Print

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

[Rick O'neil]

J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 09 August 2009 12:13

A mastering session was delayed once, and I sat in the waiting room for two hours, because the band was doing OVERDUBS DURING MASTERING.   Look, it's the wild wild west out there with people who think they are engineers these days.  I totally get that when some joker brings you something he did in garage band, and it sounds like complete ass, there are no rules.   Clearly, I'm speaking from the point of view of a professional who puts a lot of hard work into my craft.  Maybe some of these lines are getting blurred.  I dunno.

you see that sounds like the JJ  whose posts i read from cover to cover,
somebody must have messed with his g/f  earlier on  


i just was standing up for my right to make them sound as i hear them , not for the  right to decimate somebodies hard earned.

i have actually mixed a lot of records in my time, the idea that i spend all day and night getting a 3 min song  to sound exactly how i want it , and then in 25 sec some expert with an M/S gun shoots it to pieces "cause its his thing " is totally wrong.

but its not the gun its the shooter ...
isnt that  what you guys say ..?

( they have banned all public guns in australia 15 years ago)
so we dont get to shoot anything anymore , just my M/S assault rifle in the studio  from time to time

[Patrik T]

How do the widening people know that things should be wider and not narrower?

I seriously can not tell that by just listening to something.

All I hear is a balance that might, or might not, sound annoying. And that is a matter of frequencies and not imaging in itself.


Best Regards
Patrik

[Rick O'neil]

i think imaging and frequencies are totally linked , in fact every thing i do is followed  by the internal question , what did that do the image .. was it good bad or neutral ?

i bunch of people that i have taught  mastering to ( as an employees) have shown that they just could not "hear " the image in the detail that i think is required .

they did not make it as mastering guys , however some guys  that have didnt hook into the image at first  but it got "learnt  along the way" in time

what about you guys ..?  image

[dcollins]

Rick O'neil wrote on Sun, 09 August 2009 03:15

what about you guys ..?  image

Sure.  I think there's a sort of "mental checklist" that everyone goes through when they hear the mix for the first time.


DC

[Darius van H]

I think when we're talking about "widening", most of us are talking about MS EQing and or compression, right?

I think with the right MS EQing you can make something seem "wider" without necessarily making the middle become perceived as "weaker".....a simple example would be to push 3k (with maybe some added distortion) on the sides while balancing that with more highs and lows in the middle.

[Patrik T]

Isn't "image" and "depth" so closely related that the depth within the recording should be pretty distinguishable in mono?

Sure, one can say "this sounds narrow". Happens pretty often I guess, but does that imply that it should be widened?

I'm just curious how a ME can tell that the "image" is "correct".


Best Regards
Patrik

[NelsonL]

Thomas W. Bethel wrote on Sat, 08 August 2009 07:01

NelsonL wrote on Sat, 08 August 2009 07:48 J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 07 August 2009 20:46 My girlfriend just told me a nightmare story about using a certain NYC based ME, at somebody's recommendation.  Now, this isn't just a case of hitting the suck button, or limiting the record to death.  Apparently, this ME took it upon himself to use some widening techniques, and even add some effects, WITHOUT THE ARTIST'S KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT.  When my g/f confronted him about this, he replied that this "was his thing," and is why people hire him.  It's his sound. She then told a friend of hers, who had her record mastered by the same ME (this artist was left out of deciding on this process by the producer), who then compared the mastered version to the unmastered version, and her friend was horrified by what happened to the record. And the scary things is that this guy has a HUGE credit list, with some very prominent artists. Thank god my g/f had the common sense to fire this guy, even though she was already into him for a couple thousand dollars. Gentlemen, if I ever send any of you mixes of mine to master, and you use anything other than EQ and compression, I will hunt you down, and see how your widening technique works where the sun don't shine.   An very established Bay Area ME put reverb all over an intentionally dry record that was mixed at my old place. It was an already great sounding recording, done with great intent by a respected AE-- very strange. Anyway he gave them their money back, so no harm done really. We were just surprised-- it was an attended session but the band didn't figure it out in the unfamiliar room. Did they tell him that the mix was suppose to be dry or use the words "make it sound good" which leaves the mastering engineer a VERY wide latitude for interpretation of what they are looking for? I recently had a client that brought me in the very worst sounding distorted CD I have ever mastered. I attempted to do what he wanted which was to leave all the distortion and bad sound and just make it louder. I also asked NOT to have my name put the on the CD since to the casual observer I did not make his record sound good. Communication between the mastering engineer and the client is VERY important. Sometimes an artist going to a big name mastering engineer gets frightened buy the experience and won't say what is really on their minds and when they are through they are not happy even though they could have said something while the CD was being mastered. I am not a big name mastering engineer by any stretch of the imagination but this type of "don't say anything during the session but get upset afterward and tell all your friends" has happened to me more than once. I hope that your friend was not put off by this experience. Sometimes it is just this kind of experience that gives mastering a black eye. Getting a good mastering engineer is almost harder than picking a good family doctor. Some times the fit is perfect sometimes not. Take care!

