
>So i'm here to ask you some advice on sources of informations, hints,
>books or whatever will help me to accomplish the task, wich may range
>form the sound itself to the way to present it to the pressing facility.

My basic feeling about it is just not to touch it... you really cannot
tell what is going on unless you're looking at the groove.

But... if you have to do it... make sure both channels are as perfectly
matched as possible. Don't allow ANY out of phase bass..... try and filter
the L-R signal down around 200 Hz or so. Normally we use an elliptical
filter for that.

Watch your top end headroom.... since you don't really have any idea how
much headroom the guy cutting the disc has, you can't really optimize things,
but just watch out up there.

Don't worry about limiting... you can have big peaks all over the place and
it won't hurt anything or make it any quieter. If anything, heavy limiting
is going to cause perceived level _reduction_ instead of increase the way it
does on CD.

Get the September 1997 issue of Recording Magazine from www.recordingmag.com
and look for my article "Mastering for Vinyl" which is actually about mixing
for vinyl and not mastering at all, but goes into a lot of detail about what
you can and cannot hand the man with the lathe. They should still have a
back issue they can send you on that one.
--scott


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

[Jim Lacey]

>does on CD.
>
>Get the September 1997 issue of Recording Magazine from www.recordingmag.com
>and look for my article "Mastering for Vinyl" which is actually about mixing
>for vinyl and not mastering at all, but goes into a lot of detail about what
>you can and cannot hand the man with the lathe. They should still have a
>back issue they can send you on that one.
>--scott


Just tried to access the site and it is blocked by Google as an attack
site, hosting malicious malware!

Any thoughts as to why?


Jim

[Scott Dorsey]

Jim Lacey > wrote:
>
>>does on CD.
>>
>>Get the September 1997 issue of Recording Magazine from www.recordingmag.com
>>and look for my article "Mastering for Vinyl" which is actually about mixing
>>for vinyl and not mastering at all, but goes into a lot of detail about what
>>you can and cannot hand the man with the lathe. They should still have a
>>back issue they can send you on that one.
>>--scott
>
>Just tried to access the site and it is blocked by Google as an attack
>site, hosting malicious malware!
>
>Any thoughts as to why?

Apparently somebody didn't install some patches that they should have, and
they have cleaned things up but may still be listed with some services.

You can always call 303-516-9118.
--scott

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

[alex]

ok Scott, thanks lot, i think i'm starting to be less confused...

Basically, from what you explainded, all i want to do is "preapare" the
job of the mastering engineer, in order to not oblige him inserting too
much processing into the material. Good, this was exactly what i was
looking for.

Taking into account your three "mixing" points:
1) L and R as much coherent as possible, very little things on side
channel;
2) no bass at all in side ch;
3) keep record sides shorter than 18 mins.
In other words. if i understand correctly, is more important to avoid
this kind of problem that concentrate myself on "final" eq or dynamic
range control?

From the dynamics point of view is correct to arrange things to simply
sound good instead aiming at high rms like in cd? Or i need an extra care?

Can you explain better what you stated here:
"Watch your top end headroom.... since you don't really have any idea
how much headroom the guy cutting the disc has, you can't really
optimize things, but just watch out up there."

I don't fully understand (may be because my poor english) what's exactly
the point.

Looking around i found some articles talking about the need to extra
control of sybilant S in the vocals, because vinyl si more prone to
saturation in that range. You find this advice correct? I think is
easier to de-ess at mixing stage.

Do you know where i can find an example of a kind of "standard
documentation" i need to send together with material? What information
they will need from me?

Should i try to send material at highest resolution available (FS and
bitdepth)? Should i dither?

Redards
Alex

[Mark]

....
> try and filter the L-R signal down around 200 Hz or so. *Normally we use an elliptical
> filter for that.
>
>

I understand what that means and why you want to do it...but
logisitcally HOW do you do that?

There is no path in a typical console where the L-R signal exists that
you can cascade a filter?

Nor is there a low pass mono function which is the same thing..

Mark

[alex]

Il 04/08/2010 18.21, Mark ha scritto:
> ...
>> try and filter the L-R signal down around 200 Hz or so. Normally we use an elliptical
>> filter for that.
>>
>>
>
> I understand what that means and why you want to do it...but
> logisitcally HOW do you do that?
>
> There is no path in a typical console where the L-R signal exists that
> you can cascade a filter?
>
> Nor is there a low pass mono function which is the same thing..
>
> Mark
>
this can be done with a MS-matrix.
basically you get two (M S) channels from the starting L R.
The first channel is MID (or MONO, or R+L), is the sum of the L channel
and the R attenuated by 6dB;
the second is the sum of R and the reverse (in phase) of L, this is
called SIDE (or STEREO, or R-L);
You can simply do this patching some cable to your console ;-)

at this point you need to hi-pass the SIDE channel at 200Hz a stated by
Scott.

Then you will decode the MS matrix. Feed MID to both L R at the same
level, and SIDE in phase to R, reversed to L.

Increasing or decreasing the SIDE level you can get a wider or narrower
stereo image.

bye
alex

[alex]

Il 04/08/2010 18.21, Mark ha scritto:
> ...
>> try and filter the L-R signal down around 200 Hz or so. Normally we use an elliptical
>> filter for that.
>>
>>
>
> I understand what that means and why you want to do it...but
> logisitcally HOW do you do that?
>
> There is no path in a typical console where the L-R signal exists that
> you can cascade a filter?
>
> Nor is there a low pass mono function which is the same thing..
>
> Mark
>

this can be done with a MS-matrix.
basically you get two (M S) channels from the starting L R.
The first channel is MID (or MONO, or L+R), is the sum of the L channel
and the R attenuated by 6dB;
the second is the sum of L and the reverse (in phase) of R, this is
called SIDE (or STEREO, or L-R);
You can simply do this patching some cable to your console ;-)

at this point you need to hi-pass the SIDE channel at 200Hz as stated by
Scott.

Then you will decode the MS matrix. Feed MID to both L R at the same
level, and SIDE in phase to L, reversed to R.

Increasing or decreasing the SIDE level you can get a wider or narrower
stereo image.

bye
alex

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>
>Taking into account your three "mixing" points:
>1) L and R as much coherent as possible, very little things on side
>channel;
>2) no bass at all in side ch;
>3) keep record sides shorter than 18 mins.

