[ChrisCoaster]

On May 9, 5:28*pm, swanny wrote:


Traditionally mastering was simply that. To create a 'master' from a mix
for production on whatever the selected media was, usually vinyl or mag
tape. Each had their own set of contraints and requirements and the
mastering engineer had to tailor the mix to match the contraints.

Nowdays people think it means 'magic'.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
_______________________
Sometimes I wish those constraints were still around - having to mix
everything below 60Hz(50?) to mono for a LP master. Having to boost
and compress the highs for a Dolby Cassette master.

Digital certainly has liberated us from some of these things, but
simultaneously it has unleashed a vicious loudness competition. It's
not uncommon to see songs - on a digital scale here - with a dynamic
range of -3 -1!! Not much to tap your head or knod your foot to,
but it SURE IS LOUD! ! ! ! lol.

Digital can really sound good, if we just pull back in our trade, and
not allow any peaks over -5, with an average level of -12dB VU. I
noticed that the movement of the meters becomes more natural as I
lower the recording level in Audacity. No longer when the meter surges
up does it seem to "slow down" or hit an invisible ceiling.

Perhaps this will teach people how to actually "listen" to music!
Instead, with the previous example, amps, speaker/headphones, and EARS
are being taxed as never before in the history of recorded sound.
Squashed dynamic range actually concentrates too much sonic energy
into too narrow a field, and this is actually not biologically or
artistically healthy.

Once consumers hear a correct recording or see a calibrated image -
their first complaint is either "It's not loud enough" or "It's too
dim".

-CC