I'm thinking about going to a pro studio to master...

[Waltz Mastering]

This is what has me scratching my head. Improvement over degradation: What improvement?

A sonic improvement. If I can't hear a sonic improvement at matched levels, I usually just pack it in, that is unless instructed other wise.

There is nothing to be gained by pushing for volume that the consumer's volume knob can't do (much) better. It is all degradation. Just don't do it.

In a perfect world being conservative can be good, but high level's in audio are nothing new. Some music is made loud to be played loud and I'm a fan of some of these recordings, when it's done with taste.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

But people shouldn't push it until just before it falls apart. You should stop pushing before it gets worse in any way.

That's the crux of the debate, IMHO. There are a lot of modern productions out there where the mastering has not caused anything to "break apart" in the manner in which we are talking, but definitely leaves one with the impression that the mix dynamics have definitely been "pushed" to a noticeably abnormal and unnatural level. Everything is nice and clean and undistorted (in the conventional manner) - i.e. the mastering engineer did a perfectly fine job in that regard - but it just doesn't sound "right" because the dynamics that *should* be there are now gone.

I grant that for some music and production styles, that may be a positive artistic move, but there are times where it's simply just not appropriate, and you just know that it was only done to reach so-called "competitive" levels. One of the best examples I unfortunately wound up with in my playlist was a 2000 recording of Willie Nelson. I don't remember the album title off hand, but just do a search in meTunes for the song "Sittin' On Top Of The World" from a 2000 album.

I mean, we're talking WILLIE NELSON here, for chrissakes. Just what kind of needle did someone have in their arm where they thought it was a good idea to remove the dynamics from Willie Nelson singing an old bluesy torch ballad? The recording is clean and crisp, and in three of the four dimensions it's recorded and produced quite well. But that goddamn "pushed" feel is like an itch you just can't scratch when you play it on any kind of decent playback system, like if it's a computer programmed to sound like Willie Nelson; almost there, but just not right.

A big part of the problem is that this latest incarnation of the Volume intifada is now about 20 years old. There's a whole generation of artists and engineers recording now who have never really heard what true dynamics actually sound like, and think that squashed sound not only sounds normal, but that it sounds good, because that's just about all they have grown up on. I'd bet my left lung that they'd consider that Willie Nelson cut to sound really good. They actually *like* this no-dynamics crap.

I have a proposal: I say we should stick them all in a room and have them listen to full-dynamics classical orchestral music for 24 hours. Then tie them to their chairs and force them to listen to the same music smashed to a crest factor of 7dB until their brains start oozing out of their ears and they beg to be released. Then we tell them that's the exact same thing that's happening to their pop and rock music today, but they just don't realize it because they have never really heard the "before" version.

G.

 

[Zeppe]

I agree. I feel this way about some of the new Beatles remastered releases. It just comes at me way to hot.

 

[BrentDomann]

I have a proposal: I say we should stick them all in a room and have them listen to full-dynamics classical orchestral music for 24 hours. Then tie them to their chairs and force them to listen to the same music smashed to a crest factor of 7dB until their brains start oozing out of their ears and they beg to be released. Then we tell them that's the exact same thing that's happening to their pop and rock music today, but they just don't realize it because they have never really heard the "before" version.

G.

Glen, you know what else sucks? It's not like you can go out and buy a CD with the "before" version, either. Every fricking album has been "remastered" and re-released to sound like your ears are pushing on the sides of your brain. Dynamic versions of originally dynamic recordings are even becoming rare.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Glen, you know what else sucks? It's not like you can go out and buy a CD with the "before" version, either. Every fricking album has been "remastered" and re-released to sound like your ears are pushing on the sides of your brain. Dynamic versions of originally dynamic recordings are even becoming rare.

Yep, that's exactly right. That's what I mean when I say there's an increasing number of folks that just don't know the full story because - unless they listen to classical or non-fusion jazz, which very few do these days - they just have no exposure to just what the old master recordings actually sounded like. And if you try to have them listen to old vinyl, they have such a hard time listening beyond just the "vinyl sound" (not to mention the pops and clicks), that they don't get to appreciate the actual dynamics untainted by the rest of the differences.