Hi Tom,

After the refund I don't think the guy's name has ever been mentioned publicly in connection with the, er, miscommunication.

Also, they found the sound of his room confusing, and didn't recognize the reverb until they had the ref in the car. Otherwise, knowing those guys as I do, I think they'd of cried foul as they'd nearly killed each other making their perfect record.

[Thomas W. Bethel]

J.J. Blair wrote on Sat, 08 August 2009 12:04

Tom, my g/f is a well known, established artist.  The producer on this record recently won the "Record of the Year" Grammy.  The recommendation came from a very well known producer.  These aren't a bunch of hacks who are going to do shit at home in T Rax.  Also, I did not say he was  a "big time" ME.  I said he had a shitload of credits, or at least his website says he does. Somebody mentioned reverb.  My g/f intentionally avoids reverb.  This guy had the temerity to make the artistic choice of adding verb, without consulting either the artist or producer, not to mention his "widening" bullshit! Look, are an ME.  Your job is to make the mixes I give you work on people's stereos, and on the radio, give them some sonic continuity, and then sequence them.  Your job is NOT to reinterpret my mix, or improve on it.  I will not give anyone stems, so they can change the levels.  If MEs aren't happy with their job description and want to do these things, become a mix engineer.  There is no reason to EVER make alterations to an artist's work without their consent or request.  Personally, I don't think it's even appropriate for an ME to suggest, "Hey, I think this would sound better if you let me put some verb on it." "Make it sound good" is not wide latitude to make artistic decisions.  I have no idea how you get that interpretation from that statement.  If I were an ME, and somebody said "make it sound good," I would take that to mean, "EQ and compress it until it sounds good."  I would not take it to mean, "reinterpret my artistic choices, and add whatever shit you want." And ME should ever be widening anything anyway!  When you widen one of my mixes, you are changing the M/S balance and  therefore changing the balance of my mix.  If I'd wanted shit to sound wider, I'd have mixed it that way.  Do you guys really do that to people's mixes?   BTW, of course she was put off by this experience, which is why she will never use this guy again.  She gave the guy a couple grand, and then had to fire him.  But why would you think she would not use any ME again?   The lesson here for her was to not use somebody in another city, if she can't be there to know what they are doing.

A couple of questions.

1. Was your g/f in attendance at all the sessions?

2. Did she get a chance to listen to the final mastering AFTER the mastering session on equipment she knew and trusted?

3. If there were problems did she go back to the mastering engineer and tell him of her concerns and if she did, did he do anything about fixing the problems?

I know we are talking about "A" list people here so they all supposedly know what they are doing. I have to assume that the mastering engineer was recommended based on his track record and that he/she normally does a superior job on what ever is given to him/her. In this case something went really wrong BUT it is still the artist's responsibility to make the final call and in this case if your g/f was not happy with the mix she should have made her concerns known and gotten them corrected.

As to my improving a mix...

I recently had in house a well done project from a good friend. It was a Jazz recording that was well played and well recorded. I was brought in to master the project. I did the mastering and the producer/artist was well pleased (one could even say ecstatic)  but his recording engineer was not. He said I used multiband compression and widening on the tracks and made them sound contemporary when he wanted them to sound vintage. (I never used multiband compression and I never used widening)  I redid the mastering for free following the guidelines set down by the recording engineer. The only things he wanted done to the tracks were some limiting and adding dither. The artist/producer was not happy with the results. So I redid the whole project for the third time. The recording engineer was still NOT happy. I suggested to the producer that the recording engineer should do the mastering him/her self and I would step away from the project but the artist/producer did not want that. So we redid the whole project for the forth time. The artist/producer has just approved the final mastering and we are waiting for the recording engineer's input.

My take is that the recording engineer did not want ANYTHING done to his mixes and would have been more than happy if they just put his mixes on the CD without having me touch them. I am now in the middle of a power struggle between the artist/producer and the recording engineer and it is a position I do not like to be in.

In this case if the recording engineer did not want his tracks touched he should have made that known to the artist/producer from the get go and made it part of his contract.

There were some problems that I tried to correct as part of the  mastering. One rather large problem was that the original tracks could only be played on high end equipment and if played on consumer equipment or in cars the speakers either bottomed out or distorted. This was due to the large amount of bass in the original mix.

Communications is still one of the most important things in mastering and something that is not easy. Mix in some egos and some turf wars and you have a real mess.

To the OP I hope you get this all sorted out and everyone is happy. To drop a couple of grand and then find that the product is not what you want has got to be frustrating as all he!!.

Best of luck!

[Hank Alrich]

Sometimes there's quite a problem with the "artist/producer" when he or she has little experience with the producer part of it, and keeps needing to run back to the engineer for the famous "What do you think?" maneuver.

