Question about Mastering

[philbagg]

Hello peoples

I've heard of a lot of mastering that completely removes the dynamics of a
song (waveform block-style). Obviously this is beneficial for radio so that the
radio limiters wont affect it too much.

But if you wanted your song mastered, in a way that kept some dynamics and
didn't make everything sound like a confused clutter (some of the remastered
ozzy stuff didn't translate well IMO), how would that translate in the
commercial world?

Cheers,
Phil

 

[RAMI]

I think it would translate fine, except for the fact that it would be lower in volume. Brick-wall limiting is not a musical "decision", it's all about volume. Nothing else.

 

[Lo-Fi Mike]

just my opinion

if you wanted your song mastered, in a way that kept some dynamics and
didn't make everything sound like a confused clutter (some of the remastered
ozzy stuff didn't translate well IMO), how would that translate in the
commercial world?

Cheers,
Phil

it is all very sad....when you hear music at volume 8 and the knob is only on 3

but then again people have no problem pluging up there mp3(4) player to there car when they have a perfectly good 16bit device right in front of there face.

and at the same time you do want to stay a little competitive.

this might be Wong or right but it works for me...I try to compress individual tracks a little less than what commercial is doing, i try to not over do the hi frequency eqing (especially acoustic guitar and hi hats/overheads) and i try to mic up everything i possibly can...even a keyboard thru an amp verses a midi one.
Then when i hit the mastering stage I'm able to drive it hard enough to be competitive, but it still sounds like it has room to breath.

these are just a few things i do and it works for me...although I'm not scientific about how all this might or might not work, but it satisfies my ears at the end of the day.

-mike-

 

[philbagg]

It pretty much seems that way alright.

The thing I'm wondering is, would the radio limiters just destroy a good song
because it has some dynamic range. Or do you reckon people won't tune in
as much because it's not "IN THEIR FACE GRABBING THEIR ATTENTION" - as so
many producers and record companies want?

Big bucks at the price of the highest possible quality.

 

[philbagg]

Then when i hit the mastering stage I'm able to drive it hard enough to be competitive, but it still sounds like it has room to breath.

these are just a few things i do and it works for me...although I'm not scientific about how all this might or might not work, but it satisfies my ears at the end of the day.

-mike-

We need more of you

 

[LeeRosario]

Hello peoples

I've heard of a lot of mastering that completely removes the dynamics of a
song (waveform block-style). Obviously this is beneficial for radio so that the
radio limiters wont affect it too much.


Phil

Actually you'd be surprised, it's unfortunately not the case. Respectfully of course. There's an article by world renown mastering engineer Bob Katz (who I had the pleasure of meeting a few years back and working with) called "The Truth About Radio Ready" that explains exactly why extreme dynamics in mastering are detrimental to the overall quality of a radio mix. That's unless it's completely intentional. So in actuality, older mixes tend to do better on the radio *because* they have dynamics in the original master recordings.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orban.com%2Fsupport%2Forban%2Ftechtopics%2FAppdx_Radio_Ready_The_Truth_1.3.pdf&ei=BTm0SszaCoyQtgem_sS6Dg&usg=AFQjCNGQwCHysqCukSMMSEH4znYrHT78lA&sig2=7fMD6SHYVSE1onbF0v3OPQ

It ends up equating to the horrible effects of hyper compression. Imagine running your raw mix through an extreme limiter....and then running it through another extreme limiter. That's an idea of the sound you're gonna get.

I always think between Bob Katz's technical mastery and chris lord alge's legendary expertise and feel in mixing for radio, I think anybody can get a really well rounded view on what makes a better radio mix. Two really good and relevant engineers to read up on.

 

[RAMI]

extreme dynamics in mastering are detrimental to the overall quality of a radio mix..........older mixes tend to do better on the radio *because* they have dynamics in the original master recordings.

Sorry Lee....I I always take everything you say as almost "gospel", along with a few other people on this board.

But, unless I'm an idiot, which is entirely possible, your post doesn't make sense to me.