G.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I grant that for some music and production styles, that may be a positive artistic move, but there are times where it's simply just not appropriate, and you just know that it was only done to reach so-called "competitive" levels. One of the best examples I unfortunately wound up with in my playlist was a 2000 recording of Willie Nelson.

I certainly agree that the "musical mosh pit" production where every sound is shoving every other sound out of the way and rushing in to fill the vacuum before being shoved out of the way by the next sound works when intended. But that is for a very, very small niche of songs. And instead we have for 100% of songs across all genres.


Hell, current "loud" production doesn't even work for most loud music. Play Green Day's Dookie and then volume-match 21st Century Breakdown of an American Idiot. Dookie just has so much more power at listening volume because there are bits that go louder than the average. American Broken Down Idiot just flows along without ever hitting.

And it's a shame, because I really like the songs in 21st Century America Broken Down for Idiots. It just sounds so inferior. Irritatingly so.


And don't give me "most people don't give a flying flub about sound quality" because yeah, it is true. Most people don't give a flying flub about sound quality. So they certainly won't give a damn that 7 extra db wasn't eeked out of the master. Meanwhile if people stop pushing the volume it will free those of us who DO care to buy music again.


And don't give me "but it is annoying when the jukebox playlist is all over the volume map". The quiet songs aren't the abnormal problem. These recent frackin' loud ones are. So I'm going to be the one to say "the playlist volume is all over the place, knock it off!!!"


Don't give me "radio" because we all know everything is just as loud as everything else after coming out the ass end of THAT processing chain.


Don't give me "competitive" until 20-40 year old songs stop kicking the sales asses of new stuff.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

Counterpoint:

I don't think this has been discussed enough ; )

It's not like you can go out and buy a CD with the "before" version, either. Every fricking album has been "remastered" and re-released to sound like your ears are pushing on the sides of your brain. Dynamic versions of originally dynamic recordings are even becoming rare.

This isn't really true. I think you haven't taken the time to look in the right places.

Take an obscure band like Led Zeppelin:

Amazon search - 10 seconds: http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1263431...174&rh=n:5174,n:!301668,k:led zeppelin&page=2

Vinyl, first cd pressing, re-masters, imports (796 results)... it doesn't get much easier, you don't even have to go to the record store any more.

For Willie there's over 1000 results...

The only real solution if the current music trends are really getting you down, is to NOT listen to music that you find unlistenable. That's what I do, I only listen to music that I like the sound of.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The only real solution if the current music trends are really getting you down, is to NOT listen to music that you find unlistenable. That's what I do, I only listen to music that I like the sound of.

[RANT]

It's not about what I want to or don't want to listen to. I stopped listening to most music radio (except for a few specialty programs) a long time ago, and it has nothing to with engineering quality; it's just what happens to most people as they get older.

But I still love music, and I still love music engineering; they are both still passions of mine. I wouldn't be *here* in this BBS if that were not the case. Not all "old codgers" are here to try and drum up business, or here out of some sort of bullshit superiority complex like many newbs want to believe.

And the current volume infitada is not just a matter of generational taste, though that is an unintentional resulting factor. It's the result of some stupid decisions made by even stupider people who couldn't give a dump about the music itself. It started as a misguided business decision based upon faulty science and logic that led them to believe that more volume meant more money.

I'll give them credit in a business sense that their theory has evolved; the smartest ones now realize that the smashed recordings have a shorter life span in the overall public popularity contests. This shorter popular life span opens up plenty of windows of opportunity for more sales of more shorter life span recordings, allowing then to get a sustainable revenue flow out of a declining market with a young 21st century demographic with the attention span of a gnat.

For those who are in this to (at least try to) engineer quality music recordings, and not just to take advantage of the current popular trend by making money off of supporting it, none of this is good news, and it's something worth educating against.