One might well ask the artist/producer "Who is in charge here? Who is paying for the work?"

If the engineer thinks he/she is hearing multiband compression and widening where there is none, one might expect the artist/producer to catch on to the idea that perhaps the mix engineer should stand down.

If the mix doesn't work across a reasonable range of playback systems, 'nuff said about the mix engineer's abilities.

[J.J. Blair]

Tom, questions 1, 2 and 3 have all been answered already.

I learned within my first couple years of mixing how to keep civilian speakers from breaking up, while keeping low end intact.  Sounds like that engineer has an issue.  

[Rick O'neil]

Patrik T wrote on Sun, 09 August 2009 22:28

Isn't "image" and "depth" so closely related that the depth within the recording should be pretty distinguishable in mono? Sure, one can say "this sounds narrow". Happens pretty often I guess, but does that imply that it should be widened? I'm just curious how a ME can tell that the "image" is "correct".

it is my experience that lots of people dont hear the image the way some ME  guys do  , maybe its their speaker setup , but more likely just the way they listen .
on a good day you should be able to see into the mix front to back  left to right and up and down .

on a bad day its just a blurry mess .

i huge part of  what i do  in mastering is match each tracks "space" so its track sits next to the previous  as well as possible .
the best and most effective way to do that is with level

but subtle things that never seem to get discussed on these forums come into play here as well
such as eqing to adjust the image , not just  to fix an freq  that stands out and  limiting to adjust the image  front to back as well as side to side  , sometimes  involving very  small volume changes or  the right gap  between the songs.
i find it automatic and very repeatable , so i guess its just how i like to hear things.

the thing i do to the ms matrix the most is a 1 db or so on a shelf at 25 or 35 k , it just hits the upper harmonics  @18-20 k and "stabises the image "  so not really wider , but more solid, its a subtle thing , but it all adds up to making the tracks lock together .
most often i do it with out the matrix but when its on thats usually why

the current wave of digital  M/S tools including the weiss gear , are no help in this regard. i dunno why .... well i do but i dont want to get into an arguement

all of the subtle things i do to the image   every day i do in the analog domain .
and i dont seperate eq versus image ,its all the same  do your thing check the image listen to the other tracks check the image , check the original , check the image  etc etc

the comment , i am looking for  after the engineer has heard the reference in their world   is always the same , "it sounds just like my mix , only better "etc etc  "everything locks together track to track now ".



i really hate , and i mean REALLY hate when i listen to an album where the first track is LOUD WIDE and TOO BRIGHT AND BASSY and the rest of the album is dull quiet and woolly , it always sounds like the mastering guy  worked on the first track for two hours and ruined it , then the client went home and he got scared ,or lazy .
no regard to the image is shown , actually in my opinion no regard to the task of mastering is shown .. i hear it alot

i am going to invent a new magical process
its called making every track on the album sound like it belongs in the collection

i might  call it "mastering" for short  


all this has nothing to do with JJs tale ,

just talking about the  image some more   because this post has  it on   my mind today .



oh by the way Brad ,i have been meaning to say for a while , although there is much less action on your forum compared to gearslutz mastering forum , its more interesting and more civil around here .
you have a quality versus quantity thing going on

 

[bblackwood]

Rick O'neil wrote on Sun, 09 August 2009 17:10

oh by the way Brad ,i have been meaning to say for a while , although there is much less action on your forum compared to gearslutz mastering forum , its more interesting and more civil around here . you have a quality versus quantity thing going on

Thanks for the kind words, Rick - that's always been the goal here. I've long said I'd prefer quality posting over high traffic and feel like you guys have done a wonderful job of helping me achieve that here.

[J.J. Blair]

I have simply had to ban myself from gearslutz.  There are too many people over there that have never made a record who are trolling know it alls, and it brings out the worst in me.  I just can't engage.

I just played ice hockey today with Eddie Schreyer, and we discussed the widening thing.  He said he never does it, for a couple reasons: Among them, he feels it fucks with the bass, and can reduce the amount of thump.  He also said that it gets even shittier sounding when you convert to mp3, and tracks that are widened do not hold up as well after mp3 conversion as tracks that are not widened.  

I have no experience with that, but I'm throwing that out there for your consumption.

[Rick O'neil]

i think for the most part eddie is right

[dcollins]

Patrik T wrote on Sun, 09 August 2009 05:28

I'm just curious how a ME can tell that the "image" is "correct".

The assumption is that the mixer's vision as presented to the mastering engineer is the "correct" one.

I would say I do any kind of stereo change (whether narrowing or widening) on less that 5% of all records.

To read the Internets you would assume it's basically normalled in.

I know I've droned on before about this, but the important stuff is in the center, and that should be given the emphasis.

My job is to maintain the stereo image, not to add stereozation, of whatever flavor.


DC