Spinal Tap Attitude...

bvaleria

bvaleria

New member
Interviewer: "...well why don't you just make 10 the maximum...."
Guitarist: "Yeah... ...but it goes to 11!!"
...taken from "This Is Spinal Tap", copyright 1982

Hey all...

For those of you who engineer for clients, how do you get around the "...but I had to boost the volume on that test mix to half, all the other CDs I listen to I only set it at 3..."

The test mix I printed for one of my clients was uncompressed, but I did normalize. Now, there were some untamed peaks that brought the overall level down, so I know I can fix it later on when it's near completion - but it made me wonder --- do you simply compress and/or finalize the hell out of a final mix simply to appease client volume expectations between his and other commercial CDs, or do you try and education your client on the hazards of over-compression/finalizing and stay true to the sound?
Or do you try for a compromise of sound quality vs. squashing it??

Anyone?

Bruce Valeriani
Blue Bear Sound
 
All the above....

Educating your client will bring them back hopefully, and if not, well, at least some other poor schmuck will have less to explain to them.....:) Really.

I go the education route. If they still insist on something after I have laid it out for them, I at least can say later that I told them so.

Everyone seems to think they are going to get big time pro results in project studios. They won't. You know it. I know it. But they don't know it yet. You may need to spend time explaining it to them. Do it on the clock though....:) Really. If they don't know what is up, and have unrealistic expectations, then they are going to pay for that knowledge one way or another.

You do have to of course look out for your own career here too. This biz is just getting too tight for you or I to release bad sounding product. So, you just have to fight on and spend that time trying to get them to understand what the real deal is Bruce. I know it sucks, and sometimes you just can't get the client to understand the reality of the whole thing, and they are going to talk shit about you. But usually, they won't have that much bearing on your business. They obviously aren't people that know much, and mostly, anyone they talk to and bitch about your service is going to realize that they don't know what they are talking about too. So don't sweat it too much.

If they want a better sound, give it to them. Spend the time. Make them pay for it. That is how I do it. Mostly though, my clients trust that the push mixes will improve dramatically at the actual mix time because they have heard other good product I have worked on. But, if they want to spend the time getting push mixes to sound great, well, that is THEIR business. Your business is to deliver what they want. It may mean extra bucks.

Dude, I have made plenty of extra money in booked studio time because then clients want to try all sorts of crazy shit that I told them wouldn't work. They find out $500 later that I was right, and are far more inclined to listen to me in the future. Enough of these experiences, and enough explaining on my part on what they don't know, and usually I am getting paid to produce the next recording too....:)

Good luck man. I feel for ya....

Ed
 
Really good points Ed... I especially like the one where the client's "re-education" is on-the-clock!!

Thanks!

Bruce
 
As it should be....

I mean, you spent hours upon hours behind the desk learning a craft. They either appreciate that at face value and listen to what you have to say, or they pay for you to share that knowledge. That is fair.

If they choose not listen or try to learn, they will never be happy recording in a project studio. In which case, they WILL spend upwards of around 2-3K a day in a state of the art facility. Of course, in there, they won't sound all that much better really. And one day there is like a week with you or I. So, if they want to learn from you, they should be willing to pay your rate for that. They certainly are not going to get anything from an engineer at the Record Plant, or Paisley Part, etc......Those dudes will just say "Sound great", or "How do you want it to sound?". Certainly they are not going to spend a lot of time explaining to the client why the product sucks, and what they can do to fix that on their end of things.

I used to produce for free, sort of. I don't anymore. If I am engineering and need to stop that to play producer for them, then I stop engineering, but the clock goes on. So they are paying me to produce, sort of, one way or another. I have worked with producers that didn't know squat too, but generally, they spend the time explaining things to the client so I can work. The producers that know what they are doing are usually very easy to work with because they understand most of the implications of getting a sound or a mix together. If they are perplexed, they usually understand a more technical answer to something and know of the many implications and make a decision that is usually somewhat good, or ask me for a solution, which I have already formulated.

But, you still have to put out good product. You cannot afford in this tight studio market to have your product sounding like crap, regardless of the clients insistence of doing everything all wrong, or them wanting to spend their budget for the wrong things (like killer sounding push mixes). So, you just have to do what feels right for you. But, make sure you are getting the most, financially speaking, from the custormer. Like if they say their budget for the whole CD is $200 (hey, I HAVE got call like that before) I just assume they will spend at least twice that. If their budget is like $1000, I assume they will pay at least $1300. Just assume they will pay more, because they will. And if they won't, then just knock it out and don't feel bad about their lack of foresite into a realistic budget.

