Jump to content
Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Mastering - now I get it


Dave Bryce

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I've always been a fan of Bernie Grundman's mastering, as he did all of Gino Vannelli's albums, which always sounded fantastic to me. He was head masterer (is that a word?) at A&M records before opening his own studio in the early 1980s. Gino stopped using him for his past few CDs and I thought they suffered dynamically.

The fact there's a Highway To Hell and only a Stairway To Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic numbers

 

People only say "It's a free country" when they're doing something shitty-Demetri Martin

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great DB!! When's the tour?

30+ musicians on this record... :eek:

 

I've listened to the record on a few different systems at this point (car, studio, earbuds, home entertainment system). It's amazing to me how well what Steph did translates across all of them. Part of me wondered if it was my ears that have just improved over the years...but I went back and listened to some of the older stuff I did (both mastered and unmastered) and there's a clear difference.

 

I can actually illustrate it! :boing:

 

I Want To Hold Your Hand is a bonus track. It's also on a record that I did twelve years ago. There's a story as to why it's on this record too, but that's not really that interesting... :idk:

 

What is interesting (from a geeky point of view, anyway) is that I have a version of it that was mastered by someone else, and you can compare if you'd like. I just re-posted the original temporarily just for this purpose - wanna use the same site's playback to eliminate as many variables as possible.

 

Current master

 

Original master

 

dB

 

 

:snax:

 

:keys:==> David Bryce Music • Funky Young Monks <==:rawk:

 

Professional Affiliations: Royer LabsMusic Player Network

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hah, you have no idea how many times I scrolled this topic trying to find the hidden links or the reference to another topic that has the links, thinking I had gone blind as a bat, and then I saw the mysterious "Here she be" underlined. :-)

 

At this late hour, there's no point in active listening (just finished my own session minutes ago), but I look forward to listening tomorrow. I've only seen page one of this fast-growing topic so far, but already like the comments about starting off with "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and covering Bowie's "Life on Mars" (timely, considering it is now pretty certain that life of some sort has at one time been present on that planet).

Eugenio Upright, 60th Anniversary P-Bass, USA Geddy Lee J-Bass, Yamaha BBP35, D'angelico SS Bari, EXL1,

Select Strat, 70th Anniversary Esquire, LP 57, Eastman T486, T64, Ibanez PM2, Hammond XK4, Moog Voyager

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops, I got caught listening anyway... couldn't resist. The new master of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" simply sounds more organic and real than the previous one. More space between the instruments. The timbre isn't that different; it's the magic glue that is making it propel along with more energy and substance.

 

I think that this is a great example of a more subtle yet critical difference in mastering. As you said, fewer variables by doing the comparison this way. This is more of an example of the Science of Mastering than the Art of Mastering, and why it's important even if the mix itself already sounds pretty finished.

 

Before George Martin, the earlier master would be an example of a finished product. There were others around the same time, but Martin was the one who pushed for recognition and hence elevated the importance of engineers at every level as well as starting the process of specialization.

 

I'm really digging "Bye Bye Love", which I thought was going to be the old Everly Brothers song. :-)

Eugenio Upright, 60th Anniversary P-Bass, USA Geddy Lee J-Bass, Yamaha BBP35, D'angelico SS Bari, EXL1,

Select Strat, 70th Anniversary Esquire, LP 57, Eastman T486, T64, Ibanez PM2, Hammond XK4, Moog Voyager

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can actually illustrate it! :boing:

 

What is interesting (from a geeky point of view, anyway) is that I have a version of it that was mastered by someone else, and you can compare if you'd like. I just re-posted the original temporarily just for this purpose - wanna use the same site's playback to eliminate as many variables as possible.

Current master

 

Original master

 

dB

 

The two version sound so different that they actually sound like different mixes to me. But I understand that you're saying they're the same mix and only mastered differently. One of the differences I hear is that in the original the rhythm guitar sounds more close to the vocal, whereas on the current mix there's somehow more distance between the two which makes for a more pleasing sound. Very cool!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The example song in original version is a bit more laid back, and doesn't possess all too much of the "in your face" property the remixed version does. I get it that the remix has more presence, and the very beginning of the singer is probably a bit more realistic. I recognize the vine of the singing, and I guess the main drive of the song is rock-like, both isn't really coming across to me in in both mixes, which is an instrument, playing, AND mixing matter. After that critical note, it's a nice rendering, decent balance of instruments and frequencies, though not exactly what I would think I would do with those instruments and tracks.