Right. And if you have to be longer than 18 minutes, you can be, but it
will result in lower levels and it will result in having to cut farther
into the center where the tracking distortion is higher.

>In other words. if i understand correctly, is more important to avoid
>this kind of problem that concentrate myself on "final" eq or dynamic
>range control?

EQ it and add some mild compression so it sounds good.

> From the dynamics point of view is correct to arrange things to simply
>sound good instead aiming at high rms like in cd? Or i need an extra care?

You need care to make sure the compressors and EQs track so they add no
spurious L-R stuff. In the digital world that's probably not an issue any
more.

But cranking the levels up by limiting peaks down doesn't actually help
anything in vinyl.

>Can you explain better what you stated here:
>"Watch your top end headroom.... since you don't really have any idea
>how much headroom the guy cutting the disc has, you can't really
>optimize things, but just watch out up there."
>
>I don't fully understand (may be because my poor english) what's exactly
>the point.

The headroom at high frequencies is limited... if you put too much high
end in, we have to pull the overall levels down. How much is too much?
I don't know, but the guy cutting the record does. This is why it is best
to have the EQ and compression done by the person actually cutting the lacquer.

>Looking around i found some articles talking about the need to extra
>control of sybilant S in the vocals, because vinyl si more prone to
>saturation in that range. You find this advice correct? I think is
>easier to de-ess at mixing stage.

That depends on the lathe and how they are set up and it also depends on
the audience. If you're playing on crappy DJ turntables with spherical
styli that track poorly, sibilance will be much more of an issue than if
you are playing on an audiophile turntable with a fineline stylus.

When I was an intern, my boss kept a Close-N-Play on his desk, a cheap
acoustic phonograph intended for children. If the recording was sibilant
or skipped on the Close-N-Play, he would send it back for recutting.


>Do you know where i can find an example of a kind of "standard
>documentation" i need to send together with material? What information
>they will need from me?

Who is cutting the record? Ask them.

>Should i try to send material at highest resolution available (FS and
>bitdepth)? Should i dither?

Sure, send them the best thing you can send them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark > wrote:
>...
>> try and filter the L-R signal down around 200 Hz or so. =A0Normally we us=
>e an elliptical
>> filter for that.
>
>I understand what that means and why you want to do it...but
>logisitcally HOW do you do that?

I have a filter module in the mastering console that I patch in with
patch cables. Mine was made by Lenco.

>There is no path in a typical console where the L-R signal exists that
>you can cascade a filter?

It's a standard module in the Neumann mastering consoles. Most of the custom
mastering consoles out there have something similar.

>Nor is there a low pass mono function which is the same thing..

Most of the newer mastering consoles have seperate L+R and L-R signal paths,
and you can just stick a low-pass module into the L-R chain.

They also usually have two totally different signal chains with a relay that
switches from the other, so you can set up the controls on one chain for the
next track while the first track is being cut, then when you move from one
song to the next you press the button and it switches to the next processing
setup. The whole thing is designed so you can cut a record in one pass without
stopping... because you can't stop.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mark]

>
> Most of the newer mastering consoles have seperate L+R and L-R signal paths,
> and you can just stick a low-pass module into the L-R chain.
>
>

OK I guess these are consoles set up specifically for vinyl ...

and wouldn't that be HIGH PASS the L-R?

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Mark > wrote:
>
>> Most of the newer mastering consoles have seperate L+R and L-R signal paths,
>> and you can just stick a low-pass module into the L-R chain.
>
>OK I guess these are consoles set up specifically for vinyl ...

Oh, yes, they bear no connection to a mixing console. They are mastering
consoles.

>and wouldn't that be HIGH PASS the L-R?

Yes, oops.
--scott

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

[alex]

thankyou again Scott, precious informations.

alex

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> But... if you have to do it... make sure both channels are as
> perfectly matched as possible. Don't allow ANY out of phase
> bass..... try and filter the L-R signal down around 200 Hz or so.
> Normally we use an elliptical filter for that.

Nugen Audio has a "mono" plug-in that does all kind of things mono-izing
bass, I found it pricey but got it anyway and it is a neat way of adressing
these issues. As all capable tools it should be used with wisdom and
moderation ....

> Get the September 1997 issue of Recording Magazine from
> www.recordingmag.com and look for my article "Mastering for Vinyl"
> which is actually about mixing for vinyl and not mastering at all,
> but goes into a lot of detail about what you can and cannot hand the
> man with the lathe. They should still have a back issue they can
> send you on that one. --scott

Hmmmm ....

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> But... if you have to do it... make sure both channels are as
>> perfectly matched as possible. Don't allow ANY out of phase
>> bass..... try and filter the L-R signal down around 200 Hz or so.
>> Normally we use an elliptical filter for that.
>
>Nugen Audio has a "mono" plug-in that does all kind of things mono-izing
>bass, I found it pricey but got it anyway and it is a neat way of adressing
>these issues. As all capable tools it should be used with wisdom and
>moderation ....

Oh yeah, you need a phase meter so you can watch what is going on when you
put the thing in and out of circuit. But that's an easy thing to do in the
DAW world... and you're not stuck trying to see what is going on with a
little 2" CRT stuck in an inconvenient slot in a mastering console...
--scott


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

[alex]

On 05/08/2010 17:11, Peter Larsen wrote:

> Nugen Audio has a "mono" plug-in that does all kind of things mono-izing
> bass, I found it pricey but got it anyway and it is a neat way of adressing
> these issues. As all capable tools it should be used with wisdom and
> moderation ....

