Trying to Master with the ART Pro VLA II

[SafeandSound]

As a thought the VLAII might be worth a try on less "bass heavy" music mixes, some acoustic music for example. I also noted it definitely tamed the high end (without any compression occurring) which could be exactly what you want or not. I usually like a completely clean pass through characteristic with audio devices fro mastering unless there is some real mojo happening and the unit becomes a goto box for specific purposes. The box is also full of 5pct tolerance resistors and cheap ceramic caps.(Nothing wrong with ceramic capacitors if they are NP0/C0G types which they are not). Not really mastering grade circuitry IMO.

Barry

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Not really mastering grade circuitry.

Considering tracking and mixing are far more important stages in the process, that would make the VLA II, along with any other non-botique gear FTM, completely inappropriate for everything.

G.

 

[SafeandSound]

Actually no, mono sources do not require accurate stereo balance which is critical for mastering (both for obvious reasons).
So for tracking if something sounds right, it sounds right. Of course there is the caveat that every other
element of the chain is correctly set up, room choice ,mic position, mic choice, mic preamp choice,
gain structure, accurate monitoring etc. etc. Then you can consider whether to VLA or not to VLA !

There is plenty, plenty vintage gear revered for it's sacred audio quality that on paper looks like a disaster.

Chaining the tone of audio being passed through is best used at engineers discretion for special effects and adding character.

No absolutes, it's my opinion.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Actually no, mono sources do not require accurate stereo balance which is critical for mastering (both for obvious reasons).

The idea that the quality of gear (or anything else) is more critical in mastering than in any other step in the production is false. Quality needs to be front-loaded in the process, not held off until it's too late.

Getting the balance right is no more or less critical in mastering than it is in mixing, where one is dealing in more than just mono, and where it needs to be gotten right *before* it's sent off to mastering. If there's something wrong with the VLA - or any other piece of gear - that makes it inappropriate for use in the mastering phase, that makes it even more inappropriate for mixing.

This whole idea that mastering is reserved for refined audiophiliacs and gear sluts and that tracking and mixing are for the great unwashed is a perpetuated bias that has to end.

Mastering is not about making mixes sound good. Mixing is about making mixes sound good. If they don't sound good already, they are not yet ready for mastering.

G.

 

[SafeandSound]

Hi G, firstly the importance of a stable and accurate stereo balance in mastering (which is what I suggested) is not false.
I completely agree that quality of equipment is a factor in the recording process, it would be foolish to say anything else.

Quality needs to be front-loaded in the process, not held off until it's too late.

Under ideal circumstance equipment choice is largely superceded (in terms of subjective recording quality) by the pointers I suggested above, starting with room choice(i.e. acoustics), mic position. mic technique, be it mono or (XY, Blumlein, ORTF, spaced pair,M-S micing) and mic choice I know this as I have recorded 100's of straight to stereo music sessions of widely known artists.

As a mastering engineer I make decisions on other peoples hard work. I don't take that lightly and therefore when I choose equipment that is specifically clean in nature it needs to pass audio through without detriment, this requires a good design, and high quality electronic components, the VLAII does not meet this standard IMO in compression action, technical facility (no side chain) or basic audio pass through (I can copy it using any LPF). Whether it works as a device for recording is your choice and your choice alone.

As far as comments regarding when mixes are ready for mastering, times have changed, we are no longer in 1985 when budgets were huge and people employed.... gasp........ "audio professionals". If I hear a mix that does not quite cut it I ask for adjustments (if the client has requested my input). Sometimes todays "mixers" are not confident enough to know when the mix is good so chances are the input from a mastering engineer is invaluable.

Mastering has changed and it is fact that, you do get asked for mix input, mixes do get sent in not optimized, there are people who are less well trained than your professional audio engineer of the 80's/90's and people are often looking for mastering to correct some problems they could not resolve themselves. Whether these problems are corrected through mix tweaks (under advice from a mastering engineer) or mastering the end result is better.

Summing up, recording is important and mastering is important. There is a general expectation that mastering uses high quality equipment to effect
changes to the music irrelevant of whether it was produced using $3,000.00 or $3,000,000.00 of equipment in the record/mix phase.

cheers