Re: [microsound] info on mastering

[ndk <ndkent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> practise as much -> learn your effects

Not just that but compare, do it over, get reactions. As someone who has
taught some different kinds of essentially technology based art, I've
encountered a fair amount of people who just by doing something quite a
lot get more and more tied to doing things "their way", which surely is
satisfying to them but is often self defeating too

> try to slightly separate stuff frequency-wise (in the spectral field) before
> mixing so you get a tighter mix afterwards;

yes! theres only so much sonic room and adding many things in the same
frequency rage usually defeats it from contributing to the overall sound.

> in the end, apply some overall eq then multiband compression, then limit the
> master to make it compete with other cds.

This sounds more like a (questionable) formula for a dance track. But
getting the right balance of "competes with" I'm sure most will agree is
key if you really are competing with something. 

> don't overdo compression

but the overdo part has a lot to do with the notion of competition

> do not trust flat response monitors 100%

don't trust any monitors 100%, try to try every important environment
that you think your music will wind up in.
 
> trust your ears
> 
> sleep then trust your ears again

a very true conundrum, except I guess ideally you do want to have a test
listen in some of the more likely listening situations for your music

> listen everywhere, esp. car + don't neglect multimedia speakers & boomboxes.

yes, but temper that by saying while you can play your music everywhere,
some situations are more critical. Too much massaging to make a track
that catches all may very well weaken it for some more special
situations you may really want it to be effective in. Its more a
situation of avoiding disasterous sound in those other situations.

 
> in my experience it is ALWAYS better to leave mastering to the pro's unless
> you have interned under a respected mastering engineer and have a lot of
> field experience...
> FWIW: I tried my hand at mastering a CD once and will never do it again! I
> now know why mastering is considered a 'black art' - good mastering
> engineers are worth every dollar you spend!
> in any case here is THE man for all things dealing with digital audio: Bob
> Katz...I've been reading his stuff for around 10 years now and have learned
> a lot from his papers online...
> http://www.digido.com/
> this guy is *the shit*

I think its always better to leave it to a pro IF you are convinced they
understand what you are trying to acheive with your material. 

There are also a many aesthetic judgements to be made as the material
becomes more and more sonically atypical especially when it comes to
what's a flaw due to deficient engineering and whats a characteristic.
You know, the fix might be worse than the cure or a situation I found
myself in where I trusted the pro's judgement on not being very
agressive in fixing some admittedly flawed sound because it wouldn't
sound natural. You know, like why should I argue with someone not only
respected but also with a good point. The outcome was that the project
wasn't accepted by the final client because of the sound, and I wonder
if heavier EQ and some gating would have left it a little unnatural but acceptable.

>   I've worked with some pretty impressive engineers , never a so called
> 'mastering engineer' , I don't know what they can do for the sound.My
> immediate reaction is the question: "if they are so good , why don't more
> commercial releases impress me?" I know that's hardly fair , since the
> mastering engineers don't comprise the band , songwriters and so forth, yet
> it is a starting point.

Definitely keep focusing on music with the same sorts of characteristics
that yours is and you like... unless I guess you want to be risky and
hope to somehow "crossover". 

The above I think very much deals with music business goals rather than
aesthetic and definitely ones own subjective goals.

>   To approach making something that sounds like a 'nice sounding record'; I
> could see how a mastering engineer could be extremely valuable. In the case
> of audio which has no precedent , nothing to really compare it to , I can
> imagine the situation of the only thing mattering in the sound is the way it
> came off the speakers when the perpetrator , composer ,
> whatever-you-want-to-call-the-person decided: Yes! it's a take.

This is exactly the conundrum. I would add that there is an overlap.
There is some judgement and understanding of mastering that a pro has
which holds true for all sound, I think its all in the appreciation of
how it applies to sound that has no connection to vibrating bodies of
any kind or what's on the radio.

>   In many cases it might be difficult to decide what actually makes it work
> , what makes it music , whether it's the bass ,the lack thereof , the rough
> parts ,the contrasts between good and bad digital audio.
> 
>   It could be more difficult to determine such things when the listening
> space is shared with a "professional"; meaning some overfed jerk who sits on
> his ass in a swivel chair most of the day in his little mastering boudoir
> and makes a comfortable living by telling people "what sounds good".

But you are only addressing what you know you don't like. Its not a
given you know what even your audience thinks sounds good or that you
have the skills or not to bypass someone with a definite although maybe
limited skillset.

>   I mean , much electronic music is a really personal thing. It's conceived
> in solitude and often listened in solitude. 

Thats an excuse to be sure, but is it really a valid one? One has to
comprehend when things are being improved, when they are not, and the
balance of music really being a persoonal thing versus the extreme of
being ties up in ones own mythos that they can do no wrong. 

> To listen in close proximity with
> someone who has different professional interests can radically , physically
> change the way one hears the music. Even if the mastering engineer is
> extremely competent and doesn't change hardly anything, still one is left
> with sorting out the subjective and the objective afterwards . Sometimes the
> only thing that makes it bearable is knowing that the piece is unchanged.

Yes, there are definitely more risks and potential for more rewards

>   I've read articles by mastering engineers and been really impressed by
> what they've had to say..then I've listened to their records: oh, was that
> the one I thought was a low budget home recording?I've also been involved in
> successful recordings that didn't sound like anything else in way  shape or
> form , and that was part of the reason for the success.Somtimes even a 'bad'
> or uncoventional sound can be a plus, since it gives the release it's own
> space , separates it from the pack , so to speak.One then has to change
> something in oneself, adjust one's attitude in order to listen. That in
> itself can make it less mundane , change the situation into a party.

Definitely, though I think its all understanding and appropriateness for
the given situation. I'm not sure its change should be prioritized ahead
of understanding, you need that before you really can know what to
change in oneself in the first place.

> Mastering is really a sensible topic and at least a matter of taste. I am bit scared of the deadly compressed recordings which are at least loud but lacks dynamics of course.

Its all in the intent I think, finding that magic spot when too much or
too little is self defeating and potentially really annoying.

> Whenever I contributed to a compilation my pieces are less louder because I like to use the 16Bit dynamic but now I have to start compressing for not loosing attention agains the others.

I've found that while people expound a really wide dynamic range it can
also be bad news if someone listening winces from something blasting out
unexpectedly or the quite common, I don't like to listen to music very
loud, and most of what you did winds up below the level of the room noise.

> Did you ever looked on a recent popsong in a waveeditor? Almost a rectangular wave...

Sure! But that does boiled down to the popular tastes of the day and if
you are trying to emulate them...and theres the secondary issue that
radio usually boosts and limits their own output on top of whats already
on the track .

nick

http://www.artskool.biz/jem/ndkent

------------------------------