Yes there's a lot of such stuff out there.
brainworx bx-contol and bx-digital (much more complex dual ch eq
designed to work in MS configuration;
every decent eq with MS capability (Fabfilter pro-Q, Apulsoft apEQ...)
offer a lot more of power dealing with phase relationships and stereo
issues;
You can even find MS compressors as well!
Waves make a kind of MS-matrix plugin that convert LR to MS then you
need, further in your chain, the decoder (many waves eq can accept MS as
input and output a LR). The nice thing of this approach is that you can
insert any other stereo plugins that will now work in ms environment;
Is easy to make your own analogue matrix just by patching some cable to
your board. (not the best solution but work well if properly calibrated)

I think, the MS approach really a MUST on the job of premastering, even
for material intended to be printed on CD. Phase problems below 100Hz
lead to an excess of amplitude because bass frequencies (without RIAA eq
;-) ) are the most demanding in amplitude. Ask fletcher and munson! If
these basses are self-cancelling you are wasting some vital room below
0dBFS and you will need to "squash" a lot more in order to be "LOUD" as
the client wants.
Again, MS is the most effective way you have to successfully control the
stereo image on the whole bandwidth.

alex

[alex]

On 05/08/2010 17:11, Peter Larsen wrote:

> Nugen Audio has a "mono" plug-in that does all kind of things mono-izing
> bass, I found it pricey but got it anyway and it is a neat way of adressing
> these issues. As all capable tools it should be used with wisdom and
> moderation ....
Yes there's a lot of such stuff out there.
brainworx bx-contol and bx-digital (much more complex dual ch eq
designed to work in MS configuration);
every decent eq with MS capability (Fabfilter pro-Q, Apulsoft apEQ...)
offer a lot more of power dealing with phase relationships and stereo
issues;
You can even find MS compressors as well!
Waves make a kind of MS-matrix plugin that convert LR to MS then you
need, further in your chain, the decoder (many waves eq can accept MS as
input and output a LR). The nice thing of this approach is that you can
insert any other stereo plugins that will now work in ms environment;
Is easy to make your own analogue matrix just by patching some cable to
your board. (not the best solution but work well if properly calibrated)

I think, the MS approach really a MUST on the job of premastering, even
for material intended to be printed on CD. Phase problems below 100Hz
lead to an excess of amplitude because bass frequencies (without RIAA eq
;-) ) are the most demanding in amplitude. If these basses are
self-cancelling you are wasting some vital room below 0dBFS and you will
need to "squash" a lot more in order to be "LOUD" as the client wants.
Again, MS is the most effective way you have to successfully control the
stereo image on the whole bandwidth.

alex

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>I think, the MS approach really a MUST on the job of premastering, even
>for material intended to be printed on CD. Phase problems below 100Hz
>lead to an excess of amplitude because bass frequencies (without RIAA eq
>;-) ) are the most demanding in amplitude. If these basses are
>self-cancelling you are wasting some vital room below 0dBFS and you will
>need to "squash" a lot more in order to be "LOUD" as the client wants.
>Again, MS is the most effective way you have to successfully control the
>stereo image on the whole bandwidth.

I would agree with it for CD.... but I really increasingly think the idea
of "premastering" for LP is misguided in general.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[alex]

Il 05/08/2010 19.27, Scott Dorsey ha scritto:
> > wrote:
>> I think, the MS approach really a MUST on the job of premastering, even
>> for material intended to be printed on CD. Phase problems below 100Hz
>> lead to an excess of amplitude because bass frequencies (without RIAA eq
>> ;-) ) are the most demanding in amplitude. If these basses are
>> self-cancelling you are wasting some vital room below 0dBFS and you will
>> need to "squash" a lot more in order to be "LOUD" as the client wants.
>> Again, MS is the most effective way you have to successfully control the
>> stereo image on the whole bandwidth.
>
> I would agree with it for CD.... but I really increasingly think the idea
> of "premastering" for LP is misguided in general.
> --scott
yes i meant CD. My whole experience for now...
in the fact we call it "pre-mastering" because "mastering" is the work
is goin to be done in the CD pressing factory.
What is the right word for vinyl? ;-)

alex

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>Il 05/08/2010 19.27, Scott Dorsey ha scritto:
>> > wrote:
>>> I think, the MS approach really a MUST on the job of premastering, even
>>> for material intended to be printed on CD. Phase problems below 100Hz
>>> lead to an excess of amplitude because bass frequencies (without RIAA eq
>>> ;-) ) are the most demanding in amplitude. If these basses are
>>> self-cancelling you are wasting some vital room below 0dBFS and you will
>>> need to "squash" a lot more in order to be "LOUD" as the client wants.
>>> Again, MS is the most effective way you have to successfully control the
>>> stereo image on the whole bandwidth.
>>
>> I would agree with it for CD.... but I really increasingly think the idea
>> of "premastering" for LP is misguided in general.
>
>yes i meant CD. My whole experience for now...
>in the fact we call it "pre-mastering" because "mastering" is the work
>is goin to be done in the CD pressing factory.
>What is the right word for vinyl? ;-)

I don't know.... but people _do_ premaster (or is that pre-process?) material
before they send it off to the fellow doing the actual lacquer mastering.
My feeling is that doing this is pretty much always a bad idea in the long run.
--scott

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

[alex]

On 05/08/2010 19:59, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
>> Il 05/08/2010 19.27, Scott Dorsey ha scritto:
>>> > wrote:
>>>> I think, the MS approach really a MUST on the job of premastering, even
>>>> for material intended to be printed on CD. Phase problems below 100Hz
>>>> lead to an excess of amplitude because bass frequencies (without RIAA eq
>>>> ;-) ) are the most demanding in amplitude. If these basses are
>>>> self-cancelling you are wasting some vital room below 0dBFS and you will
>>>> need to "squash" a lot more in order to be "LOUD" as the client wants.
>>>> Again, MS is the most effective way you have to successfully control the
>>>> stereo image on the whole bandwidth.
>>>
>>> I would agree with it for CD.... but I really increasingly think the idea
>>> of "premastering" for LP is misguided in general.
>>
>> yes i meant CD. My whole experience for now...
>> in the fact we call it "pre-mastering" because "mastering" is the work
>> is goin to be done in the CD pressing factory.
>> What is the right word for vinyl? ;-)
>
> I don't know.... but people _do_ premaster (or is that pre-process?) material
> before they send it off to the fellow doing the actual lacquer mastering.
> My feeling is that doing this is pretty much always a bad idea in the long run.
> --scott
>
You say the lacquer engineer is in the best position for doing this and
every process that take place before is someway unneeded and potentially
dangerous. So you suggest no to do it.
To a certain extent i agree with this.
As far i understand here, the lacquer eng is doing three things:
1) correct all problems in order to allow the record to be successfully
done;
2) make all adjustment needed to maximize the sound quality;
3) actually cut the disc (all tech processes needed).