 

T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The example song in original version is a bit more laid back, and doesn't possess all too much of the "in your face" property the remixed version does. I get it that the remix has more presence, and the very beginning of the singer is probably a bit more realistic. I recognize the vine of the singing, and I guess the main drive of the song is rock-like, both isn't really coming across to me in in both mixes, which is an instrument, playing, AND mixing matter. After that critical note, it's a nice rendering, decent balance of instruments and frequencies.

:confused:

 

The tune was not remixed at all. Only the mastering is different. :idk:

 

dB

:snax:

 

:keys:==> David Bryce Music • Funky Young Monks <==:rawk:

 

Professional Affiliations: Royer LabsMusic Player Network

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't get it either. Sounds like exactly the same mix to me, and I can hear very clearly the mojo that the remastering gave it. The overall timbre sounds identical.

 

Maybe I've been mastering so long now that my ears are just attuned to the different impact of mastering vs. mixing? Nevertheless it is useful to hear comments from those not so experienced, as the whole point of mastering anyway is to reach a wider audience with the music and to understand what connects with people more.

 

Great job, Dave. I did finish listening to ALL THREE cover albums even though I was dead tired, and there are some real gems in there, along with some surprise favourites that I didn't know we share and which aren't on most people's lists.

Eugenio Upright, 60th Anniversary P-Bass, USA Geddy Lee J-Bass, Yamaha BBP35, D'angelico SS Bari, EXL1,

Select Strat, 70th Anniversary Esquire, LP 57, Eastman T486, T64, Ibanez PM2, Hammond XK4, Moog Voyager

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I have learned over the years, is that "subtle" often makes the biggest difference in whether someone emotionally connects with something or not.

 

I do audio for a living. My company builds high-end touring loudspeakers, DSP gear, and related stuff (too much to list). We do listening tests now and then, as a sanity check that we aren't selling snake oil.

 

The blindfold tests usually do up to 30 repeats. Most of us "get it right" when asked to pick the higher resolution mix, the more linearly behaving loudspeakers, the phase coherent setup, etc.

 

These are all things that get pooh-poohed on GS and other forums by people who keep quoting the Nyquist Theorem. So one can argue that they're all in the "subtle" category.

 

Yet the way these tests are run at our company, it's about the "feeling", and universally people report feeling more involved, more relaxed, things sound more organic or three-dimensional, and yet people can't necessarily QUANTIFY or isolate the difference.

 

To me, this mastering comparison is very similar. The "sound" and timbre may seem near-identical, and yet the feeling one gets listening, can be quite different.

 

A Mastering Engineer HAS to have good enough ears, proper experience and background for making good judgment and knowing a lot of contexts, etc. That's where the "Science" and "Art" of Mastering start to get blurred as to which is which...

Eugenio Upright, 60th Anniversary P-Bass, USA Geddy Lee J-Bass, Yamaha BBP35, D'angelico SS Bari, EXL1,

Select Strat, 70th Anniversary Esquire, LP 57, Eastman T486, T64, Ibanez PM2, Hammond XK4, Moog Voyager

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just A/B-ed different parts of the 2 versions for my own education. As someone with no mastering experience I'm amazed that one can achieve that degree of separation (especially piano vs guitar) and smooth out what I'll call harshness in some of the vocals on the original mastered version vocals without affecting the overall tone. I only noticed because of being able to compare back and forth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, the big difference is in the low end, and it manifests itelf in the definition of the instruments (mainly the bass, kick and chunk of the rhythm guitar) and in Lindsay's vocals, which sound warmer and more present to me.

 

I did finish listening to ALL THREE cover albums even though I was dead tired

Wow...thank you, Mark!

 

As someone with no mastering experience I'm amazed that one can achieve that degree of separation (especially piano vs guitar) and smooth out what I'll call harshness in some of the vocals on the original mastered version vocals without affecting the overall tone.

No doubt.

