Moderators Travis In Austin Posted January 9, 2018 Moderators Share Posted January 9, 2018 Thank you for posting the "before" 2 track mix tape versions and the "after" master tape version after mastering. People can compare for themselves what mastering does to a raw mix down tape. There is a common misconception among some audiophiles that mastering is a destructive and unnecessary process only utilized at the insistence of record company executives to get a louder record using massive compression and limiting along with unnecessary equalization. Why that may be true in some cases, or with certain types of music, people here can listen to those files and determine for themselves whether the mastered version is an improvement over the raw mix. Most people have never had the opportunity to hear a raw mix down tape before mastering is undertaken. Unfortunately they are left with the impression that if the end product has too much compression, or too much eq, or other type processing they assume this was done in during mastering, as opposed to further up the chain during mixing or tracking. Thus (I believe) the reason for Roy @Chief bonehead giving the title to this post that he did. I think the other thing that most people who have an appreciation for well recorded music would be shocked to see is the studio monitors that are utilized for musician playback, mixing and mastering. I guess it's like that old adage about seeing how sausage is made. They would be quite surprised to know that some of the most revered studios, mix and mastering engineers had used a pair of Yamaha NS-10s to achieve the results of the final product. Seeing a pair of grot boxes like the Auratone 5C would be too much for many to bear. I hope the Klipsch Delgado Studio monitors take off like the NS-10 did back in the day. Travis 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted January 9, 2018 Moderators Share Posted January 9, 2018 22 hours ago, Combover Mastering said: Regarding hi-res. The highest we have right now on this album is CD quality 16 bit / 44.1 because that is what the client paid for on the mastering side. Seeing that there is a need though we may go back later and do a remaster at 24 bit / 88.2. Seems like a cool thing for groups like this one. That would be cool, but I have a question. To go back and remaster to a higher rate does this require a complete remaster as far as time involved or would it be easier than the original. Just wondering since I have NO idea of the process. Or would for ease of your work on future jobs remaster higher and is the customer wants lower res give them the lower res. It's obvious I don't know the process, just wondering if it would save y'all some work in the long run? You can't really spend alot of time doing something that would pay little or nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Since Travis opened the door to comments... 3 hours ago, Combover Mastering said: All are good mixes from various studios but compared to the mastered files we finished at Combover the gap is huge Yes, the gap is pretty large between the mix and master versions, but not nearly as large as I've seen in most of my demastering efforts--based on older discs that have been "remastered" more recently, compared to the original released versions from before 1991. I'd also add that the "mastered" tracks in this case (relative to the mix versions supplied) are still: much louder (over 9 dB), indicating to me that they probably have been significantly limited (clipped). Subsequent review of the "mastered" track bears this out... missing kick drum fundamental frequencies at ~35 Hz, and all have overemphasized "midbass" at 50-100 Hz, losing their sense of bass ambiance Have somewhat overemphasized treble above 1 kHz, particularly 3-4 kHz and 7-13 kHz....by about 3 dB These combine to form a harsher sound, particularly on the treble (listening volume at 87 dB at the listening position). The EQed version of the mix track is a lot more pleasant to listen to (linked below). The EQ curve that I used on the mix track: The Mix track with the above EQ applied looks like this (normalized): And the declipped mastered track at equal loudness: And a link to the re-EQed mix file in FLAC format: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g8Cgla7TrnBBdElplhnAEEWuQjohAnbN/view?usp=sharing Remember that the "mastered" track must be decreased in loudness by 9 dB in order to compare the two tracks. YMMV. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 BTW: the DR database dynamic range of the mastered version is 5, while the re-EQed mix version has a dynamic range: 13. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Chris, you are very tiresome. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 One thing that I do need to add so that it's clear what my message is: I would be standing first in line to buy the mixdown tracks, and I'd re-EQ them myself (giving a little more time to the re-voicing part, which I really didn't accomplish on the example track , above). And more importantly, I DO understand the market forces that drive the above "mastering" practices, and I'm not saying anything bad about them--they are what they are. I understand that many here will prefer the mastered versions, depending on their setups that they're listening on. Understand that I'm listening through carefully rebalanced Bonehead Senor loudspeakers (2-way Jubilees with TAD 4002 drivers and TH subs, flat from 15 kHz down to 100 Hz, and +3 dB/octave below that point down to 17 Hz). All I'm saying is that there is room in the marketplace for both versions...and the mixdown version doesn't cost any more to distribute on-line... Kudos to Roy, once again, for giving me the ability to hear the difference... Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead Jr Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Chris A said: Since Travis opened the door to comments... Yes, the gap is pretty large between the mix and master versions, but not nearly as large as I've seen in most of my demastering efforts--based on older discs that have been "remastered" more recently, compared to the original released versions from before 1991. I'd also add that the "mastered" tracks in this case (relative to the mix versions supplied) are still: much louder (over 9 dB), indicating to me that they probably have been significantly limited (clipped). Subsequent review of the "mastered" track bears this out... missing kick drum fundamental frequencies at ~35 Hz, and all have overemphasized "midbass" at 50-100 Hz, losing their sense of bass ambiance Have somewhat overemphasized treble above 1 kHz, particularly 3-4 kHz and 7-13 kHz....by about 3 dB These combine to form a harsher sound, particularly on the treble (listening volume at 87 dB at the listening position). The EQed version of the mix track is a lot more pleasant to listen to (linked below). The EQ curve that I used on the mix track: The Mix track with the above EQ applied looks like this (normalized): And the declipped mastered track at equal loudness: And a link to the re-EQed mix file in FLAC format: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g8Cgla7TrnBBdElplhnAEEWuQjohAnbN/view?usp=sharing Remember that the "mastered" track must be decreased in loudness by 9 dB in order to compare the two tracks. YMMV. Chris The FLAC version sounded too dull to me, even when level matched. It just lacked the energy the client originally wanted. It also lacked somewhat in the stereo imaging realm. Seemed to have slightly more apparent depth though due to the increased dynamic range. Huge Dynamic range, unfortunately is not always commercially viable, so for hi-fi listeners only looking for that more dynamic sound: yes more dynamic range and no limiter. For general or casual listeners though , loud is good, its what they seek. Edited January 9, 2018 by Bonehead Jr 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch Employees Chief bonehead Posted January 9, 2018 Author Klipsch Employees Share Posted January 9, 2018 Sorry Chris. Totally disagree with you. There is no way to have the "snap" of those peak available in the final master. You eyes would blink and would be very uncomfortable to listen to. There HAS to be some sort of limiting but not so such to take the life out of the music. This cd has been recorded, mixed and mastered beautifully. No de mastering required. These cuts are now in my reference cuts list. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combover Mastering Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) Right Michael! I agree with all your thoughts on the matter! Yeah yeah, you work with me but put like a savant. I'd like to add. Yes, loudness and limiting is part of mastering a commercial track but does not always have to be destructive. One must take great care and caution doing this. This brings me back to dtel's question. Yes we would remaster the hi-rez version with no limiter and it would be much lower loudness and have a bit better dynamic range. I would want the energy of the tracks to remain the same as the original master though because that's how the artist wanted it. May use a compressor conservatively at -2db gain reduction for a little bit of glue. There is so much more to mastering than EQ. Sometimes you need to work the EQ in mid side rather than left right. Sometimes compression is required for glue. Sometimes you lift side info for better width. Sometimes you EQ particular frequencies in the middle for better depth. Sometimes you compress the sides to bring out the room. Sometimes the mix may have a de-ess issue, and a very finely tuned de-esser is needed. I'm just saying mastering IS NOT just about volume or loudness. If the industry ever changes. I won't use the damn limiter. hahaha! For the record, we do not use a limiter on classical and hard jazz tracks. Matt Whatley Combover Mastering Edited January 9, 2018 by Combover Mastering clarification 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 29 minutes ago, Chief bonehead said: There is no way to have the "snap" of those peak available in the final master. You eyes would blink and would be very uncomfortable to listen to. There HAS to be some sort of limiting but not so such to take the life out of the music. Many would agree--and I'll say that I generally prefer the snap, but more importantly, I prefer a more natural "acoustic" sound. that's less "loud". I don't listen at 87 dB (average) levels most of the time - more like 75-80 (dBC) or even less--and this example really isn't my type of music preference--but it was available for A-B comparison. My preference for higher dynamic range is really true for instrumentation that is fully acoustic to begin with--which I spend a lot more time listening to, i.e., orchestral, solo acoustic instrument, solo accompanied voice, etc. There are some more squashed recordings that I have to live with (and I have...for decades) that