Point 2 and 3 are obviously beyond my reach, but point 1, maybe, not.
I'm wrong if i think that all those "error fixing procedure" can affect
the overall sound quality and, if done without the "intended flavour" of
the work in mind, can lead to emphasize unwanted sound aspects?
All i want to do i present material with less errors as possible but
with the correct sound balance in the hope the remote guy will make all
he can to respect it (not having to correct big errors) and trough his
experience produce a record as similar as possible to the original
material once on the turntable. I undestand it will not translated 1:1
but i expect to have the "vinyl version" of my work not "another work".
Along with this, our original sound, originally intended for CD, has to
be reworked to some extent in order to not get the defects of CD on
vinyl. How we call this process?

alex

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>You say the lacquer engineer is in the best position for doing this and
>every process that take place before is someway unneeded and potentially
>dangerous. So you suggest no to do it.

Right. But I understand there are political issues and that sometimes folks
have to do it because they have no choice. And when that's the case, you do
what you have to do.

>To a certain extent i agree with this.
>As far i understand here, the lacquer eng is doing three things:
>1) correct all problems in order to allow the record to be successfully
>done;
>2) make all adjustment needed to maximize the sound quality;
>3) actually cut the disc (all tech processes needed).

Right. And you can do as much of 1 as you possibly can and pass it on to
him. If possible, hand him an unprocessed version as well so he can choose.

>Point 2 and 3 are obviously beyond my reach, but point 1, maybe, not.
>I'm wrong if i think that all those "error fixing procedure" can affect
>the overall sound quality and, if done without the "intended flavour" of
>the work in mind, can lead to emphasize unwanted sound aspects?

Hopefully. Part of the problem, and a lot of the reason why people do
"premastering" is because in the last couple decades a number of pressing
plants have started doing "mastering" that was only a direct dub of the
master to lacquer, almost unattended, usually done by some clueless intern.
Consequently SOME folks get the notion that they can save money by having
the mastering guy doing the CD do a "premastered" version and have the
lacquer cut unattended from that. It's a bad thing to do, but people do it
and you can't tell them not to do it because they won't learn.

United for a long time had a real reputation for doing this.

>All i want to do i present material with less errors as possible but
>with the correct sound balance in the hope the remote guy will make all
>he can to respect it (not having to correct big errors) and trough his
>experience produce a record as similar as possible to the original
>material once on the turntable. I undestand it will not translated 1:1
>but i expect to have the "vinyl version" of my work not "another work".
>Along with this, our original sound, originally intended for CD, has to
>be reworked to some extent in order to not get the defects of CD on
>vinyl. How we call this process?

I'd call that "premastering for vinyl."
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

alex wrote:

> You say the lacquer engineer is in the best position for doing this and
> every process that take place before is someway unneeded and potentially
> dangerous. So you suggest no to do it.

He could be a deaf idiot, so know your mastering engineer.
Back in the vinyl days, people mixed in the control room to
get what they wanted it to sound like. There was none of
this "we don't have great monitors so we'll let the
mastering engineer tune out our mistakes" that's so common
today. We would sometimes send along instructions to adjust
the level of a song up or down, and sometimes overall reverb
was added at mastering because they were the ones who could
afford the good reverb units or had the good live echo chambers.

Even if the project leaves with a good mix, we expect
different things from mastering than we used to, most of
which aren't really commensurate with disk cutting. I think
that's why Scott is suggesting that as long as you have a
mix that sounds good on an accurate system, you should just
turn it over to the mastering engineer to cut it and make it
sound as close to what you gave him as possible.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Mike Rivers writes:

> Back in the vinyl days, people mixed in the control room to get
> what they wanted it to sound like. There was none of
> this "we don't have great monitors so we'll let the
> mastering engineer tune out our mistakes" that's so common
> today. We would sometimes send along instructions to adjust the
> level of a song up or down, and sometimes overall reverb was added
> at mastering because they were the ones who could afford the good
> reverb units or had the good live echo chambers.

True, and still my attitude toward most projects that have
gone elsewhere for mastering. I might ask the mastering guy to tighten up a fade a bit, especially when mixing to 16 bit dat back in the day, and at what point I'd like to be faded
out by, and where should be good starting point for fades.
OTher than that, what I wanted to do was have the mastering
guy prep the mixes for the run of compact disks, sequencing, etc.
MOre than once I"ve sent a client's work to somebody and put in bold type on the instructions, especially if it was going where I couldn't be there for mastering session "don't step
on it!"

> Even if the project leaves with a good mix, we expect
> different things from mastering than we used to, most of
> which aren't really commensurate with disk cutting. I think that's
> why Scott is suggesting that as long as you have a
> mix that sounds good on an accurate system, you should just turn it
> over to the mastering engineer to cut it and make it sound as close
> to what you gave him as possible.

Good advice from MIke and scott for Alex this thread.

I've had to tell more than one mastering guy "no no no,
don't try to make it louder dammit!"

IT's a tough concept to sell to some of these guys. IF it
was mixed in a good room then I was damned sure it sounded
like I and the client wanted it to.




Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Mike Rivers]

Richard Webb wrote:

> I've had to tell more than one mastering guy "no no no,
> don't try to make it louder dammit!"

Back in the phonograph record days, a friend of mine sent a
tape to an outfit that had a very good reputation for doing
the whole job. When she got the reference laquer (always a
good idea) she discovered that they had added reverb. When
she asked why, the said "we just wanted to make it sound
more like the other girl folk singer records." She had them
re-cut it without the added reverb and it was fine.

The purpose of a reference cut is to be sure that the master
won't have a physical flaw (like a groove wall breakthrough)
but if you have a problem with the sound of the reference,
they'll usually re-cut it at no additional charge. If you
wait for the test pressings, or worse, for the cartons of
records to arrive and you find a problem, the re-work is on
you, not the pressing plant or mastering lab. I assume that
the CD package houses have a similar procedure for customer
approval.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[hank alrich]

Soundhaspriority > wrote:

> X-Complaints-To:
> Bytes: 1633
> X-Original-Bytes: 1559
> Xref: uni-berlin.de rec.audio.pro:1373301

Man with no life impersonate real person, poorly.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>Back in the phonograph record days, a friend of mine sent a
>tape to an outfit that had a very good reputation for doing
>the whole job. When she got the reference laquer (always a
>good idea) she discovered that they had added reverb. When
>she asked why, the said "we just wanted to make it sound
>more like the other girl folk singer records." She had them
>re-cut it without the added reverb and it was fine.

