New Mastering Contest

[mshilarious]

If statistical and quantitave analysis were good enough to accurately "score" the quality of a recording, we'd all have been replaced by a computer program that could automatically create the perfect recording twenty years ago.

Twenty years ago (give or take) I was working out the rules of four-part harmony on my Apple IIGS. It wasn't exactly the perfect recording

The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that my first instincts were correct and this whole "contest" thing is both misguiding and misguided. Nothing personal intended, it's just not for me. Count me out.

G.

Fair enough!

 

[Massive Master]

I've received a PM or seven (or nine) asking if I'd like to be a judge in this thing...

I don't see a problem with it - But I agree that the whole "contest" part would be... I dunno... I wouldn't want to have some sort of "grading" system on it (don't know if that's how the PMC's have been done or not - Never went in on it).

Anyway, if it's along the lines of "holistic" observations and general commentary, I'm sure I could get Farview in here to pick a file and hit "play" and the other way around (so we wouldn't even know which file is being played at the time) to keep it more objective.

What's that sound like to you guys?

 

[Chris Shaeffer]

Masters are even more subjective than mixes- if that's possible. Its wierd how that works- you'd think that your options are limited because the tracks are mixed already, but mastering engineers can drastically change the way a tracks sounds.

I find that its more technical in some ways than mixing, yet WAY more subjective. Mastering largely depends on the judgement of the ME as s/he balances one thing against the other, one technique against another. Sure, there is knowledge of the process and tools but when you're judging a master you are directly criticising the ME's choices more than their technique.

Its a bit more personal that way. I can see why being competitive about it is a bit off. Eg.

"I think Master A sounds creamier than Masters B & C."

"I agree, but its also lost all of its impact and soul. B has much more weight while C seems like it has a dusting of sparkle on it."

"You think so? I thought C sounded tinny in the sparkle category. B is much more defined in its sheen compared to the orginal."

"OH, now sheen is different, yeah. Of course B has the most sheen but I'm saying that its not as creamy as A. I'll take cream over sheen any day."

"Of course. But that doesn't take into account the beautiful delicateness of the quiet passages in B!"

How do you objectify stuff like this? You can't really quantify it, so its odd to think of it in terms of a competition where we're more conditioned to expect clear results.

It IS a fun idea. though. I'm insterested in seeing how this goes.

Take care,
Chris

 

[bendbones]

mshilarious: Well, I only have a couple of tracks. I will post them up tommorrow,.


Cheers

 

[masteringhouse]

Here is a grading sheet that I use for my classes if anyone is interested. It's built on some critical listening criteria that I find useful. It's probably a bit too detailed for this, and is geared more toward evaluation of recording/mixing, but can be trimmed down to just the essentials.

Any feedback on this sheet is appreciated as well.

 

[masteringhouse]

How do you objectify stuff like this? You can't really quantify it, so its odd to think of it in terms of a competition where we're more conditioned to expect clear results.

It IS a fun idea. though. I'm insterested in seeing how this goes.

Take care,
Chris

Chris, you're spot on and is the point G. and I have been making.

For me the success of a master is how close you get to the goals of the client, not forcing my opinion of what I think that it should sound like. That's why I feel that the client of this contest should be the real judge. Yeah you can have guys like John, Brad, and I commenting on the technical merits of what was done in regards to mastering, but how closely that goal was realized is not something that we can fully determine. If it were, there would be no reason to have the client involved in the mastering process at all.

 

[xfinsterx]

Masters are even more subjective than mixes- if that's possible. Its wierd how that works- you'd think that your options are limited because the tracks are mixed already, but mastering engineers can drastically change the way a tracks sounds.

I find that its more technical in some ways than mixing, yet WAY more subjective. Mastering largely depends on the judgement of the ME as s/he balances one thing against the other, one technique against another. Sure, there is knowledge of the process and tools but when you're judging a master you are directly criticising the ME's choices more than their technique.

Its a bit more personal that way. I can see why being competitive about it is a bit off. Eg.

"I think Master A sounds creamier than Masters B & C."

"I agree, but its also lost all of its impact and soul. B has much more weight while C seems like it has a dusting of sparkle on it."

"You think so? I thought C sounded tinny in the sparkle category. B is much more defined in its sheen compared to the orginal."

