The Great Professional Mastering Debate

[dachay2tnr]

This is even more fun from this end

Here's a couple of more tidbits. The "pro" used a software package called Sadie 3 (unfamiliar to me), along with some pieces of equipment such as a TC Electronics Limiter, a Prism Sound Maselec stereo equalizer, and B&W speakers. Obviously there was other equipment there as well, but those are the pieces I was able to catch a name on, and also the ones on which he did most of his work (except for the compressor, which I never caught the brand).

I also don't feel the difference between the two versions is all that subtle - but then I have the benefit of being able to listen without the .mp3 compression.

Lastly, I deliberately picked one of the songs that I thought would make for a good test. Some of the stuff the "pro" mastered was (IMHO) a whole lot better than the stuff I did at home - even for my lead ears. But then that wouldn't have been a challange, right?

Let's give it a couple more days, and then I'll spill the beans.

 

[JimH]

I liked “B” better. As Bruce said, “A” was heavier in the low mids and I think the masterer might have taken that out. Also, I like the wideness of “B” so that made it a bit more fun to listen to. If you listen to the very last reverb trail at the end of the song, both seem to have the same kind of sound (is it a metallic sort of sound?) that I wasn’t crazy about. I wonder if the original had reverb and the pro-mastered one added more to cover up the original reverb. Since I don’t know anything about mastering, I’m just talking crazy and you can correct me if you want.

I’d also like to know about the autotune. This kind of stuff is always a learning experience for me. I don’t have an autotune and never played with it, so I can’t really recognize the sound. How do you tell? I don’t mean to talk about whether it’s a good or bad thing; I’m just wondering what to listen for.

Regarding the reverb, there was also one more thing I was wondering. Where do masterers draw the line as far as creatively changing the song? What if what you’re going for creatively is something that isn’t drenched in reverb but the masterer decides to put it in? I guess that is my reservation about picking “B”: that they wouldn’t normally add that much reverb because it amounts to a creative decision.

 

[Son of Mixerman]

The "pro" used a software package called Sadie 3

Sadie is a company that designs mastering work stations along the same line as Sonic Solutions. Pricey DAW specifically for mastering. I believe runs on Windows 98SE OS, backpanels for tons of routing options... Blah Blah

Just go here, Im tired of typing
http://www.sadie.com/


SoMm

 

[chessrock]

My guess is that "A" was done professionally . . .

But I think B was done better, so I'm guessing that you out-did the pro in this case . . . and thus started this thread in order to show off.

Either way, I think the fact that the opinions are so mixed says a lot more than whatever the results are.

 

[mixmkr]

Either way, I think the fact that the opinions are so mixed says a lot more than whatever the results are.

I agree totally

 

[Lt. Bob]

Regardless of which was the pro job.......I find B to be much better. The voices blend better and I agree with Bruce about A having a congested sounding midbass. It keeps the voices from blending properly. The B version also sounds more natural to me.
As for adding the reverb....an engineer sometimes adds it to hide things; in this case the obnoxious amount of auto-tune phasing. It bothers me much less on B even though it's still there.
I hate auto-tune.

 

[macle]

"A" does seem smoother, more evened out, which makes me want to switch to that being the mastered one.

-Macle

 

[Kelby]

I think all of the differences people have identified (which I agree are significant differences) are more matters of personal preference than a matter of one being better than the other.

While the majority of differences did not make me like one significantly more than the other, I really did not like the extra reverb in B. So I prefer A. But that opinion is based solely upon my general distaste for very much reverb and my lack of knowledge about the extent to which the reverb was put in to cover up other things; it does not speak to the quality of either. Based solely upon my unsupported and highly speculative view that most pros today seem to share my distaste for reverb (although the trend will undoubtedly swing back the other way in the near future), I'd guess A is the pro job. But the significant thing about my guess is that it is not based upon the quality of the mixes, but upon my wild-ass guess about the current trend wih respect to the amount of reverb in professional recording.

Bottom line, if you can consistently mix at the quality of whichever of these is yours, take any money you might otherwise spend on a pro and put it toward more equipment in your own studio, 'cause its working plenty good enough.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

What made me dislike A was that heavy, woody, low-mid tone... no way a pro let that thru, and if they did - I wouldn't be going back to them!!!

