Print

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

[henchman]

Right.
If it takes longer than 4-5 hours to master a recrod I've mixe, then I've doen a shit job.
We won't even talk about days, weeks or months.

How the hell can you spend more time mastering something than it took to mix.

Sorry. I call dog and pony show on that one.

Like the guys who stick up20 mics to mic a simple drumkit.
Makes the client think tey're real hot shit engineers.

[keny]

electrical wrote on Mon, 14 March 2005 16:19

And if the mastering engineer started telling me what needed to be changed on the record for him to be satisfied, I'd pack up and split. The record's been made at that point. He's just supposed to make the production parts, and make minor adjustments under instruction without any additional problems. If he can't do that quickly, or if he decides to go "producer" on me, he doesn't deserve the work.

I agree, and if I were you, that makes total sense. The point was that at the time I wasn't where I am today, and the process of advice could have helped me along. I definitely know what I want better nowadays.

But steve, have you wanted to do something different at the mastering stage that totally affects the whole mix in a different way than the standard mastering processing? Like for instance that manley slam can make several different "sounds". Now that I know what one sounds like, I might mix with a effect only it can produce in mind.

[Level]

Quote:

Steve Albini

Your mixes could probabally be done in less than 2 hours. Some people need deep involment, others do not.

Not all of us have "routines". Some of us involve outselves (when asked) to the deepest levels of production. These are my niche.

Musicians as engineers need deeper involvement than producers, directors, mixers, seasoned pros and protocol.

QA.




I have worked the entire gambit. I choose to do things within this niche.

Quote:

Henchman

As for the aformentioned "dog and pony show" it is in your mind, not my mind.

Different realms exsists in the recording arts. This should be no surpise to anyone here.

Quote:

How the hell can you spend more time mastering something than it took to mix.

If mastering exposes weaknesses in the mix, we remix. We recut. We rehash until we are all happy. My Clinets love that about me.

A call a spade a spade. I hear something in the mix that was not where it should have been, it gets questioned. If it was intentional, so be it, no problem.

What I do is not "wrong", it is a niche. Accept it, or complain about it.

The 'Niche' not only exsists, it is a decent business and very rewarding to all.

My work is also questioned and critiqued. I do not have the final say. We ALL do.

[dcollins]

Level wrote on Mon, 14 March 2005 12:33

Yes, I am that good.

And humble, too!

Since Poyser is no longer around, I vote Bill next most entertaining.

Using my hack, bumbling, half-assed ways, it takes about 1/2 hour per track.  I mean, there's only so many knobs...

I have done exactly two records in my career that took a week!

I guess Bob Katz and Bill Roberts must be onto something.

DC

[drew]

Keny,
i know who you are talking about and to me it's mostly about genres. i don't think he can relate to the type of music you do and therefore may feel out of his element to say anything. just a theory.
drew

[Level]

DC, It is a deep dirty dark secret...everytime we try to come out with it and share...we run into a brick wall...G-d knows we tried.......

I just want you guys to get a hold of this thing...perhaps not...we can keep it bottled up for a while eh>>

All we want to do is share...we really have a time of it toting the whole motherlode.

[Eric Rudd]

Level wrote on Mon, 14 March 2005 22:28

DC, It is a deep dirty dark secret...everytime we try to come out with it and share...we run into a brick wall...G-d knows we tried....... I just want you guys to get a hold of this thing...perhaps not...we can keep it bottled up for a while eh>> All we want to do is share...we really have a time of it toting the whole motherlode.

Good thing you don't charge by the metaphor.  

Eric

[electrical]

keny wrote on Mon, 14 March 2005 16:54

But steve, have you wanted to do something different at the mastering stage that totally affects the whole mix in a different way than the standard mastering processing?

Rule of thmb: The mix should sound like you want the record to sound. If you wait for it to be made special in the mastering, you are betting on a ghost.

Mastering should not be a creative tool. That's what the entire session up to that point is for. Mastering should be about making the control room sound come into the living room, for the most part.

