|
Danny Byrd - I send to mastering house AFTER my own mastering + limiting with O-Zone (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Raphie |
My advice is fine, it's your deliberate attemps to rathole which is a problem. also your obvious begrudge to my setup, but then again, that's just you, you can't help it, i don't mind.....
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
if you added some sort of disclaimer to your posts, I'd stop. Put in your signature something along the lines of , I am a bedroom producer and despite my wicked setup, I kinda don't really know what i'm doing.
THe problem is that you speak like you do and people will take your advice which is often pretty bad. |
|
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Raphie
You would be surprised how many people ask for a certain vibe from a supplied example track. |
Then they're asking the wrong person. They should be talking to a mixing engineer (or a producer), not a mastering engineer.
Songs shouldn't sound noticeably different after mastering. If they do, then there are issues which should have been addressed at the mixdown stage.
Hopefully a mastering engineer who gets requests to drastically change the sound of a song doesn't just say "yeah okay" and simply apply treatment to the stereo file. In the vast majority of cases this is going to sound worse than applying the changes to the individual instruments which require the treatment, rather than compromising a number of instruments.
Hopefully a mastering engineer who gets requests like this asks for stems and does a proper mixdown (for a higher fee, of course), or suggests to the client the ways their mixdown could be improved before the song is sent for mastering. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by derail
Songs shouldn't sound noticeably different after mastering. If they do, then there are issues which should have been addressed at the mixdown stage. |
Really? Seriously? So whats the point of it then?
I think mastering means different things to different people. Some people like to correct problems at the mastering stage. I'm sure it works for them. |
|
|
| Raphie |
I would recommend u guys to buy and read thisbook
answers all of your questions and more. For me the definition is as described by Bob Katz.
These topics aren't really fruitfdul overhere, because teen bedroom producers are advising eachother to go to mixing engineers, while the've never seen a real studio from the inside, let alone they can recommend engineers based on past jobs they assigned to them. since they don't know any. Please let's stop the smartass bull and stop referring to what you've read before somewhere on the internet.
Guys you need to decide what you want to discuss:
- pro world, with pro budget, education and pro job definitions
- or bedroom real world with bedroom budgets / self tought production skills.
It's confusing when u guys keep jumping from the one into the other universe and back all the time.
It's the same thing as M4B is trying all the time. not really helping a realworld discussion is it? |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Raphie
Guys you need to decide what you want to discuss:
- pro world, with pro budget, education and pro job definitions
|
I've been in a couple of professional studio's (fully soundproofed and disconnected from other spaces and about 50-100K of gear) and surprisingly the results coming from there where not too impressive. I've sometimes even seen guys with a pc plus a 200E soundcard and Behringer Truth's do better. This is the age where pro is no longer defined by the amount of money you spend, it's just about how much money you make doing it.
Does it earn you enough to make a living -> pro.
Doesn't it earn enough to make a living -> amateur/hobby (even though the amateur results sometimes are better then the pro's) |
|
|
| derail |
Raphie
I own Bob Katz's "Mastering Audio" and have read through it.
In it he addresses the limitations of working on a stereo file - for example, page 105 in the chapter on equalization. He'll ask for a remix where it's required.
Expecting mastering to vastly improve the sound of a song is to ignore the limitations of working on a stereo file.
Yes, absolutely, a lot of times the mastered product sounds quite different to the original version - maybe some nasty resonant frequencies have been tamed, or the tonal balance has been improved. My viewpoint is that these are things which could have been fixed during the mixdown process and that the end result sounds better when these things are fixed during the mixdown process.
I do wonder about your arrogant tone - what's with all the comments about "teen bedroom producers" and "pros"? It's your choice whether to debate the issues or call people names. To me, that behaviour leans more towards the unprofessional side. |
|
|
| Raphie |
It's not being arrogant, it's just about everybody having their own definition and switching back and forward depending on how it suits them.
discussions become very cumbersome without any focus.