"OH, now sheen is different, yeah. Of course B has the most sheen but I'm saying that its not as creamy as A. I'll take cream over sheen any day."

"Of course. But that doesn't take into account the beautiful delicateness of the quiet passages in B!"

How do you objectify stuff like this? You can't really quantify it, so its odd to think of it in terms of a competition where we're more conditioned to expect clear results.

It IS a fun idea. though. I'm insterested in seeing how this goes.

Take care,
Chris

I guess i hadnt thought about it in that way but youre right Chris.
Forget the contest aspect.
Lets just use this as an opportunity to study something alot of us dont clearly understand.

 

[masteringhouse]

Lets just use this as an opportunity to study something alot of us dont clearly understand.

I think from some of these posts, we've already started down that road a bit.

Mastering isn't some secret mystical process, it's basically about helping an artist realize the true potential of their recording.

And occasionally sprinkling a bit of fairy dust here and there ...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

"I think Master A sounds creamier than Masters B & C."

"I agree, but its also lost all of its impact and soul. B has much more weight while C seems like it has a dusting of sparkle on it."

"You think so? I thought C sounded tinny in the sparkle category. B is much more defined in its sheen compared to the orginal."

And yet, A, B, and C could all score identical - and maybe even Massenberg perfect - on all technical categories. Technically, they'd hit all the marks, and yet sound entirely different.

Not only is there no grading system for that right now, there is no way TO grade that; it's the ARTISTIC aspect of the process.

Audio engineering is half science and technology and half creativity and artistry; doing it well requires using both sides of the brain at the same time. While one can "judge" in a way as to whether something is subjectively appealing to them or not, one cannot rightly say that one is "better" than the other on a full half of the presentation (the creative/subjective/intangible half). That renders such a contest void of any real meaning.

Now, there's nothing wrong with still submitting entires and having a full-blown discussion on them. Just take out the whole judging/contest angle, that's all. "Here's what I did, here's why I did it that way, and here's the tools I had to work with. Questions, comments, problems?" Pretty much what a lot of rookies do now with their mixes, but in this case it's everybody working on the same mix.

It's like sticking a subject in front of Rembrandt, Picasso, van Gough and Warhol and asking them each to render it. Which one is "best"? Nobody can say that. However, the discussion about the differences could go on for days. And that's something that makes sense to me.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

OK, how about this: no prizes, no "judging", but we'll have scoring, as follows:

Final masters will be scored by the three scorers in each category; the score sheet will not be sorted, I'll leave it alphabetical, and instead of a numerical score, there will be a "poor", "fair", "good", etc. rating, so it will be impossible to determine who was the "winner".

That way, everybody will still receive detailed comparative feedback in addition to the comments they receive, similar to receiving a letter grade in a class, but it won't be a contest. This will help masterers track their progress from contest to contest.

Except if it's not a contest, I need a new name "New Mastering Workshop #1"

So far I have Massive and Dogman for scorers, I have another person that was suggested for an AE, I will ask them when I get this sorted out. I have a bunch of tracks to listen to on Sunday. If one of them is ready to go, I'll start the Workshop then. All other MEs and AEs are welcome to drop in to review masters as they have time

Tom, thanks for your sheet, those descriptions will be helpful in clarifying the categories.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Final masters will be scored by the three scorers in each category; the score sheet will not be sorted, I'll leave it alphabetical, and instead of a numerical score, there will be a "poor", "fair", "good", etc. rating,

All that's doing is reducing the number of possible scoring values from 10 to 3 (or 4 if you include "excellent" as an option as well).

No grades. No scores. No categories. No ratings. Just discussions on technique, equipment, reasoning and effect.

Anything else is superfluous and artificial.

Just an opinion. It's your game, you can make the rules how you like. Just trying to sharpen the point.

g.

 

[SonicAlbert]

Anyway, if it's along the lines of "holistic" observations and general commentary, I'm sure I could get Farview in here to pick a file and hit "play" and the other way around (so we wouldn't even know which file is being played at the time) to keep it more objective.

I like this idea, I think commentary (vs. competition) is a good thing. So more along the line of analysis and advice than "better" or "winners and losers".

Really a grading system doesn't do me any good at all. Who cares? What I would find far more interesting and useful is simply in depth analysis and commentary from the judges on each entrant, especially if some mastering engineers are judges.

 

[mshilarious]

Well now I have completely lost sight of how this is any different than any other thread on the MP3 Clinic.