 

[philbagg]

Actually you'd be surprised, it's unfortunately not the case. Respectfully of course. There's an article by world renown mastering engineer Bob Katz (who I had the pleasure of meeting a few years back and working with) called "The Truth About Radio Ready" that explains exactly why extreme dynamics in mastering are detrimental to the overall quality of a radio mix. That's unless it's completely intentional. So in actuality, older mixes tend to do better on the radio *because* they have dynamics in the original master recordings.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orban.com%2Fsupport%2Forban%2Ftechtopics%2FAppdx_Radio_Ready_The_Truth_1.3.pdf&ei=BTm0SszaCoyQtgem_sS6Dg&usg=AFQjCNGQwCHysqCukSMMSEH4znYrHT78lA&sig2=7fMD6SHYVSE1onbF0v3OPQ

It ends up equating to the horrible effects of hyper compression. Imagine running your raw mix through an extreme limiter....and then running it through another extreme limiter. That's an idea of the sound you're gonna get.

I always think between Bob Katz's technical mastery and chris lord alge's legendary expertise and feel in mixing for radio, I think anybody can get a really well rounded view on what makes a better radio mix. Two really good and relevant engineers to read up on.

Nice one man! Bookmarked that link I'll read up on it tomorrow, it's time for
bed now, as it's 3am over here

I got his book a while back but haven't read it yet. I don't intend on
becoming a mastering engineer (well not any time soon anyway), but more
of a recording or mixing engineer. Do you reckon it's still worth a read?

Cheers,
Phil

 

[LeeRosario]

Sorry Lee....I I always take everything you say as almost "gospel", along with a few other people on this board.

But, unless I'm an idiot, which is entirely possible, your post doesn't make sense to me.

alright, well let me rephrase what I was trying to say:

By "technical" standards, older mixes respond better to radio processing because before about the late 90s, dynamics where still left into the mastering recordings. Plenty of headroom to spare. Radio stations are tuned optimally to deal with wide dynamic content. They deal in averages. The processors have to deal with a range of completely different material: vocal only announcements, loud "modern" musical announcements, different type musical catalog. All that done by one process that is tuned to make things loud and attractive to the listener.

I stress "technical" because I think people are so used to hyper compressed radio, it becomes a subjective thing. I mean you know what I'm sayin right? I mean you hear the difference between classic rock radio and modern rock radio right?

The technical stuff is all in the link, I just didn't wanna type it all up again.

 

[LeeRosario]

Do you reckon it's still worth a read?

Cheers,
Phil

Yes, yes, yes and yes. It's about a whole lot more than just mastering. In fact, I still read my copy that I bought directly from his hands in 05....on the shitter about 3-4 times a week. I call it the "Porcelain Lectures".

No joke. I still figure out new things every day that answer some type of question I have.

 

[mshilarious]

Sorry Lee....I I always take everything you say as almost "gospel", along with a few other people on this board.

But, unless I'm an idiot, which is entirely possible, your post doesn't make sense to me.

Has to do with phase rotation and the effects of square-wave style "mastering" on creating harmonics (distortion) that get shifted by the phase rotator. It's an interesting chapter in the Katz book . . .

 

[philbagg]

Yes, yes, yes and yes. It's about a whole lot more than just mastering. In fact, I still read my copy that I bought directly from his hands in 05....on the shitter about 3-4 times a week. I call it the "Porcelain Lectures".

No joke. I still figure out new things every day that answer some type of question I have.

I'll do that so. Like RAMI, I'm starting to take your words for gospel

Out of curiousity, what's your opinions on "The Mixing Engineer's Handbook", if
you've read it of course?

 

[LeeRosario]

I'll do that so. Like RAMI, I'm starting to take your words for gospel

Out of curiousity, what's your opinions on "The Mixing Engineer's Handbook", if
you've read it of course?

Is that the super skinny one that's like a alcoholics anonymous booklet? If it is, I did read it and honestly I got nothing out of it. Didn't give me the true grit answers I wanted.