Reality is quite simple:
- Most producers on this forum are in their teens, some in their 20th and a few older, that's not me, that has been a poll existing here for quite a while. not saying good, or bad, just fact of life
- very few here have a primary income from producing, writing or engineering. with primary income i don't mean students who got paid $50,00 and 2 happy meals fro a release or remix. But guys who receive a monthly payslip of which they can pay their monthly bills. (morgage, groceries etc)
- most of us here do produce from thier bedroom with limited means (avg monitoring, no room treatment, often software based, maybe with 1 or 2 synths. Again not a bad thing and I am not ratholing into Storytellers statement of being able to get better results with low end gear than high end gear, as that mainly depends on it's user not the gear itself.
So let's get real about it, if we want to discuss mastering here, let's focus on what people can achieve at home and the budgets they have to have their track finalized. All the BS about how things are being done "professionally" is totally irrelevant. as no one here has the means or opportunity to ever have their works being produced that way. So what's the use of smartassing about "professional" mixng engineering when we all know that's not gonna happen here. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Raphie
- most of us here do produce from thier bedroom with limited means (avg monitoring, no room treatment, often software based, maybe with 1 or 2 synths. Again not a bad thing and I am not ratholing into Storytellers statement of being able to get better results with low end gear than high end gear, as that mainly depends on it's user not the gear itself. |
I'm just saying pro gear does not mean you're pro whilst you are implying spending big bucks is the only way to be (or sound) pro.
| quote: | | All the BS about how things are being done "professionally" is totally irrelevant. as no one here has the means or opportunity to ever have their works being produced that way. So what's the use of smartassing about "professional" mixng engineering when we all know that's not gonna happen here. |
Ur doing it again. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
Really? Seriously? So whats the point of it then?
I think mastering means different things to different people. Some people like to correct problems at the mastering stage. I'm sure it works for them. |
I'm with derail. Mastering is meant to add that extra bit of polish on top of a very good mixdown. If an engineer is correcting mistakes, they could and should have been fixed before the mastering stage. |
|
|
| Raphie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
I'm with derail. Mastering is meant to add that extra bit of polish on top of a very good mixdown. If an engineer is correcting mistakes, they could and should have been fixed before the mastering stage. |
Ofcourse, but it depends on how u define mistake?
example 1: a track with way too less bass because of standing waves in the room, it sounds thin and lacks definition in lows between kick and bass. Artist provides a reference track of how he thinks his track should sound. you are the ME, what would u do?
example 2: you've received a track, which has been emphasized by the artist as "final" the percussion loops in the track don't allign nicely and every 8 measures you hear a little bit of tearing when the loop goes round, you are the ME, what would u do?
example 3: You get a track with nice dynamics, well mixed really not much to complain about, supplied reference track is a piece of the latest ASOT podcast. and artist want to have it sound EXACTLY like that, you are the ME, what would u do?
Curious what decissions u guys will make and why? sometimes it's a very thin judgement line between what's artistic and what's factual engineering... also other dimensions can be the feasibily/abillity to improve amongst many more.
For me the bottom line will always be that grey area between the 2 where the relationship between artist and ME will pave the path to succesful resolution. communication is key. Much more than debating when something is engineering, or just creativity which one needs to leave alone. also managing expectations and perspective in relation to reference tracks.
Mastering is neither about sole engineering correction, nor about complete audio makeovers, it's about hearing potential and delivering that in the end result. sometimes you do nothing, on other tracks u do an immense ammount of work to deliver the artists vision. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
^^ I agree with the last part I think. I also agree with everyone else that your posts are pretty arrogant, but I've been trying to tell you that for ages.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
I'm with derail. Mastering is meant to add that extra bit of polish on top of a very good mixdown. If an engineer is correcting mistakes, they could and should have been fixed before the mastering stage. |
Of course it COULD have been fixed, and in a perfect world it might have been. But realistically, none of us live in a perfect world, and mastering engineers undoubtedly fix errors that could have otherwise been fixed at the mixing stage all the time.
Its not neccesarily a bad thing, you have to remember that the producer's primary job is to produce the music, if they're obsessing over minor details then NO music is ever going to get produced. So sometimes its better to pass it off to the mastering engineer. |
|
|
| Raphie |
Not sure if it's arrogant, i just like clarity and refrain from ambiguity in discussions like this. Arrogant would be where i would mock M4B for lack of credentials, say all tracks created here a mediocre e that don't deserve my services :D
I hear you, sometimes i can sound a bit harsh, confronting, or determined, but that's often just in the interest of the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
