mastered well....no demastering by chris a required :)

[Travis In Austin]

Everyone has a different goal with this.

 

@Chris A wants pleasing sound (preference) 

 

@Bonehead Jr and @Combover Mastering have to satisfy a client AND try to make it pleasing to the masses.

 

The client, which is whatever is in their head, subject to being guided or persuaded by professionals.  

 

@Combover Mastering and @Bonehead Jr. Did you provide them alternate mastered versions to chose from?  I know this costs more and not everyone can afford it.

 

Good studio monitors hopefully allow the mixers and.mastering engineer the ability to try and approach everyone's goals. 

 

I'm surprised that @Chief bonehead did his flat to 26hz.  Most of the iconic near field monitors only go down to about 100hz (NS-10, BBC LS3/5A) the 4310 went to about 45 or 50 I believe.

 

In 70s 80s and 90s studio monitors were expected to be accurate to detect problems and address them.

 

Now they need to "TRANSLATE" for mixing and mastering.  You need monitor that allows you to mix and master for car radio, head phones, streaming speakers, and the average stereo system.

 

Sometimes the goals converge, sometimes not.

 

Thanks to Chief Bonehead everyone is going to be bitching about not enough Bass.  @Bonehead Jr. You better put a shelving filter in the monitor output to correct for that😀

 

 

[Travis In Austin]

2 hours ago, Chris A said:

BTW: the DR database dynamic range of the mastered version is 5, while the re-EQed mix version has a dynamic range: 13.

@Combover Mastering, I told you they were going to want a DR number.

[Chief bonehead]

I know how to solve the problem.....matt and michael and other great recording engineers, send your mixes to Chris and he will get them PERFECT!  Lol!  

 

For the others, matt and michael have managed to produce music that is ref material that I will adding to the chief bonehead playlist. Cause honestly as a musician, THAT is all that matters to me. 

 

Trav I could give a hoot about dr numbers.

[Bonehead Jr]

15 minutes ago, Chris A said:

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

Just dont discredit what we do.  Its not fair, there is a major process we go through to make a good master, Its not an easy process as you seem to assume.  We put TLC in all of masters we do, we dont just slap a limiter on it.

 

 

 

[Chris A]

 

18 minutes ago, Bonehead Jr said:

Sorry but you dont know what mastering is, if you think that EQ in that process in mastering chain collapses the stereo image. 

 

I really do recommend a read on the linked Griesinger presentation.  It made immediate sense to me what's happening, and the examples he provided (some of the links are broken) made a believer out of me after hearing them.  If you have differential transients in the left or right channel, the use of minimum phase EQ will push down the height of the relative peaks depending on the level of EQ used on both channels (equally), thus pushing the stereo imaging more toward mono. Clarity is basically tied to the relative height of the transient peaks.  When you push down the macro and micro peaks by whatever method during recording, mixing, or mastering, clarity and imaging suffer.  That's one very good reason why higher DR recordings sound so "alive", at least in my experience.

 

I've demastered about 11K tracks to date, and I can say, after that experience, I've come across a lot of examples of the above. Whether or not you wish to believe, that's entirely up to you.  I don't wish to upset anyone, truth be told.

 

Chris

[Chris A]

Just now, Bonehead Jr said:

Just dont discredit what we do.

I didn't.

[Chief bonehead]

1 minute ago, Bonehead Jr said:

Just dont discredit what we do.  Its not fair, there is a major process we go through to make a good master, Its not an easy process as you seem to assume.  We put TLC in all of masters we do, we dont just slap a limiter on it.

 

 

 

Don't worry too much about what Chris says. All the reading in the world will not compensate for natural gifts and talents. As paul used to say, call bullshit when bullshit is present. 

[Combover Mastering]

14 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

@Combover Mastering, I told you they were going to want a DR number.

Haha. 

[Travis In Austin]

12 minutes ago, Bonehead Jr said:

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

 

 

It's because he makes the assumption based on working backwards.  So logically it appears.to make sense.  People who actually do it, select microphones, determine placement, settings on amp or DI, tracking, mixing and them mastering know what is accurate and which assumptions are faulty.  

 

None of the mixing and mastering people who are at the top of their field subscribe to the conclusions either.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bonehead Jr]

20 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

 

@Combover Mastering and @Bonehead Jr. Did you provide them alternate mastered versions to chose from?  I know this costs more and not everyone can afford it.

 

Yes sir we do and even offer revisions if needed.

[Chris A]

So no one uses FIR EQ filters?

[Travis In Austin]

7 minutes ago, Chief bonehead said:

Don't worry too much about what Chris says. All the reading in the world will not compensate for natural gifts and talents. As paul used to say, call bullshit when bullshit is present. 

And it doesn't even matter.

 

If he can get a preferred sound from freeware across his whole library he has hit the goal of most audiophiles.

