Killing sacred cows

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by vdubreeze

You can also have a project mastered by an excellent mastering engineer who does a fantastic job on it but you don't like it. Mastering's end product is as subjective as a mix is.

I agree with this. A very talented mixer from my country said that he sent a mix to a grammy mastering guy and the result lacked low end.
He then said he wanted to learn how to master, to know how far he could push the low end.

[The Kid]

I did a sample mixing and mastering job for a guy from Peru. One minute of a song.
He said that he didn't want me to do the mixing job because the kick drum wasn't loud enough.
He said that he wanted to do the mix himself, and that he liked my mastering a lot.
He wanted me to master the song.
The "mastering" in the sample was only a limiter lol
It was all about the mix, just ask me to turn up the kick!
It was the last time I did a sample job!

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by norbury brook

I think you're being a little unfair on some very talented people there, yes what you say is true but they didn't get and stay there without being the best in the business. I work with these people and they have a depth of knowledge and experience most can only dream of.

Hey now. I've been glued to following the likes of Bob Clearmountain, Bruce Swedien et al for years and years. They are absolutely amazing, especially the genius of Bob and some of the stuff he sets up hardware and routing wise. So maybe you misread my intent?

All I was saying is they are in a business, with a specific type of process and workflow that has worked for them for decades. Every similar business works that way, develop a process, stick with it, find those whom you work well with and flow business between each other (both financially and because they are good at what they do).

It is financially viable and very smart to do that. It is in their best interest to continue this process and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, it just "is". And major label recording budgets usually allow for it. My use of sacred cow wasn't meant as disrespectful or disparaging.

But that is not the majority of the people here who are not tied to any of those processes. Therefore, they are free to learn to master in their main project and there be nothing technically damaging to the mix/release by doing so. Especially if they have others whos ears they trust as trusted advisors and bias checkers - which everyone needs.

I'm also not against having someone else master, I'm just answering the question in the first post.

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Hey now. I've been glued to following the likes of Bob Clearmountain, Bruce Swedien et al for years and years. They are absolutely amazing, especially the genius of Bob and some of the stuff he sets up hardware and routing wise. So maybe you misread my intent?

All I was saying is they are in a business, with a specific type of process and workflow that has worked for them for decades. Every similar business works that way, develop a process, stick with it, find those whom you work well with and stick and flow business between each other (both financially and because they are good at what they do).

It is financially viable and very smart to do that. It is in their best interest to continue this process and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, it just "is". Not to mention if they do it that way, for that long, there has to be some dependency that builds because they kind of never do it themselves in much capacity.

But that is not the majority of the people here who are not tied to any of those processes. Therefore, they are free to master in their main project and there be nothing technically damaging to the music by doing so. Especially if they have others whos ears they trust as trusted advisors and bias checkers.

I just mix, master, send the files to the clients and trust their ears as much as I can.
There is a lot to learn from musicians of all levels in my experience
EDIT: with less experienced musicians, you have to decode what they say, but it almost always means something useful for the mix

[karbomusic]

An important note about all of this...

Things can and will change over time. And that includes most every aspect of recording and producing music. There is always this tug of war between the old process wanting to remain the same (it's always worked) as the world around that process changes.

Sometimes that change might not seem so great, and in reality not be. But it is also inevitable that some processes start becoming outdated because of that same changing world, and they become less needed, not needed or just too inefficient in some form.

Outsourced mastering is straddling that fence more now than before and some of the reasons that is occurring are valid. Some of it because the consumerization of professional recording creates a very large demographic of creative people who can function outside that legacy process and.... be successful doing so.

[foxAsteria]

There's hardly a bigger workflow killer than worrying about if you're doing things "right." I'd say you're on the path.

[Time Waster]

Inasmuch as kids should be taught the numbers 0 to 9, rather than 1 to 10, so also should the beats in a bar start at zero. So next time you count in a 4/4 song, call out "zero, one, two, three..."

[Time Waster]

Similarly, the first bar in a song should be bar zero. I find it annoying and sometimes confusing that the tick marks on the timeline tend to display odd numbered bars. It's not very tidy, at least, not for my slightly autistic brain.

