In Two Minds (Need Guidance)

[concorde1]

I've been a member at a certain forum largely to do with masters/releases of albums, for a few years now.

Some of the people there don't "believe" in measurements (ie science/engineering) for audio equipment. Possibly even some of the staff. I confess until only earlier this year I didn't "believe" in measurements.

But to me the place is a good resource for finding out what releases of albums are the best (ie low generation tapes, good EQ, etc).

I'm in two minds as to whether to continue using it, as the "main guy" there seems to be a proponent of "listen with your ears" not necessarily just for releases of albums but for audio in general (equipment) - it's just a feeling I get; however I have found the forum helpful for finding nice sounding albums. I don't see any alternative forums competing with it. On the other hand I'm just trusting largely subjective opinions about what album sounds best - sometimes it's backed up by "uses undamaged original master tape" or "has highest dynamic range" etc.

If I left that forum I would have to buy albums based on DR levels on the DR database - or just stream music. It seems to me I should remain a member there. What bothers me is the "main guy's" work can sound quite good to me, despite his possible views. It does tend to be low in dynamic range though, from what I have of it.

 

[abdo123]

measurements don't matter as much for audio production because it is not concerned with fidelity.

noise, distortion, phase can all be manipulated for creative reasons.

there is no 'reference'.

 

[concorde1]

Yeah. I forgot to mention my understanding of mastering is tailoring the mix so that the artists themselves will be impressed with how they sound in it - so it's partly subjective, but also there are objective parts like: not reducing dynamic range too much; not noise removing if it will take out actual music with the removal; etc. Just in my understanding.

 

[bigjacko]

You can keep on staying on that forum and don't believe any word they say, you just believe what you want to believe. If you want to find out what music to listen to you can stay on that forum because good music is subjective.

 

[abdo123]

Yeah. I forgot to mention my understanding of mastering is tailoring the mix so that the artists themselves will be impressed with how they sound in it - so it's partly subjective, but also there are objective parts like: not reducing dynamic range too much; not noise removing if it will take out actual music with the removal; etc. Just in my understanding.

I think your idea of what mastering is is a little bit misguided, pay attention to the words he uses.

 

[concorde1]

I think your idea of what mastering is is a little bit misguided, pay attention to the words he uses.

Hmm I just watched it and it didn't strike me as different to my idea of mastering. I must say though, he looked like he was concentrating very hard.

 

[abdo123]

Hmm I just watched it and it didn't strike me as different to my idea of mastering. I must say though, he looked like he was concentrating very hard.

I feel like you're under the impression that they have a 'recipe' and they follow some sort of static methodology to get the end product.

Songs are mastered to be competitive first, good sounding second.
He said the words 'competitively loud' more than he said 'good sounding' or 'sounds good'.

 

[DVDdoug]

Yeah. I forgot to mention my understanding of mastering is tailoring the mix

I have a collection of mastering links:
Moulton Labs - What's This Mastering Business Anyway? (1998)
Moulton Labs - Tips n' Tricks For Mastering (2004)
Izotope - Ozone Mastering Guide (2015 -This is written for Ozone but most of it can apply no matter what tools you are using.)
REAPER Forum - Discussion of a particular mastering job (2008 The mastering discussion starts at post #8).
Mastered For iTunes (2012)
Audio Mastering (Bob Katz)

so that the artists themselves will be impressed with how they sound in it

With the "big record companies" the artist is not the client and they have little or no say in it.

like: not reducing dynamic range too much

Or they compress-out ALL of the dynamic range to "win" the loudness war. To some extent that's gone out of favor but I think maximizing loudness or maximizing to a target loudness is still a big part of mastering.

Some of the people there don't "believe" in measurements (ie science/engineering) for audio equipment. Possibly even some of the staff. I confess until only earlier this year I didn't "believe" in measurements.

Except for possibly measuring loudness, the mastering (and mixing) process is done by-ear. So, I can believe that most mastering engineers don't believe in, or bother with, measurements. Except their speakers/room are hopefully measured-treated-calibrated.

Mastering can be done in software so there is a need for much equipment except for a DAC, amplifier, and speakers. But some mastering engineers like to use hardware processing, which I think is dumb.

