Lets define some mastering terms

G

greggybud

New member
I recently went nuts communicating with another guy about a project. It seems we all throw terms around to describe mixes but are we describing the same thing? Heres just a few terms I would like other peoples definition on. It would be cool to have audio examples of not enough of the following but that would be too much work.

air
sparkle
brilliance
depth
impact
focus
punch
clairity
definition
resonant
fat
warm
ambient
sweet
present
smooth
taut

Anyone care to offer some definitions?
 
air. sparkle and brialliance are almost one in the same, though I cant put a dexcription to it, I know exactly what it is... its like an extension of the upper freqs that gives a "light" sound without sounding scratchy/screechy or too top endish.

focus and clarity are about the same... listen to a cheap dynamic on a source, and then listen to a nice condensor. You will hear the difference, and thats clarity.

fat- thick bottom, nice top, well rounded tone... think Neve.

warm- rolled off high end, or a tubeish addition of harmonics

ambient- far away sounding, catching the sound from a distant place, like a room mic would do

taut?

Smooth- see fat, above... well rounded, not harsh or overbearing in any frequencies, very nice sounding, well rounded, what we are all seeking most of the time.

punch- I know this one but cant describe it easily.
 
I would consider taut to be the same as tightness - whenever the band plays the notes of the rhythm at the exact points designated in the tempo, with heavy emphasis on accents. Typically this can only be achieved at the recording stage.

Punchy = oomph. A condition where you would absolutely reject the idea of using compression for fear of ruining the feel.
 
I disagree on punchy.... I would use compression to make some things punchy. Like a kick, or a mastering compressor over the whole mix, that makes it punchier, more in your face, louder.
 
Do you mean Mastering terms or Mixing terms?

I know you can use the same to descibe both, but people are starting to use these two terms, especially Mastering, very loosely.
 
I agree.

I to think that Mastering is used loosely and in most cases in the wrong way. It could be due to lack of understanding what takes place in Mastering. As people learn they use the word less and teach others what it is.

Some of the words would be and could be used for mixing though I think that they would be used mostly from a Mastering point of view.

Now on what I think? It's not easy to explain sound so I'm not going to try. I think each persons thought on what they mean will be a bit different from eachother. In most cases I think you know when you hear it and if you don't you need to learn.

sonicpaint
 
Re: I agree.

sonicpaint said:
I think each persons thought on what they mean will be a bit different from eachother. In most cases I think you know when you hear it and if you don't you need to learn.

sonicpaint
Click to expand...

That was exactly my problem. When I said more "air" the other person had a complete different meaning of "air."

Tubedude, thanks for the definitions. Those were my ideas as well however after reading things and hearing people toss these terms around I was begining to wonder.

I think the term Mastering has been way over abused by Home Recs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top