Thoughts on iZotope Ozone 5?

[Paul[_13_]]

Just wondering if anyone here has experience with this mastering
package:

http://www.swee****er.com/store/detail/Ozone5/

It comes highly recommended, overall.

[Nate Najar]

Don't do it.

Unless you really know what you're doing, all this package will be is an opportunity to royally screw up your work. If you have enough knowledge and experience to use it effectively and not harmfully then you wouldn't want it anyway because you would use other tools.

If you want mastering type plugins to get your feet wet, get the fabfilter pro c, pro q and pro l. But don't get ozone.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/14/2014 10:11 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
> Don't do it.
>
> Unless you really know what you're doing, all this package will be is an opportunity to royally screw up your work. If you have enough knowledge and experience to use it effectively and not harmfully then you wouldn't want it anyway because you would use other tools.
>
> If you want mastering type plugins to get your feet wet, get the fabfilter pro c, pro q and pro l. But don't get ozone.
>

Well, the complete package for Fabfilter was around $1,000, which
is not in my budget.

I went ahead and got Ozone 5, and after playing around with it for
a while, I like what it's doing for one of my mixes.

The harmonic exciter in particular is very good. Really brings out
the high-hat, and pretty much everything else. Seems to have good
sounding reverb algorithms as well. But of course, the mix has to be
good in the first place. This is all icing on the cake, as they say.

There is quite a bit in this package....will report back when I've
explored it more.....

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
>On 5/14/2014 10:11 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
>> Don't do it.
>>
>> Unless you really know what you're doing, all this package will be is an opportunity to royally screw up your work. If you have enough knowledge and experience to use it effectively and not harmfully then you wouldn't want it anyway because you would use other tools.
>>
>> If you want mastering type plugins to get your feet wet, get the fabfilter pro c, pro q and pro l. But don't get ozone.
>>
>
> Well, the complete package for Fabfilter was around $1,000, which
>is not in my budget.
>
> I went ahead and got Ozone 5, and after playing around with it for
>a while, I like what it's doing for one of my mixes.
>
> The harmonic exciter in particular is very good. Really brings out
>the high-hat, and pretty much everything else. Seems to have good
>sounding reverb algorithms as well. But of course, the mix has to be
>good in the first place. This is all icing on the cake, as they say.

See, that's EXACTLY why Nate said what he did.

Let me explain to you a little bit. Do you remember the Pepsi Challenge where
they give people sips of two sodas and they always pick Pepsi? It turns out
that in an experiment like that with a small sample, people will always pick
the sweetest drink, even if with a little more drinking they realize they
prefer the other one.

Brightness is like that. If you give people two samples and a quick listen,
they will always pick the one with more high frequency content.

The aural exciter is a device that adds harmonic distortion in order to make
things artificially bright. It is a useful tool if you are trying to salvage
bad material with missing high end. It is an important component in the
1970s disco sound. But it is a tool that can be very, very badly overused,
and in most cases even a tiny bit of it is overuse.

Please listen to Nate.

> There is quite a bit in this package....will report back when I've
>explored it more.....

There are a lot of ways you can ruin your sound with the various tools in
there, but there are none so insidious as the aural exciter.
--scott

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

[Nate Najar]

The fabfilter pro c, pro q and pro l bundle "mastering bundle" is $569

http://www.fabfilter.com/shop/mastering-bundle

And provides good sounding, easy to use useful tools. And there's a 30 day fully functional demo.

But you've already spent your money it seems. Ozone is more than capable, it's just extremely capable of messing everything up. Don't be tempted, less is more in nearly every case.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/15/2014 5:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> The harmonic exciter in particular is very good. Really brings out
>> the high-hat, and pretty much everything else. Seems to have good
>> sounding reverb algorithms as well. But of course, the mix has to be
>> good in the first place. This is all icing on the cake, as they say.
>
> See, that's EXACTLY why Nate said what he did.
>
> Let me explain to you a little bit. Do you remember the Pepsi Challenge where
> they give people sips of two sodas and they always pick Pepsi? It turns out
> that in an experiment like that with a small sample, people will always pick
> the sweetest drink, even if with a little more drinking they realize they
> prefer the other one.
>
> Brightness is like that. If you give people two samples and a quick listen,
> they will always pick the one with more high frequency content.
>

Same thing with loudness. The louder sample is better. Hence the
loudness wars, and the over-use of peak-limiters and Maximizers, and
Optimods on the radio.

I checked a mix in a client's car recently, and after the track
was over, he turned on the radio, and complained that the radio stations
were louder. I had to explain to him that they often use Optimods to
the extreme on the radio, to "catch" a listener's ear who may be
searching the dial, so that it's not a fair comparison to compare with a
radio signal.

Hell, with the loudness wars still in full swing, it's not good
to compare to some CDs!


> The aural exciter is a device that adds harmonic distortion in order to make
> things artificially bright. It is a useful tool if you are trying to salvage
> bad material with missing high end. It is an important component in the
> 1970s disco sound. But it is a tool that can be very, very badly overused,
> and in most cases even a tiny bit of it is overuse.
>
> Please listen to Nate.
>
>> There is quite a bit in this package....will report back when I've
>> explored it more.....
>
> There are a lot of ways you can ruin your sound with the various tools in
> there, but there are none so insidious as the aural exciter.
> --scott
>

Would you say that if you have to use the harmonic exciter, that
technically, the mix was improperly done, with not enough high end?

Do most mastering houses try to avoid using it? Or do they all
end up using it to some degree, in a sort of "brightness war" with
other studios?

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/15/2014 5:57 AM, Nate Najar wrote:
> The fabfilter pro c, pro q and pro l bundle "mastering bundle" is $569
>
> http://www.fabfilter.com/shop/mastering-bundle
>
> And provides good sounding, easy to use useful tools. And there's a 30 day fully functional demo.
>
> But you've already spent your money it seems. Ozone is more than capable, it's just extremely capable of messing everything up. Don't be tempted, less is more in nearly every case.
>

$570 is better, but still on the high end for me at this time.

It looks like the Saturn distortion plug-in is the aural exciter
equivalent:


http://www.fabfilter.com/products/saturn-multiband-distortion-saturation-plug-in

Do you try to avoid using the harmonic exciter?

I would assume it's a more useful tool for Electronica, House,
Hip-hop, and Techno type music, than Jazz on a nylon string guitar....

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
> Would you say that if you have to use the harmonic exciter, that
>technically, the mix was improperly done, with not enough high end?