Just my thoughts. I may sound elitest, or snobbish, or like I am trying to gouge people for more money, but the reality is that they didn't risk tens of thousands of dollars on gear to build a studio, then have everybody and their mother try to get a "deal" from you. Hell, my rate ARE a deal already! But is that enough for them? No......they want an even better deal. Like Paisley Park is going to cut them a deal! :)

Ed
 
Very cool Ed, seems we share common studio business "ideology" - I agree with you 100% (and I've been working along those lines to date...) And it's hardly being "elitist" to provide value for your clients' dollar by giving extra background on studio techniques and methodology - as you said, they could spend A LOT more money at the downtown studios and never get any explanations!

I was just at my local mastering house and I brought up the topic with the engineer there - he apparently has to deal with this all the time. His take was that although he didn't agree with the process - in the end, he has to go ahead with his client's wishes, otherwise he feels he cuts his own throat for future business - he does try to gently coax them out of it, but according to him, is rarely successful! And he doesn't try to spend a lot of time on re-education - he says he can spot the type of clients it wouldn't work with a mile away.

Thankfully, I don't think this particular client I'm working with is going to be a problem - he mentioned cd volume in a casual manner only, but it was his question that got me speculative on the "what-if"s for when we get to the mixing stage...


As always Ed, thanks for the good advice...
:)

Bruce
 
(Speaking for myself, and maybe some others)

When I first got into this, I had no idea why I couldn't make my cd's as loud as the studios. (I think that most people have this issue starting out.) Partially because you can push casettes to similar volumes without the overwhelming digital distortion. When I started with digital, I thought I was doing something wrong. I didn't even really know what mastering was. I developed a backassed process that could have loosely been called mastering. But...

Well, I've come a long way since then. Experience and reading (including the posts in this bbs) makes all the difference.

I can't see why any band would want, against the advice of an experienced engineer, to take a squashed lifeless sound, over a slightly quieter one with nuananced dynamics. Even for punk rock.

My problem and I think the majority of the problems stem from ignorance not arrogance. Not that this world doensn't have its share of pricks.
Anyway,

Thanks for sharing your experience.
-Jett Rocker
 
Good thread guys - well said Ed. (is that with a capital?) :D

I once went round to a band's house to get the test pressing they had of an album I did....how is it? I asked, shithouse was the reply. Oh i said lets hear it....so we played it.

Once I'd switched the loudness off, turned back the bass from full, turned back the treble from full...and....put the speakers back in phase they decided it sounded OK.

I have a production policy of not giving copies to artists until it's mixed ready to go to mastering..simple
cheers
john :)
 
some working tips

I've built a system were The client gets what he wants and so do I.

When he says do this or that, I say ok and...... twist a knob that does nothing at all (it's broken).
Then I look at him and say "is this better"?
85% of the time he say's "great".
Thats why they call them "sliding faders". when he turns his back.... you slide them back.

When I truly have a disagreement with the client and think that his choice is total crap and can't get him to change his mind, I tell them "I'll do it but remove my name from the project/CD etc..."
 
John, Shailat, and Jett... Good points! :)

Let me rehash this slightly and get your takes on it -

As we all know, the current trend for many major commercial releases is to squeeze the life out a recording in order to get maximum volume without actually hitting digital 0.

This potentially means that after the initial song start-up, the meters will climb, then may stay pegged in a narrow range (say between -3 and slightly under 0). This of course is not a good thing since sound-quality and realism suffers.

BUT, since we are all competing with sound of major commercial releases (many of which have been squashed to death), it leaves us in the vulnerable position of client comparisons such as - "...well the CD you made me sounds only HALF as loud as my Marilyn Manson album..."

We, of course, produce the CD in the interests of getting the best sound quality, maintaining sonic realism, and (hopefully!) following the artistic intention of our client, and end up with an engineering masterpiece rivaling Steely Dan productions (assuming that's a good thing!) ;)
The client listens to and says "yeah... it sounds amazing, but I still have to turn up my boom-box volume! - I want it to go to 11 like my Spinal Tap CD......"

So again you gently explain to the client that it's OK to turn the volume up (that's what it's there for!!!). Doesn't work... so you can re-master the CD with full look-ahead dynamic compression, and give the client EXACTLY what they want.............. AND THEY'LL LOVE IT!!! (and they'll tell 2 friends, and so on, and you'll make a pile of money with all the business........)

