SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I wanted to take this to another thread so as not to interfere with mshilarious' "free mastering clinic" which is now underway in another thread.
But many questions were raised and points disputed in that thread by many fine folks approaching this whole racket from different angles and perspectives. Many of these were dismissed out of hand to make room for the "clinic", which was the proper thing to do for that thread. So allow me to try and help mshilarious and the rest of us out by deflecting some of that stuff over to this thread where it can be hashed out, because I feel there are some important issues which should not be glossed over or just filed in the "pro vs. hobbyist yawner spat" bin.
NOTE: The folowing monologue is addressed to no person in particular.
WAV vs. MP3
I'm not going to pull any punches regarding my personal opinion here; if one believes the differences between MP3 and WAV are unimportant unless one is cutting glass for platinum release, they need to read this and take it to heart. I say this for two reasons, the second of which leads to a main idea behind mastering and the allegedly "snooty" attitudes of those who specialize in mastering engineering.
First off, there is a *huge* quantifiable difference between a WAV recording and an MP3 copy of it. If you have any doubts in that regard, use the inverse polarity trick that I've posed here a couple of times before and hear what you're missing for yourself. For those who may have missed that trick, here it is in short:
1.) Take an original stereo WAV mixdowm of your best stuff and make an MP3 copy of it using your best encoder.
2.) Place the original stereo wav into track 1 of your best multitrack editor. Place the streo MP3 into track 2.
3.) Invert the phase/polarity of track 2.
4.) Ensuring that both tracks are at equal volumes, mixthem together to create a new stereo mixdowm.
The resultant mixdown will be everything in the original WAV file that was left out of the MP3.
(and for extra credit, feel free to try this test with both 192k MP3s and 320k MP3 and dare yourself to rationalize the extra bandwidth taken up by 320k MP3s; they wil both be so far away from the WAV as to make the extra load carried by the 320k files seem wasteful.)
If you really think that what you hear there is OK to leave out of a pristine WAV file, or that leaving that stuff out will not affect how one polishes their mixdown, IMHO, then you need to find another line of work.
If you're just doing this for a hobby, OTOH, find a hobby where your not going to be throwing thousands of dollars down the toilet; because if the amount of sound that is removed from a quality recording by MP3 compression is not important to you, then the potential amount of sound you could gain by spending a big money on a quality mic pre or improved converter or tube compressor is going to be lost on you as well.
MASTERING MASTERING
And when it comes to the whole philosophy behind mastering, it's far more than the technical difference between WAV and MP3; it's the question that arises of, why even *consider* MP3? What's the point? Why would anybody wnat to purposely cripple recording being prepped for recording? It's like deciding to drive your newly washed car down a dusty road before you hand wax it.
Mastering isn't just about making your mix down louder, or even about making your mixdown sound better. Mastering is about analyzing the mix and making it come alive. Mastering is about nuance. Mastering is about sweating the details. Mastering is most definitely not about slouging off details and saying that the mediocraty of MP3s is "close enough".
Everybody is continually asking in these forums, "How can I make my mixes sound like the pros do?" There is only one true answer, to which all other answers are derevations: the only way to get your mixes to sound like the pros is to care enough to do it right.
And to those who try to live and practice that philosophy (those who are called snobs because they *do* care enough) know that passing off a mixdown in MP3 format before mastering is little more than a demonstration of the lack of commitment, the lack of caring that will keep one from learning the answer to that "How do I...?" quetion.
How does one get final recordings that sound like the pros do? By discarding MP3s for anything other than portable entertainment and by adopting the attitude that "close enough is not good enough."
That's not being snobbish, or at least that's not the motive or intent. That's just understanding what it takes and dedicating to it.
BUT, BUT...
"But I'm just having fun," or, "I'm just a part-time amateur," you say. "I have no intention of getting that anal about it, and therefore you should not impose your boorish, holier-than-thou platitudes on me."
Fine, That's OK. No arguments there. The only cost for that is that the answer to your "How do I..." questions becomes, "You don't." If you're OK with that, then it's settled and we can move on.
One man's opinion only, use or abuse it as you see fit.