I've basically imprinted on that sound, and I'm surprised when I hear more dynamic recordings of the same material. But in general, I've always been drawn to more realistic recordings, more hi-fi if you will--like a live acoustic performance--not amplified. There are some genres that suffer but in my music library the number of those recordings is quite small, perhaps less than a dozen albums out of a couple of thousand. One example: Tres Hombres by ZZ Top. The original CD from 1988, when demastered, has a DR Database album rating of 13, but some tracks are at 14. This is even more dynamic than the vinyl records from before that time, and is somewhat surprising to hear the venue (studio) acoustics (stick sounds bouncing off the studio walls) on the drummer's interludes, but in general, I've grown accustomed to the "louder" sound over time. But I make a point to go back and listen to the 1988 CD version with restored bass, and I can tell you that it always draws me in for a closer listen. However, the Heresies in the garage cannot begin to show the advantages of this sound, so I use the older version in the garage... YMMV. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1101 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 I would use beer in the garage. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted January 9, 2018 Moderators Share Posted January 9, 2018 2 hours ago, Chris A said: Since Travis opened the door to comments... Yes, the gap is pretty large between the mix and master versions, but not nearly as large as I've seen in most of my demastering efforts--based on older discs that have been "remastered" more recently, compared to the original released versions from before 1991. I'd also add that the "mastered" tracks in this case (relative to the mix versions supplied) are still: much louder (over 9 dB), indicating to me that they probably have been significantly limited (clipped). Subsequent review of the "mastered" track bears this out... missing kick drum fundamental frequencies at ~35 Hz, and all have overemphasized "midbass" at 50-100 Hz, losing their sense of bass ambiance Have somewhat overemphasized treble above 1 kHz, particularly 3-4 kHz and 7-13 kHz....by about 3 dB These combine to form a harsher sound, particularly on the treble (listening volume at 87 dB at the listening position). The EQed version of the mix track is a lot more pleasant to listen to (linked below). The EQ curve that I used on the mix track: The Mix track with the above EQ applied looks like this (normalized): And the declipped mastered track at equal loudness: And a link to the re-EQed mix file in FLAC format: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g8Cgla7TrnBBdElplhnAEEWuQjohAnbN/view?usp=sharing Remember that the "mastered" track must be decreased in loudness by 9 dB in order to compare the two tracks. YMMV. Chris Great stuff. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch Employees Chief bonehead Posted January 9, 2018 Author Klipsch Employees Share Posted January 9, 2018 This is one of those things that unless you have recorded, mixed and mastered yourself, you have no idea what it takes to produce an awesome recording. Try it some day Chris...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Too late... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch Employees Chief bonehead Posted January 9, 2018 Author Klipsch Employees Share Posted January 9, 2018 26 minutes ago, Chris A said: Many would agree--and I'll say that I generally prefer the snap, but more importantly, I prefer a more natural "acoustic" sound. that's less "loud". Chris Actually if you knew what I was talking about, you would not like the snap. Obviously talking two different languages as I have recorded stuff over the years. But hey do you what you want. Not really that important to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch Employees Chief bonehead Posted January 9, 2018 Author Klipsch Employees Share Posted January 9, 2018 7 minutes ago, Chris A said: Too late... Then you got it wrong! Haha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead Jr Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 So Chris, your sitting here telling me all thats important is EQ? Cause thats all your talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Bonehead Jr said: It also lacked somewhat in the stereo imaging realm. Based on the Griesinger presentation on clarity, I've identified (for myself) why this might be true: whatever you do at mix time basically gets locked into the imaging and transient peaks. If you use any sort of EQ at mastering time, the imaging and clarity will suffer. However, if you're undoing mastering EQ, you stand a very good chance of actually recovering clarity and stereo imaging. It's pretty cool how that happens. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 BTW: welcome to the forum, Jr...We've having a particularly lively day today. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead Jr Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) Sorry but you dont know what mastering is, if you think that EQ in that process in mastering chain collapses the stereo image. There is no truth in that statement. I will admit your stuff with demastering is very cool and I wish i knew how to do it. Just dont discredit what we do. Its not fair, there is a major process we go through Edited January 9, 2018 by Bonehead Jr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.