I might not make quite as much money that way, but I can live with that fact. I also understand that when young aspiring musicians come to me to help them record, mix or produce their music projects that they are not just hiring me to do what they tell me to do, but they are hiring me for my knowledge and expertise, and it's my obligation to avail them of that and not just do something unproductive for them without fully explaining the situation to them first, just because that's what they think they want based upon their limited knowledge of the craft.

Name me another technical or engineering or even artistic support profession where that is not the case. One does not go to a doctor with a problem with their leg and ask the doctor to cut it off, and the doctor just meekly agrees to cut it off and take the cash. Nor does one hire an interior decorator and tell the decorator to put up the black velvet painting of the dogs playing poker in the kitchen, and the decorator just says OK and takes the paycheck. If one hires a contractor or a carpenter and tells them to build an unsound structure, they do not just build it that way and take the paycheck (well, OK, some of them are slugs and do that and then disappear, but who really wants to hold them up as prime examples?)

It's still up to the customer, of course. But at least give them the benefit of your better judgment to weigh before they make that final decision. It's simply the right thing to do.

[/RANT]

G.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

The only real solution if the current music trends are really getting you down, is to NOT listen to music that you find unlistenable. That's what I do, I only listen to music that I like the sound of.

That is exactly what I do. I don't buy CDs any more. I don't download music. I just leave it all alone. I work about 1 or 2 live shows a week with all sorts of different bands so I still get my kicks. But I really, REALLY miss recorded music.

And it just kills me when my daughter buys a new CD that I really want to love but just can't endure. She just got one by a UK band called The Fratellis. The songs are a ton of fun. The recording itself takes chances and wins. But the mix and master... My God I can't make it through two back to back songs.

The people who love music the most are having it taken away. It just isn't right.



And I know I'm not the only one putting music fandom on hold. Name me any band that formed within the last 10 years that has put together a career with a tour that 10,000 people in every city must see and a string of albums that are household names. I got nothing. I was going to say "Muse", but they formed in '94.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, has been able to survive with albums this shitty. Even if Joe Guy doesn't know how grating these albums are consciously, some part of him must know because fans just aren't sticking with it. I mean, HOW can anybody stick with it? I can't make it through one album. I'm not even thinking about two.

 

[Lt. Bob]

you can go buy vinyl with plenty of dynamics that hasn't been remastered all day long at your local flea market or used record store for 2 -5 dollars a record generally.

I LOVE going to one, spending 40 bucks and walking out with a stack of albums.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

I can identify with Glen and Chibi's last post...but...

It does seem that ME's get a lot of the blame around this forum for being the bad guy and that people are almost being persuaded not to use an ME because they will only F up your recordings. That is misguided information.

There are many other places to put the blame as to why you think all music today sounds like crap.
You can probably put some of that blame on the digital medium and technology itself in which we work... you can put some of that blame on all the people that hire us. You can put the blame on the fact that the average record comes in to us sounding worse than it ever has, You can put the blame on the guy that invented brick wall limiters, You can put the blame on the fact that your getting older and more cynical, etc, etc, There are quite a few more places that you could put the blame..

For those who are in this to engineer quality music recordings, and not just to take advantage of the current popular trend by making money off of supporting it, none of this is good news, and it's something worth educating against.

I've come up as a tracking and mix engineer for 17 years before going full time into mastering 5 years ago, I've written the curriculum and taught college courses in the recording arts, I've studied and graduated from the school of hard knocks...and much more than I want to get into. Do you think I would waste the time to get out of bed and try to make music sound shittier? ...that's not what I 'm into.

I don't work in the music biz just because it's a job, it's way more than that.

This is an email I received yesterday from a client :

"You are god sent! Really, working with you has been a wonderful experience. Your hard work is really honored."

That's the reaction I'm after. That's why I get out of bed. I don't charge people to make their shit louder and shittier sounding. I try to edjumacate client's that need it. I try to edjumacate myself and get better at my craft everyday. I'm not the bad guy, or are any other really good ME's.

It's easy to get caught up in the whole music sounds like shit thing, but it all doesn't.

Outside of a couple recording forums. I have never heard someone complain or mention how devastating music sounds.

