The Great Homerec'er "Mastering" Dual!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Queue
  • Start date Start date

Which Sounds the Best to You?

  • TicketA

    Votes: 34 47.9%

  • TicketB

    Votes: 16 22.5%

  • TicketC

    Votes: 10 14.1%

  • I honestly cannot pick one as the clear winner.

    Votes: 11 15.5%
  • Total voters
    71
except that the reverb generated by the conductor's voice would not be almost as loud as the sound of the train's arrival, as it was in chess' version!
------------------------

You mean to tell me you've never heard a conductor yell through a loudness maximizer / hard limiter before ? ? ?

You really need to get out more.
 
You also have to remember that this is a religious song, so there could be supernatural reverb influences at work. I would imagine the pearly gates would reverberate quick a bit, possibly 200ms? :p

Regarding the distortion, I'll accept that it was there in the original track, but for some reason it seemed much more prominent to me on the "mastered" tracks. Probably because everything was just louder, but I just didn't notice the distortion on the original track. I'll just write it off as my weak ears.
 
I agree with Sjoko...

Forget about the train...

Next time...

...I'm in as well. I need a calibrate my ears to my new monitors. Ain't nothing like real world feedback to help you...:)

This was a good exercise! Next time however...no train.... ;)

zip >>
 
Back from the mastering house with results....

This is how it went.

I droped it by the mastering house with intentions to leave and pick it up a day later but the mastering engineer asked to do it on the spot as he was loaded with work. He also didnt have the time to sit on it and disect it part by part. I couldnt ask him for more time then he gave me as he was doing me a favor.
Yet in my opinion he gave it a good listen hearing each Ticket
(A, B,C) 3 - 4 times and gave some general remarks.

I told him nothing aside from the fact that "C" was the original mix. I sat there like a dead fish and didnt open my mouth (just in case anybody thought I was pushing towards any direction..:)

His first remark was that mastering is done with the engineers personal taste and so it could be different from engineer to engineer with small differences, but he made a point out of the fact the a mastering engineer must NOT! interfare with the feeling and atmosphere and arrangment (unless required to do so........).

After listening to both A and B he claimed that "B" had interfared way to much and lost to much of the balance of the song, While A
was much better (although he was not happy at some of the directions "A" took)

His general description was that B was Overdone[b/] from compression....... to losing the balance....... to knocking the air out of it.

His general description of A was that the compression was decent and over all done better. His main problem with A was that it sounded as if the engineer had scooped out to much mids
giving the overall sound a sort of "electronic" sound and losing some of the "human" touch. He felt as if you could hear the lower end and higher end with not enough in between.. He felt as "if" it had a boost at around 1.5k giving it a (pinch your nose with your fingers...) "Ehhhhhhh" sound, He said that if you would fold the high on top of the low like you were bending a bar....the bar would crack in the middle.

That was it in a nutshell......

I want to make it strictly clear...in NO way did I hint or give my personal opinion on any of the tickets (including the mix itself).
The content had no influence on him what so ever.
After he told me what he thought, I thanked him and picked up the cd and left (before he can bill me :D ).
 
In a more personal veiw.....

For me this thread should to have a meaning aside from this was fun.

I didnt see to many remarks on "what do I learn from this". Isnt that the main issue for us all?. What did we learn from it all?

Before I give my personal opinion... I of course respect you both for doing it in the first place.

For me this proves a point and IMHO it makes the point clear as ice........Mastering is to be left to somebody who knows what and how to do it alike every profession in the world.

Hopefully none of the respected members will take this personaly.
To me it seems that a home recordist mastering at home CAN do more damage then good. I think Chessrock (although with good intentions) has actully damaged the mix more, then do it good.

Bruce claiming he wouldnt do it at home as he is not a mastering engineer proves his point by showing his ticket. Although with some more knowledge he has improved somewhat the mix he still didnt reach a result that could reach a "mastering house result".

Of course this is my personal opinion and who ever thinks differently will most probably continue to master at home.
Yet ..... if you cant hear that you are doing damage, how can you start the process altogether............

All in all it was interesting to see the process and hear the results.
 
Time for another analogy...

Consider a rifle range....

You have three marksmen... 10 shots each

The targets are tin cans... 10 white, 10 black

The marksmen are instructed to hit the white cans. They get a score of +1 for hitting a white can and -1 for hitting a black can.

Marksman one is blindfolded, and has an air rifle...
He can tell when he hits a can, shoots away, misses on 5 shots, but hits 5 cans (he's lucky, maybe, and thinks he's doing well) but two are black...

Marksman two has a .38 caliber pistol, is allowed to open his eyes long enough to sight the target, but must close them while shooting. He hits 8 cans, two of them black.

Marksman three has a sighted high powered rifle, and those cool yellow glasses that marksmen wear. :cool: He hits 9 white cans.

Score:
Marksman 1 = 1
Marksman 2 = 4
Marksman 3 = 9












wtf is this all about?

In my little parable, Marksman 1 is the homey "masterer", who doesn't really know what he's doing, makes some changes, some for the better, some for the worse. He is limited both in his tools, and in his ability to know if he is doing any good.

Marksman 2 is a skilled homey or a professional recording/mixing engineer. He has better tools, and has a good idea what he's doing, and actually improves on the recording, but with his limitations (equipment, skills, and experience) is incapable of doing a "really good job"

Marksman 3 is a Mastering Engineer. He has all the cool stuff, and knows how to use it. The only reason he doesn't get a 10 is because art is so damn subjective...

Queue
 
Queue said:
Time for another analogy...

Consider a rifle range....

You have three marksmen... 10 shots each

The targets are tin cans... 10 white, 10 black

The marksmen are instructed to hit the white cans. They get a score of +1 for hitting a white can and -1 for hitting a black can.

