bblackwood wrote on Wed, 01 November 2006 05:14 |
Many have forgotten (or never learned) that simple is always better, but only as simple as needed...
|
Brings to mind the old adage: "the tailor that cuts the best, cuts the least".
I find that many times, the least amount of mastering you can do to a mix to get it up to par, the better... a matter of philosophy.
Why Re-Invent a mix? If the producer wanted it heavily manipulated, he probably would have done it in mixing.
*** I think the Loudness Craze has inspired a lot of MEs to over-use processing ***
I also think that having lots of juicy gear can be a bit of a security blanket for an ME.
When it's really the Skill and Experience of the ME that builds Confidence.
The same philosophy can apply to using Automatic processes to make Repairs:
Take De-essing for instance. Why run a whole song through the DS process when you could probably fix the offending 3 or 4 esses manually and be done. The mix might sound better as a result. I've yet to find a De-esser that I like better than doing it with a little EQ, and repairing the worst offenders manually ITB. If the esses aren't really all that bad (painful to the ear), they may not need repairing anyway. (some would argue that the Weiss and/or Quantum units handle the job very well)
Same goes for LF Plosives, why HPF the whole song, when a bit of selective EQ will do.
Same goes for De-Clicking, fix the bad ones manually, don't filter the whole song.
Noise Reduction is overrated as well.
Multiband Compression doesn't impress me much either.
"Perfection" may well just be over-rated too !
No, I'm not advocating letting a bunch of sloppy junk slide through, just don't use a Machete when a pocket knife will do.
Experience can teach you that sometimes less ~ is~ more, but not always.
And like my pal Bill Johnson says, "the enemy of good is better".
Just philosophizing today : - )