Oh, I'd never use it on a whole mix. It's a thing you might use on one or
two tracks. If you had to use it on a whole mix something would be terribly,
terribly wrong.

_Unless_ you were deliberately aiming for that glassy seventies sound, which
someone might if they were trying to do something that was supposed to sound
of that vintage.

It's a very powerful tool, like a sledgehammer. When you need it, you're
glad you have it.

> Do most mastering houses try to avoid using it? Or do they all
>end up using it to some degree, in a sort of "brightness war" with
>other studios?

I would be horrified if a mastering engineer used it on anything, unless
they were specifically going for that Abba sound. I don't think I have
seen an exciter in a mastering room in years.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
>
> It looks like the Saturn distortion plug-in is the aural exciter
>equivalent:
>
>http://www.fabfilter.com/products/saturn-multiband-distortion-saturation-plug-in

No, that's a different thing. That's actually a tool designed to create
a variety of distortion effects. You could use it to make an aural exciter
sound, but you could also use it for more grungy distortion as well because
it allows you to tailor the distortion spectrum.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/15/2014 6:56 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Paul > wrote:
>> Would you say that if you have to use the harmonic exciter, that
>> technically, the mix was improperly done, with not enough high end?
>
> Oh, I'd never use it on a whole mix. It's a thing you might use on one or
> two tracks. If you had to use it on a whole mix something would be terribly,
> terribly wrong.
>
> _Unless_ you were deliberately aiming for that glassy seventies sound, which
> someone might if they were trying to do something that was supposed to sound
> of that vintage.
>
> It's a very powerful tool, like a sledgehammer. When you need it, you're
> glad you have it.
>
>> Do most mastering houses try to avoid using it? Or do they all
>> end up using it to some degree, in a sort of "brightness war" with
>> other studios?
>
> I would be horrified if a mastering engineer used it on anything, unless
> they were specifically going for that Abba sound. I don't think I have
> seen an exciter in a mastering room in years.
> --scott
>

I see. More like a precision tool to be applied to a specific track.

Since stem-mastering is advocated by some, would you be adverse to
applying a harmonic exciter to an individual stem, or sub-mix, of say,
only the drum kit, for example?

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:26:08 AM UTC-4, Paul wrote:
> On 5/15/2014 6:56 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > In article >, Paul > wrote:
>
> >> Would you say that if you have to use the harmonic exciter, that
>
> >> technically, the mix was improperly done, with not enough high end?
>
> >
>
> > Oh, I'd never use it on a whole mix. It's a thing you might use on one or
>
> > two tracks. If you had to use it on a whole mix something would be terribly,
>
> > terribly wrong.
>
> >
>
> > _Unless_ you were deliberately aiming for that glassy seventies sound, which
>
> > someone might if they were trying to do something that was supposed to sound
>
> > of that vintage.
>
> >
>
> > It's a very powerful tool, like a sledgehammer. When you need it, you're
>
> > glad you have it.
>
> >
>
> >> Do most mastering houses try to avoid using it? Or do they all
>
> >> end up using it to some degree, in a sort of "brightness war" with
>
> >> other studios?
>
> >
>
> > I would be horrified if a mastering engineer used it on anything, unless
>
> > they were specifically going for that Abba sound. I don't think I have
>
> > seen an exciter in a mastering room in years.
>
> > --scott
>
> >
>
>
>
> I see. More like a precision tool to be applied to a specific track..
>
>
>
> Since stem-mastering is advocated by some, would you be adverse to
>
> applying a harmonic exciter to an individual stem, or sub-mix, of say,
>
> only the drum kit, for example?

it's interesting, after years and years growing up with cassettes tapes and other media where there was unwanted rolloff at the high end and you always were struggling to get enough treble, it is ingrained in me to turn the treble up a bit. Now that we have digital media where the response is essentially perfect, I have to convince myself that it is OK to turn the treble down. I am finding once I have convinced myself it is OK to do that :-) I actually like the sound that is a little warm and less ice cold.

Mark

[Nate Najar]

Never use presets!

[jason]

On 15 May 2014 12:01:45 -0700 "Tixe" > wrote in
article >
>

>
> The one downside is that, if you just buy Ozone 5, you need to use the
> components as packaged presets -- you can use the individual pieces (e.g., just
> EQ) by themselves. However, for some more money, you can use the individual
> pieces on their own. This is something you need to take into account in
> comparing Ozone 5 to other solutions. However, few other solutions offer such
> extensive and carefully honed presets to get you started.

I don't know which DAW the OP is using, but if it's Audition it ships
with the individual Ozone 5 components as individual effects.

I can't verify this, but from a fair bit of reading it seems that the
quality of the DSP algorithms in the Izotope products is highly regarded.

Whether you buy it or not, there are some *long* and interesting
tutorials on the Izotope website. I learned more than I thought I'd ever
want to know about dithering from one of them for example.

Jason

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/15/2014 12:11 PM, Tixe wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 06:35:21 -0700, in article >,
> Paul stated:
>>
>> On 5/15/2014 5:57 AM, Nate Najar wrote:
>>> The fabfilter pro c, pro q and pro l bundle "mastering bundle" is $569
>>>
>>> http://www.fabfilter.com/shop/mastering-bundle
>>>
>>> And provides good sounding, easy to use useful tools. And there's a 30 day
>>> fully functional demo.
>>>
>>> But you've already spent your money it seems. Ozone is more than capable, it's
>>> just extremely capable of messing everything up. Don't be tempted, less is more
>>> in nearly every case.
>>>
>>
>> $570 is better, but still on the high end for me at this time.
>>
>> It looks like the Saturn distortion plug-in is the aural exciter
>> equivalent:
>>
>>
>> http://www.fabfilter.com/products/saturn-multiband-distortion-saturation-plug-in
>>
>> Do you try to avoid using the harmonic exciter?
>>
>> I would assume it's a more useful tool for Electronica, House,
>> Hip-hop, and Techno type music, than Jazz on a nylon string guitar....
>>
>>
>
>
> It's probably overkill for most things. And there are things you probably
> already have that can do the same thing, if properly used. For instance, putting
> Ableton Live's Amp audio effect on a vocal, with the right settings (which are
> generally very much on the subtle side relatively to how you'd use it with a
> guitar), will do pretty much everything that you can do to a vocal with an
> "exciter," an EQ and compression.
>

It's clear after watching the fabfilter videos, that you can ruin
a track with ANY of these mastering packages! Of course, one man's
"ruin" can be another man's "perfection".