G.
But many questions were raised and points disputed in that thread by many fine folks approaching this whole racket from different angles and perspectives. Many of these were dismissed out of hand to make room for the "clinic", which was the proper thing to do for that thread. So allow me to try and help mshilarious and the rest of us out by deflecting some of that stuff over to this thread where it can be hashed out, because I feel there are some important issues which should not be glossed over or just filed in the "pro vs. hobbyist yawner spat" bin.
NOTE: The folowing monologue is addressed to no person in particular.
WAV vs. MP3
I'm not going to pull any punches regarding my personal opinion here; if one believes the differences between MP3 and WAV are unimportant unless one is cutting glass for platinum release, they need to read this and take it to heart. I say this for two reasons, the second of which leads to a main idea behind mastering and the allegedly "snooty" attitudes of those who specialize in mastering engineering.
First off, there is a *huge* quantifiable difference between a WAV recording and an MP3 copy of it. If you have any doubts in that regard, use the inverse polarity trick that I've posed here a couple of times before and hear what you're missing for yourself. For those who may have missed that trick, here it is in short:
1.) Take an original stereo WAV mixdowm of your best stuff and make an MP3 copy of it using your best encoder.
2.) Place the original stereo wav into track 1 of your best multitrack editor. Place the streo MP3 into track 2.
3.) Invert the phase/polarity of track 2.
4.) Ensuring that both tracks are at equal volumes, mixthem together to create a new stereo mixdowm.
The resultant mixdown will be everything in the original WAV file that was left out of the MP3.
(and for extra credit, feel free to try this test with both 192k MP3s and 320k MP3 and dare yourself to rationalize the extra bandwidth taken up by 320k MP3s; they wil both be so far away from the WAV as to make the extra load carried by the 320k files seem wasteful.)
If you really think that what you hear there is OK to leave out of a pristine WAV file, or that leaving that stuff out will not affect how one polishes their mixdown, IMHO, then you need to find another line of work.
If you're just doing this for a hobby, OTOH, find a hobby where your not going to be throwing thousands of dollars down the toilet; because if the amount of sound that is removed from a quality recording by MP3 compression is not important to you, then the potential amount of sound you could gain by spending a big money on a quality mic pre or improved converter or tube compressor is going to be lost on you as well.
MASTERING MASTERING
And when it comes to the whole philosophy behind mastering, it's far more than the technical difference between WAV and MP3; it's the question that arises of, why even *consider* MP3? What's the point? Why would anybody wnat to purposely cripple recording being prepped for recording? It's like deciding to drive your newly washed car down a dusty road before you hand wax it.
Mastering isn't just about making your mix down louder, or even about making your mixdown sound better. Mastering is about analyzing the mix and making it come alive. Mastering is about nuance. Mastering is about sweating the details. Mastering is most definitely not about slouging off details and saying that the mediocraty of MP3s is "close enough".
Everybody is continually asking in these forums, "How can I make my mixes sound like the pros do?" There is only one true answer, to which all other answers are derevations: the only way to get your mixes to sound like the pros is to care enough to do it right.
And to those who try to live and practice that philosophy (those who are called snobs because they *do* care enough) know that passing off a mixdown in MP3 format before mastering is little more than a demonstration of the lack of commitment, the lack of caring that will keep one from learning the answer to that "How do I...?" quetion.
How does one get final recordings that sound like the pros do? By discarding MP3s for anything other than portable entertainment and by adopting the attitude that "close enough is not good enough."
That's not being snobbish, or at least that's not the motive or intent. That's just understanding what it takes and dedicating to it.
BUT, BUT...
"But I'm just having fun," or, "I'm just a part-time amateur," you say. "I have no intention of getting that anal about it, and therefore you should not impose your boorish, holier-than-thou platitudes on me."
Fine, That's OK. No arguments there. The only cost for that is that the answer to your "How do I..." questions becomes, "You don't." If you're OK with that, then it's settled and we can move on.
One man's opinion only, use or abuse it as you see fit.
G.
Myself included. Perhaps I am underestimating this board, a point which I would happily concede.
.