Print

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

[OTR-jkl]

We touched on this subject on the old forum, but I'd like to get some input from the new guys around here...

I read this interesting thread on Lynn Fuston's forum and started thinking about how it would apply to Mastering.

Lynn stated in his reply,
"I'm so far from a "purist" when it comes to EQ. I want the recording to sound right. If that means patching in 6 devices, including two different EQs, then that's what I'll do. I know what I'm going after and I'll do what it takes to get there."

How many of you guys take the same approach when mastering a tune vs. doing as little as possible no matter what?

Personally, I start out trying to leave a mix alone as much as possible but - more often than not - find myself using sometimes "drastic" measures (EQ-wise) in order to get problems under control. Obviously, the better the mix the less there is to do. But what about mixes that are in need of help?


That leads me to another question:
Concerning the amount of EQ applied, what do you consider to be the point of "crossing the line" from a "Purist" approach over to using more "drastic" measures? >1dB of boost or cut? >2dB? >3dB, more...? And when do you call for a re-mix?

[Level]

This is hard to answer until I actually go over the material. I am working an album one track at a time. (tracks come in once every 10 days/give/take) The first track was pretty close. Some minor adjustments, the vox needed to come up...so I asked for a remix and had the producer send the instu/vox separate for a comparison (easy folks to work with) and we have a good grip on the first tune. The second tune was bland. No mojo, no toe tap. For the heck of it, I did some really wild EQ (some of which needed above 5dB in places) and got the tune to rock. What this did was to give the mixdown engineer (obviously got burnt out on this mix) a new perspective of how I feel the tune should be balanced...pertaining to how he mixed the first song and this got him back on track. It certainly sounds great...but the mix is not finished nor are all the tracks laid. I certainly do not mind "babysitting" during the stages..since this PARTICULAR album is coming to me in stages and ultimately, I will have to have all the tracks sounding in proper perspective for each other. The engineer and producers have expressed how much they like this approach and that it is helping them to remain focused.

In a perfect (or near) world, you will get (as a mastering engineer) all the tracks for the album mixed well and ready to do "mastering"..which really should not involve much of a change at all if the mixes are tight and balanced. Some projects need around a dB of fine tuning. If you ever have the opportunity to work with an artist/producer from the perspective of critique and help, this can be rewarding for the project...but only if the project asks for this level of input and it can be beneficial to the production.

The key thing is to be granted this involvment. Otherwise I would have simply sent a track that is very balanced for comparison sakes and asked the mix engineer to look toward more work to have a viable product for the artist.

Also, if the record is a demo, I will use more liberal settings to get the project balanced than if the project is going to full press. I find that great communication between the responsable parties to work toward getting the best overall product. If it sucks, say so! If you can't help the project, say that as well!

I feel honored to be more involved..if I can be of genuine help.

[bobkatz]

OTR-jkl wrote on Thu, 14 October 2004 15:13

Lynn stated in his reply, "I'm so far from a "purist" when it comes to EQ. I want the recording to sound right. If that means patching in 6 devices, including two different EQs, then that's what I'll do. I know what I'm going after and I'll do what it takes to get there."

Was Lynn talking about tracking, mixing, or mastering?

You can't get away with nearly the same amount of EQ when mastering as when mixing. It just starts to distort the original mix intent and affect one instrument adversely while ostensibly improving another.

Clearly with mixes that need help, whatever "works" "works", but the point of diminishing returns (when a remix is much more advisable, and the mastering "disease" is far worse than the socalled "cure") arrives very rapidly in the mastering situation.

All kinds of tricks are available to "fix" a mix, MS processing, multiband, whatever. But unless they are just subtle tweaks intended to be as invisible as possible, then they almost always suck beyond "X" dB of boost or cut (fill in your own blank in X, but I'll bet it's under 4, probably under 3, and in most cases under 2 dB). Last half dozen masters that have come in here have received less than one or two dB of EQ at any frequency.

BK

[bblackwood]

OTR-jkl wrote on Thu, 14 October 2004 14:13

Lynn stated in his reply, "I'm so far from a "purist" when it comes to EQ. I want the recording to sound right. If that means patching in 6 devices, including two different EQs, then that's what I'll do. I know what I'm going after and I'll do what it takes to get there." How many of you guys take the same approach when mastering a tune vs. doing as little as possible no matter what?

I don't necessarily think they are mutually exclusive. I do as little as possible to make it as good as it can be. Sometimes that's one band of EQ and some level, other times, I'm using everything in my rack.

IMO, you do a disservice to the client and the song if you do anything else...

[ted nightshade]

Lynn was talking about tracking and mixing.

Me, I'm 99 44/100ths % pure.

[TotalSonic]

I think a big question should be - is the client in the room with you??  If so then I'll do anything that gets them the sound they are looking for - including extreme eq's if that is what makes them happy (although since I know my room and monitors better than people there for the first time I kind of know when they are asking for extremes that really won't translate and will discuss this with a client if they are asking for things that I think are overboard).

For unattended sessions unless specific instructions have been received regarding a track I'll honor what I can perceive as the artist's and mixer's intentions.  I do deal with a lot of stuff that comes out of project studios where things are just plain "wrong" - so sometimes I'll have to be more surgical than I think most of the posters here have to do - i.e. I receive a ton of digital masters bound for vinyl with crazy amounts of high end - sure it sounds ok as 1's & 0's but when you cut with it at anything resembling a hot level you just get hash so I often have to smooth these things out - but in general I'll agree with Brad that we should just do the minimal needed.

Best regards,
Steve Berson