There is plenty of nonsense in the professional world world and like a lot of "audiophiles" pros can fool themselves with non-blind listening tests and they probably tend to over-estimate their hearing ability. But, I never hear about pros using exotic cables or anything that crazy. Of course, music production doesn't require blind listening.

 

[DVDdoug]

If I left that forum I would have to buy albums based on DR levels on the DR database

There is no easy-best way to measure & define dynamics. There are short-term "micro-dynamics" like drum hits and songs that start-out quiet and end loud, etc.

There was (maybe still is) an online database that uses the crest factor (peak to RMS ratio). The problem with that is, our ears don't register short-term peaks as "loud". And, if you make a vinyl record you get phase shifts and other wave-shape changes (from the recording & playback RIAA EQ, etc.) that make some peaks higher and some lower without affecting the sound of the dynamics. Something similar happens with MP3 so when you make an MP3 from a 0dB normalized WAV, the peaks often go over 0dB. So the vinyl and MP3 have a higher crest factor and can "measure" more dynamic.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

measurements don't matter as much for audio production because it is not concerned with fidelity.

With the "big record companies" the artist is not the client and they have little or no say in it.

That's the truth! .................. Jim

 

[concorde1]

I realise measurements don't matter for production, but the mastering engineer I refer to doesn't necessarily use "flat" equipment (loudspeakers etc).

Songs are mastered to be competitive first, good sounding second.
He said the words 'competitively loud' more than he said 'good sounding' or 'sounds good'.

But that video was showing some rap music blasting up near clipping. Maybe this is the present trend, but surely some mastering engineers today (or historically) care about sound quality - what about MFSL as one example. Take the old CD's from the 1980's as one example; they were not boosted to death.

I have a collection of mastering links:
Moulton Labs - What's This Mastering Business Anyway? (1998)
Moulton Labs - Tips n' Tricks For Mastering (2004)
Izotope - Ozone Mastering Guide (2015 -This is written for Ozone but most of it can apply no matter what tools you are using.)
REAPER Forum - Discussion of a particular mastering job (2008 The mastering discussion starts at post #8).
Mastered For iTunes (2012)
Audio Mastering (Bob Katz)

With the "big record companies" the artist is not the client and they have little or no say in it.

Thanks for the links I'll check 'em out in due course.

Regarding the artist not being a client . . . Noted.

There is no easy-best way to measure & define dynamics. There are short-term "micro-dynamics" like drum hits and songs that start-out quiet and end loud, etc.

The loudness war DR database is still really handy in my opinion.
Interesting about vinyl, but I have a few vinyl needledrops of modern albums and they clearly sound better due to less compression; obviously not owing to the fact it's vinyl, but how it was mastered - I suppose vinyl costs more money to produce, so they put more effort into the mastering these days? It's ironic because they should really put more effort into the CD as it has more potential.

--

Anyway I'll read those links because one of my potential aspirations is to be a mastering engineer, believe it or not. I acknowledge I might not have an accurate understanding.

 

[tmtomh]

I've been a member at a certain forum largely to do with masters/releases of albums, for a few years now.

Some of the people there don't "believe" in measurements (ie science/engineering) for audio equipment. Possibly even some of the staff. I confess until only earlier this year I didn't "believe" in measurements.

But to me the place is a good resource for finding out what releases of albums are the best (ie low generation tapes, good EQ, etc).

I'm in two minds as to whether to continue using it, as the "main guy" there seems to be a proponent of "listen with your ears" not necessarily just for releases of albums but for audio in general (equipment) - it's just a feeling I get; however I have found the forum helpful for finding nice sounding albums. I don't see any alternative forums competing with it. On the other hand I'm just trusting largely subjective opinions about what album sounds best - sometimes it's backed up by "uses undamaged original master tape" or "has highest dynamic range" etc.

If I left that forum I would have to buy albums based on DR levels on the DR database - or just stream music. It seems to me I should remain a member there. What bothers me is the "main guy's" work can sound quite good to me, despite his possible views. It does tend to be low in dynamic range though, from what I have of it.

I’ve been a member of the Hoffman forums for years. It’s an incredibly valuable resource and in my experience it’s easy to filter out/ignore the stuff that’s obviously wrong while benefiting from the immense collective knowledge base there about different masterings and pressings. I’d say there’s no need to terminate one’s membership.

 

[wrat]

Its a resource use it