[norbury brook]

It's an interesting topic and one that leads to the whole issue of the current state of the music business a lot of which is due to 2 main things

1: as Karbo said ''consumerization of professional recording creates a very large demographic of creative people who can function outside that legacy process ''

and 2: the fact that Streaming is now the way most people consume music.


both these things tie in to why people need to mix and master themselves


the bottom line is the 'sacred cow' has been killed a few years ago and it was the fact people stopped BUYING physical media. the Physical product was the sacred cow

the consumerism of recording has led to millions of tracks released every your for Streaming which has led to a Capitalist system whereby the top 1% earn 90% of all the revenue. Say what you want about the old system, it supported artists from top to bottom and everything in between.

Sorry if we're drifting OT


M

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by norbury brook

It's an interesting topic and one that leads to the whole issue of the current state of the music business a lot of which is due to 2 main things

1: as Karbo said ''consumerization of professional recording creates a very large demographic of creative people who can function outside that legacy process ''

and 2: the fact that Streaming is now the way most people consume music.


both these things tie in to why people need to mix and master themselves


the bottom line is the 'sacred cow' has been killed a few years ago and it was the fact people stopped BUYING physical media. the Physical product was the sacred cow

the consumerism of recording has led to millions of tracks released every your for Streaming which has led to a Capitalist system whereby the top 1% earn 90% of all the revenue. Say what you want about the old system, it supported artists from top to bottom and everything in between.

Sorry if we're drifting OT


M

The old system never supported me. I wasn't willing to comply with all the nonsense that was the "Buenos Aires Scene". Most of the bands were spoiled mediocre little c$%ts. Of course there are some amazing, very talented people that came of of that system, but this was not meant to last for ever.
It was like "ok, we are a band, we suck, but Sony Music will sort us out, put a producer from "the scene" and we'll be professional lazy bastards that spend their time playin guitar and being f#$%t up, because we don't deserve to deal with real world issues like most of the normal musicians.
I'm a sour grape, I know, but I'm not sorry for them if they don't sell physical product anymore. You'd buy a record and one song was good and the rest was shite.
The Tango scene is something I do respect, because to play Tango you actually have to play and instrument properly, and read music.
You can be a Tango player if you study and have some talent. It's not about luck.
But Rock in Argentina is a different animal.
It's all about who you know, and all that.
Of course there are exceptions to what I said, there was great stuff that came out of the old system and there is at least one band that sold a lot of records without being with a major label.
There's also the story of the bands that had a following before signing with a major, I respet that, but after they signed most of them got spoiled.
One of the things I couldn't stand from the Scene was people stuffing their noses with the powder of the power lol
The old system also made mediocre musicians learn the craft by being with experienced producers, but not many made the most of it.
At least now I can make indie records with my modest but very powerful digital studio and make a minimum wage living doing what I like.

[beingmf]

Perfect circular argument: If you have a product (sic!) which you want to sell, meet the potential listeners' expectations about the sound. Cheap "street" product (=streaming): master yourself. Glossy "adult contemporary" product (=CD or vinyl): have it mastered by a pro.
At that point you of course have you trust the ME ‒ your, or the artist's, personal taste is just 49% of the calculation. Since in the end you want to reach as many listeners within your target group as possible, and I don't see this as a purely monetary, but also a communicative aspect. What's the sense in making art if no one will hear/see it?

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by beingmf

Cheap "street" product (=streaming): master yourself. Glossy "adult contemporary" product (=CD or vinyl): have it mastered by a pro.

Oversimplification, I think. There's some stuff "in between" lol
Also, I wouldn't do a "cheap" sounding record, even if it was for streaming (wich isn't as bad as many "audio professionals" say it is)
Who said that a DIY digital mastering job has to compromise quality? If you want to do it, learn the craft!
This is the kind of mindset that I don't agree with: pro mastering guys do some sort of vodoo we can't do, no matter what.

[norbury brook]

Originally Posted by The Kid

Oversimplification, I think. There's some stuff "in between" lol
Also, I wouldn't do a "cheap" sounding record, even if it was for streaming (wich isn't as bad as many "audio professionals" say it is)
Who said that a DIY digital mastering job has to compromise quality? If you want to do it, learn the craft!
This is the kind of mindset that I don't agree with: pro mastering guys do some sort of vodoo we can't do, no matter what.

no ones saying they do some kind of voodoo,,,,BUT.... most pro mastering engineers have been learning their craft for 25 years plus and they have invested in the best equipment available and have it in a treated room with great monitors.

The time and the money is a significant investment, an inexperienced person in the same room would do a shitty job so it's NOT all about the gear but you can't buy experience and that's kind of why I don't think they're the sacred Cow. Also have you any idea how hard it is to get to the top in that profession? all those guys deserve the utmost respect for getting there ands staying there IMHO, as does anyone in the music business It's really f**king hard to get there and stay there.



