|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Feb 26, 2017 16:30:55 GMT -6
Come on fellas. I was just telling John what a cool place this was with serious folks who don't often bicker, and here we are bickering. Ease up and love each other huh? Thanks, Big Ole C
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Feb 26, 2017 20:14:45 GMT -6
And yeah, I was also getting a little dig in at people who lack confidence in their mixing abilities to the point where they want the ME to remix it for them. * - I'd argue that it should be a good ME's responsibility to explain to the client that he really shouldn't want his stuff slammed like that, as it will have the exact opposite of the desired effect on radio or MP3 streaming services due to the way that the processing in those outlets interacts with a too loud program, but I understand that a lot of guys don't wanty scare off customers. With you there -- I've read threads here and there from (rather upset) folks who were asked to send in stems and found everything up to and including *additional instrumentation* and drum replacement. I (a) don't have time for that kinds of stuff and (b) can't even imagine doing that kind of stuff. That's a writer/collaborator thing. And I'm with you on the volume part also -- I do what I can to convince. But there are a lot of horses and a lot of water that isn't being drunk. Drank...? Slurped...? Silver lining - over the past few years, the requests for "high-res" versions - whatever the "res" - FLAC, MFiT, etc., has skyrocketed. Hoping the trend finds its way into the mainstream some time soon. I still think back on a story I've told far too many times -- I think it was in '94 or '95, doing an interview for some music mag that I'm sure is long since gone - I was asked about how much louder recordings are getting (AIC's "Dirt" was hot at the time and ridiculously loud - for the time) and whether I thought THAT trend would continue. I said something like "I don't think bands are going to purposely trash their own recordings just to be louder than everyone else..." I was so naive...
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Feb 26, 2017 22:06:49 GMT -6
Guys it's scientifically proven louder is better 😂
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Feb 27, 2017 6:32:02 GMT -6
So correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've been reading, it seems that most ME's do accept stems. For the record, I didn't mean to suggest that I was interested in having my mixes re-mixed by an ME. I simply noted that a good number of 'fixes' may be better applied to stems. Now to the degree that folks might say that is remixing, I plead guilty as charged. Anyway, this has been a very informative thread for me. No doubt at some point, I will be working with an ME and I'm trying to get a handle on what expectations should be (on both sides of the glass so to speak).
|
|
|
Post by javamad on Feb 27, 2017 7:18:57 GMT -6
What is this glass you all speak of? :-D
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 27, 2017 14:50:15 GMT -6
Cool thread. I don't see too much of bickering or off topic, just a lot of strong commentary, which is good. Also glad to have some ME's on the topic.
I have learned to think of the ME as the last step between the music process and the listener. Sort of a hybrid of an audiophile listener, and a recording know-how. It does seem to me a specialized set of skills and equipment that is not completely available in the mix room. Sort of a checks and balances reaction to the final mix on a really nice playback system.
Wouldn't we all love that sort of confidence going out into pressing and release. Personally, I have never even once hired a mastering engineer. I had one project that was planning to finally do so, but in the end, the guy underpays me by hundreds of dollars, cuts the mastering, and released the album on badly manufactured cassettes.
If I ever make "the album" that I am born to make, I hope there would be a mastering engineer involved in the process.
I think the question that's been implied of "is it worth it" ties into the budget for the whole project, and the estimated sales or release size of the album. Nothing I have ever done has really passed the starting point, to be blunt. But certainly it is a good goal to reach for that point of confidence and audience size. If Bandcamp.com is your only plan, and you don't have much of a live crowd, maybe the best possible mastering is not really an imperative, or even really a concern.
I am just glad that there are talented mastering engineers out there for hire doing great work on most of the music that gets heard.
And suddenly I am interested in great mastering for reasonable rates, which is something I will have to look into.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Feb 27, 2017 15:06:22 GMT -6
Put all the obvious details aside for minute. I did my solo album in a nice small studio. The room sounded good. I did the acoustic guitar and lead vocals together in one take. I added the band later. All was OK, the mix was good, but not like the records I liked. A friend connected me to Alan Douches, (pronounce Dow Shez) and my album came back, greatly improved. Glued beautifully, no weird edges, and no weird emphasis on any particular thing because we didn't record or mix it perfectly. It was now a record. It was, excuse me for saying it, a bit like magic. The other thing the great mastering engineers often have is $200,000 worth of gear they know well, and that gets better results than the latest plug-in, even in professional hands. Take a quick look at the albums he's done: www.westwestsidemusic.com/14alan.html
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,982
|
Post by ericn on Feb 27, 2017 20:29:51 GMT -6
One word.
COMMUNICATION
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Feb 27, 2017 23:43:59 GMT -6
So correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've been reading, it seems that most ME's do accept stems. For the record, I didn't mean to suggest that I was interested in having my mixes re-mixed by an ME. I simply noted that a good number of 'fixes' may be better applied to stems. Now to the degree that folks might say that is remixing, I plead guilty as charged. Anyway, this has been a very informative thread for me. No doubt at some point, I will be working with an ME and I'm trying to get a handle on what expectations should be (on both sides of the glass so to speak). I'm right there with you too -- I don't know of too many who *don't* accept stems -- I know of a few that basically insist on them. I would at least hope that most use them to do their best to keep the essence of the mix intact - although I know of stories where crazy things have happened. Personally - and I don't recall if I'm repeating anything so please excuse me if I am - I'm not particularly a fan of stems, but I'll certainly accept them. Usually I just put everything at unity and go. I *do* have a handful of clients that send them in as a matter of course and I'm fine with that. Their thinking is usually level-based: If (for example) what I'm doing sinks the vocal down a bit, it's easier for me to just push the vocal up a dB or so to compensate for it than to be asking them for a vocal-up mix. In some (rare) cases, I've actually asked for stems to deal with anomalies (clicks, pops, clocking errors or what not) that the mix engineer just couldn't get rid of for whatever reason (In the long run, if there are clocking errors on the bass track, I'd rather take them out of the bass track than take them out of the whole mix). Oh lord - It almost sounds like I'm asking for stems... I'm not. But in some cases, that's the story. In johneppstein's view -- which is totally valid -- he's most likely one of those guys who isn't going to have those sorts of things in his mix in the first place. Which, no doubt, is the ideal situation. But that different approach is where the problem lies -- Some mastering peeps want stems so they can create "their version" of the mix -- Others want them so they can better preserve the "intent" of original mix. The former is a sort of "mix abuse" - the latter is usually unnecessary - but occasionally handy. But that's kinda what the process currently entails -- I say "currently" as (and Alan will back me up on this), it wasn't too long ago that we were trying to make as little impact on the audio as possible -- A tiny tweak there, a little nip here - just what was necessary to "make a record" out of a bunch of recordings. Over the past couple decades or so, it seems as if more artists are looking for that "enhancement" portion - where the mastering guy actually leaves a bit more of a footprint. And that's all fine too - most of us came to this out of some sort of creative function anyway - although as mentioned, there might be some out there that don't know where "enhancement" ends and "ornamentation" begins. It all comes down to: Abso-friggin'-lutely.
|
|