bblackwood wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 10:25 |
I know mastering guys who won't turn on the lights if they don't have at least three compressors to work with, yet all the great records we love had ONE compressor and ONE EQ in the mastering chain. |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 10:25 |
I know mastering guys who won't turn on the lights if they don't have at least three compressors to work with, yet all the great records we love had ONE compressor and ONE EQ in the mastering chain. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 18 October 2006 23:33 |
As no one thing is enhancing modern records, no one thing is destroying them. Life is too broad for that. Barry |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 12:25 |
Just think about it more, deeper. All the records people herald as 'the greatest sounding records' we made in a similar manner - no outboard mic pres (no one used outboard pres until maybe the mid 80's - virtually everything before that was done with onboard pres), simple mic selections (focusing on placement), large format consoles, some outboard. Very often tracked and mixed on the same console. Mastered in rooms with simple gear (look at TML or BGM - all good sounding custom (and simple) gear). Are records really better sounding today than they were 25 years ago? I know mastering guys who won't turn on the lights if they don't have at least three compressors to work with, yet all the great records we love had ONE compressor and ONE EQ in the mastering chain. Choices are generally considered good, but are they? Everyone seems bent on buying the next piece of gear to help them make stuff sound they way they want, overlooking the value of having a solid, simple chain that they know extremely well. The 'great' records of yester-year were not made with dozens of processors in front of the engineer, but with simple, well understood chains. I'm just thinking aloud, but it seems to me the focus has become the gear and not the development of engineering talent. I mean, do you require more gear to cut great sounding records? If so, ask yourself - why didn't our forefathers require more than one or two EQ's and compressors to master such stunning records? |
Gold wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 19:48 |
I think it has a lot to do with there no longer being an apprentice system. It's easy to think there is a magic box when you don't know any better and work in isolation. |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 16:25 |
yet all the great records we love had ONE compressor and ONE EQ in the mastering chain. |
Gold wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 13:48 |
I think it has a lot to do with there no longer being an apprentice system. It's easy to think there is a magic box when you don't know any better and work in isolation. |
steveeastend wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 19:17 | ||
Hi Brad, I would be curious being given examples. |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 09:32 |
Anyone with enough money and half a brain can amass a pile of gear, but few seem to know how to use it. .. |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 08:23 |
Any record before 1980 would likely qualify... |
Gold wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 13:48 |
I think it has a lot to do with there no longer being an apprentice system. |
Quote: |
It really demonstrated what people wanted, instant results, fix everything in Protools, look how these plug-ins can improve evrything an make it louder. Whilst Digidesign and other DAW manufacturers are pushing this approach, I can't imagine people wanting to learn the art of recording and mixing properly. |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 06:32 |
I think some are missing the point... GAS is not a gear issue, but a human issue. The gear doesn't buy or use itself. More gear in and of itself isn't the issue, it's the general attitude that more = better, that more options = better product. I have more tools in front of me (with my relatively simple chain) than Bernie or Doug had for decades (perhaps have even now) yet they cut some of the most stunning records ever, heralded to this day. |
jtr wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 10:57 |
I suspect that the titles to which you refer were probably "close to stunning" on the way IN to the mastering shop. |
j.hall wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 12:23 |
interesting topic. i wonder how much this relates to the general decline of the master/apprentice relationship. runner, intern, assistant........people seem to be skipping these things. . |
Thomas W. Bethel wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 05:48 |
In the old days music was an enjoyable part of your life and you took the time to savor it and learn from it. Today most music is background and you very seldom, if ever see someone sitting down for any length of time actually listening to music. It is always done literally on the run, whether driving the car, on your IPOD while you are traveling somewhere or as a background to other tasks that you are performing. It has become the background sound for this generation and is just part of the background clutter that they have to deal with on a daily basis. |
TurtleTone wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 17:18 |
Come on guys, your ruining my gear purchase high. |
Masterer wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 14:26 | ||
<edit>Consider this old and overused analogy: There are lots of reasons why becoming a doctor is hard. The years of study, the cost of schooling, and the brutality of residency. One of the results of these trials is that only the most dedicated, stubborn, obsessive and egomaniacal [and in a few cases, talented] will make it. It's a system that culls the weak from the herd. I'm generalizing of course [there are some very bad doctors] but it's a very hostile envoronment for a dilettante. <edit> |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 23:32 |
I think some are missing the point... Does more options = better or does more options = more distractions from listening? |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 10:25 |
Just think about it more, deeper. <snip> all the great records we love had ONE compressor and ONE EQ in the mastering chain. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 12:04 |
...I will give Tommy Dowd as an example -- he embraced 8 track the moment he could; he multi-miked, he embraced digital... Those that knew him... did he use more processing gear as it became available? |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 09:47 |
If you had to choose only One Equalizer and One Compressor to use for mastering, which ones? |
Quote: |
I challenge you to do it for 3 days, see how much you can get done. |
dcollins wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 22:39 | ||||
The ones you are most familiar with.