There's a quick point I wanna make about my "gospel" and why it's good to take it with a grain of salt ....

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day about some technical studio shit and I was like, "man, if I knew what I know now 10 years ago, I'd be so made right now...". And he was right when he said, "but if you had never gone through the torture of figuring it out for yourself, where would you be now?"


Just a thought...

 

[philbagg]

Is that the super skinny one that's like a alcoholics anonymous booklet? If it is, I did read it and honestly I got nothing out of it. Didn't give me the true grit answers I wanted.

There's a quick point I wanna make about my "gospel" and why it's good to take it with a grain of salt ....

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day about some technical studio shit and I was like, "man, if I knew what I know now 10 years ago, I'd be so made right now...". And he was right when he said, "but if you had never gone through the torture of figuring it out for yourself, where would you be now?"


Just a thought...

Well we all learn by doing (in this field anyway), but it's nice to have some
helping hands/ears around.

I'm not sure if it's the same one you're talking about. I have a .pdf of it so
it's about as thick as the screen I'm reading it on

http://rgr-static1.tangentlabs.co.uk/media/9781598632514/mixing-engineers-handbook.jpg

EDIT - Who's the Simpsons character in your avatar? It's bugging the crap
outta me

 

[LeeRosario]

edit:

I looked it up and realized it's not the book I was talking about. Looks like a good read.

 

[LeeRosario]

EDIT - Who's the Simpsons character in your avatar? It's bugging the crap
outta me

That's supposed to be me as a custom Simpsons thing from the movie promotional webpage at the time. It let you build your own. I dont claim to have a yellow skin though

 

[philbagg]

edit:

I looked it up and realized it's not the book I was talking about. Looks like a good read.

I've read the first few chapters and it seems to be pretty cool. The author
states that he wanted to learn more about mixing, so he tracked down some
big name engineers who really know what they're talking about and asked them
tons of questions and put them into the book (they're obviously used to back
up his own points or whatever, it's not all Q&A)

Nothing to lose by reading it eh? Unless you accidentally push old info out of
your brain..

"What about the time I took that home wine-making course and forgot how
to drive?" ... "No homer you forgot how to drive because you were drunk!"

...seen as how we're in the simpsons spirit

 

[LeeRosario]

I've read the first few chapters and it seems to be pretty cool. The author
states that he wanted to learn more about mixing, so he tracked down some
big name engineers who really know what they're talking about and asked them
tons of questions and put them into the book (they're obviously used to back
up his own points or whatever, it's not all Q&A)

Nothing to lose by reading it eh? Unless you accidentally push old info out of
your brain..

"What about the time I took that home wine-making course and forgot how
to drive?" ... "No homer you forgot how to drive because you were drunk!"

...seen as how we're in the simpsons spirit

I might of read the book (one the shitter for figure) a while back. If there's a chapter of a guy that talks about working on an album with Madonna and says "the raw mix usually tends to sound better", then I think I did. Still on my books to to buy list...

and the Simpsons...gotta love it

 

[noisewreck]

I think what confused RAMI in LeeRosario's post is a bit of poor wording... or rather it seems to me there is a word missing there....

First Lee says "extreme dynamics in mastering are detrimental to the overall quality of a radio mix". And then he says "older mixes tend to do better on the radio *because* they have dynamics in the original master recordings"

So, first he says that extreme dynamics are bad for radio, then he says that a lot of dynamics are good for radio...

I think (and correct me if I am wrong Lee), there is a word missing in the first sentence...
It should read:
"extreme dynamics processing in mastering are detrimental to the overall quality of a radio mix".

 

[Massive Master]

Obviously this is beneficial for radio so that the
radio limiters wont affect it too much.

Just the opposite. A "healthy" mix with "healthy" dynamics will come out the other end of typical radio processing in much (MUCH!!!) better shape if it's not squashed already on the way in.

Just like any mix that has decent dynamics - Throw it into a limiter. Then throw the overly limited result into another limiter. Sounds like crap. Just as a rather impressive bunch of modern mixes on the radio now.