Yes, I've used "Da Tube" that comes with Cubase 5, to dirty up a
too-clean vocal track. Worked great.

But after re-listening to what I did last night with the harmonic
exciter, I have to say it's very clearly a form of distortion, and
although it may bring certain elements to the front, it comes at the
price of less clarity.

For demo CDs, simple peak limiting/maximizing can be good enough
to get your overall volumes set, but I look forward to exploring
Ozone 5's multiband compression and reverb, etc.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/15/2014 12:22 PM, Jason wrote:
> On 15 May 2014 12:01:45 -0700 "Tixe" > wrote in
> article >
>>
>
>>
>> The one downside is that, if you just buy Ozone 5, you need to use the
>> components as packaged presets -- you can use the individual pieces (e.g., just
>> EQ) by themselves. However, for some more money, you can use the individual
>> pieces on their own. This is something you need to take into account in
>> comparing Ozone 5 to other solutions. However, few other solutions offer such
>> extensive and carefully honed presets to get you started.
>
> I don't know which DAW the OP is using, but if it's Audition it ships
> with the individual Ozone 5 components as individual effects.
>
> I can't verify this, but from a fair bit of reading it seems that the
> quality of the DSP algorithms in the Izotope products is highly regarded.
>
> Whether you buy it or not, there are some *long* and interesting
> tutorials on the Izotope website. I learned more than I thought I'd ever
> want to know about dithering from one of them for example.
>

I'm using Cubase, and Ozone 5 shows up not only as a
Mastering tool, but the individual components like reverb,
EQ, dynamics, etc., also show up as individual VSTs on each
channel.

[geoff]

On 16/05/2014 2:26 a.m., Paul wrote:

>
> Since stem-mastering is advocated by some, would you be adverse to
> applying a harmonic exciter to an individual stem, or sub-mix, of say,
> only the drum kit, for example?


"Stem Mastering" - that'd be 'Mixing" then ;-)


No, actually I can appreciate the concept, but does it preclude
subsequent overall mastering ?

And Aural Exciters - Just because the is one in the Ozone suite, doesn't
mean the suite is unusable ! Just because one's toolkit has an impact
driver doesn't mean one should use it on everything - but that should be
made clear, and possibly is in Ozone and other tutorials, even on Youtube !

geoff

[geoff]

On 16/05/2014 7:22 a.m., Tixe wrote:

>
>
> Agree. It is too indiscriminate to use on a master channel unless you are going
> for some kind of special effect. Much more a tool to be used in specific tracks
> / sounds, gently, as needed.
>

Ozone have a plugin called Trash, which could do something similar
(intentionally) ;-)

geoff

[geoff]

On 16/05/2014 1:58 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Paul > wrote:
>>
>> It looks like the Saturn distortion plug-in is the aural exciter
>> equivalent:
>>
>> http://www.fabfilter.com/products/saturn-multiband-distortion-saturation-plug-in
>
> No, that's a different thing. That's actually a tool designed to create
> a variety of distortion effects. You could use it to make an aural exciter
> sound, but you could also use it for more grungy distortion as well because
> it allows you to tailor the distortion spectrum.
> --scott
>


Neil Young could build it into his Pono thang !

geoff

[geoff]

On 16/05/2014 7:08 a.m., Nate Najar wrote:
> Never use presets!
>


I find them a great starting point, and a learning aide.

geoff

[Nate Najar]

The izotope src algorithm is one of the best. It is also used as oem in many other software packages.

[hank alrich]

Paul > wrote:

> There is quite a bit in this package....will report back when I've
> explored it more.....

Oh, that's okay, save the time. I am pretty sure the package will be
quite satisfied when it's finished with you.

That you're all a-jigger over the aural exciter is not a good sign here.

Please don't start thinking that running the bits of this software
represents proper professional audio mastering work.

Listen to Nate, and Scott. Et al.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Paul wrote:
> On 5/15/2014 6:56 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
<snip>
> I see. More like a precision tool to be applied to a specific track.
>
> Since stem-mastering is advocated by some,

Meh. As an effect, maybe.

> would you be adverse to
> applying a harmonic exciter to an individual stem, or sub-mix, of say,
> only the drum kit, for example?


You can do the harmonic distortion part with a wave shaper.

http://www.rs-met.com/freebies.html

For *even* harmonic distortion, I actually use a Fulltone
GT-500 guitar pedal or the Chebyshev models in FuncShaper.

A little dab 'll do ya. Use very, very sparingly. FuncShaper is
excellent on electric bass. It'll get you more apparent volume while
using less actual bandwidth.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 16/05/2014 7:08 a.m., Nate Najar wrote:
>> Never use presets!
>
>I find them a great starting point, and a learning aide.

Depends on the equipment. A lot of gear today has presets that are
very exaggerated, in an attempt to show how dramatic an effect is
possible, when what you probably want to actually be doing with the
device is much more subtle.

There is some gear out there where the presets are good starting points
but there are a whole lot of devices out there where they aren't even that
now.
--scott

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

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/14/2014 10:11 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
> Don't do it.
>
> Unless you really know what you're doing, all this package will be is an opportunity to royally screw up your work. If you have enough knowledge and experience to use it effectively and not harmfully then you wouldn't want it anyway because you would use other tools.
>
> If you want mastering type plugins to get your feet wet, get the fabfilter pro c, pro q and pro l. But don't get ozone.
>

But wouldn't you agree, Nate, that one can screw up a mix with ANY
mastering package? Also, since everything is already in the digital
domain, how much better can one digital FIR filter be over another?
Unless you really believe the Fabfilter compression and filtering
algorithms are truly better, that they have done more research, but
if you look at the iZotope website, it appears they have done their
homework too. And as most of us engineers know, with so much hiring
from your competition, trade secrets don't stay secret very long.

Although I understand the huge advantage to hiring a 2nd pair of
experienced ears on your music, as well as a different room, the last
time I sent a mix to a so-called "professional" mastering lab, the guy
completely squashed and WAY over-compressed everything. He may have
been better in other music genres, but he
clearly didn't understand my intention with MY music. Which is proof
you can have the million dollar equipment, and still misunderstand the
customer. Not many mastering houses allow the customer to watch them
work, which I understand, because I don't like bands hanging around
while I mix.

But this has led many home studios to do their own mastering, so
they have something to give a professional to reference, as to what they
are shooting for. And if they cannot find someone that beats their
version, then they do it themselves. This is what I plan to do with
my next album.