This, in short, is why an attended mastering session is always a good idea
and worth paying a little more for. If you can't do it, at least write a
little letter about your philosophy and what you want the final results to
sound like.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[alex]

Il 06/08/2010 12.30, Mike Rivers ha scritto:
> Richard Webb wrote:
>
>> I've had to tell more than one mastering guy "no no no,
>> don't try to make it louder dammit!"
>
> Back in the phonograph record days, a friend of mine sent a tape to an
> outfit that had a very good reputation for doing the whole job. When she
> got the reference laquer (always a good idea) she discovered that they
> had added reverb. When she asked why, the said "we just wanted to make
> it sound more like the other girl folk singer records." She had them
> re-cut it without the added reverb and it was fine.
>
Haha, Adding reverb build good reputations! ;-)
Think how many satisfied client was positively impressed by this pratice
over time...
ok i will ask for a reference lacquer!

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>Il 06/08/2010 12.30, Mike Rivers ha scritto:
>> Richard Webb wrote:
>>
>>> I've had to tell more than one mastering guy "no no no,
>>> don't try to make it louder dammit!"
>>
>> Back in the phonograph record days, a friend of mine sent a tape to an
>> outfit that had a very good reputation for doing the whole job. When she
>> got the reference laquer (always a good idea) she discovered that they
>> had added reverb. When she asked why, the said "we just wanted to make
>> it sound more like the other girl folk singer records." She had them
>> re-cut it without the added reverb and it was fine.
>>
>Haha, Adding reverb build good reputations! ;-)
>Think how many satisfied client was positively impressed by this pratice
>over time...
>ok i will ask for a reference lacquer!

When you get the reference, be VERY careful playing it.... if you play it
on a very clean turntable with a good elliptical stylus, it is maybe good
for twenty plays at maximum before it starts sounding funny.

Listen to the inner groove too, and make sure it tracks well on each side.

The pressing plant will also give you the option of a dozen or so test
pressings before doing their main pressing run. This lets you make sure
the metalwork is good. With the test pressing, first make sure the hole
is centered, then listen to the inner grooves for distortion. Then put
them in a closet somewhere because you can sell them on ebay for some money
twenty years down the road.

Some folks will tell you that if you're only doing a run of a few hundred
pressings, like is common today, that it's not cost-effective to get a
test pressing because the cost to re-press a whole run isn't all that great.
Still, it makes me feel better to have it, and I suspect the sales to
collectors will more than pay for them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

alex > wrote:

> Il 06/08/2010 12.30, Mike Rivers ha scritto:
> > Richard Webb wrote:
> >
> >> I've had to tell more than one mastering guy "no no no,
> >> don't try to make it louder dammit!"
> >
> > Back in the phonograph record days, a friend of mine sent a tape to an
> > outfit that had a very good reputation for doing the whole job. When she
> > got the reference laquer (always a good idea) she discovered that they
> > had added reverb. When she asked why, the said "we just wanted to make
> > it sound more like the other girl folk singer records." She had them
> > re-cut it without the added reverb and it was fine.
> >
> Haha, Adding reverb build good reputations! ;-)
> Think how many satisfied client was positively impressed by this pratice
> over time...
> ok i will ask for a reference lacquer!

Once upon a time reverb was not available everywhere for cheap. Quite a
few mastering houses had good units and sometimes I took advantage of
that. It worked out well, because the mastering guy was good and I could
descrbie very clearly what I wanted.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[[email protected]]

On 2010-08-06 (hankalrich) said:
<snip>
>> > Back in the phonograph record days, a friend of mine sent a
>>tape to an > outfit that had a very good reputation for doing the
>>whole job. When she > got the reference laquer (always a good
>>idea) she discovered that they > had added reverb. When she asked
>>why, the said "we just wanted to make > it sound more like the
>>other girl folk singer records." She had them > re-cut it without
>>the added reverb and it was fine. >
>> Haha, Adding reverb build good reputations! ;-)
>> Think how many satisfied client was positively impressed by this
>>pratice over time...
>> ok i will ask for a reference lacquer!
>Once upon a time reverb was not available everywhere for cheap.
>Quite a few mastering houses had good units and sometimes I took
>advantage of that. It worked out well, because the mastering guy
>was good and I could descrbie very clearly what I wanted.
Indeed, good reverb required an effort to produce. Chambers
take some effort to construct, unlike buying a box and
putting it in the signal chain <gron>.
But, as this thread indicates, good communication with your
mastering engineer is required, especially if you can't
attend the session.




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Mike Rivers writes:

> Richard Webb wrote:

>> I've had to tell more than one mastering guy "no no no,
>> don't try to make it louder dammit!"

> Back in the phonograph record days, a friend of mine sent a tape to
> an outfit that had a very good reputation for doing the whole job.
> When she got the reference laquer (always a
> good idea) she discovered that they had added reverb. When
> she asked why, the said "we just wanted to make it sound
> more like the other girl folk singer records." She had them re-cut
> it without the added reverb and it was fine.


WOuld have done the same. THe outfit in CAlifornia we
worked with at one studio always sent me something to
approve in much the same way. tHey got so used to working
with me at the time that when I'd call them the guy we
worked with would say "yah I know, don't add any additional
compression, don't step on it."

> The purpose of a reference cut is to be sure that the master won't
> have a physical flaw (like a groove wall breakthrough) but if you
> have a problem with the sound of the reference,
> they'll usually re-cut it at no additional charge. If you
> wait for the test pressings, or worse, for the cartons of
> records to arrive and you find a problem, the re-work is on you,
> not the pressing plant or mastering lab. I assume that the CD
> package houses have a similar procedure for customer approval.

YEs they did, and I think I sent a couple back in our early
stages of the relationship. After that, no problems.



Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Some folks will tell you that if you're only doing a run of a few hundred
> pressings, like is common today, that it's not cost-effective to get a
> test pressing because the cost to re-press a whole run isn't all that great.
> Still, it makes me feel better to have it, and I suspect the sales to
> collectors will more than pay for them.