Once in a great while, the mastering engineer may need to do more than that, but I am offended by mastering engineers who presume to make huge changes at the last minute, and I don't use them by choice. I certainly would never count on it to "save" a record.

Mastering time is much more expensive than studio time, and mastering is by its nature limited in capability. Expecting big changes at mastering is inviting catastrophe -- expensive catastrophe.

[Level]

Good cookie cutter post.

Some people don't mix at your level and either they need another pair of ears to tell them a remix is of order or they need to have guidance of what went wrong and how it can be much better.

I did not always work with this. I started at the top...and worked my way down to this. It is still rewarding to hear a band that "can" sound great...sound great and then they learn from the quality of the final CD when they are gigging.

It happens that way at times. No my choice, but I do offer solutions where others do not.

Face it, Indie rules. I want to show indie bands that they can do it and get out there. Believe me, it is ALL about the music. If I can use my skills for them to get to where they want to be..It happens. If they want to limit themselves, so be it.

I will never put up a fight for something that THEY don't even believe in..but I will for what I believe in, every time.

[keny]

electrical wrote on Mon, 14 March 2005 18:09

Rule of thmb: The mix should sound like you want the record to sound. If you wait for it to be made special in the mastering, you are betting on a ghost. Expecting big changes at mastering is inviting catastrophe -- expensive catastrophe.

Looks like I gotta go buy a manley slam now to understand exactly what it is I'm looking for. I dont know man after hearing that thing for 5 minutes I know things can be done with that beast that can't be done with some stupid rennaissance compressor.

I agree to not expect anything too terribly groundbreaking but I understand that everything has a sound. When you master you are applying a sound to your music, I'm sure it varies greatly depending on what you run your junk through. I'd like to be a part of that process ya know?

Maybe I'm just still 'limited' by my equipment.

HD3 accel
Waves 5
Mac, etc

[Eric Rudd]

keny wrote on Tue, 15 March 2005 00:16

When you master you are applying a sound to your music,

I agree with Mr. Albini. Mastering is not the time to be applying "a sound" to your mixes....at least not to the extent that is implied in your posts. If you want the sound of box "X" on your mix bus, best to rent that box and futz with it during your mixing time. Better yet, print one version with and one without. Then ask the mastering engineer his thoughts about one version over the other. In his effort to be professional, he should give you his opinion in the context of the song AND the album which he thinks is best. Then it still should be up to you to decide.

If you're waiting until mastering to get your mix to sound drastically different than it already does, then that's a potentially expensive risk you're taking.

That's not the role of mastering as I see it.

Best,
Eric

[wwittman]

Steve Albini wrote:
>>Rule of thmb: The mix should sound like you want the record to sound. If you wait for it to be made special in the mastering, you are betting on a ghost.


Damn! After all the contention, I KNEW if I stuck around eventually Steve and I would agree about something!

I completely agree.
I count on George Marino to help my record TRANSLATE to the final medium.. that's what mastering does.
We might do some little level tricks and an overall EQ in case I don't have the tonal balance I THOUGHT I had coming in..but that's it.

If it really needed to take a radical turn in mastering I'd remix.
Or shoot myself.
or both.

[Loco]

Level wrote on Mon, 14 March 2005 15:33

First of all, you are not doing mastering on the level I am. That is painfully apparent. It is no offense. Each echelon has its level. You can have your.... one or two day level, I will take a week, or month.(maybe a few months on huge projects) and the results will speak for themselves and we both work at or about the same hourly level.

Well, I'd rather master the material myself than letting you soak & rinse it on your insecurities for longer than it took to mix it. Hell, it would be a lot cheaper just to give it to Bob Ludwig in the first place.

[Level]

Loco, if your mix is good, it would not take long at all.

Say again?

I have no insecurities.

[Arf! Mastering]

Music engineering is an artitic pursuit where the only rule is there are no rules.  All this sparring over generalizations about methods is pointless without hearing the results - comparing input to output.