Certainly Ozone 5 will be sufficient for demo CD work, which is
the bulk of my work with local bands....

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
>
> But wouldn't you agree, Nate, that one can screw up a mix with ANY
>mastering package? Also, since everything is already in the digital
>domain, how much better can one digital FIR filter be over another?
>Unless you really believe the Fabfilter compression and filtering
>algorithms are truly better, that they have done more research, but
>if you look at the iZotope website, it appears they have done their
>homework too. And as most of us engineers know, with so much hiring
>from your competition, trade secrets don't stay secret very long.

His argument is not that they are better, but that it is harder to shoot
yourself in the foot with them.

The Izotope package is excellent software, but it is very powerful. You
do not hand a machine gun to someone who has never shot a B-B gun yet.

> Although I understand the huge advantage to hiring a 2nd pair of
>experienced ears on your music, as well as a different room, the last
>time I sent a mix to a so-called "professional" mastering lab, the guy
>completely squashed and WAY over-compressed everything. He may have
>been better in other music genres, but he
>clearly didn't understand my intention with MY music. Which is proof
>you can have the million dollar equipment, and still misunderstand the
>customer.

And this is why unattended mastering sessions aren't a good idea. Go to
the mastering sesion and the mastering engineer will learn what you want
and you'll learn what he is hearing.

Not many mastering houses allow the customer to watch them
>work, which I understand, because I don't like bands hanging around
>while I mix.

I have never, ever heard of a mastering house that didn't allow attended
sessions and I would certainly never hire one that did. What would be the
point?

I know a lot of mastering houses that charge more for attended sessions,
but you get what you pay for.

> But this has led many home studios to do their own mastering, so
>they have something to give a professional to reference, as to what they
>are shooting for. And if they cannot find someone that beats their
>version, then they do it themselves. This is what I plan to do with
>my next album.

And this, in short, is why so many new releases sound so bad.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Nate Najar]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 9:15:35 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Paul > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > But wouldn't you agree, Nate, that one can screw up a mix with ANY
>
> >mastering package? Also, since everything is already in the digital
>
> >domain, how much better can one digital FIR filter be over another?
>
> >Unless you really believe the Fabfilter compression and filtering
>
> >algorithms are truly better, that they have done more research, but
>
> >if you look at the iZotope website, it appears they have done their
>
> >homework too. And as most of us engineers know, with so much hiring
>
> >from your competition, trade secrets don't stay secret very long.
>
>
>
> His argument is not that they are better, but that it is harder to shoot
>
> yourself in the foot with them.
>
>
>
> The Izotope package is excellent software, but it is very powerful. You
>
> do not hand a machine gun to someone who has never shot a B-B gun yet.
>
>
>
> > Although I understand the huge advantage to hiring a 2nd pair of
>
> >experienced ears on your music, as well as a different room, the last
>
> >time I sent a mix to a so-called "professional" mastering lab, the guy
>
> >completely squashed and WAY over-compressed everything. He may have
>
> >been better in other music genres, but he
>
> >clearly didn't understand my intention with MY music. Which is proof
>
> >you can have the million dollar equipment, and still misunderstand the
>
> >customer.
>
>
>
> And this is why unattended mastering sessions aren't a good idea. Go to
>
> the mastering sesion and the mastering engineer will learn what you want
>
> and you'll learn what he is hearing.
>
>
>
> Not many mastering houses allow the customer to watch them
>
> >work, which I understand, because I don't like bands hanging around
>
> >while I mix.
>
>
>
> I have never, ever heard of a mastering house that didn't allow attended
>
> sessions and I would certainly never hire one that did. What would be the
>
> point?
>
>
>
> I know a lot of mastering houses that charge more for attended sessions,
>
> but you get what you pay for.
>
>
>
> > But this has led many home studios to do their own mastering, so
>
> >they have something to give a professional to reference, as to what they
>
> >are shooting for. And if they cannot find someone that beats their
>
> >version, then they do it themselves. This is what I plan to do with
>
> >my next album.
>
>
>
> And this, in short, is why so many new releases sound so bad.
>
> --scott
>
> --
>
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I don't really need to respond to this last query Paul because Scott said it perfectly.

If you don't listen to me, listen to Scott and Hank, et al.

I suggest the fabfilter because it sounds good, has a good interface and is relatively easy to use. There are many, many other comp/eq/limiter plugins I could suggest to you that would accomplish the same thing.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/16/2014 6:15 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> His argument is not that they are better, but that it is harder to shoot
> yourself in the foot with them.
>
> The Izotope package is excellent software, but it is very powerful. You
> do not hand a machine gun to someone who has never shot a B-B gun yet.
>

Agreed. After re-listening to my harmonic exciter version, I
realized I just shot a bunch of holes in my mix!

Low end somehow got lost, and while the high end is accentuated,
it's also more distorted.

No worries, as this was only a quick test, but yes, this stuff is
dangerous! I'll turn the exciter off, and learn the rest of the
package first...


>
> I have never, ever heard of a mastering house that didn't allow attended
> sessions and I would certainly never hire one that did. What would be the
> point?
>
> I know a lot of mastering houses that charge more for attended sessions,
> but you get what you pay for.
>
>> But this has led many home studios to do their own mastering, so
>> they have something to give a professional to reference, as to what they
>> are shooting for. And if they cannot find someone that beats their
>> version, then they do it themselves. This is what I plan to do with
>> my next album.
>
> And this, in short, is why so many new releases sound so bad.
> --scott
>

Ok, I'm going to hire a pro and attend the session for my album
for sure.

Appreciate the advice.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/16/2014 8:32 AM, Nate Najar wrote:

>
> I don't really need to respond to this last query Paul because Scott said it perfectly.
>
> If you don't listen to me, listen to Scott and Hank, et al.
>
> I suggest the fabfilter because it sounds good, has a good interface and is relatively easy to use. There are many, many other comp/eq/limiter plugins I could suggest to you that would accomplish the same thing.
>
>

Your input is appreciated, and you're right, less is more with this
stuff. Very powerful.

No need to suggest anything else at this point. I've got enough
learning to do with just ONE package!

:)

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
>
> Ok, I'm going to hire a pro and attend the session for my album
>for sure.
>
> Appreciate the advice.

It's well worth doing if only for the experience and because it's an
opportunity to find out what is in your material that you never noticed
before.