Some guys have done essentially this for 40 years, so it must have some merit! |
Greg Youngman wrote on Tue, 31 October 2006 14:10 |
Just because a contractor has a truck load of tools to do a re-model doesn't mean he uses them all. He may never use a few of them, but it's good to have them around just in case. And if I hire him, I won't ask him what brand of Sawzall he has. |
Andy Krehm wrote on Tue, 31 October 2006 18:18 |
It's taken me several years to acquire the very nice selection of gear that I now have. |
Quote: |
Why on earth would I want to limit my self? |
Quote: |
Really the main point of interest in this thread is that some engineers don't know how to use what they have and therefore are ruining mixes and masters. |
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 31 October 2006 20:57 | ||||||
And that amounts to what? Anyone with some cash can buy gear...
Exactly my point! How do you know you aren't limiting yourself by having such a dizzying array of equipment to choose from? Do you think DSoTM required 7 compressors and 4 EQs? As I stated earlier, the very records most of us love were made with far simpler chains, why do we require more? Food for thought, that's all - I just think it's interesting that in all parts of production, sound quality is down yet we have more toys than ever...
Indeed, the most interesting comments are those concerning the lack of mentoring nowadays - I think that truly has had the greatest impact. I see so many posters advising young guys to spend the $30k on a bunch of gear and learn on their own ('just use your ears, dude') rather than use that money to live off of and intern with experienced engineers... |
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 31 October 2006 19:57 |
Exactly my point! How do you know you aren't limiting yourself by having such a dizzying array of equipment to choose from? Do you think DSoTM required 7 compressors and 4 EQs? As I stated earlier, the very records most of us love were made with far simpler chains, why do we require more? |
Bob Boyd wrote on Wed, 01 November 2006 02:20 |
The key is the discipline to know the strengths of each. It's not about having one item in the chain or 10. At the end of the day, how does it sound? |
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... |
robot gigante wrote on Wed, 01 November 2006 18:40 |
So is G.A.S the problem? Or is using a gear list as a crutch for no talent and as a selling point to attract clients? I have a fear too that this kid will get frustrated in this climate of tin-eared self promoters and choose a different career |
greg charles wrote on Wed, 01 November 2006 21:20 |
Here is a classic example of GAS. http://cikira.com/gear/ For some reason she hasn't recorded much with all that gear...I wonder why? |
jtr wrote on Wed, 01 November 2006 20:21 |
I'm sitting here trying to craft yet another contribution to this thread, but as I type there are lots of animated advertising graphics for gear flashing on and off all around the screen. No disrespect intended to our sponsors, this is almost too funny to be scripted. |
TurtleTone wrote on Wed, 01 November 2006 06:56 |
Two hours later we were printing mixes. I couldn't believe it, I refused to believe that these were the final mixes, but they sounded so great. |
TurtleTone wrote on Wed, 01 November 2006 22:33 | ||
Cause she's way to hot to work around. Insert pervy laugh. |
dave-G wrote on Thu, 02 November 2006 15:31 | ||||
Don't get too pervy. I just looked at the site ... I think Amanda is a man, duh. Well .. NTTAWWT.. I guess. .. -dave [/EJECT!] |
Samc wrote on Thu, 02 November 2006 18:14 |
Might I suggest that the real problem, the single biggest destructive thing to happen to modern audio engineering, (and hence modern records), in general is actually the internet forum. G.A.S. is just one of the more woeful results of this modern phenomenon. If you're not a well known big shot, with G.A.S., you can post fancy pictures on your website...of course the more gear you have, the bigger the pro you are. More bad information is passed around to a greater number of inexperienced engineers through internet forums than any other source. Why do you need to go through the hardship of being an intern now when you can get all the information and experience you need on Gearslutz, PSW et al. There is a new class of "engineer" whose only frame of refrence is the internet forum. Everything they do is based on their forum "experience". Need to know which Mic, pre-amp, comp. etc is best for whatever........just post away on your forum of choice and the responses will come flying faster than a TGV. Sometimes I cringe when I read some of the questions and responses. Heck, now you can even buy comparison CDs which will help to answer all your Mic and pre-amp questions without too much effort on your part. One of the most troubling thing about all this is the fact that all of this is being helped, or in some cases pushed along by experienced and well known engineers and gear pimps. Yeah, for all its good, the internet forum is probably the worst thing that could happen to an inexperienced engineer, and the biggest fly in the ointment of modern engineering and production. |
dcollins wrote on Thu, 02 November 2006 22:49 | ||
Sadly, I think you're right. As much as I like these discussion forums, it's incredible what passes for advice. A fair amount of time is just spent "debunking." |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 03 November 2006 14:31 |
..... - I wanted to build a forum where real, accurate information was spread and BS was not tolerated. I think it's come close to being that |
Quote: |
but agree that some folks seem to feel that they don't need a mentor if they have access to experienced engineers via the forums, and that's just not true... |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 03 November 2006 07:31 |