EXCEPT....... you've compromised your sonic sensibilities, and by unleashing yet another squashed-to-death album on the world, you've only fueled the fire to perpetuate this "overcompress" de facto standard. It's small consolation that many client projects may not have major release value, so their scope is smaller... but that's besides the point.

SO........... question is - how do we change the world and re-gain some of that "sonic sensibility", reminding everyone that "...dynamic range is good!" and "...yes, it's OK to use your volume control - HELL -- you use your tone controls/loudness often enough!!!!" :)

:)

Bruce

(Mikey likes this thread - great input from you all!!!)
;)
 
Heavy compression and squared off waveforms thru something like a Waves L1 is going to make it louder, yet have you ever looked at a Steely Dan recording on a wave editor?? It's not heavily compressed, the transients are still there yet it sounds loud!!

check it out: Track1 from Two Against Nature.

http://www.lis.net.au/~johnsay/Dan.jpg

It's all about apparent loudness

Also look at Shania

http://www.lis.net.au/~johnsay/Shania.jpg

Once again - no squareing yet still really loud.

This is what good engineering is all about eHH??

cheers
john
 
You're right John - apparent loudness is the key....

The Shania waveform appears more dense - I'd expect an overall louder volume from that particular segment than the SD one, even though they may peak at the same level....

Is that the case John?

Bruce

[Edited by bvaleria on 11-14-2000 at 13:57]
 
Well yes and no - the Dan track is a funky little number wheras Shania is full on chorus and all. It's the transient response that they've both maintained that gives the tracks that nice clarity we call presence.

cheers
John ;)
 
Coincidence... just got this month's EQ, and sure enough there's on article "How Loud Is Hot" directly related to my "rant" on mastering loudness levels...

Bruce
 
BAND VOLUME.

This may be off subject but it reminded me of something i use to think about all the time. It was a little 4 piece band, guitar,bass drums, hammond organ, from atlanta,ga. They never had much equipment, but they always sounded so loud and full,not too loud, just right. We thought they were playing really loud, until we would get on stage and jam with them, then we could tell they were not that loud. We talked about how to sound like that for years until we realized that before they hit a note or chord together, they had this amazing way of playing almost silence before they hit a note. That is why they sounded so punchie and full. I guess the reason this post reminded me of this band is that, without those dynamics they used, the band would have just been another band. I never play without dynamics because of that band.
Thats it !
 
What you secretly didn't know Stan, was that they had a TC Electronics Finalizer insert'd as the last step in the chain!!! :D

Bruce
 
wanna know what? as a sound engeneer in a small commercial studio and musician i recently recorded my latest band demo!It sounded so damn good (it is my masterpiece) i decided to go to a larger commercial studio (a really great one with tons of valve equipment and protools with lots of plugins)for mastering! - guess what... yep it sounded worst than the no mastered mix for me! But with the ideology"louder is better and is what they(big studios/labels) do", i sent it to a label and they published 2 musics in a compilation cd... Guess again... worst than the mastered cd i sent them!

Now everytime i get a new client i must show them the original recording and compare to the realeased cd couse they say:"i heard your band cd...the sound wasn't good.you recorded it?"
Now when mastering a band i have no more problems...
Why dont u guys do the same?
:)
 
Funkmaster....

You should've sent it to Bob Katz for mastering - it would have been pricey, but the results would have been different than you've experienced so far with mastering places...

You say you sent it to a place with tons of valve equipment and Protools, (neither of which really imply high-end mastering tools!), but that doesn't say whether they are a good mastering house. And it's not necessarily the gear, but how well the mastering engineers can LISTEN!

You can't really just sum it up as "all mastering must be bad, 'cos of what happened to me..." - good mastering can make a bad recording listenable, and a great recording outstanding. Bad mastering can only f**k things up....

Bruce
 
hey bruce... i was refering to your 1st post...dynamics-and how u explain your client louder isn't equal to better!
The only problem my mastered cd had was lack of dynamics...
All i was trying is to suggest u : why dont u make a well masterd version of your own band then a overcompressed one? this way u can show your clients the problems of printing a cd at too high a volume! It works for me...

About the studio where mastering ocurred it was not a mastering facility but a very good recording one(much better than the studio i work on) which belongs to a friend of mine eheeh (low budget u know...) - yeah i'm guilty too...

About mastering i know it... i do mastering everytime couse most of my clients dont have the budget to go to a mastering house...
(sorry my english... i'm portuguese!)
:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top