That's assuming that your recordings are collectable. If
they'll buy anything because it's a test pressing, I think I
still have a few left from the Sterling Kelly, world
greatest leaf player record.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Some folks will tell you that if you're only doing a run of a few hundred
>> pressings, like is common today, that it's not cost-effective to get a
>> test pressing because the cost to re-press a whole run isn't all that great.
>> Still, it makes me feel better to have it, and I suspect the sales to
>> collectors will more than pay for them.
>
>That's assuming that your recordings are collectable. If
>they'll buy anything because it's a test pressing, I think I
>still have a few left from the Sterling Kelly, world
>greatest leaf player record.

Put it up on ebay. If it says "Test Pressing" then SOMEONE will buy it.
Be sure to put "RARE" and "ONE OF A KIND LEAF MUSIC" in the title.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

On 2010-08-06 (ScottDorsey) said:
>Mike Rivers > wrote:
>>That's assuming that your recordings are collectable. If
>>they'll buy anything because it's a test pressing, I think I
>>still have a few left from the Sterling Kelly, world
>>greatest leaf player record.
>Put it up on ebay. If it says "Test Pressing" then SOMEONE will
>buy it. Be sure to put "RARE" and "ONE OF A KIND LEAF MUSIC" in the
>title.
THink this man's giving you a serious moneymaking tip here
MIke. Barnum's axiom applies here to the maximum.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[alex]

Il 06/08/2010 17.23, Scott Dorsey ha scritto:
> > wrote:
>> Il 06/08/2010 12.30, Mike Rivers ha scritto:
>>> Richard Webb wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've had to tell more than one mastering guy "no no no,
>>>> don't try to make it louder dammit!"
>>>
>>> Back in the phonograph record days, a friend of mine sent a tape to an
>>> outfit that had a very good reputation for doing the whole job. When she
>>> got the reference laquer (always a good idea) she discovered that they
>>> had added reverb. When she asked why, the said "we just wanted to make
>>> it sound more like the other girl folk singer records." She had them
>>> re-cut it without the added reverb and it was fine.
>>>
>> Haha, Adding reverb build good reputations! ;-)
>> Think how many satisfied client was positively impressed by this pratice
>> over time...
>> ok i will ask for a reference lacquer!
>
> When you get the reference, be VERY careful playing it.... if you play it
> on a very clean turntable with a good elliptical stylus, it is maybe good
> for twenty plays at maximum before it starts sounding funny.
>
> Listen to the inner groove too, and make sure it tracks well on each side.
>
> The pressing plant will also give you the option of a dozen or so test
> pressings before doing their main pressing run. This lets you make sure
> the metalwork is good. With the test pressing, first make sure the hole
> is centered, then listen to the inner grooves for distortion. Then put
> them in a closet somewhere because you can sell them on ebay for some money
> twenty years down the road.
>
> Some folks will tell you that if you're only doing a run of a few hundred
> pressings, like is common today, that it's not cost-effective to get a
> test pressing because the cost to re-press a whole run isn't all that great.
> Still, it makes me feel better to have it, and I suspect the sales to
> collectors will more than pay for them.
> --scott
I don't believe that we can sell some test records after two decades,
and i'm sure the print number will not be large, so probably we will
choose to have the test lacquer but not the test prints.
So if we accept the reference lacquer (because is good) and the "big"
print start, WE have to pay for another run in case of DISASTER?
That sound strange to me beacuse if reference is good and print is not,
is clear that something nasty happened inside the plant. That's a good
example of company liability and the lacquer will be a good proof.

I know they will offer us some ten copies for testing (and get payed for
this) to protect themself against a client that claim bad quality and
refuse to pay, but what happen in case of BIG problems, i mean a
complete different sound or skipping problems, if we choose not to get
the 10 test?

[alex]

Il 06/08/2010 17.23, Scott Dorsey ha scritto:
> > wrote:
>> Il 06/08/2010 12.30, Mike Rivers ha scritto:
>>> Richard Webb wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've had to tell more than one mastering guy "no no no,
>>>> don't try to make it louder dammit!"
>>>
>>> Back in the phonograph record days, a friend of mine sent a tape to an
>>> outfit that had a very good reputation for doing the whole job. When she
>>> got the reference laquer (always a good idea) she discovered that they
>>> had added reverb. When she asked why, the said "we just wanted to make
>>> it sound more like the other girl folk singer records." She had them
>>> re-cut it without the added reverb and it was fine.
>>>
>> Haha, Adding reverb build good reputations! ;-)
>> Think how many satisfied client was positively impressed by this pratice
>> over time...
>> ok i will ask for a reference lacquer!
>
> When you get the reference, be VERY careful playing it.... if you play it
> on a very clean turntable with a good elliptical stylus, it is maybe good
> for twenty plays at maximum before it starts sounding funny.
>
> Listen to the inner groove too, and make sure it tracks well on each side.
>
> The pressing plant will also give you the option of a dozen or so test
> pressings before doing their main pressing run. This lets you make sure
> the metalwork is good. With the test pressing, first make sure the hole
> is centered, then listen to the inner grooves for distortion. Then put
> them in a closet somewhere because you can sell them on ebay for some money
> twenty years down the road.
>
> Some folks will tell you that if you're only doing a run of a few hundred
> pressings, like is common today, that it's not cost-effective to get a
> test pressing because the cost to re-press a whole run isn't all that great.
> Still, it makes me feel better to have it, and I suspect the sales to
> collectors will more than pay for them.
> --scott

I don't believe that we can sell some test records after two decades,
and i'm sure the print number will not be large, so probably we will
choose to have the test lacquer but not the test prints.
So if we accept the reference lacquer (because is good) and the "big"
print start, WE have to pay for another run in case of DISASTER?
That sound strange to me beacuse if reference is good and print is not,
is clear that something nasty happened inside the plant. That's a good
example of company liability and the lacquer will be a good proof.

I know they will offer us some ten copies for testing (and get payed for
this) to protect themself against a client that claim bad quality and
refuse to pay, but what happen in case of BIG problems, i mean a
complete different sound or skipping problems, if we choose not to get
the 10 test?

There is some usual warranty on this topic?

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>I don't believe that we can sell some test records after two decades,
>and i'm sure the print number will not be large, so probably we will
>choose to have the test lacquer but not the test prints.
>So if we accept the reference lacquer (because is good) and the "big"
>print start, WE have to pay for another run in case of DISASTER?