 

[CrankyOne]

I liked the A better. It's just that the stereo image was more focused. The B sounds more wandering to me. I couldn't notice much differences on the frequencies, maybe because I'm a newbie on those things. And I just bought these over $200 headphones yesterday. Oh well, I'll make a fool out of myself and say the A one is the pro one.

 

[mixmkr]

What made me dislike A was that heavy, woody, low-mid tone... no way a pro let that thru, and if they did - I wouldn't be going back to them!!!

well, shit...just take the idea one step further (and no offense, please to Mr. thread starter), would you go back to "them" if B was the "pro" version?

 

[Kramer]

What made me dislike A was that heavy, woody, low-mid tone... no way a pro let that thru, and if they did - I wouldn't be going back to them!!!

Being that it's an accapella tune,the heavy mid tone mix seem to bring more out of the song for my ears.To me it's not that middy and it's more pleasing to my ears than version "B".

There's something about version B that is abrasive to my ears.Dont know if it's the overkill of high end or reverb.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

well, shit...just take the idea one step further (and no offense, please to Mr. thread starter), would you go back to "them" if B was the "pro" version?

actually... er... no!

The imaging wasn't great on either one........ and I found it worse on B, but the poorer imaging on B was less "instrusive" to me than the muddiness on A was......

 

[chessrock]

Uh . . . pardon me for sounding stupid, here . . .

but aren't a lot of these issues you're talking about here - reverb, panning/stereo imaging, eq-ing - issues for the mixing engineer ? ? ?

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Uh . . . pardon me for sounding stupid, here . . .

but aren't a lot of these issues you're talking about here - reverb, panning/stereo imaging, eq-ing - issues for the mixing engineer ? ? ?

Yes... but if the mixing engineer didn't do their job, then the mastering engineer has to do a rescue operation (assuming it can't be re-mixed!)

 

[Shailat]

Either way, I think the fact that the opinions are so mixed says a lot more than whatever the results are.

Originally posted by mixmkr
I totally agree

I can think of several different options that can be the reason for such mixed opinions

With all due respect to all invovled in the project..

The conclusion can be a negetive one like:
1. The mixer did a bad job and the mastering couldnt save it.
2. The mastering facility has no idea what he is doing
3. Many of the people who listened have no idea what a good mastering job should sound like.



The positive side could be:
1. The mixer out did the mastering job
2. Mastering is a waste of time - period.
3. Half of the people listening can hear a good mastering job.

Thats 6 different conclusions (and I can come up with a few more)
Depending if you are a pessimist or optimist
so when you say "I totaly agree" which one were you refering to.

 

[chessrock]

Thats 6 different conclusions (and I can come up with a few more)
Depending if you are a pessimist or optimist
so when you say "I totaly agree" which one were you refering to.

All of the above. And a few more . . .

* It's a well-recorded song with talented people, and both mastering jobs were admirable enough for people to hear that and allow it to be the main focal point.

* Mastering Engineers, no matter how good they are, can do a sub-adequate job from time to time, just like a great singer can hit a sour note.

* Perhaps mastering isn't the mystical, supernatural thing that some people like to make it out to be.

 

[Shailat]

All of the above. And a few more . . .

And even more......

* Mastering is a subtle art form so to superimpose it from other art forms, maybe only few who make the effort to understand it will reconize its necessity and appreciate.

* A mastering Eng. who is givin a bad mix, might not have a choice but to enhance something to improve the mix only.... to have to compromise and have that action bring out some of the problematic details of the mix as well.

* A Mastering Eng might do anything for the money, instead of returning the mix to be redone.

* Who needs mastering when the Beatles did it all on a 4 track
(why wait for somebody else to say it....)

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

* Perhaps mastering isn't the mystical, supernatural thing that some people like to make it out to be.

Oh it is.... I'm using the Force on you right NOW! (feel your throat tighten yet??)

 

[Lt. Bob]

...and a couple more

1. Music and sound can't completely be governed by "rules" set in stone. There are many different ways something can sound....many of them good but just different. So some people will like one better than another, but "right and wrong" gets a bit blurred when talking about sound.

2. Maybe everyone was drinking when they listened.