Print

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

[Yiannis]

I thing that the HEDD is program depended right?

So how can we talk about settings like 2 or 3 or 5?

if you put a low signal you need more but if you drive it hot you need less.

am I missing something?

[bblackwood]

Yiannis wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 04:43

I thing that the HEDD is program depended right? So how can we talk about settings like 2 or 3 or 5? if you put a low signal you need more but if you drive it hot you need less. am I missing something?

In my case, I generally work at a similar operating level for every project.

[Jim Williams]

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 09:52

Jim Williams wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 10:34 So, mastering guys, is this why these new releases are un-listenable? To me, records have never sounded worse. And I've been doing this since the 60's. Right, it's the gear's fault... The HEDD's a great piece of gear, period.

No it's the fault of the operators.

Converters don't kill music, the people that use the converters kill music.

What's most interesting is that so many will defend the current techniques of slaughtering music. Then you mastering folks will make up all kinds of excuses for releasing unlistenable crap.

Face it, you are part of the problem.

[jackthebear]

Jim Williams wrote on Sat, 08 October 2005 00:56

What's most interesting is that so many will defend the current techniques of slaughtering music. Then you mastering folks will make up all kinds of excuses for releasing unlistenable crap. Face it, you are part of the problem.

Jim,

There isn't defence for the "slaughtering" of music.....but rather a defence of the rights of clients to have it the way they want.

If you have read this thread carefully I don't believe anyone here is DEFAULTING to stoopid loud.

We serve our clients needs and will try to "educate" them but when the client ASKS for more.....we oblige them as best as we can.

So how is this a problem?

[Bob Boyd]

Jim Williams wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 09:56

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 09:52 Jim Williams wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 10:34 So, mastering guys, is this why these new releases are un-listenable? To me, records have never sounded worse. And I've been doing this since the 60's. Right, it's the gear's fault... The HEDD's a great piece of gear, period. No it's the fault of the operators. Converters don't kill music, the people that use the converters kill music. What's most interesting is that so many will defend the current techniques of slaughtering music. Then you mastering folks will make up all kinds of excuses for releasing unlistenable crap. Face it, you are part of the problem.

If you'd like to address particular individuals on specific projects, that's one thing.  It sure would hold a lot more water than you making a bunch of noise just because you think we're ALL guilty of something.  Making a statement like this on a thread about the Crane Song HEDD unit shows just how uninformed your comment is.

If you hang around for a while, you'll see that there is great concern about certain aspects of where we are musically.

I have a good feeling that you might actually be able to contribute far more to this forum than you are right now.

Call people out if you need to, but if you're going to be general, try being constructive.  You'll get a lot further.

[TotalSonic]

Jim Williams wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 15:56

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 09:52 Jim Williams wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 10:34 So, mastering guys, is this why these new releases are un-listenable? To me, records have never sounded worse. And I've been doing this since the 60's. Right, it's the gear's fault... The HEDD's a great piece of gear, period. No it's the fault of the operators. Converters don't kill music, the people that use the converters kill music. What's most interesting is that so many will defend the current techniques of slaughtering music. Then you mastering folks will make up all kinds of excuses for releasing unlistenable crap.

Amount of times ever that a client has asked me to decrease the average level on their master after hearing their first ref:  one

Charge for studio time to revise said master so that it was "quieter" on second ref:
$0.00

Look on Steve's face when given request noted above:  

Amount of times that a client has asked me to INCREASE the average level on their master after hearing their first ref:  lost count

Look on Steve's face when given this request noted directly above:

Quote:

Face it, you are part of the problem.

Jim - Face it, you are trolling here.

Best regards,
Steve Berson  

[jackthebear]

TotalSonic wrote on Sat, 08 October 2005 01:21

Look on Steve's face when given this request noted directly above: [

Look on face of Steve's client's face after Steve accommodates request


Look on Steve's face after happy client leaves and returns and refers other clients

[Bob Boyd]

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 08:31

In my case, I generally work at a similar operating level for every project.

Using the HEDD unit with pretty much the same setting is a really interesting comment to me.  For me, I'm all over those settings.  Of course, the way you use the unit is up to the operator.  No 2 people drive the same either.  

The first time I saw the HEDD was in 2001.  I sat in and watched Glenn Meadows (then at Masterphonics) master a single and he had one.  He didn't touch the settings while working on the song.  I guess different people are looking for it to do different things.