Depends. If you're going through some broker, he'll probably have to
pay for it. But if you're sending the lacquer to be cut at a mastering
house, and then sending the lacquer to be plated in a plating house, and
then sending the metalwork to a pressing house... the pressing guys aren't
going to refund your money if the plating guys did something wrong.

If you're going through a broker or you're letting the pressing house
send the plating and mastering out themselves, then the responsibility
for testing isn't yours any more, but you'll also be paying more money too.

>That sound strange to me beacuse if reference is good and print is not,
>is clear that something nasty happened inside the plant. That's a good
>example of company liability and the lacquer will be a good proof.

There are very few plants left that actually do everything under one
roof; Music Industries in Amsterdam is the one I can think of off the
top of my head. Almost everybody sends their plating work out, in part
because of the EPA issues. The guys doing plating today are almost
universally good; in the current market they couldn't survive if they
weren't. But sometimes things go wrong.

>I know they will offer us some ten copies for testing (and get payed for
>this) to protect themself against a client that claim bad quality and
>refuse to pay, but what happen in case of BIG problems, i mean a
>complete different sound or skipping problems, if we choose not to get
>the 10 test?

That depends on the contracts you signed and how good a customer you are.

And things like skipping issues are often a real judgement call; I can
cut a record with wide and fast excursion that a good audiophile setup
would have no trouble playing, but would turn into distortion and skipping
on a DJ turntable. Is this a bad thing? Depends on the market. If you
are trying to sell to the DJ market it's best if you can make something that
will play on a Close 'N Play without skipping. If you're trying to sell
to the audiophile market, by all means make it as hard to track as you think
you can get away with.

Oh, you should also know that the test pressings will be noisier than the
real pressings in most cases... that's just what happens with brand new
metalwork and a press that is only barely up to temperature. When you
actually get the run, you'll notice the early ones are a little noisier,
then around #50 they quiet down, then by around number 1000 the distortion
starts to pick up noticeably. Some folks will run 2000 off on a stamper
but I wouldn't dare run more than a thousand.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:

> >Be sure to put "RARE" and "ONE OF A KIND LEAF MUSIC" in the
> >title.
> THink this man's giving you a serious moneymaking tip here
> MIke. Barnum's axiom applies here to the maximum.

Isn't that the best way to sell anything on eBay? Remind
people that it's rare? Used to be that the only things you'd
find on eBay were indeed rare or at least unusual, but not
any more.

And speaking of vinyl records, August 12 is Vinyl Record Day
this year. Play a vinyl record. To celebrate, Bluegrass
Country is playing all vinyl all day, 9 AM to 9 PM Eastern
time. I can't think of anything better than bluegrass and
country music to celebrate with.

http://www.bluegrasscountry.org to listen, or plug
mms://wamu-2.streamguys.com into your media player.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Mike Rivers]

alex wrote:

> I don't believe that we can sell some test records after two decades,
> and i'm sure the print number will not be large, so probably we will
> choose to have the test lacquer but not the test prints.
> So if we accept the reference lacquer (because is good) and the "big"
> print start, WE have to pay for another run in case of DISASTER?

Well, you'll have to argue with the pressing plant. It
depends on what the problem is. If you just don't like it,
you'll probably have to eat the pressing run and get a new
master cut. If it has a pop or some noise in it that wasn't
on the reference lacquer, that means something went wrong
during the plating process. That's where you'll need to
argue. Really, the pressing plant should have inspected the
metal parts (some have facilities to play them) but most
consider that getting a test pressing is like buying
insurance. If you disapprove it at that point, they'll look
into the problem, but if you don't (either because you
didn't get a test pressing or didn't catch the glitch) then
you missed your chance at quality control.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> alex wrote:
>
> > I don't believe that we can sell some test records after two decades,
> > and i'm sure the print number will not be large, so probably we will
> > choose to have the test lacquer but not the test prints.
> > So if we accept the reference lacquer (because is good) and the "big"
> > print start, WE have to pay for another run in case of DISASTER?
>
> Well, you'll have to argue with the pressing plant. It
> depends on what the problem is. If you just don't like it,
> you'll probably have to eat the pressing run and get a new
> master cut. If it has a pop or some noise in it that wasn't
> on the reference lacquer, that means something went wrong
> during the plating process. That's where you'll need to
> argue. Really, the pressing plant should have inspected the
> metal parts (some have facilities to play them) but most
> consider that getting a test pressing is like buying
> insurance. If you disapprove it at that point, they'll look
> into the problem, but if you don't (either because you
> didn't get a test pressing or didn't catch the glitch) then
> you missed your chance at quality control.

I'll put it this way: I didn't get a test pressing of the first single I
produced. After that experience I got a test pressing of every record I
did.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[[email protected]]

On 2010-08-07 (hankalrich) said:
<snip>
>> Really, the pressing plant should have inspected the
>> metal parts (some have facilities to play them) but most
>> consider that getting a test pressing is like buying
>> insurance. If you disapprove it at that point, they'll look
>> into the problem, but if you don't (either because you
>> didn't get a test pressing or didn't catch the glitch) then
>> you missed your chance at quality control.
>I'll put it this way: I didn't get a test pressing of the first
>single I produced. After that experience I got a test pressing of
>every record I did.

I never went without getting one back in the day. I was
just taught by those more clued up than I was that it was
part of the process.


Regards,




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers writes:
>> THink this man's giving you a serious moneymaking tip here
>> MIke. Barnum's axiom applies here to the maximum.
>Isn't that the best way to sell anything on eBay? Remind
>people that it's rare? Used to be that the only things you'd
>find on eBay were indeed rare or at least unusual, but not
>any more.

My xyl tried to sell some rarities on fleabay. Nobody bit.
THey went from storage place to storage place, and finally
up in smoke during the big post Katrina house fire. Had
just removed them from storage unit storage to storage off
the utility room. <oh well>.


>And speaking of vinyl records, August 12 is Vinyl Record Day
>this year. Play a vinyl record. To celebrate, Bluegrass
>Country is playing all vinyl all day, 9 AM to 9 PM Eastern
>time. I can't think of anything better than bluegrass and
>country music to celebrate with.

Yah, sure would. Kathy actually had quite a collection,
some old jazz 78's, etc. Iirc I still had some of my old
prog rock on vinyl too. Since it was played so rarely a lot
of it had migrated to dat and was gradually making it
through the masterlink to cd, especially the rare stuff that
wasn't being released digitally, except possibly mp3 boot
stuff.