 

dB

:snax:

 

:keys:==> David Bryce Music • Funky Young Monks <==:rawk:

 

Professional Affiliations: Royer LabsMusic Player Network

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks - glad you guys like the tracks! I'm really lucky to be able to work with some really talented people...it's really the whole point of me doing these projects in the first place. :)

 

Back to the mastering thing, though. I'm really curious - do most of you guys get your projects mastered when you're done with them? Do you just add some buss compression during mixdown and call it a day? Both? Neither? :idk:

 

dB

 

I trained my ears listening to a LOT of songs. My ears focus on the group and I experimented often on replicating certain mixes as well as individual sounds. I do my own mastering with the help of others.

 

I NEVER liked buss compression. It makes things worse, and I hate the sound of mashed-to-zero-db so prevalent on songs the last fifteen years.

 

Let me state up front that I am 100% OTB. I use a lot of old stuff.

 

I prefer compressors on individual instruments and vocals, sounds WAY more natural and dynamic. No one compressor sounds good with every vocal or instrument. Three important components of the compressor are the control law between detector and control element, the detector, and the control element (VCA, FET, opto, etc). The control element is going to impact the fidelity. The detector is going to impact the dynamic control, and they have their unique non-linearities. RMS detectors are the most prevalent but their design varies between brands. Peak detectors vary between brands also. There are also log detectors that introduce their own flavor. The control law between detector and control element is going to impact the dynamic response. Any permutations of these three is going to yield a sound that works for one instrument but not others. Very much like tube guitar amps - permutations of preamp, tone control, phase splitter, and power amp architecture are all going to sound different.

 

High pass filters are your friend. Anything that isn't kick drum, floor tom, or bass guitar doesn't belong in low frequency domain. You would be amazed how high pass filters can clean up the mix.

 

A tough challenge is getting guitars, keys, and vocals to co-exist peacefully. Often any two (or three) occupy the same frequency range. One of my favorite tricks is to apply a Haas effect to guitars - this gives the psycoacoustic illusion of a hole in the sonic spectrum, which gives room for the vocals to be heard. This works far better than a volume war. "It's not how loud you make it, it's how you make it loud."

 

For reverb, I lean more towards short room ambiences. Like compressors, certain reverbs and brands work best for certain instruments. I have three Eventide 2016s, five Lexicon PCM60s, and a Lexicon 200 in my arsenal. Not much overlap between those three. Subtle effects go a long way. The old Lexicons are hard to beat (I won't use anything later than the PCM70), the only modern gear that come close IMO are the 2016 and the Bricasti. Long reverb tails muddy up a busy mix. Room reverb is more effective, but in my experience you get what you pay for - I got rid of the cheap room reverbs a long time ago because they just were not effective.

 

Delays are very effective. The only echo I have used were on vocals and/or guitars, as needed. Modulated delays are a great tool. Again like reverb, the subtle effect goes a long way. I found a great ping-pong effect that works very well on toms, it is a subtle effect but gets a lot of mileage. Toms can be really hard to bring out in a mix without "turning them up"... Room reverb isn't as effective. It's not how loud you make it...

 

Notice I haven't even talked EQ yet... last resort in my toolbox. EQ adds phase artifacts, a necessary evil of the architecture (ITB EQs are not immune either). I can hear really bad artifacts in the inferior EQs. 99% of the time, I use cut not boost. This is more effective in a mix, and it keeps the accumulative levels manageable. Some EQs have a nice color in boost, others are sterile. Both have their uses.

 

Some other tools that get occasional use: harmonizers, parametric EQs, even my Moogerfooger pedals.

 

I often get 4-6 different mixes, then I play them in different systems. One trick is to get a mix that sounds as good at low volume as high volume - easier said than done. I play the mixes on my home stereo, my car stereo, my computer, etc. They HAVE to translate to these systems. A good set of studio monitors makes the translation easier. I NEVER mix using headphones. I'm not about to make suggestions for monitors because the room response plays into the equation - you have to use what works in YOUR room. And try to avoid EQ on the master buss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice work DB!!! I believe in mastering, I just don't understand how it is done.

Jimmy

 

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. Groucho

NEW BAND CHECK THEM OUT

www.steveowensandsummertime.com

www.jimmyweaver.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New from IK Multimedia:

 

Lurssen Mastering Console for iPhone/iPad Audio mastering app for iPhone/iPad

 

http://www.ikmultimedia.com/news/?item_id=8419

The fact there's a Highway To Hell and only a Stairway To Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic numbers

 

People only say "It's a free country" when they're doing something shitty-Demetri Martin

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...