M

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by norbury brook

no ones saying they do some kind of voodoo,,,,BUT.... most pro mastering engineers have been learning their craft for 25 years plus and they have invested in the best equipment available and have it in a treated room with great monitors.

The time and the money is a significant investment, an inexperienced person in the same room would do a shitty job so it's NOT all about the gear but you can't buy experience and that's kind of why I don't think they're the sacred Cow. Also have you any idea how hard it is to get to the top in that profession? all those guys deserve the utmost respect for getting there ands staying there IMHO, as does anyone in the music business It's really f**king hard to get there and stay there.



M

If they could learn the craft, so can I. And I'm not bad at all.
I've been making music for for a living for 35 years, and many of those years I spent making records. I studied music A LOT, I know how things work musically. I can tell what's going on inside the music. What's going on with the harmony, and all that.
I know some top level engineers in person. Some of them recorded me as a session player.
I don't say any idiot can master their own mixes, and I'm nobody, but you're assuming that I somehow don't have a lot of experience. I actually do. And I'm a bit of a nerd, wich helps.
It's easy to think that I'm some kind of hack who doesn't know what the f#$%k is talking about, because i'm spending time actually talking about this stuff lol
I actually do know what a good sounding record is.
I didn't make this thread to encourage people to dismiss top level professionals. I want to be one, and I work hard at it.
I'd say I want to encourage people to take this craft seriously and look what's going on under the hood of things, in this case audio.
My gear is fine too, by the way. Nothing there to stop me from making "glossy records" lol
One thing is to be humble, and other is to let people think you somehow are not qualified to do a professional job
Oh I have perfect pitch by the way
I told a story nobody payed attention to, of a guy who gave mastering all the credit when it was all about the mixing job.
That kind of thinking is the mastering guys propaganda. I'm not saying they don't deserve credit, but the whole mystique about them makes a lot of noise in my head.

[foxAsteria]

Originally Posted by Time Waster

Similarly, the first bar in a song should be bar zero.

You know you can do that in project settings don't ya?

[The Kid]

If you do want to kill sacred cows, do it with respect. They deserve it.
Don't be afraid to study a lot, especially music.
And of course don't pay too much attention to me.
I can get away with stuff I do because I know the "normal" way too.

[norbury brook]

Originally Posted by The Kid

If they could learn the craft, so can I. And I'm not bad at all.
I've been making music for for a living for 35 years, and many of those years I spent making records. I studied music A LOT, I know how things work musically. I can tell what's going on inside the music. What's going on with the harmony, and all that.
I know some top level engineers in person. Some of them recorded me as a session player.
I don't say any idiot can master their own mixes, and I'm nobody, but you're assuming that I somehow don't have a lot of experience. I actually do. And I'm a bit of a nerd, wich helps.
It's easy to think that I'm some kind of hack who doesn't know what the f#$%k is talking about, because i'm spending time actually talking about this stuff lol
I actually do know what a good sounding record is.
I didn't make this thread to encourage people to dismiss top level professionals. I want to be one, and I work hard at it.
I'd say I want to encourage people to take this craft seriously and look what's going on under the hood of things, in this case audio.
My gear is fine too, by the way. Nothing there to stop me from making "glossy records" lol
One thing is to be humble, and other is to let people think you somehow are not qualified to do a professional job
Oh I have perfect pitch by the way
I told a story nobody payed attention to, of a guy who gave mastering all the credit when it was all about the mixing job.
That kind of thinking is the mastering guys propaganda. I'm not saying they don't deserve credit, but the whole mystique about them makes a lot of noise in my head.

I'm assuming nothing I agree with what you've said above and I'm glad you're still learning and doing your thing

I hope you're very successful in whatever it is you want to do in this world.

It's in a terrible state at the moment so Music is a way of helping people through these troubled times so I applaud anyone doing so.



M

p.s. why can't we add a simple like to a post ?

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by norbury brook

I'm assuming nothing I agree with what you've said above and I'm glad you're still learning and doing your thing

I hope you're very successful in whatever it is you want to do in this world.

It's in a terrible state at the moment so Music is a way of helping people through these troubled times so I applaud anyone doing so.



M

p.s. why can't we add a simple like to a post ?