And the mastering engineer might say "This sounds fine, there's no need
for any further processing" and that verification is worth paying for too.

Where are you located?
--scott


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

[hank alrich]

Paul > wrote:

> On 5/14/2014 10:11 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
> > Don't do it.
> >
> > Unless you really know what you're doing, all this package will be is an
> >opportunity to royally screw up your work. If you have enough knowledge
> >and experience to use it effectively and not harmfully then you wouldn't
> >want it anyway because you would use other tools.
> >
> > If you want mastering type plugins to get your feet wet, get the
> >fabfilter pro c, pro q and pro l. But don't get ozone.
> >
>
> But wouldn't you agree, Nate, that one can screw up a mix with ANY
> mastering package? Also, since everything is already in the digital
> domain, how much better can one digital FIR filter be over another?
> Unless you really believe the Fabfilter compression and filtering
> algorithms are truly better, that they have done more research, but
> if you look at the iZotope website, it appears they have done their
> homework too. And as most of us engineers know, with so much hiring
> from your competition, trade secrets don't stay secret very long.

Plenty of assumptions there. One flter can be very much better than
another. Many of the better audio software producers are very small
companies, within which both control and knowledge is closely held.

> Although I understand the huge advantage to hiring a 2nd pair of
> experienced ears on your music, as well as a different room, the last
> time I sent a mix to a so-called "professional" mastering lab, the guy
> completely squashed and WAY over-compressed everything. He may have
> been better in other music genres, but he
> clearly didn't understand my intention with MY music.

How well did you communicate your targets and expectations about
mastering? How specific were your instructions? Could he have had a
solid unerstanding of your intentions?

> Which is proof
> you can have the million dollar equipment, and still misunderstand the
> customer. Not many mastering houses allow the customer to watch them
> work, which I understand, because I don't like bands hanging around
> while I mix.

I have never found a mastering house that does not allow attended
sessions. I would never send work to one that doesn't allow the
customer's representative's attendance.

> But this has led many home studios to do their own mastering, so
> they have something to give a professional to reference, as to what they
> are shooting for. And if they cannot find someone that beats their
> version, then they do it themselves. This is what I plan to do with
> my next album.

The first reason home studios take on the mastering job is the same
reason they don't go to professional studios to record and mix. Their
budgets are insufficient to cover those costs. The final result will
often fail to recoup even the minimal expenses incurrred.

> Certainly Ozone 5 will be sufficient for demo CD work, which is
> the bulk of my work with local bands....

The standard packages of EQ and dynamics processors bundled with every
DAW are sufficient for "mastering" "demo" CD work all day and night
long, _if one knows what you're doing playing mastering engineer in the
first place_.

If one does not already know what one is doing there the "mastering
bundle" is an opportunity to shoot oneself in the proverbial foot.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Nate Najar > wrote:

> On Friday, May 16, 2014 9:15:35 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > In article >, Paul > wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > But wouldn't you agree, Nate, that one can screw up a mix with ANY
> >
> > >mastering package? Also, since everything is already in the digital
> >
> > >domain, how much better can one digital FIR filter be over another?
> >
> > >Unless you really believe the Fabfilter compression and filtering
> >
> > >algorithms are truly better, that they have done more research, but
> >
> > >if you look at the iZotope website, it appears they have done their
> >
> > >homework too. And as most of us engineers know, with so much hiring
> >
> > >from your competition, trade secrets don't stay secret very long.
> >
> >
> >
> > His argument is not that they are better, but that it is harder to shoot
> >
> > yourself in the foot with them.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Izotope package is excellent software, but it is very powerful. You
> >
> > do not hand a machine gun to someone who has never shot a B-B gun yet.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Although I understand the huge advantage to hiring a 2nd pair of
> >
> > >experienced ears on your music, as well as a different room, the last
> >
> > >time I sent a mix to a so-called "professional" mastering lab, the guy
> >
> > >completely squashed and WAY over-compressed everything. He may have
> >
> > >been better in other music genres, but he
> >
> > >clearly didn't understand my intention with MY music. Which is proof
> >
> > >you can have the million dollar equipment, and still misunderstand the
> >
> > >customer.
> >
> >
> >
> > And this is why unattended mastering sessions aren't a good idea. Go to
> >
> > the mastering sesion and the mastering engineer will learn what you want
> >
> > and you'll learn what he is hearing.
> >
> >
> >
> > Not many mastering houses allow the customer to watch them
> >
> > >work, which I understand, because I don't like bands hanging around
> >
> > >while I mix.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have never, ever heard of a mastering house that didn't allow attended
> >
> > sessions and I would certainly never hire one that did. What would be the
> >
> > point?
> >
> >
> >
> > I know a lot of mastering houses that charge more for attended sessions,
> >
> > but you get what you pay for.
> >
> >
> >
> > > But this has led many home studios to do their own mastering, so
> >
> > >they have something to give a professional to reference, as to what they
> >
> > >are shooting for. And if they cannot find someone that beats their
> >
> > >version, then they do it themselves. This is what I plan to do with
> >
> > >my next album.
> >
> >
> >
> > And this, in short, is why so many new releases sound so bad.
> >
> > --scott
> >
> > --
> >
> > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> I don't really need to respond to this last query Paul because Scott said
>it perfectly.
>
> If you don't listen to me, listen to Scott and Hank, et al.
>
> I suggest the fabfilter because it sounds good, has a good interface and
>is relatively easy to use. There are many, many other comp/eq/limiter
>plugins I could suggest to you that would accomplish the same thing.
>

Every DAW app comes bundled with the tools necessasry for basic audio
"mastering". If one knows what should be done, the tools are already at
hand. If one deosn't even realize this, the mastering packages won't
help.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/16/2014 11:02 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Paul > wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I'm going to hire a pro and attend the session for my album
>> for sure.
>>
>> Appreciate the advice.
>
> It's well worth doing if only for the experience and because it's an
> opportunity to find out what is in your material that you never noticed
> before.
>
> And the mastering engineer might say "This sounds fine, there's no need
> for any further processing" and that verification is worth paying for too.
>
> Where are you located?
> --scott
>

Tucson, AZ. And would travel to Phoenix for my next album,
naturally.

If you intend to recommend a mastering engineer, won't that be
genre based? Surely there are people who specialize in Hip-hop, House,
Electronica, Jazz, Classical, Rock, Pop, etc.