 

It doesn't matter that his preferred listening taste is the result of cd mastering from a master production tape (tape sent to pressing facilities with RIAA as, yes there are 1000s of cds that were originally mastered.from production tapes, ask Diamant about having to do that), or the limitations of tape, or a plug in used during tracking, or eq, or compression at tracking and mixing?

 

I have never understood why the source of the eq or compression mattered. If you can fix it to your liking, fix it.

 

Unfortunately, the loudness wars all gets blamed on mastering, and I guess it is easy to blame eq preferences not being met on mastering as well.

 

Does it matter if it happens at mixing or mastering?  Only when the mix is messed up and it they have to try and fix it at mastering.  Those guys never get the credit for saving some very, very bad stuff.

[Chris A]

I don't believe that it's the mastering guys that are the issue when it comes to prolonging Loudness War practices over time.  Perhaps it's the "music producers"?  Maybe it's just corporate culture.  There are these people that are the ones that want "a particular sound".  It's just that I almost always don't prefer that kind of sound.   The sound of dynamic range--like was used everywhere before 1991--is something that I like a lot more.  I actually like "sound reproduction" over "sound creation"...for most music.  I think that almost all mastering guys would use much less limiting and compression if their customers (which isn't actually the consumers) would buy it.

 

I'm not alone in my dislike of Loudness War practices, I believe: http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/

 

Chris

[Combover Mastering]

31 minutes ago, Chris A said:

I'm not alone in my dislike of Loudness War practices, I believe: http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/

 

I actually agree on the above which is why I'm open to do a completely non-limited, yet still mastered otherwise version of the 2 Kinds of Pie "Houdini" album. I think it would be a lot of fun. 

 

I agree that high end systems would benefit from it.

 

it's just not always doable (clients, market etc.) but when the schedule frees up, I'll do it. I think it'd be great for this group and others like it. A fun experiment. Won't be market changing but a whole lot of fun.

 

Matt Whatley

Combover Mastering

[Chris A]

1 hour ago, dwilawyer said:

In 70s 80s and 90s studio monitors were expected to be accurate to detect problems and address them...Now they need to "TRANSLATE" for mixing and mastering.

Newell's Recording Studio Design actually has a really good discussion on thi subjects.  I recommend it highly.  According to that account, the story is a bit more complicated than you indicate, above.  There were apparent factions that seldom crossed paths, and when they did, there were fireworks.  I believe that the factions persist to this day.

[Combover Mastering]

Accurate room and monitoring are 100% key to great translation across the board. Then it's experience, skill, and many X-factors. 

 

Yes as mastering guys or gals we have to make sure it translates on any system skillfully and well. 

 

It would be ideal to go to anyone's given room and car and do an eq process, dsp, etc. to every song in their library and Tweak everything individually to their listening situation...... it's not possible though. 

[Chris A]

The guys that started that "movement" are mastering guys--and I think a lot of their bravery to say something and stay with it.  It's an apparently xenophobic culture (as I see some comments here). 

 

As far as the loss of clarity and imaging during recording, mixing and mastering: I believe that this is overblown in the above discussion, but it's also inevitable in practice once you think about it--just like anything in engineering: the more you process something, the less faithful to the original captured record that you have. 

 

It's not that "all loss of clarity and imaging is bad" that is the message.  It's always a tradeoff, and FIR filtering (which is available in the higher priced DAWs as I understand it) is one way to limit the effects of phase shifts due to EQ during mixing (including the process of making stems) and mastering operations.  The article that I listed above just gives insight to the mechanisms of the psychoacoustics that's especially tractable for normal guys (like me) to understand and grasp.  He's apparently not the first to realize what is occurring, otherwise FIR filters wouldn't be such a big deal in the marketplace, it seems.

 

One of the things that I've noticed in my demastering: it works less well on recordings done since FIR filtering hit the market, so I'm assuming that the phase information is mostly retained if using these type of filters on higher priced DAWs nowadays (and wasn't available during the recordings years ago that I mostly deal with in demastering).  The only issues: computing power (or time) and cost.  I don't have the shekels presently to lay on FIR filter DAW software and hardware.  If I did, I would, then I'd go back and redo some later recordings and those recordings where there were mixing errors.  Clarity and imaging would improve if I did. 

 

Chris

[Travis In Austin]

1 hour ago, Chief bonehead said:

I know how to solve the problem.....matt and michael and other great recording engineers, send your mixes to Chris and he will get them PERFECT!  Lol!  

 

For the others, matt and michael have managed to produce music that is ref material that I will adding to the chief bonehead playlist. Cause honestly as a musician, THAT is all that matters to me. 

 

Trav I could give a hoot about dr numbers.

Wait, really?

 

I thought there was a direct correlation between the number and perceived sound quality.  The higher the number the better the sound.  That isn't true?  Oh no.  What to do, what to do.

 

If that's the case I guess we will have to go back to trusting our ears.

[Chris A]

1 hour ago, dwilawyer said:

If that's the case I guess we will have to go back to trusting our ears.

