Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bob katz My god... that was in the days (and I hope those days are still here) where I might receive a very conservatively mixed jazz record and maybe there were 1 or 2 isolated peaks, and the record was so well recorded that you just couldn't hear the L2 operating. But the more you start using the L2 into frequent gain reduction and the more you start trying to raise the level and the limiter is starting to act on the RMS levels and not just the peaks, the harsher it sounds and the more artifacts you hear.
On modern rock which has come in mixed aggressively and you're then trying to push it further (god forbid) I doubt you can tolerate more than 1 to 3 dB from the L2!
Now, back to the topic of "pseudo mastering." I'm a bit confused. I guess you're talking about using some plugins or hardware to make a master in the mix room for clients who cannot afford real mastering?
Because there's another use for the term "pseudo mastering". That's when the mix engineer gives the client a "pseudo-mastered" CD so they won't feel inadequate when they take it home. I feel this is one of the most dangerous and abused current practices. It makes it REAL hard for the mastering engineer. Whatever you do, iuf you feel you must do this practice, whether for political or other reasons, please carefully consider the level you are sending the CD to the client and make it at least 3-4 dB lower (in perceived level) than Radiohead...... please!
To avoid painting the mastering engineer into a corner, or just to reduce the whole spinning wheels of explanation that can ensue.
I just mastered an excellent alternative rock group which does not play like Radiohead but Radiohead is one of their heroes, but neither their mix nor the playing nor the arrangement was suitable to "become radiohead", and this group is a very acoustically-oriented rock band. I wasted at least an hour just going through the whole "competitive" game because of a pseudo-mastered CD that was too hot for its own good and screwing up this band's sound, but you know, you put two CDs in the player, and for the first 20 seconds, the louder one often wins, dammit.
When I brought them up to Radiohead level, the harsh edge from the processing was obnoxious. The group doesn't have any "power guitars" so the message just did not suit the music. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed and they listened to my advice and we cut back, sweetened it up and all is now well. But what a waste of time, all because of a pseudo-mastered CD.
BK |
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the kind reply. Yea, I figured that "preview" of the L2 that I was referring to was a very old one...
Sorry for the confusion... but yes, when I was loosely (and probably mistakenly) using the term "pseudo-mastering"... I basically was referring to a situation where a client definitely had no pro mastering budget, but still wanted to go home with a mix that sounded a little more competitive (and yes, louder) than what they might otherwise leave with. I'm sure we've all gone through this, as engineers... clients asking us "can you make it a little louder?"
Thanks for your insight on this topic. I completely understand the dangerous aspect of bringing in a "pseudo-mastered" mix to a mastering engineer. That would be counter-productive, to say the least... and make the job of the ME much more difficult.
Just out of curiosity Bob... would you agree that the L2 is a little more transparent (and less grainy) than the L1 ? if nothing else, because of the Automatic Release feature on the L2? I was just wondering....
Thanks again.