I think it's capable of bringing a lot to the table and I've learned not to underestimate it - or overdo it.  Because it affects things both in color and dynamics, it's often my starting point before anything else.  I've found that some blander material might benefit from a fair amount of it's processing.  Some material, especially some songs that have had heavy Phoenix processing during mixing, can't take much (or any) of the Tape function.

[TotalSonic]

jackthebear wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 16:29

TotalSonic wrote on Sat, 08 October 2005 01:21 Look on Steve's face when given this request noted directly above: [ Look on face of Steve's client's face after Steve accommodates request Look on Steve's face after happy client leaves and returns and refers other clients

Yeah - that too!  Honestly - if someone makes a request of me to smash something I don't look at them funny - I just try and let them know of some of the disadvantages before proceeding.  Anyway - I don't usually don't charge for initial revisions like this either.  Nice thing with 2 refs of one more dynamic and one more squashed is they can compare and contrast and go with the one they want.  Hate to break it to everybody - but usually the squashed one wins with the client that requested the squash.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[bblackwood]

Jim Williams wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 09:56

What's most interesting is that so many will defend the current techniques of slaughtering music. Then you mastering folks will make up all kinds of excuses for releasing unlistenable crap.

Who defends it? Who on here doesn't hate it?

As for making excuses, most people here are just pleasing the clients. It's called good service.

Quote:

Face it, you are part of the problem.

No, I'm simply doing what the client requests.

Thanks for your input, it's valued so very much, Jim.

[Jim Williams]

Great, now we have an entire generation of disposable music. In 25 years, folks will look back at this era of destroyed music and reminisce about how people let technology get out of control. I suspect some engineers will be about as embarrassed about their old "productions" as some are now about their 70's hairstyles.

If you're going to be a lemming, at least learn to swim.

[Arf! Mastering]

Yeah, pleasing clients, of course that is what you need to do to survive.  Still, the bottom line, it's a sell out.  Accepting money for what you know is wrong.

[TotalSonic]

Jim Williams wrote on Mon, 10 October 2005 17:01

Great, now we have an entire generation of disposable music. In 25 years, folks will look back at this era of destroyed music and reminisce about how people let technology get out of control. I suspect some engineers will be about as embarrassed about their old "productions" as some are now about their 70's hairstyles. If you're going to be a lemming, at least learn to swim.

Well - a nice example of a similar thing from the past is all those 80's AOR productions with the massive gated early digital reverbs all over the drums.  I'm sure there are plenty of engineers that wish they could go back and take some of that off - but there are a number of tracks (i.e. Phil Collins "In The Air Tonight") where that sound is actually an intricate part of the recording.

Honestly Jim - there's quite a number of independent labels putting out music that is recorded and mastered beautifully with no squashing on it whatsover.  
Mapleshade Records for example makes a point of using absolutely no compression at any point on any of their releases.  Pop music has always had it's disposability factor in it's productions which tend to go through certain trends - but this has not changed the fact that there have remained small niche labels that have continued thoughout to put out recordings of the highest fidelity.  If you want to hear this stuff you just have to look outside the box of the Big4.  Luckily the internet has made discovery and distribution of this stuff a lot easier than it was in the recent past.  

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Ashermusic]

jackthebear wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 16:29

TotalSonic wrote on Sat, 08 October 2005 01:21 Look on Steve's face when given this request noted directly above: [ Look on face of Steve's client's face after Steve accommodates request Look on Steve's face after happy client leaves and returns and refers other clients

Look on Steve's face when he listens back to it and hears what he has been complicit in creating :

[Ashermusic]

AlanS wrote on Mon, 10 October 2005 17:27

Yeah, pleasing clients, of course that is what you need to do to survive.  Still, the bottom line, it's a sell out.  Accepting money for what you know is wrong.

Exactly as I have repeatedly maintained in these discussions to the point of annoying Brad

Do what you feel you need to do but don't pretend it is about art. It is about commerce.

It occurs to me however, that since  I am not a mastering engineer but a composer/arranger/producer and engineer when I have to be that maybe I am operating from certain assumptions that others are not.

Do you guys think that there is a different level of contribution and therefore responsibility to the credit/blame for the final product? Are mastering engineers totally functionary or are they a part of the creation process as well?

I can say this from experience: IMO I have heard recordings that were artistically improved by the mastering done by Bernie Grundmann and Doug Sax. You would not find, again IMO, 1 decent musican in 500 who would pick out the pre-mastered version as sounding better.