My second album will likely be mainly Jazz/Classical piano/vocal
based, with at least one Bach-meets-Reggae tune (!!), which will include
organ, drums, bass, and guitar.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> geoff > wrote:
>>On 16/05/2014 7:08 a.m., Nate Najar wrote:
>>> Never use presets!
>>
>>I find them a great starting point, and a learning aide.
>
> Depends on the equipment. A lot of gear today has presets that are
> very exaggerated, in an attempt to show how dramatic an effect is
> possible, when what you probably want to actually be doing with the
> device is much more subtle.
>
> There is some gear out there where the presets are good starting points
> but there are a whole lot of devices out there where they aren't even that
> now.


Exactly, but like all generalisations, "never use presets" is just
simplistic nonsense.

Trevor

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Paul >
> wrote:
>> Not many mastering houses allow the customer to watch them
>>work, which I understand, because I don't like bands hanging around
>>while I mix.
>
> I have never, ever heard of a mastering house that didn't allow attended
> sessions and I would certainly never hire one that did.

I would agree, but often someone else is calling the shots. The last album I
worked on was screwed up by over zealous mastering IMO, and in the opinion
of the artist. Unfortunately it was out of our hands.


> I know a lot of mastering houses that charge more for attended sessions,
> but you get what you pay for.
>
>> But this has led many home studios to do their own mastering, so
>>they have something to give a professional to reference, as to what they
>>are shooting for. And if they cannot find someone that beats their
>>version, then they do it themselves. This is what I plan to do with
>>my next album.
>
> And this, in short, is why so many new releases sound so bad.

And many of them sound bad because they have had mastering "professionally"
done, just not done as you or I would want.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> The first reason home studios take on the mastering job is the same
> reason they don't go to professional studios to record and mix. Their
> budgets are insufficient to cover those costs. The final result will
> often fail to recoup even the minimal expenses incurrred.

True, and many expensive projects fail to recoup their considerable expenses
incurred. The loss on the former is usually less than the latter though.
Conversely a small profit on a cheap project may actually be a higher return
than a bigger profit on an expensive project. It's all a calculated risk
based on the draw of the performer IMO.

Trevor.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/16/2014 8:42 PM, Trevor wrote:

>> I have never, ever heard of a mastering house that didn't allow attended
>> sessions and I would certainly never hire one that did.
>
> I would agree, but often someone else is calling the shots. The last album I
> worked on was screwed up by over zealous mastering IMO, and in the opinion
> of the artist. Unfortunately it was out of our hands.
>

Yes, the mastering places I talked to didn't allow attended
sessions. "I can't work like that!"

Which I actually understand, because conversely, I don't
really like having my clients sitting there while I'm mixing and
telling me every little thing they want me to do.

But if I'm on the paying end again, I'm gonna be there.

>
>> I know a lot of mastering houses that charge more for attended sessions,
>> but you get what you pay for.
>>
>>> But this has led many home studios to do their own mastering, so
>>> they have something to give a professional to reference, as to what they
>>> are shooting for. And if they cannot find someone that beats their
>>> version, then they do it themselves. This is what I plan to do with
>>> my next album.
>>
>> And this, in short, is why so many new releases sound so bad.
>
> And many of them sound bad because they have had mastering "professionally"
> done, just not done as you or I would want.
>

Yes, very true, thank you. Even a seasoned professionally with
the million dollar studio cannot read your mind.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/16/2014 8:52 PM, Trevor wrote:
> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The first reason home studios take on the mastering job is the same
>> reason they don't go to professional studios to record and mix. Their
>> budgets are insufficient to cover those costs. The final result will
>> often fail to recoup even the minimal expenses incurrred.
>
> True, and many expensive projects fail to recoup their considerable expenses
> incurred. The loss on the former is usually less than the latter though.
> Conversely a small profit on a cheap project may actually be a higher return
> than a bigger profit on an expensive project. It's all a calculated risk
> based on the draw of the performer IMO.
>

Most local bands don't have the budget to go to a professional
mastering house, especially if it's only a demo CD.

For demos, simple peak limiting to set overall volume can be
enough, if the mix was well done. Ozone 5 will certainly be more than
enough in these cases.

[hank alrich]

Paul > wrote:

> On 5/16/2014 11:02 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > In article >, Paul > wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok, I'm going to hire a pro and attend the session for my album
> >> for sure.
> >>
> >> Appreciate the advice.
> >
> > It's well worth doing if only for the experience and because it's an
> > opportunity to find out what is in your material that you never noticed
> > before.
> >
> > And the mastering engineer might say "This sounds fine, there's no need
> > for any further processing" and that verification is worth paying for too.
> >
> > Where are you located?
> > --scott
> >
>
> Tucson, AZ. And would travel to Phoenix for my next album,
> naturally.
>
> If you intend to recommend a mastering engineer, won't that be
> genre based? Surely there are people who specialize in Hip-hop, House,
> Electronica, Jazz, Classical, Rock, Pop, etc.
>
> My second album will likely be mainly Jazz/Classical piano/vocal
> based, with at least one Bach-meets-Reggae tune (!!), which will include
> organ, drums, bass, and guitar.

There are those who specialize and those who do not. Reasons for
specialization can go beyond this or that style of music, including ease
of marketing to a segment within a particular environment, etc. There is
no guarantee that someone specializing in a given style will do a better
job than someone who works as a general practitioner. Listen to the work
of whom you are considering.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[david gourley[_2_]]

"Trevor" > :

>
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, Paul >
>> wrote:
>>> Not many mastering houses allow the customer to watch them
>>>work, which I understand, because I don't like bands hanging around
>>>while I mix.
>>
>> I have never, ever heard of a mastering house that didn't allow attended
>> sessions and I would certainly never hire one that did.
>
> I would agree, but often someone else is calling the shots. The last
album I
> worked on was screwed up by over zealous mastering IMO, and in the
opinion
> of the artist. Unfortunately it was out of our hands.
>
>
>> I know a lot of mastering houses that charge more for attended sessions,
>> but you get what you pay for.
>>
>>> But this has led many home studios to do their own mastering, so
>>>they have something to give a professional to reference, as to what they
>>>are shooting for. And if they cannot find someone that beats their
>>>version, then they do it themselves. This is what I plan to do with
>>>my next album.
>>
>> And this, in short, is why so many new releases sound so bad.
>
> And many of them sound bad because they have had mastering
"professionally"
> done, just not done as you or I would want.
>
> Trevor.
>
>
>

Yes, but isn't that the primary point of attending the mastering session?

david

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Paul wrote:
> On 5/16/2014 8:52 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The first reason home studios take on the mastering job is the same
>>> reason they don't go to professional studios to record and mix. Their
>>> budgets are insufficient to cover those costs. The final result will
>>> often fail to recoup even the minimal expenses incurrred.
>>
>> True, and many expensive projects fail to recoup their considerable
>> expenses
>> incurred. The loss on the former is usually less than the latter though.
>> Conversely a small profit on a cheap project may actually be a higher
>> return
>> than a bigger profit on an expensive project. It's all a calculated risk
>> based on the draw of the performer IMO.
>>
>
> Most local bands don't have the budget to go to a professional
> mastering house, especially if it's only a demo CD.
>

Most local bands don't have the budget for a $500 live-tracked cd.

