Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jerry Tubb]

TurtleTone wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 07:45

I learned my lesson a long time ago to never discuss problems through the record company. first, they have a higher turnover rate than Mcdonalds. Second, I don't want my sessions to seem problematic. All my problems get delt with behind the scenes so at the end of the day, i've built a trust with the engineer and the label sees a session that is running smoothly with no problems.

That is AAA advice Mike.

Studio work requires skill in three areas:

1. Technical Skill

2. Musical Skill

3. People Skill

Sounds like you've mastered all three.

Cheers JT

[jtr]

This discussion is starting to remind me of the story about a naked emporer...although I think the guy who pointed it out should have been more tactful.

[Ed Littman]

TurtleTone wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 08:45

and just say, "hi, i'm just going over the mixes and I noticed a bit of distortion in a couple of places and I just wanted to make sure it was intentional and not a transfer or copy problem". This way it addresses the issue without pointing the finger. it leaves him an out.

That's what I said above, but your description Is much better.
One has to choose there can-o-worms carefully.

Ed

[jackthebear]

Jerry Tubb wrote on Mon, 17 July 2006 00:56

Studio work requires skill in three areas: 1. Technical Skill 2. Musical Skill 3. People Skill Sounds like you've mastered all three. Cheers JT

Spot on JT....except I'd put your #3 as my #1.......especially since the situation raised in this thread showed a deficiency in this area.

I'm all for honesty and being straight up but in the major labor word you are dealing with very fragile egos more often than not.

[masterhse]

I agree totally that you have to work with the mix and potentially tracking engineers. If you haven't attended the mix session it's very easy to come off as a back seat driver. An ME is the final link in the chain, you often don't know how much blood was spilt getting it to that point. If there are flaws it may have occured for any number of reasons including just trying to get the performance to tape before a "moment" has passed.

I really respect Geoff Emerick for his ability to take some of the Beatles offbeat ideas and making them sound great. If John Lennon had asked you to record a violin with a set of headphones instead of a microphone, or record a vocal while laying on the floor, who would refuse for technical or sonic reasons? If the ME came back and told Geoff that there was weird phasing or bad micing technique as a result I'm not sure if his response would be very different (Geoff was in mastering before he was an engineer, so it might be even more heated).

OTOH when asked be honest.

[bblackwood]

joeaudio wrote on Sat, 15 July 2006 06:26

bblackwood wrote on Sat, 15 July 2006 01:49 Masterer wrote on Fri, 14 July 2006 18:48 Hahahahaha [how do you type an evil laugh?] FYI, the correct procedure is: MUWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA Ah, now I remember why I stopped wasting my time with this board. My son wants to go in the back yard and throw a ball around, time much better spent. Thank you.

By all means, get away from the computer and play ball with your son! That's way more important than a bunch of mastering geeks chatting.

But seriously, lighten up. We've all been there, and we're just trying to have a little fun. This isn't a library.

I've generally handled this situation by making note of it and moving forward. If the A&R guy was there and noticed it, you did everything you could and handled it as well as could be expected, imo...

[cerberus]

joeaudio wrote on Fri, 14 July 2006 13:26

I cold email a record label here in New York. [snip] It's tough to be at the mercy of fools

great thread here... really makes me think.  
thanks joe for relating your fascinating experience.

record labels are into shifting units. my current hypothesis is that sterling may do a lot of market research that they keep proprietary.  they don't seem to value sonics as much as whatever they are really successful at... some of the mix engineers must also be getting this same "information", also causing them to drop "sonics" as we knew them as a priority; and instead pursue...something else...whatever the heck that is (you and i call it "distortion". you and i make little distinction between this distortion and "easy to make" distortion).  

jeff dinces

[cerberus]

joeaudio wrote on Fri, 14 July 2006 13:26

I cold email a record label here in New York. [snip] It's tough to be at the mercy of fools

great thread here... really makes me think.  
thanks joe for relating your fascinating experience.

record labels are into shifting units. my current hypothesis is that sterling may do a lot of market research that they keep proprietary.  they don't seem to value sonics as much as whatever they are really successful at... some of the mix engineers must also be getting this same "information", also causing them to drop "sonics" as we knew them as a priority; and instead pursue...something else...whatever the heck that is (you and i call it "distortion". you and i make little distinction between this distortion and "easy to make" distortion).  

jeff dinces

[TotalSonic]

cerberus wrote on Wed, 19 July 2006 18:17

record labels are into shifting units. my current hypothesis is that sterling may do a lot of market research that they keep proprietary.  they don't seem to value sonics as much as whatever they are really successful at... some of the mix engineers must also be getting this same "information", also causing them to drop "sonics" as we knew them as a priority; and instead pursue...something else...whatever the heck that is (you and i call it "distortion". you and i make little distinction between this distortion and "easy to make" distortion).

