Ken Scott;6108760 |
Hi, I have answered a lot of your questions on another thread about Jeff. If you need more let me know and I'll try and come up with a little extra for you. The one thing I can talk about, mastering. I very rarely go to mastering sessions. I consider it absolutely pointless for anyone other than the mastering engineer to be there. Every room sounds different. The way one gets to know the room is to work in it on a constant basis and by taking things out and listening. What is the point of someone who doesn't know the room going in and saying add highs or cut mids. I prefer to have the engineer send me a completely flat version and one of what he thinks needs adjusting which I then listen to in a known environment and pass all comments from there. Also, I come from a time when mastering engineers were there to do as little as possible to the product he or she was given. The producer, the engineer and maybe even the artist know how they want it to sound and that is what should be given to the mastering engineer, with only minor adjustments needed. It obviously irks me that that isn't the way it is today. Incidentally, the training at Abbey Road was such that you weren't allowed to record something from scratch, ie engineer, until you had fully learned the final step in the whole process, ie mastering, and so I have physically mastered a whole lot of music in my time. I guess you managed to touch a raw nerve. Oh well. Cheers |
gertvanhoof wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 21:21 |
the fact that "knowing how you want it to sound" is becoming something of a lost art. |
no1uno wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 15:24 |
post deleted, redundant |
Waltz Mastering wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 06:55 | ||
|
Adam Dempsey: |
While the times they keep on changin' I wouldn't say that time has past at all. Some may call it an "ideal", but it irks me (I know I'm far from alone here) that the perception of mastering, even from some seasoned engineers, is to throw processing at it. |
masterhse: |
One of the reasons I find Indie releases interesting to work on is because many of them are puzzles to be solved. The higher end stuff that I've had the opportunity to work with is usually pretty straightforward and more a matter of preserving what's there. |
masterhse wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 02:54 |
One of the reasons I find Indie releases interesting to work on is because many of them are puzzles to be solved. |
dietrich wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 07:49 |
I do not think 20 yrs ago artists or producers would ever say 'well we can fix it in mastering'..... many of us have steady work because of the current times and trends. I get to do both methods. Often very good masters sent to me for lacquer cuts where my job is just to make it translate for the medium. and I also receive stem mixes to mix down+ master at the end D |
Waltz Mastering wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 13:58 |
I do like Ken's mantra about about flat or near flat being the goal. |
Patrik T wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 03:37 | ||
I don't fancy the idea that the most fragile mixes are the ones who might receive the most beating in mastering. Best Regards Patrik |
ganglion wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 15:52 |
regarding the brian quote, i worked with him earlier this year, and the guy is REALLY funny. I think he was taking the piss. |
ganglion wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 23:52 |
regarding the brian quote, i worked with him earlier this year, and the guy is REALLY funny. I think he was taking the piss. |
ganglion wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 23:52 |
I think he was taking the piss. |
masterhse wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 03:24 |
I find it odd how British/Australian idioms differ so much in the US. Must be in the translation. |