> For demos, simple peak limiting to set overall volume can be
> enough, if the mix was well done. Ozone 5 will certainly be more than
> enough in these cases.
>

--
Les Cargill

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/17/2014 12:15 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

>>
>> Most local bands don't have the budget to go to a professional
>> mastering house, especially if it's only a demo CD.
>>
>
> Most local bands don't have the budget for a $500 live-tracked cd.
>

Oh, very true!

Most will usually stop at around $300 for a demo CD.

Not exactly the sort of people who will out-source
their mastering to Sterling Sound!

Haha!


>> For demos, simple peak limiting to set overall volume can be
>> enough, if the mix was well done. Ozone 5 will certainly be more than
>> enough in these cases.
>>

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Paul >
>> wrote:
>>> Not many mastering houses allow the customer to watch them
>>>work, which I understand, because I don't like bands hanging around
>>>while I mix.
>>
>> I have never, ever heard of a mastering house that didn't allow attended
>> sessions and I would certainly never hire one that did.
>
>I would agree, but often someone else is calling the shots. The last album I
>worked on was screwed up by over zealous mastering IMO, and in the opinion
>of the artist. Unfortunately it was out of our hands.

The man producing calls the shots. If you don't like it, take the money
but don't put your name on it.

I worked on hundreds and hundreds of projects that were musically just awful
including a whole lot of background music and terrible film soundtracks.
I take the money, I do my job the best I can, I keep my mouth shut.

Don't worry about it. Tomorrow is a new day and a new project.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
>
> Tucson, AZ. And would travel to Phoenix for my next album,
>naturally.

Try Roger at SAE Mastering, he is good people.

> If you intend to recommend a mastering engineer, won't that be
>genre based? Surely there are people who specialize in Hip-hop, House,
>Electronica, Jazz, Classical, Rock, Pop, etc.

To some extent, yes, and there are people who will flat out say "I don't
do this kind of music but try my friend who does." But most of the old-line
mastering engineers came up doing a wide variety of acoustic music and
shouldn't have any problem doing something like you're looking for.

> My second album will likely be mainly Jazz/Classical piano/vocal
>based, with at least one Bach-meets-Reggae tune (!!), which will include
>organ, drums, bass, and guitar.

What is it supposed to sound like? Don't tell me, tell the mastering
engineer. If possible, bring him some samples of commercial releases like
what you're aiming for. If you want it as clean as possible, say so. If
you want it loud, say so. You're working together.
--scott

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

[geoff]

On 17/05/2014 3:32 a.m., Nate Najar wrote:
> On Friday, May 16, 2014 9:15:35 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:

>
> I suggest the fabfilter because it sounds good, has a good interface and is relatively easy to use. There are many, many other comp/eq/limiter plugins I could suggest to you that would accomplish the same thing.
>
>


Izotope ditto all the above.

(I don't work for, am not sponsored by, or are a fanboy of Izotope).

;-)

geoff

[geoff]

On 18/05/2014 1:45 a.m., david gourley wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>
> Yes, but isn't that the primary point of attending the mastering session?
>
> david
>

Presumably the point, as with attended mixing, is so that the artist can
tell the mastering engineer how to do his job.


geoff

[Sean Conolly]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> geoff > wrote:
>>>On 16/05/2014 7:08 a.m., Nate Najar wrote:
>>>> Never use presets!
>>>
>>>I find them a great starting point, and a learning aide.
>>
>> Depends on the equipment. A lot of gear today has presets that are
>> very exaggerated, in an attempt to show how dramatic an effect is
>> possible, when what you probably want to actually be doing with the
>> device is much more subtle.
>>
>> There is some gear out there where the presets are good starting points
>> but there are a whole lot of devices out there where they aren't even
>> that
>> now.
>
>
> Exactly, but like all generalisations, "never use presets" is just
> simplistic nonsense.

Well, I'm glad that cars don't come with presets for the cruise control....

Seriously though the concept of using a preset for mastering strikes me as
counter-productive at the least. As does the concept of mastering at home.

Maybe we should just call it 'polishing' instead in this context.

Sean

[Trevor]

"david gourley" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Not many mastering houses allow the customer to watch them
>>>>work, which I understand, because I don't like bands hanging around
>>>>while I mix.
>>>
>>> I have never, ever heard of a mastering house that didn't allow attended
>>> sessions and I would certainly never hire one that did.
>>
>> I would agree, but often someone else is calling the shots. The last
> album I
>> worked on was screwed up by over zealous mastering IMO, and in the
> opinion
>> of the artist. Unfortunately it was out of our hands.
>>
>>
>>> I know a lot of mastering houses that charge more for attended sessions,
>>> but you get what you pay for.
>>>
>>>> But this has led many home studios to do their own mastering, so
>>>>they have something to give a professional to reference, as to what they
>>>>are shooting for. And if they cannot find someone that beats their
>>>>version, then they do it themselves. This is what I plan to do with
>>>>my next album.
>>>
>>> And this, in short, is why so many new releases sound so bad.
>>
>> And many of them sound bad because they have had mastering
> "professionally"
>> done, just not done as you or I would want.
>>
>
> Yes, but isn't that the primary point of attending the mastering session?


As I said, if you aren't paying the bills, you may not have any say even if
you attend. Or indeed whether you can attend if you wanted to.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> Presumably the point, as with attended mixing, is so that the artist can
> tell the mastering engineer how to do his job.