Jeff -
I think you're hypothesis is pretty darned absurd, in that while tons of marketing surveys are done by the Big4 I seriously doubt folks like Greg Calbi, Tom Coyne, and Ted Jensen would alter their work based on them.  

I honestly think that what happened as far as the start of the "loudness wars" is that a number of prominent ME's realized with the latest batch of tools starting circa 1994 is that they could "one up" each other and provide higher average levels in a somewhat less damaging way than was possible previously and clients responded very positively when offerred these things.  This triggered off a cycle of pushing the tools and techniques farther and farther, and clients being willing to accept greater amounts of distortion in the search of having the loudest CD in the 5CD changer.  I think the fact that people's environments where they do the majority of their listening has gotten noisier and noisier so that the dynamics need to be fairly compressed to have every element be audible is a factor in this also.  So - a few ME's (i.e. Bob Katz, Alan Silverman, Doug Sax) voiced objections to this trend, while many more just pushed the envelope more and stated that they could get the higher average levels done a lot cleaner than other studios could - and in general the artists and labels in the pop, rock, hip-hop, genres all gravitated to doing their work with the latter and not the former.

So - do I think ME's are "innocent" in the loudness wars as so many claim?  Nope - in fact I myself have participated in it (and gained work from it) a number of times.  It takes an ME to not just match a level of a previous release - but to actually push things to the next step of squash.  However - at this point to somehow think there is a conspiracy of marketing reports directing the actions of prominent ME's is really just silly.   And to think that ME's are somehow the ones with final approval of the masters - and not the artists or label - is just plain incorrect.

In the case of Sterling - what you get is a premium facility charging premium rates with some very experienced people staffing it.  The larger labels tend to find these types of facilities which promise the "best" - even if they are the most expensive options (and sometimes in fact because they are the most expensive options) attractive - as they often appreciate proven track record over taking a risk on someone less known - and Sterling in general I think delivers work that makes their clients very happy.  I've also heard quite a number of recent releases mastered there that are uncrushed and sound great - check out Mission of Burma's "On Off On" from 2004 mastered by Ted Jensen or Tara Angell's "Come Out" mastered by Chris Athens in 2005 for examples of these.  

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Arf! Mastering]

Steve,

I think I agree with your history and fortunately, Bob, Doug, I all seem to be staying busy.

[Masterer]

cerberus wrote on Wed, 19 July 2006 13:17

record labels are into shifting units. my current hypothesis is that sterling may do a lot of market research that they keep proprietary.  they don't seem to value sonics as much as whatever they are really successful at... some of the mix engineers must also be getting this same "information", also causing them to drop "sonics" as we knew them as a priority; and instead pursue...something else...whatever the heck that is (you and i call it "distortion". you and i make little distinction between this distortion and "easy to make" distortion).   jeff dinces

Umm.. Crackpot is the word that comes to mind here.

Jeff, don't take this too personally but this post is proof that you are profoundly and completely out of touch with the music business, and the mastering business [you are not however, alone]. If posts like this weren't so numerous I'd probably find a lot more humor in them.
I don't have to defend Sterling to anyone but it's hard not to respond to this type of foolishness.

Here's how business works my man [any business]:
Do what you do as well or better than your competitors.
Work harder than your competitors.
Make your customers happier than your competitors do.

That's it. Simple. Anyone can do it. Sterling has done it for 35+ years [as have others].
Do these three things and you will build a loyal clientele and world class reputation.

Hopefully this information will help you for as long as you are in this business [I'm assuming you're currently in it].

Take a deep breath, focus your chi and follow these three easy steps and some day soon you to will have a successful Mastering business.

Or not.

[Andy Krehm]

TotalSonic wrote on Wed, 19 July 2006 16:53

<edit> I honestly think that what happened as far as the start of the "loudness wars" is that a number of prominent ME's realized with the latest batch of tools starting circa 1994 is that they could "one up" each other and provide higher average levels in a somewhat less damaging way than was possible previously and clients responded very positively when offerred these things.  This triggered off a cycle of pushing the tools and techniques farther and farther, and clients being willing to accept greater amounts of distortion in the search of having the loudest CD in the 5CD changer.  I think the fact that people's environments where they do the majority of their listening has gotten noisier and noisier so that the dynamics need to be fairly compressed to have every element be audible is a factor in this also.  So - a few ME's (i.e. Bob Katz, Alan Silverman, Doug Sax) voiced objections to this trend, while many more just pushed the envelope more and stated that they could get the higher average levels done a lot cleaner than other studios could - and in general the artists and labels in the pop, rock, hip-hop, genres all gravitated to doing their work with the latter and not the former. So - do I think ME's are "innocent" in the loudness wars as so many claim?  Nope - in fact I myself have participated in it (and gained work from it) a number of times.  It takes an ME to not just match a level of a previous release - but to actually push things to the next step of squash.  However - at this point to somehow think there is a conspiracy of marketing reports directing the actions of prominent ME's is really just silly.   And to think that ME's are somehow the ones with final approval of the masters - and not the artists or label - is just plain incorrect. <edit> Best regards, Steve Berson