... And one of the reasons I chose the name for this forum - I wanted to build a forum where real, accurate information was spread and BS was not tolerated. I think it's come close to being that, but agree that some folks seem to feel that they don't need a mentor if they have access to experienced engineers via the forums, and that's just not true... |
bigaudioblowhard wrote on Fri, 03 November 2006 17:23 |
I have NEVER met anyone who was interested in being an intern, or mentored or anything. |
Adam Miller wrote on Fri, 03 November 2006 13:22 | ||
Wow. I just can't relate to that at all. The common consensus in this thread that people don't want mentoring, or don't have the patience for interning seems completely alien to me. I wonder if everyone in this thread who has been mentored at some point in their career has taken the time to pass that knowledge on to someone else? I would jump at the chance to intern with any one of a long list of people on these forums- I can't believe there aren't others out there who'd do the same. When I apply for work experience here the UK, I seldom get an acknowledgement, let alone the opportunity for an interview. I want to intern- I'll do odd jobs, food runs, cleaning, whatever, just be in an environment where I can be around and learn from experienced professionals. But it seems that where opportunities exist, there are more than enough people waiting to jump at the chance. Adam |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 03 November 2006 14:31 |
...- I wanted to build a forum where real, accurate information was spread and BS was not tolerated. I think it's come close to being that,... |
Thomas W. Bethel wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 08:49 |
Academicians and deans are not known for their common sense or their willingness to admit that someone else know something more than they do about a given subject and they proved on a dialy basis. |
bigaudioblowhard wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 08:38 | ||||
Hey Adam, Liverpool has a rich history of people who have bucked the odds against them and persevered to become icons of music. You know the list. I was once exactly in your shoes and you know what? Eventually someone allowed me to clean toilets in a Hollywood recording studio. I sent out something like 110 CV's and got three interviews. |
UnderTow wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 21:01 |
...sitting IN the studio with direct feedback from the monitors and the person. (WUMP and IMP are the closest thing to that on the Internet). |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 01 November 2006 06:14 | ||
Indeed. Realize that most of this thread is stream-of-consciousness from me - I have no agenda, nor have I formed my opinion on any of this, just want to hash it out and see where things stand... So far, two things have resonated with me - that lack of mentoring is killing the modern engineering craft and serious experience (and the associated discipline that comes with it) is required to know when to say 'when'. Neither of these are revelations, but it's nice to see other people seeing things the same way. Many have forgotten (or never learned) that simple is always better, but only as simple as needed... |
cerberus wrote on Sun, 05 November 2006 07:24 |
"they" don't have time for "us". so i guess, not close enough. we have the technology to do our listening and discussions in real time, but nobody seems willing to commit like that. we are all "too busy". |
Quote: |
i must be an audio communist by that definition. urgh! if it needs 100 processes, that's what it gets. my small group of clients love my sound though. they are not fooled when i spin off a "simple cheapie" either. my best work so far has been with the most complex chains. sorry, really, it would be so much easier for me to not put in the extra time and effort. |
Quote: |
if you don't wish to respect complexity, that is ok as an opinion, but know that i work hard, so the continuous re-enforcement here of a k.i.s.s. mentality kind of hurts; and i think it's wrong: the journey of electrons inside a sontec could not be simple, or every yahoo would have that sound in their pocket by now. |
malice wrote on Sun, 05 November 2006 06:32 |
...It is interesting to see that gear manufacturers are just not aiming their products to studios anymore, but to musicians... |
Thomas W. Bethel wrote on Mon, 13 November 2006 06:36 |
I got a call last week from a client. First question he asked was what do you use for equipment? Second was what programs do you use for mastering? Third was how much is this going to cost me? Forth when can I come in for a listening session? He is not alone. More and more people seem to be gearaholics and are concerned more about what gear you have in your racks then how good a job you will be able to do with their material. way to "judge" a mastering studio it seem to make perfect sense. |
Thomas W. Bethel wrote on Mon, 13 November 2006 04:36 |
I got a call last week from a client. First question he asked was what do you use for equipment? Second was what programs do you use for mastering? Third was how much is this going to cost me? Forth when can I come in for a listening session? He is not alone. More and more people seem to be gearaholics and are concerned more about what gear you have in your racks then how good a job you will be able to do with their material. (snipped) |
Viitalahde wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 08:19 |
I've been pondering this lately myself. I'm in a good spot in that my customers value what I do instead of what I own. It could be vice versa since I build a majority of my tools myself, but most of my customers seem to be only mildly curious about it. But what has really got me thinking is the whole gearslut thing. I constantly see people changing their perfectly fine tools within months just to get the new one. I don't see how anyone could really dig deep into the tools within this time. |