Believe it or not, I don't own even one piece of vinyl
media, or anything to play it with at the moment.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com



Great audio is never heard by the average person, but bad
audio is heard by everyone.

[polymod]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...

> And speaking of vinyl records, August 12 is Vinyl Record Day
> this year. Play a vinyl record.

Hey, thanks!
I can proudly say I'm on a vinyl record. I'll have to mark that date in my
book.
Now I just have to dig out the turntable from in back of the Christmas
decorations<g>

Poly

[PStamler]

The story about the mastering engineer who added reverb unbidden
touched a nerve.

I once did a CD premaster and sent it to a local mastering house to
get the glass master made. Told them not to do ANYTHING to it, just
that emphatically: no level changes, no EQ, no reverb, no compression,
no limiting, no nothing. What I sent him was what I wanted back.

And of course what I got back didn't sound much like I sent. I called
the guy, asked him what he'd done to it. He swore he hadn't done
anything, except of course normalizing each track...

So I told him to cut me one without doing that. And he did. And I
swore I'd never use that joint again. And I haven't.

Of course, things happen even at good houses. I once sent something to
Oasis, mastered on DAT, told them notto change anything. Oasis I
trust...but it came back not sounding right. There happened to be a
little tick on it, and while it had been a clean tick originally, the
one I got back had Gibbs phernomenon pre-ringing added. Which it
shouldn't have.

I talked to their guy, and found out that all the stuff which came in
on DAT got copied digitally to CD-R, and it turns out their CD-R
recorder was one of those that did a sample rate conversion on all
incoming material, even if it was at 44.1kHz. So I bought a CD burner
and learned how to make discs on it (this was when they were pretty
new) and remastered the disc on that. They cut a glass master from
that just fine.

All of which proves that whoever you have cutting, whatever they're
cutting, you need to check their work carefully.

Peace,
Paul

[alex]

Il 08/08/2010 4.13, PStamler ha scritto:
> The story about the mastering engineer who added reverb unbidden
> touched a nerve.
>
> I once did a CD premaster and sent it to a local mastering house to
> get the glass master made. Told them not to do ANYTHING to it, just
> that emphatically: no level changes, no EQ, no reverb, no compression,
> no limiting, no nothing. What I sent him was what I wanted back.
>
> And of course what I got back didn't sound much like I sent. I called
> the guy, asked him what he'd done to it. He swore he hadn't done
> anything, except of course normalizing each track...
>
> So I told him to cut me one without doing that. And he did. And I
> swore I'd never use that joint again. And I haven't.
>
> Of course, things happen even at good houses. I once sent something to
> Oasis, mastered on DAT, told them notto change anything. Oasis I
> trust...but it came back not sounding right. There happened to be a
> little tick on it, and while it had been a clean tick originally, the
> one I got back had Gibbs phernomenon pre-ringing added. Which it
> shouldn't have.
>
> I talked to their guy, and found out that all the stuff which came in
> on DAT got copied digitally to CD-R, and it turns out their CD-R
> recorder was one of those that did a sample rate conversion on all
> incoming material, even if it was at 44.1kHz. So I bought a CD burner
> and learned how to make discs on it (this was when they were pretty
> new) and remastered the disc on that. They cut a glass master from
> that just fine.
>
> All of which proves that whoever you have cutting, whatever they're
> cutting, you need to check their work carefully.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

on every cd works i do, i send to the pressing plant two exact copies of
the pre-mastered cd (one for backup because cdr are just a little bit
safer than floppies...). Before the shipment i rip the cd with EAC
(exact audio copy) and i store the image file and cue to hd.
Once i get a printed copy, i rip it again and i do a bit-bit comparision
to ensure everything is exactly like the copies i sent.
Not so easy for a lacquer reference to be judged ok!!!

[alex]

Il 08/08/2010 4.13, PStamler ha scritto:
> All of which proves that whoever you have cutting, whatever they're
> cutting, you need to check their work carefully.
on every cd work i do, i send to the pressing plant two exact copies of
the pre-mastered cd (one for backup, because cdr are just a little bit
safer than floppies...).
Before the shipment i rip the cd with EAC (exact audio copy) and i store
the image file and cue to hd.
Once i get a printed copy, i rip it again and i do a bit-bit comparision
to ensure everything is exactly like the copies i sent.
Not so easy for a lacquer reference to be judged ok!!!

[[email protected]]

Paul writes:
>> I once did a CD premaster and sent it to a local mastering house
>>to get the glass master made. Told them not to do ANYTHING to it,
>>just that emphatically: no level changes, no EQ, no reverb, no
>>compression, no limiting, no nothing. What I sent him was what I
>wanted back. >
>> And of course what I got back didn't sound much like I sent. I
>>called the guy, asked him what he'd done to it. He swore he
>>hadn't done anything, except of course normalizing each track...
>> So I told him to cut me one without doing that. And he did. And I
>> swore I'd never use that joint again. And I haven't.

Yep, been there done that. I've told a couple that when I
tell them don't step on it I mean don't touch it, except for
adding the pq subcode etc. not to touch it if I say don't
touch it, and I specifically mention "don't normalize it."



I always listen carefully to work I get back from other
places if I wasn't there during the process.

Regards,



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Swanny[_2_]]

On 7/08/2010 6:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> Some folks will tell you that if you're only doing a run of a few hundred
>>> pressings, like is common today, that it's not cost-effective to get a
>>> test pressing because the cost to re-press a whole run isn't all that great.
>>> Still, it makes me feel better to have it, and I suspect the sales to
>>> collectors will more than pay for them.
>>
>> That's assuming that your recordings are collectable. If
>> they'll buy anything because it's a test pressing, I think I
>> still have a few left from the Sterling Kelly, world
>> greatest leaf player record.
>
> Put it up on ebay. If it says "Test Pressing" then SOMEONE will buy it.
> Be sure to put "RARE" and "ONE OF A KIND LEAF MUSIC" in the title.
> --scott
>

Interesting, I never thought of that. I have hundreds of test pressings
from 1970's acts (Supertramp, ELO etc) but never thought they were worth
anything. Test pressings were also often given out to radio stations as
pre-release copies, back in the days when the music industry had to beg
for airplay.