Subsequent Mastering survey - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Subsequent Mastering survey
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Posted by cryophonik on Jan-26-2010 21:29:

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Gomes
There are a LOT of things in mastering that are more inmportant than what k-system you use... heck lots of mastering engineers don't even use the k-system. Just because bob katz says it's a good system (yes i've read the book) doesn't mean it's required to make a good master.

I would like to repeat, there are a lot more important things in mastering than what k system you use.

Well, in DJ Rann's defense he did say that it is "possibly...one of the most important..." factors in a mastering environment. Regardless of whether or not someone utilizes the k-system, there is no denying the importance of having a proper monitoring setup when mastering.

Posted by DJ RANN on Jan-26-2010 21:39:

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Gomes
There are a LOT of things in mastering that are more inmportant than what k-system you use... heck lots of mastering engineers don't even use the k-system. Just because bob katz says it's a good system (yes i've read the book) doesn't mean it's required to make a good master.

I would like to repeat, there are a lot more important things in mastering than what k system you use.

I said "possibly ONE of the most important things" not the most important thing.

It was also in reference to someone earlier in the thread who didn't know what it was about, but still I would say, at least in my experience (as a assistant mix engineer) working with mastering engineers, that more mastering engineers use the K-system (or theirown/variant calibration system) than don't.

EDIT: Thanks Dave, you beat me to it!

Posted by RichieV on Jan-26-2010 21:54:

i only mentioned it because I already knew the answer and it might make the OP realize he needs to a little homework. And whether you use the k system or not, any mastering engineer will have his monitors calibrated so he has an actual reference other than metering.

Mastering on an un calibrated system would be like doing scientific experiments on an un-calibrated scale. The results are not trust worthy and that is essentially why you pay a mastering engineer.

Perhaps dance mastering doesn't use it because the rms is approaching +1 dbfs

Posted by kitphillips on Jan-27-2010 03:56:

quote:
Originally posted by RichieV
i only mentioned it because I already knew the answer and it might make the OP realize he needs to a little homework. And whether you use the k system or not, any mastering engineer will have his monitors calibrated so he has an actual reference other than metering.

Mastering on an un calibrated system would be like doing scientific experiments on an un-calibrated scale. The results are not trust worthy and that is essentially why you pay a mastering engineer.

Perhaps dance mastering doesn't use it because the rms is approaching +1 dbfs

Ahaha, true that...

I just found his whole survey hilarious, ANALOGUE ANALOGUE ANALOGUE. As if it makes a jot of difference when your monitoring is complete crap. And the whole idea that analogue sounds better than digital. Even some big mastering studios are happy to run fully digital chains now. Honestly.

Pages (2): « 1 [2]