And yet somehow the PMCs, which are judged and have prizes, and are rather popular, are different than an ordinary thread on the Clinic. They are special, and they are recognized as such.

To quote George Michael, "It's a formula, but it bloody works!"

Instead, we might be creating something MEs love but nobody wants to enter.

 

[SonicAlbert]

Well now I have completely lost sight of how this is any different than any other thread on the MP3 Clinic.

And yet somehow the PMCs, which are judged and have prizes, and are rather popular, are different than an ordinary thread on the Clinic. They are special, and they are recognized as such.

To quote George Michael, "It's a formula, but it bloody works!"

Instead, we might be creating something MEs love but nobody wants to enter.

Okay, then make it a competition. But perhaps along with the grading there should be some sort of free-form commentary section required (or encouraged) as well. I don't learn anything from 1-10, but I do learn something from reading about the thought process people went through in their analysis.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Well now I have completely lost sight of how this is any different than any other thread on the MP3 Clinic.

There's a couple of huge differences, if done right.

The first difference is it's not a matter of people submitting their own unique stuff, it's people submitting their version of the same thing. It's still a matter of somebody supplying a common raw mixdown that everybody works on and submits their results. Just like in a "competition"; the only difference is they are not actually competing, just submitting material for the greater edification.

The second difference is the focus is not so much on "Here's what I did, what's wrong with it?" as it is in the typical clinic thread. Rather, the main focus would be "Here's what I did, how I did it, why I did it the way I did, and here's the result." People are submitting stuff they are supposed to be proud of (just like in a contest), not stuff that they think is crap and needs to be fixed in an ad hoc "clinic", and explaining the goals, purposes, techniques and tools used. They can state what they like about it, and sure, still ask for how people think it could be improved.

I think Tom was right - if admittedly a bit blunt; if someone needs to compete against others to get something out of the exercise, they are in the wrong (ad)vocation.

On the other hand, those that would feel excited about contributing their work as examples of their capabilities and be excited to talk about how and why they did it like they did, sharing ideas, techniques and constructive criticisms with others sharing the same interests, those are the ones who will probably wind up being (if they are not already) the best engineers around, whether pro or am.

And isn't that all really a description of what this board is supposed to be all about anyway? It's not about who's the best mixer or masterer or who dies with the most gear or rep points or any of that adolescent baggage.

This is a hobby to some, a job to others. But it's a competitive sport to nobody. The only competition should be with oneself.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

There's a couple of huge differences, if done right.

Inasmuch as that is sensible, since I am not putting up prizes or tracks, or judging, or even hosting files, I don't think I have a role in this anymore.

 

[Dogman]

Inasmuch as that is sensible, since I am not putting up prizes or tracks, or judging, or even hosting files, I don't think I have a role in this anymore.

Personally, I would like ALL people who have some experience to be involved in something like this. Contest or not. I agree it would be nice to have something that would help all of us that really don't have much expereince, to interact with, and be "judged" by those of you who do musical stuff for a living, or at least part of your living. (mix type people, and master types). By judged, I mean any sort of positive input. A contest, a free for all, whatever. Contests are fun, just because they seem to bring more people out. Doesn't matter to me, just get some people involved. I would love to work on the same tune as everyone else, and have people comment on what I have done, and how I might improve what I am trying to do. And hopefully, the really good guys could do some of their own, and explain why they chose to do something, so we can see ideas that maybe weren't thought of before. Great learning tool for some of us, if people want to help out.
Ed

 

[Yareek]

Yeah, I think the idea of "scale of 1 - 5" or "thumbs up thumbs down" defeats the purpose of the effort. People are going to either have good or bad masters, and that's that. On the other hand, if we have categories such as frequency response or clarity or balance or whatever, we can learn something.

Just my two cents.

 

[xfinsterx]

Id love to submit a recent work for this thing if anyone is interested.
Lemme know in a pm if you want to hear it.

 

[masteringhouse]

Inasmuch as that is sensible, since I am not putting up prizes or tracks, or judging, or even hosting files, I don't think I have a role in this anymore.

I think that your contribution so far has been more important than being able to supply a prize. Aren't you the default organizer/admin for this?

I would suggest that you create a poll to determine if this should be a contest or not, we seem to be going in circles with this and haven't had a definite resolution.