Viitalahde wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 07:19 |
I'm bumping up an old topic again, but there's no sense in starting a new one when there's plenty of good discussion here. |
Quote: |
But what has really got me thinking is the whole gearslut thing. I constantly see people changing their perfectly fine tools within months just to get the new one. I don't see how anyone could really dig deep into the tools within this time. |
Quote: |
Rant off. |
Quote: |
The focus should be on becoming better engineers, so that no matter what gear we're given we can perform, but in today's 'instant gratification' world many seem to want to simply buy their way into the field. |
Patrik T wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 08:44 |
Getting to know just a very limited amount of gear over many years of time must be the only way to actually become a better engineer. |
Patrik T wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 16:44 |
Getting to know just a very limited amount of gear over many years of time must be the only way to actually become a better engineer. |
Viitalahde wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 16:30 |
Besides, I never understood the appeal of equipment in general. They're tools. You usually don't see a carpenter drooling over his hammer (unless he's a special kind of a carpenter). |
Rick O'neil wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 13:38 |
so maybe we should all go on a two box diet for a month and see how many rack spaces we could drop .? |
dcollins wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 18:41 |
Doug Sax used two eq's and one limiter and he got by ok. |
cerberus wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 18:00 | ||
are you saying that these were very special devices? or that doug's technique only required that many devices? |
dcollins wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 18:41 |
Doug Sax used two eq's and one limiter and he got by ok. |
dcollins wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 18:41 | ||
Doug Sax used two eq's and one limiter and he got by ok. DC |
Thomas W. Bethel wrote on Wed, 04 November 2009 08:14 |
Doug Sax is a genius when it comes to mastering but most of the material he was getting in was already well done (well recorded and mixed) so he was literally putting the icing on the cake and did not need a lot of fancy tools to make the material sound GREAT. |
Waltz Mastering wrote on Wed, 04 November 2009 13:45 |
It's more to an ME's credit that they leave sounding like they came in well recorded and mixed. |
Quote: |
I don't know if it eases with age and working years, but with very good mixes, I find it can take surprisingly a lot of time to do the decision of doing less. |
Viitalahde wrote on Wed, 04 November 2009 06:03 |
I don't know if it eases with age and working years, but with very good mixes, I find it can take surprisingly a lot of time to do the decision of doing less. |
Thomas W. Bethel wrote on Wed, 04 November 2009 14:14 |
Doug Sax is a genius when it comes to mastering but most of the material he was getting in was already well done (well recorded and mixed) so he was literally putting the icing on the cake and did not need a lot of fancy tools to make the material sound GREAT. Now days, IMHO, when people bring in a mess you have to have more tools to make it sound good. |
cerberus wrote on Wed, 04 November 2009 13:38 |
i never think to boost or cut anything with a static filter, unless somebody tells me to. |
Quote: |
seems that an eq which is considered to be "musical" by consensus here is likely to sport an amp, or some very unique filter shape? well, we never pin it down. |
Quote: |
imo, another source of g.a.s, is from using cheap digital methods, thinking it is as good as analog. |
Quote: |
such as: the widespread use of never adequate sample rates (so as to achieve the highest track and plug-in counts). |
Patrik T wrote on Wed, 04 November 2009 15:11 | ||
For me there is no big difference between something "great" or something that is not "great". This because the judgement regarding this might trip over into subjectivity much too easily. A great mix might benefit from one band of eq and turn worse by touching another band. So then I don't use the 2:nd band. I seem to observe that the exact same goes for a "bad" mix. Why should I then use more processing for something that turns worse in the same way as good things turns worse? I used to think I would need more than 3 bands of eq to become better. Nowadays I almost never activate the additional bands. I could need something wider though, and this I am aware of. A lot of tools to make something sound great might be a way of making everything sound very uniform and this will result in less and less integrity between artists. I don't consider translation as something that should lead to everyone sounding like everybody else. I find problems regarding real translation to be pretty easily fixed with very little processing. Even on the baddest mix around. A lot of "fixing" would to me indicate that the wrong is not in the music - the wrong is my approach to the music. If I activate too much processing I usually reset everything and start over because I just know it can't be good for the material. Best Regards Patrik |
dcollins wrote on Wed, 04 November 2009 17:29 | ||
|
Quote: | ||
http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resources/Why_do_equalisers_sou nd_different_A4.pdf |
Quote: | ||
such as: the widespread use of never adequate sample rates (so as to achieve the highest track and plug-in counts).