I buy music for my kids too. They have never once complained about the sound being harsh... but they do love music...maybe it was like when we were growing up listening to vinyl and you would just take the warping, scratches, skipping, pops, low end roll off and needle jumping off the record for granted and really just liked the music for what it was...the best.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Tom, I respectfully think you perhaps unknowlingly suffer from the "the man with a hammer sees every problem as a nail" syndrome. You act blind to all the criticism that is directed to those who are not mastering engineers, from the labels/A&R folks and their producers, to the client's lack of better understanding before they dive into this stuff, to poor mixing and mixes, to the Napster Generation of end users who protest about the quality of today's music out of one side of their mouth yet continue to prove to the labels that they can't live without it anyway by insisting on stooping to theft to fill their iPods anyway. Trust me, the state of the art is so awful that there's plenty of blame to go around everywhere.

But two facts remain. First, the client should not use mastering to make their mixes sound good, that is not what mastering is for; they should sound good before they even get to mastering. Second, it is the obligation of the professional engineer *at every stage of the production process* (not just mastering) to inform the young and innocent client via benefit of their expertise what they believe is best for their music, so the client can make an informed decision, and the engineer should not just roll over and do what the client wants without giving such advice first. Any behavior or encouragement of any behavior other than the above on the part of the professional engineer makes that engineer part of the problem.

And finally, asking the non-engineer to judge the quality of the music engineering to which they're listening is like asking then to judge how that lung transplant is going in the operating room. How are they to know? Of course someone who can only record and mix a problematic mix is going to love the mastering engineer who pulls their bacon out of the fire, and of course one's teenage kids are going to love the hyper-compressed crap that's being churned out because they have been kool-aided into thinking that's how the stuff is supposed to sound. So what? As engineers we are supposed to know better than all that.

G.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

Tom, I respectfully think you perhaps unknowlingly suffer from the "the man with a hammer sees every problem as a nail" syndrome.

I don't know about that. Maybe I nailed a lot more stuff when I was younger ; ) but I was still pretty selective about what I nailed.

But two facts remain. First, the client should not use mastering to make their mixes sound good, that is not what mastering is for; they should sound good before they even get to mastering. Second, it is the obligation of the professional engineer *at every stage of the production process* (not just mastering) to inform the young and innocent client via benefit of their expertise what they believe is best for their music, so the client can make an informed decision, and the engineer should not just roll over and do what the client wants without giving such advice first. Any behavior or encouragement of any behavior other than the above on the part of the professional engineer makes that engineer part of the problem.

Agreed, it would be stupid to master before a mix is complete. It is a competent engineer's responsibility to help educate and help inform a newby who would not know better.
I've always done that. I start teaching guitar at the local music shop when I was 15.
Showing them the latest Def Leopard songs and solos and what not. So educating is nothing new to me.

And finally, asking the non-engineer to judge the quality of the music engineering to which they're listening is like asking then to judge how that lung transplant is going in the operating room. How are they to know? Of course someone who can only record and mix a problematic mix is going to love the mastering engineer who pulls their bacon out of the fire, and of course one's teenage kids are going to love the hyper-compressed crap that's being churned out because they have been kool-aided into thinking that's how the stuff is supposed to sound. So what? As engineers we are supposed to know better than all that.

I sorta disagree. Music is made for the common man/woman, so who is there better to be a judge?

Ultimately it is the common man (consumer) that will determine it's fate and viability.

Still I think a lot of misdirected blame is put on the ME around this here...

 

[MCI2424]

Not quite accurate, in two ways.

First, during the quiet parts of the song - rest beats, reverb tails, etc. - the noise floor will be more audible.

Second, the dynamic range between the peak and the noise floor does not change, that much is true.

But as I understand it, the S/N ratio *does* change, because one needs to consider the noise floor not as a zero point, but rather as an amount of noise above the theoretical digital floor. Because the total range (the bit depth of the mastered signal) remains static, the *percentage* of total signal that the noise takes up increases, and therefore the S/N decreases.