Not at all, it's so the mastering engineer can tell the artist why he thinks
something needs to be done, and so the artist can let him know whether that
will improve or degrade his artistic concept. *IF* everything was black and
white, the mastering engineer could make all the decisions himself and
everyone being happy with the result. Unfortunately things are never black
and white, and very often not everyone is happy with the result. Too often
the mastering engineers deliver what they know suits the labels, or risk
having it sent back, (or worse, no future jobs from that client) not what
they would actually do if it was their project alone.
I would have thought the loudness wars that have been going on for a decade
or two was enough proof that not all mastering decisions suit everyone?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>> I have never, ever heard of a mastering house that didn't allow attended
>>> sessions and I would certainly never hire one that did.
>>
>>I would agree, but often someone else is calling the shots. The last album
>>I
>>worked on was screwed up by over zealous mastering IMO, and in the opinion
>>of the artist. Unfortunately it was out of our hands.
>
> The man producing calls the shots. If you don't like it, take the money
> but don't put your name on it.
> I worked on hundreds and hundreds of projects that were musically just
> awful
> including a whole lot of background music and terrible film soundtracks.
> I take the money, I do my job the best I can, I keep my mouth shut.

Exactly my attitude, but I get to complain about it here though! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Sean Conolly" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> geoff > wrote:
>>>>On 16/05/2014 7:08 a.m., Nate Najar wrote:
>>>>> Never use presets!
>>>>
>>>>I find them a great starting point, and a learning aide.
>>>
>>> Depends on the equipment. A lot of gear today has presets that are
>>> very exaggerated, in an attempt to show how dramatic an effect is
>>> possible, when what you probably want to actually be doing with the
>>> device is much more subtle.
>>>
>>> There is some gear out there where the presets are good starting points
>>> but there are a whole lot of devices out there where they aren't even
>>> that now.
>>
>>
>> Exactly, but like all generalisations, "never use presets" is just
>> simplistic nonsense.
>
> Well, I'm glad that cars don't come with presets for the cruise
> control....

Why not, presets for the standard speed limits might be useful, and like all
presets could simply be overidden.


> Seriously though the concept of using a preset for mastering strikes me as
> counter-productive at the least. As does the concept of mastering at home.

Obviously you don't do low budget work that cant afford or justify a
seperate mastering engineers payment then.


> Maybe we should just call it 'polishing' instead in this context.

Well in the days of vinyl, mastering *was* a necessary job for skilled
engineers that understood the limitations of cutting lathes and playback
equipment. (as well as how to polish gems and turds) These days I'd say most
of it is really "polishing". Which is not to say that big buck projects
should *not* be polished by skilled professionals in proper mastering suites
of course!

Trevor.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/18/2014 10:16 PM, Trevor wrote:
could simply be overidden.
>
>
>> Seriously though the concept of using a preset for mastering strikes me as
>> counter-productive at the least. As does the concept of mastering at home.
>
> Obviously you don't do low budget work that cant afford or justify a
> seperate mastering engineers payment then.
>

Yes, when you do demo CDs for poor, starving, unknown local bands,
you have no choice but to do the mastering yourself.



>
>> Maybe we should just call it 'polishing' instead in this context.
>
> Well in the days of vinyl, mastering *was* a necessary job for skilled
> engineers that understood the limitations of cutting lathes and playback
> equipment. (as well as how to polish gems and turds) These days I'd say most
> of it is really "polishing". Which is not to say that big buck projects
> should *not* be polished by skilled professionals in proper mastering suites
> of course!
>
> Trevor.
>
>

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/18/2014 9:59 PM, Trevor wrote:
> "geoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Presumably the point, as with attended mixing, is so that the artist can
>> tell the mastering engineer how to do his job.
>
> Not at all, it's so the mastering engineer can tell the artist why he thinks
> something needs to be done, and so the artist can let him know whether that
> will improve or degrade his artistic concept. *IF* everything was black and
> white, the mastering engineer could make all the decisions himself and
> everyone being happy with the result. Unfortunately things are never black
> and white, and very often not everyone is happy with the result. Too often
> the mastering engineers deliver what they know suits the labels, or risk
> having it sent back, (or worse, no future jobs from that client) not what
> they would actually do if it was their project alone.
> I would have thought the loudness wars that have been going on for a decade
> or two was enough proof that not all mastering decisions suit everyone?
>
> Trevor.
>

You make good points here. I recall someone here saying that if
customers want **** sandwiches, that you'd better learn how to make
them. Everyone wants their track to stand out from the rest, to be
the loudest or brightest.

It appears we were both victims of the loudness wars.

My guess is that most here would not approve of mastering DIY
first, and then bringing your master to the real mastering session,
as it might "jinx" the engineers decisions.

But for those of us who didn't or can't go to audio engineering
classes, I imagine it would be fruitful to bring your laptop to the
session, and listen through the high-end monitors and tuned room, and
have the engineer tell you what he thinks you did wrong, and fix it with
your software.

Give the man a fishing pole, not a fish....

It would also be a great way to compare your monitoring with the
high-end stuff.

[geoff]

On 19/05/2014 4:59 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> "geoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Presumably the point, as with attended mixing, is so that the artist can
>> tell the mastering engineer how to do his job.
>
> Not at all, it's so the mastering engineer can tell the artist why he thinks
> something needs to be done, and so the artist can let him know whether that
> will improve or degrade his artistic concept. *IF* everything was black and
> white, the mastering engineer could make all the decisions himself and
> everyone being happy with the result. Unfortunately things are never black
> and white, and very often not everyone is happy with the result. Too often
> the mastering engineers deliver what they know suits the labels, or risk
> having it sent back, (or worse, no future jobs from that client) not what
> they would actually do if it was their project alone.
> I would have thought the loudness wars that have been going on for a decade
> or two was enough proof that not all mastering decisions suit everyone?
>
> Trevor.

The (relatively 'am') mastering I've done with clients present seem to
consist of little other than requests to "make it louder", despite all
attempts at education.


geoff

[Sean Conolly]

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/18/2014 10:16 PM, Trevor wrote:
> could simply be overidden.
>>
>>
>>> Seriously though the concept of using a preset for mastering strikes me
>>> as
>>> counter-productive at the least. As does the concept of mastering at
>>> home.
>>
>> Obviously you don't do low budget work that cant afford or justify a
>> seperate mastering engineers payment then.
>>
>
> Yes, when you do demo CDs for poor, starving, unknown local bands,
> you have no choice but to do the mastering yourself.
>

Oh, I've done what others may call mastering nowadays - but without a real
reference point it's more guessing than 'mastering'.

I suppose it doesn't make much difference after it's been distilled down to
MP3 anyway.

Sean
(been sick for four days and feeling particularly grouchy)