Steve:

I also agree that you've described the evolution of the volume wars very well.

Many ME's, including myself, have learned to make albums loud while keeping an ear on the balance between volume and degradation of the audio while finding the acceptable place to stop!

Before starting the mastering session, I have a quick discussion (if it is an aware audio person) with anyone new coming to my studio about where they want to be in the level spectrum. If they have never been to a mastering session or If they are unaware of this part of the mastering process, I have a longer discussion as there is no point in waiting for them to go to their favourite listening place and calling me the next day to ask for the volume to be raised (and occasionally, lowered)!

I, like many ME's on this site, consider this to be a service industry and I am not going to spend a lot of time telling a young alt-pop band that their audio shouldn't be as loud and compressed as their major label competitors! Like-wise for for experienced producers and engineers of these and other genres where the levels are hot.

The one point I wanted to make, to corroborate your post, is that some "A-list" mastering engineers are, of their own volition, making their masters even louder than the average 2006 loud WITHOUT SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION FROM THE CLIENT. That's why I believe that Steve's hypothesis is correct.

This has happened to producer friends/clients of mine in the last six months, and is not here-say as I was asked by these very producers to load the mixes and the masters on to my DAW so I could compare and confirm their opinions! If anyone wants to challenge me on this, especially any "A-list'" mastering engineers, I might even break protocol and add the names, one of which will probably surprise you.

Of course the client, or whatever combo of people the "client" is, has approval over the master but what intrigued me about this was that two of these ME's were not told anything about volume and the third was actually told not to worry about making the CD loud. The latter then proceeded to make it overly loud anyway and had to be told by the client to remaster it with less compression and to lose the distortion and AGAIN, not to sacrifice dynamic range for volume.

Andy,

Silverbirch Productions

www.silverbirchprod.com

[Andy Krehm]

Masterer wrote on Wed, 19 July 2006 19:53

<edit>Here's how business works my man [any business]: Do what you do as well or better than your competitors. Work harder than your competitors. Make your customers happier than your competitors do. That's it. Simple. Anyone can do it. Sterling has done it for 35+ years [as have others]. Do these three things and you will build a loyal clientele and world class reputation.<edit>

Chris:

That is great advice for anyone in business, which includes the business of mastering.

I wrote my post before I saw yours and I think that what is happening is that "A-list" mastering engineers are sometimes assuming, without having any discussion with a client before an unattended session, that they are the average Joe producer who would like to be louder than the last guy, no matter what happens to the audio.

As you can see from the three scenarios mentioned in my post, this is not always the case and that  is why I made my post.

Sometimes the excellent business points you mentioned are not being followed by certain ME's and their first-time customers are not being made happy!

Andy,

Silverbirch Productions

www.silverbirchprod.com

[Masterer]

Andy Krehm wrote on Wed, 19 July 2006 21:22

Sometimes the excellent business points you mentioned are not being followed by certain ME's and their first-time customers are not being made happy!

I understand you're point Andy but you are leaving out a fundamental detail. The approval process. All a client has to do is ask for a revision. This, as you know happens ALL the time weather it's an EQ, or compression or level change. While it may be bad form to make a record too loud on the first go it will never see the light of day without client approval. The overriding problem is the client that WANTS their record smashed. At this point who started the loudness problem is moot.

If first time customers, or any customers are not happy they will find someone else to work with [back to the "simple rules"]. This will create opportunities for others and the cycle of life continues.

On some level, those not on the "A" list should light a little candle every time they hear a smashed record as it may foretell a future bounty. Say a little hallelujah to celebrate natures way.
Think of the time we'll save not belaboring moot points and kicking dead horses.

[Arf! Mastering]

Masterer wrote on Wed, 19 July 2006 21:38

All a client has to do is ask for a revision.

And the busy "A-list" engineer will find time in the schedule to do the revision gratis?  Or does an inexperienced band risk looking ridiculous and problematic to their A&R guy when they come back to thwe label asking for another mastering budget?