To use the numbers I used before, with a starting peak of -5dBFS and a noise floor of -65dBFS, let's assume a working master of 16 bits depth (it's going to CD.) That means a total usable range of 0 to -90dB before one gets to the theoretical digital noise floor. That puts the recording's noise floor at 25 dB (-65dBFS - -90dBFS) and the peak level at 85dB (-5dBFS - -90dBFS) above digital ground zero. That yields a signal to noise ratio of 3.4 (85/25). If you add 5dB to everything, the S/N is now 90/30 or a decreased ratio of 3.0.

G.

I guess if you normalize 5 db higher, you will be turning the stereo down to account for the higher volume and the noise floor goes down anyway.

If a decent mix is performed, there is no reason to normalize anything. If one cannot get a decent volume from a mix, there are some nasty peaks somewhere. The proper way to deal with this is to find the offending peaks and fix them with a limiter.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

Still I think a lot of misdirected blame is put on the ME around this here...

I don't blame MEs at all. I've dealt with plenty of bands to know they are the ones scared to put out a CD without the volume push. And that really is the word. "Scared". Suggest they do otherwise and they become visibly nervous. Especially if there is a lot riding on the recording. It's the type of reaction you'd expect if you suggested that they release the CD as one long block of audio with no track markers.

Someone or something has put it in their head that anything less than damaging volume makes them unprofessional in the eyes of fans.

But it really is the bands asking for this crap. Not even because they like the sound. Just because they perceive it is what you have to do. "Industry standard" volume and all that crap.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I sorta disagree. Music is made for the common man/woman, so who is there better to be a judge?

Fine, then let them judge. But they can't judge when the believe there is only one choice. It's not like the alternative is worse, either.

Ultimately it is the common man (consumer) that will determine it's fate and viability.

Don't kid yourself. The consumer is led around by the nose as it is. How the hell do you think they came up with the "mo' louda, mo' betta" idea to begin with? This was not a public wish or a public demand, and it still isn't. It is simply what they have been led to believe by others with either no better knowledge, or with ulterior business motives.

The same is true of the talent they listen to. it's not like the bigger labels and Clear Choice gives the public a lot of choice as to what they have to listen to. Well, yeah, OK, if the public wants to get off their fat asses and work at it a little bit, they do have a LOT of choice. but the average Joe Punchclock wishes to be spoon-fed, and what they are spoon-fed is a very short list of artists that have the largest promotional budgets put behind them.

It's not like proposing to them that they not crush their mixes is going to hurt their business, turn off the consumer, make the music sound worse, or have any other negative effect. On the contrary, it will have an immediate positive effect on the music, it will make the consumer happier (maybe not immediately, but soon enough) because they won't tire of their playlists so fast, and in the longer term will help the music business because a happier consumer can only increase business not shrink it (it's no complete coincidence that the health of the music industry over the past couple of decades has been inversely proportional to the intensity of the volume infitada.)

Still I think a lot of misdirected blame is put on the ME around this here...

I will blame mastering engineers for confiscating the shorthand "ME". Why does that not stand for "mixing engineer"?

But other than that, I put no blame on the position. Most of the real mastering engineers on this board I have the utmost respect for, and I consider my friends, and I have not been shy about proclaiming any of that.

My problem is with those few mastering engineers who abuse the misguided "conventional wisdoms" as I described in the last post as an opportunity to increase their business, at the cost of the industry, the craft, the customer and the music in general. Not all mastering engineers are like that, but those that are, I cannot go quietly about.

If you're not one of those abusers, Tom, then you've got nothing to worry about from those of us who you wrongly feel to be ME bashers in general, and you shouldn't take it personally; instead you should join us in the cause of calling out those that are tarnishing your profession's good name.

There are plenty of rotten mixing engineers out there too. It does not offend me if someone trashes them; in fact if the criticism is justified, I'll lead the charge myself.

G.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

So... I think we scared off the OP a long time ago, eh?

 

[Waltz Mastering]

[/I].)I will blame mastering engineers for confiscating the shorthand "ME". Why does that not stand for "mixing engineer"?

Technically it would be balance engineer. BE - Old School