Thanks for this very good talk.
Read my post above, about respect. That´s what we´re doing here. Treating music with respect.
Cheers

[norbury brook]

Originally Posted by The Kid

Thanks for this very good talk.
Read my post above, about respect. That´s what we´re doing here. Treating music with respect.
Cheers

Exactly my friend

M

[The Kid]

I don't mind giving my clients the unmastered mixes just in case they want to take them to a mastering studio.
I don't encourage it, I'd rather have them work a lot harder with the mix revisions.
For me, that's the most bang for the buck. The mix.
Mastering shouldn't be fixing the mix.

[Time Waster]

Originally Posted by foxAsteria

You know you can do that in project settings don't ya?

No, I didn't, but that doesn't surprise me, reaper being what it is!

[beingmf]

Originally Posted by The Kid

Oversimplification, I think. There's some stuff "in between" lol

You are capable of abstracting the "in between stuff" I guess.

Also, I wouldn't do a "cheap" sounding record, even if it was for streaming (wich isn't as bad as many "audio professionals" say it is)
Who said that a DIY digital mastering job has to compromise quality? If you want to do it, learn the craft!

Every DIY "mastering" job compromises quality, no matter which tools you use. It's all about perception.

This is the kind of mindset that I don't agree with: pro mastering guys do some sort of vodoo we can't do, no matter what.

First of all: where have I mentioned "vodoo"? Second: "pro mastering guys" most likely use a (measurable) uncompromised clean and phase accurate monitoring system in a perfectly (built and) treated room which makes the final product translate to any given playback device, be it a bluetooth speaker or a pair of Klipschhorns driven by a McIntosh tube amp in a treated home HiFi listening room, not to mention a club with a custom built 200.000€ PA system.
You can not expect that a "master" realized on some KRK monitors in a half-treated room will max out the dynamic and timbral capabilities of a high-end system. It's simply a technical restriction, nothing to do with voodoo.

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by beingmf

You are capable of abstracting the "in between stuff" I guess.

Every DIY "mastering" job compromises quality, no matter which tools you use. It's all about perception.

First of all: where have I mentioned "vodoo"? Second: "pro mastering guys" most likely use a (measurable) uncompromised clean and phase accurate monitoring system in a perfectly (built and) treated room which makes the final product translate to any given playback device, be it a bluetooth speaker or a pair of Klipschhorns driven by a McIntosh tube amp in a treated home HiFi listening room, not to mention a club with a custom built 200.000€ PA system.
You can not expect that a "master" realized on some KRK monitors in a half-treated room will max out the dynamic and timbral capabilities of a high-end system. It's simply a technical restriction, nothing to do with voodoo.

You didn't say voodoo, you did say "glossy". Not very technical, you could have said "records that translate"
Digital processing can be uncompromised, clean and phase accurate.
Headphones can take care of the room part of it.
Of course I'd keep upgrading my phones whenever I can.
Many of the records I made as a keyboard player were mastered in big professional mastering studios, and they sound great. I't gave me something to shot for with my masters. There's a lot of the work I do in my studio played on radio. It's local radio, but hey!
I do use normal monitors on some part of the process, but that's just to check the "vibe" of things. All the nerdý, technical work happens on headphones.
I'm not saying that mastering studios should not exist, I'm just saying that someone with musical and audio chops, who can do logical thinking, can learn to master music and make it translate.
Anyeay, thank you for taking the time to write down what you think, I guess it's useful to discourage some people from doing their own mastering, because they'd do a terrible job

[beingmf]

Originally Posted by The Kid

I guess it's useful to discourage some people from doing their own mastering, because they'd do a terrible job

If you'd just at least try to understand what I wrote …
"Their own mastering" is a contradiction in itself. You need a second pair of ears in order to call it mastering (without quotation marks).

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by beingmf

If you'd just at least try to understand what I wrote …
"Their own mastering" is a contradiction in itself. You need a second pair of ears in order to call it mastering (without quotation marks).

Let's call it "finishing up the record" then.
I'd of course use a big mastering studio if my clients wanted me to, and that'd be helpful if done right. It's not that expensive nowadays.
You can choose the main guy or one of the other, less expensive engineers who work for him.
I'd use their service of mix critique (most of them have one now) before I use their actual mastering service.
I think the second pair of ears is fine, but this is art, and if I feel something sounds good I don't really care.
I'd use them for opening up the game too, not only for their audio skills.
So yes, by all means, if you feel that you always need a second pair of ears, do it the traditional way.
I did say that I respect "sacred cows". A lot.
They're "sacred" for a reason.
By the way, do you like Satriani's Shockwave Supernova? It was mixed and mastered by the same guy. John Cuniberti. It happens.