Marksman one is blindfolded, and has an air rifle...
He can tell when he hits a can, shoots away, misses on 5 shots, but hits 5 cans (he's lucky, maybe, and thinks he's doing well) but two are black...
Click to expand...

Or can it be that marksman #1 shot himself in the leg becuase he doesnt know how to use a rifle?
 
99 and 44/100 % true BUT...

"For me this proves a point and IMHO it makes the point clear as ice........Mastering is to be left to somebody who knows what and how to do it alike every profession in the world."...

...Shailat

Just because a CD was mastered at a Mastering house doesn't mean it will be a job well done.

I purchased a commercial CD Mastered at Abbey Road and it was the WORST. I couldn't even listen to it - I had to "remaster" it at home so I could.

Could it have been personal taste? Maybe. All I know is EVERY person I played both performances for preferred mine.

Does that make me a Mastering Engineer? Definitely not. Does it mean a good mastering engineer couldn't do a better job? Definitely not. Does it mean all mastering engineers are good at what they do?

Definitely not.

Just my 2 cents...
 
uh oh, zip.

you got samples?

we could see what people here think.... :D

Queue
 
and there is always that added percentage of 'problems', the customer, for a mastering engineer.
In other words - a clients idea of what it should sound like might be somewhat weird. Had plenty of those in the past, even two I send on their merry way to another place in the UK, as I refused to make what was a good recording THAT bad :D
 
Zip,

no offence.... (good intro as to proclaim no intent)

If you have to remaster music that you buy in order to listen to, either:

A. The Music sucked to begin with. i.e. not sonically, just musically.

or

B. You don't care what the music is, just how it sounds.

In either case, it's interesting, and one of the underlying themes of this mastering vs non-master stuff.

(**disclamer** as I see it, not saying it is an actual underlying theme, just an observation.)

Is music all subjective?
 
Thanks for calling in the favour Shailat..........

...I was certainly curious about what a true Mastering Engineer would say....

I'd accept his comments too, except for the one --- there was almost no EQ applied, and none in the midrange at all (see my liner notes on Queue's page - I spell out all that was done)

No doubt his opinion reflects, at least partially, the sound difference between what his ears prefer and what mine do... but of course, I would obviously defer to his professional opinion.

Bruce
 
Yes! Shailat, Thank you VERY MUCH for helping in this most educational exercise.

Queue
 
Bruce,

If I remember him correctly he didn't saying you actully scooped out the mid's but that it "sounds" as if you did.
 
Everybody must remember....Chessrocks mix does not speak for all home recordists mastering capabilities....

I'm willing to bet that there are a number of home reckers on this board that could of produced much better results than Blue Bear using software only.... (no offense to BB)
 
Brokenwindow . . .

I'm willing to bet that there are a number of home reckers on this board that could of produced much better results than Blue Bear using software only.... (no offense to BB)
------------------------

You may be right, but only to a degree.

As much as I like the limiting capabilities DAW provides, I am not totally sold on the compression. Bruce's version was superior to mine for a few main reasons:

a) My version was a bit overdone in terms of messing with the sound of the original.

b) Bruce's outboard compression gave it some very good, tight punch. Radio-ready punch.

I'm a huge fan of the Ultramaximizer and similar plugins. They give you the ability to boost the level, and limit the peaks without distorting or coloring the sound. However, I just haven't come across any compressor plugins that are cabable of delivering the kind of "punch" that even my cheapo Joemeek can deliver (nothing against Joemeek -- very good compressors).

In that regard, I don't think it really matters who is competing -- the Blue Bears of the world will win, hands-down.

HOWEVER:

The speed, flexibility, and editing capabilities of a good DAW station could be a valuable asset for certain jobs that may require maximum flexibility.

Suppose you want to apply different types of EQ to verse one as opposed to verse 2? And yet another to the guitar solo? Or suppose you would like a different attack/release time on the compression during the bridge and yet another during the chorus?

I can see the pros smirking right now, as they get ready to tell me they can do that without difficulty.

Okay, now suppose you would like to have a different eq setting on one particular WORD OR PHRASE. Maybe you prefer a different type of multiband compression on 10 to 20 different segments of the song, each lasting no more than 2-3 seconds in time. As well as several that are only a milisecond in time.

If this were the case, I would say either you or your client is pretty high-maintanance . . . but humor me and suppose you really wanted to be able to do some delicate, surgically-precise touch-ups on your mastering job, worthy of De Vinci?

That might be kinda' tough to pull off with traditional mastering gear. For a DAW workstation, it could be done in a good afternoon's time. I'm not an expert . . . I'm not a professional. But my gut tells me there is a place for a workstation similar to my own in a professional mastering facility.

Stop chuckling, Bruce.

:)
 
You have somewhat of a point there chessrock as there are quite a few mastering houses that use plugins today on DAW'S.
But they also tend to use a combination of both outboard and plugins.
 
Re: Bruce,

Shailat said:
If I remember him correctly he didn't saying you actully scooped out the mid's but that it "sounds" as if you did.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... did he happen to say why that would happen then, if EQ wasn't really touched? (I ask only to expand my own knowledge!)

Bruce
 
Bruce ....that would have to be because of the original mix...right?? ...the EQ on the mix. However, what I sent was what came off the DAT with no processing to the stereo mix, so there was no EQ applied afterwards. It then all goes back to tracking and the mixdown.

on another note...I find that all my mixes, even though they may sound OK to me (and even on many other systems), LOOK very deficient in the high freqs. It looks there has been some heavy lo-pass filtering going on when I look at the spectrum stuff too....like everything rolled off starting at about 7.5K. Attempting to boost the high end, surely is a mistake to my ears. oh well!!! sigh....

Shailet...thanks very much for your efforts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top