How's yours, Travis?  I remember you talking about issues a few years ago vis-à-vis going to the doc.  Has it stabilized?. I know from my mother's experiences that have opened my eyes to what's in store for most all of us--assuming we're selected to live that long.  Hearing loss can change your life...or at least make it less stressing.  I try to protect my hearing nowadays even more than I used to when my Jubs arrived 10 years ago.  It's been a good 10 years...

 

I use my ears every day--and the more that I use them, the better the results.  It's amazing to me that I can now hear fairly subtle defects in recordings and go to the audio editor and find those defects where they seemed to be.  It takes practice and frequent breaks to get some of the tracks right. I've learned a lot along the way.  I recommend the experience highly. 

 

It's extremely cathartic for those tracks that I've listened to since perhaps as far back as the mid 1960s, and I'm finally able to do something about the poor state that they're in.  One of the most revealing artists--perhaps surprisingly--the Beatles.  Some of their middle years and later stuff really comes through when you unscramble the EQ and remove the line noise (50/100/150 Hz and even lower frequency HVAC noise).  George Martin's string and wind arrangements are actually quite captivating.  I'd forgotten why I liked them so much as a  young tyke.

 

Chris

[Travis In Austin]

1 hour ago, Chris A said:

Newell's Recording Studio Design actually has a really good discussion on thi subjects.  I recommend it highly.  According to that account, the story is a bit more complicated than you indicate, above.  There were apparent factions that seldom crossed paths, and when they did, there were fireworks.  I believe that the factions persist to this day.

It is a great book, and his book on studio speakers/monitors is even more on point and I highly reccomend that as well.  He has written extensively about the NS-10.  

 

Newell does discuss the reality of it all as follows:

 

"In an interview in EQ magazine in June 1993, George Massenburg, one of the world’s pre-eminent recording engineers and producers, said ‘I believe that there are no ultimate reference monitor systems, and no “golden ears” to tell you that there are. The standards may depend on the circumstances. For an individual, a monitor either works or it doesn’t ....Much may be lost when one relies on an outsider’s judgement and recommendations’. Also, it is worth repeating (from Section 2.4.1) that about a hundred years earlier, Baron Rayleigh, one of the true giants of acoustical research, stated ‘The sensation of sound is a thing sui generis, not comparable to our other sensations. Directly or indirectly, all questions connected, with this subject must come for decision to the ear, as the organ of hearing, and from it there can be no appeal.’"

 

PREFERENCE

 

The factions do persist to this day, but they appear to be manufacturer driven or who has done what lately that sounded spectacular.  

 

How JBL got in the market is very well documented.  The BBC monitor is even better documented than that.  The NS-10 came about because Clearmountain and a couple of other  "freelance" engineers needed portable monitors that they could take from studio to studio as a constant reference.  The engineer was becoming more a part of the production process and there was more and more demand to have a particular engineer on a project, regardless of the studio where it was being recorded. 

 

When other engineers heard that Clearmountain did album X on NS-10s, or when he gave interviews about  using them on Avalon by Roxy Music other engineers wanted to have them.  I don't  think there is anything new about that.  Where it got weird is that in interviews he said he used tissue paper to cut the brightness of the tweeters.  Then engineers wanted to know what brand of tissue paper he was using and what thickness.  For those that are convinced I must be making this all up, please see:

 

Examining the Yamaha NS-10M “Tissue Paper Phenomenon”
An Analysis of the Industry-Wide Practice of Using a 
Tissue-Paper Layer to Reduce High-Frequency Output
Recording Engineer/Producer Magazine, February 1986 – by Bob Hodas 

 

http://www.bobhodas.com/examining-the-yamaha-ns-10m.php

 

 

"The rest, as they say, is history. Clearmountain in particular was (as he is now) a first-call producer and engineer for the biggest projects, and once he and a few others began to rely on the NS10, the phenomenon grew like a virus inhabiting a welcoming host: studios began to buy NS10s in their thousands in an effort to attract name engineers. Of course, in order to thrive, a virus needs a host to which it is particularly well suited, and this was provided by the rapidly increasing number of freelance engineers I described earlier.

When engineers heard that he did album X on NS-10s, or when he gave interviews about using them on Avalon by Roxy Music other engineers wanted to have them.  I don't  think there is anything new about that.  Where it got weird is that in interviews he said he used tissue paper to cut the brightness of the tweeters.  Then engineers wanted to know what brand of tissue paper he was using and what thickness. "

 

Unfortunately, from the time I was a kid, I read every recording industry magazine that came to our door addressed to my Dad.  It has always fascinated me, I suppose because  I got to see it first hand in a few studios he would drag me along to in Los Angeles and the Bay Area while growing up.  I still subscribe to Mix, Sound on Sound, Tape Op and a half dozen others so I can know a bunch of useless information about how a particular album was recorded, mixed or mastered.

 

You never know when you might need to "de-brighten" a pair of studio monitors armed only with a roll of toilet paper.