|
Silvertone wrote on Thu, 05 November 2009 06:50 |
Get this: LESS IS MORE PEOPLE... LET THE MUSIC SHINE So many people want to impart "their skill" onto a project that they miss the point of the music... |
Silvertone wrote on Thu, 05 November 2009 06:50 |
Get this: LESS IS MORE PEOPLE... LET THE MUSIC SHINE |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Thu, 05 November 2009 14:57 | ||
A couple weeks ago had a song in that only required a third dB added at 21kHz and 1dB of limiting. All other processors set to flat... a good feeling. JT |
mcsnare wrote on Thu, 05 November 2009 15:31 |
I don't think I can hear +.3 at 21K! Dave |
Larrchild wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 02:31 |
Once a powerful force becomes available to you and your competitors, the inclination is toward mass-buildup and stockpiles of said force as a deterrent. This MAE, or Mutally Assured Equipment, causes all participants to earmark greater and greater percentages of their GNP to keep pace. Sensible parties will meet and agree to scale down the stockpiles and allow confirmation via inspections, in the interest of protecting our children's future. The alternative is unthinkable. |
prolearts wrote on Thu, 05 November 2009 17:14 |
I don't have time to read this whole incredibly long thread (don't some of y'all have work you should be doing!?) |
mcsnare wrote on Thu, 05 November 2009 14:31 |
I don't think I can hear +.3 at 21K! Dave |
dcollins wrote on Wed, 04 November 2009 12:39 |
One of the hardest things to do is to know when to cut it flat. |
Gold wrote on Thu, 05 November 2009 16:08 |
I was going to to say 'so you were too chicken to cut it flat' but I thought it was mean. Ooops, I said it. |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 06 November 2009 22:49 |
Nick & I both retubed our Manley VariMu's today... a warm experience. |
Waltz Mastering wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 22:17 | ||
Curious to hear what kind/s of tubes you went with? Was going to order a set soon. Any suggestions? |
cerberus wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 22:24 |
if you don't wish to respect complexity, that is ok as an opinion, but know that i work hard, so the continuous re-enforcement here of a k.i.s.s. mentality kind of hurts; and i think it's wrong: the journey of electrons inside a sontec could not be simple, or every yahoo would have that sound in their pocket by now. |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Sun, 15 November 2009 06:31 | ||||
We just went with a coupla sets of these: http://www.tubesrule.com/product_p/retube-mslc.htm Some of them were 1980's NOS, some Russian EH. After the installation procedure, tweaking, burn-in, and retweak, a noticeable improvement in sound, a little more clarity, a less little mushy. Naturally keeping the old tubes for spares. Cheers - JT |
Hank Alrich wrote on Sun, 15 November 2009 18:28 |
There is a difference between working hard and surrendering to complexity. I spent a long, extremely hardworking, damn near grueling session with Jerry Tubb this past Thursday. We worked our asses off getting 16/44.1 and 24/96 and mp3's together for a 10 song album of folk music burdened by a tight dealine. The work was in trying this or that in the face of whatever little problem faced us, while maintaining cheerful focus for hours, and hours, assessing the effect of tiny changes to settings. The chain, however, was not elaborate and it could deliver anything we could reasonably expect to accomplish to help the final result. More would not have been better, in this case. When it was all in, it had a touch of this, a tiny bit of that, etc. Those little changes begat a large and positive result overall. |