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by beingmf

It's all about perception.

Not everyone suffers from weird loss of objectivity.
Experience helps here.

[serr]

Ya know, we've about lost the term "mastering" at this point!

Between the runs of poor sounding novelty remasters, treble-y and volume war destructive mastering practices, the scam online "mastering" services, and this "Let's just finish this unmixed thing in mastering" business, it's almost been turned into a dirty word.

People in some circles literally associate "remaster" or "mastered" with cheapness and compromise now! There are folks who are absolutely convinced that 16 bit @ 44.1k sample rate is a lo-fi degrading format because they've literally only heard volume war "mastered" CDs and they ended up without a single properly mastered CD in their entire collection. Turns out this scenario is very easy to come by! There's shit so stepped on out there that some vinyl pressings played on only a modest partly calibrated turntable return a cleaner copy of the master source. As soon as one of those audiophiles comes across one of those... Look out. Now all digital is lo-fi and sucks...

How about the different tiers of releases? The CD release gets the volume war treble blast treatment but you have to buy the expensive deluxe boxed edition to get a bluray with the unmolested stereo mix and finally the surround sound mix. That kind of greed goes over well... This kind of shit comes across as intentional.

Mastering is simply putting mixes into final consumer formats with no damage. That might cover a lot of ground! Formats with limitations like vinyl get into specific issues. It could mean literally doing no alteration with a nearly perfect mix in both balances and fidelity. It could mean bringing out the big guns for heavy duty restoration work with some troubled recording. And everything in between. It can introduce teamwork with a 2nd set of ears for that final opportunity.

And we've pretty much lost the word at this point with all the bs! There are certain clients now who have been so gaslit by all this that you can't say the m-word around them or they start demanding to undo it. (Even if all you did was boost the level 0.3db and literally nothing else! They won't even listen to it if you said the m-word out loud. They just know it sounds like an 8 bit mp3 copy of a wire recorder uploaded to Youtube now.)

I need some coffee...

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by serr

Ya know, we've about lost the term "mastering" at this point!

Between the runs of poor sounding novelty remasters, treble-y and volume war destructive mastering practices, the scam online "mastering" services, and this "Let's just finish this unmixed thing in mastering" business, it's almost been turned into a dirty word.

People in some circles literally associate "remaster" or "mastered" with cheapness and compromise now! There are folks who are absolutely convinced that 16 bit @ 44.1k sample rate is a lo-fi degrading format because they've literally only heard volume war "mastered" CDs and they ended up without a single properly mastered CD in their entire collection. Turns out this scenario is very easy to come by! There's shit so stepped on out there that some vinyl pressings played on only a modest partly calibrated turntable return a cleaner copy of the master source. As soon as one of those audiophiles comes across one of those... Look out. Now all digital is lo-fi and sucks...

How about the different tiers of releases? The CD release gets the volume war treble blast treatment but you have to buy the expensive deluxe boxed edition to get a bluray with the unmolested stereo mix and finally the surround sound mix. That kind of greed goes over well... This kind of shit comes across as intentional.

Mastering is simply putting mixes into final consumer formats with no damage. That might cover a lot of ground! Formats with limitations like vinyl get into specific issues. It could mean literally doing no alteration with a nearly perfect mix in both balances and fidelity. It could mean bringing out the big guns for heavy duty restoration work with some troubled recording. And everything in between. It can introduce teamwork with a 2nd set of ears for that final opportunity.

And we've pretty much lost the word at this point with all the bs! There are certain clients now who have been so gaslit by all this that you can't say the m-word around them or they start demanding to undo it. (Even if all you did was boost the level 0.3db and literally nothing else! They won't even listen to it if you said the m-word out loud. They just know it sounds like an 8 bit mp3 copy of a wire recorder uploaded to Youtube now.)

I need some coffee...

Lol I just make ONE VERSION of the "finished product" (let's not call it master lol)
I try very hard to make it sound the best I can, and make sure it translates.
For me, what rules is THE MIX
EDIT: CD's can be amazing! (maybe I should say 44.1 khz 16 bit, not CD's lol)
But yes, I agree with what you've said lol it's mental

[The Kid]

A modern sacred cow is the mindset that technology trumps everything.
People think that now we don't need to do things "the old way".
Pop a YouTube tutorial and you're set lol