Newbie Questions Galore!!!

[jamsmith]

OK, I am not really a newbie in that I started mastering back in 1991, but like so many losers out there, I never really did it for real. My goal for 2008 is to create a real mastering room.

I am working my way (again!) through The Master Handbook of Acoustics - a most excellent text. Any other studio design books you can recommend?

I have the Bob Katz book on the way. Any other must-have tome?

I have a lot of experience with circuit level electronics. I pretty much know how to upgrade consoles, amps, etc. However, I am looking for information on nth-degree upgrades and mods for parametric EQs and compressors - or maybe even build from scratch books.

What book or books are good for speaker and crossover design as pertaining to mastering speakers (I can build a pretty fair PA system)?

Two Questions on Tools of the Trade:

1) I hate to make a public ass out of myself and seem to be questioning Mr. Katz, but... I read an article where he says once in digital, it should stay there (except for maybe transfering to a nice ATR). Here is my conundrum: The pieces I am considering for mastering are analog (funny coming from an avid digital recordist and computer programmer). If I am using extremely high quality AD/DA converters, why should this matter?

2) Assuming no one can come up with an arguement that convinces me to use analog gear, what should I get for PC based mastering? Let me qualify that first. I have always used Cool Edit. I know this ain't "professional", but I love that it is propreitary - not a plug in and not some mastering tools a part of a multi-track system (except Cool Edit Pro) - and I love the interface. And the noise reduction (if not overused) is fantastic. I have made clean, listenable CDs out of old cassettes! (Is it foolish to think I can do pro-level work with it?) What would you suggest out of the box for the PC? Is there something like TC Electronic Finalizer for the PC?

The Most Absurb Question You Ever Read on Mastering:

What about my hearing loss? Yeah, I am a dumbass and played way too loud way too long. I can hear everyone groaning. But I am going to prove the world wrong. However, what would one suggest to compensate: Hearing aids, Graphic EQ on my mains, or just train what is left of my hearing (I am NOT deaf!) and go flat?

Sorry, I know thats a lot to start out with, but I ain't planning on standing still.

[drakewire]

Well I dont have time to answer all your questions, but


1) mastering analogue or digital doesn't matter as much as what your hearing, the room your hearing it in, and how you read your meters.


2) Bob Katz is an icon round here, so if he said it, its because its tried and true.

3) If you have hearing loss, might want to think of another profession

4) Cool Edit is not professional nor will it most likely ever give pro results, Sequoia or WaveLab are your best choices, in the digital realm, that coupled with Algorithmix, Flux Spring Pack, SSL Plugz and a few other gadgets, you can most likely fool even Bob
(I keep trying to fool him, but he's still got me pegged for a digital dummy)

[silverking]

You can't compensate for hearing loss with EQ, it doesn't work that way......so you might want to do a bit more research on your specific hearing loss before sinking too much cash into mastering equipment.

[lucey]

<channeling on>

Bob was high once, but he's better now. Analog processing is powerful medicine if you're in the mood, even Bob uses some analog on occasion. The all digital thing has pitfalls too. Do what works for you and write your own book.

Building your own speakers for mastering? Sounds like fun. We'll see you in 5 years when you have something up to the task.

Hearing loss is more common than you might think, you need to translate what you hear with the ol' brain, ears good or bad, just like always. If you have a brain for mastering the ears will follow. If you don't it won't matter if you hear mouse farts at 100 paces, you won't be making music out of them.

Meters are overused and overrated, that's why they give them away with plug-in bundles of other junk, like say limiters. Well maybe a nice analog VU, digital RMS or SPL meter ... I suppose a couple of those are needed, or just listen and make it sound good.


oh, and Welcome to the Clusterfuk!

<channeling off>

[silverking]

Artists hesitate to invest substantial amounts of cash to get their album mastered by a guy who's partially deaf.

My point is for HIM to do some further investigation into HIS hearing loss.

If his loss is degenerative (as a big percentage of cases are) perhaps some more thought than just "go for it" would be appropriate........considering "go for it" usually implies opening up your wallet and spending your retirement funds.

So "go for it" doesn't cut it as good advice for somebody who has hearing loss, doesn't know exactly what kind of hearing loss he's got, or what his prognosis is for the future.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by silverking

Artists hesitate to invest substantial amounts of cash to get their album mastered by a guy who's partially deaf.

My point is for HIM to do some further investigation into HIS hearing loss.

If his loss is degenerative (as a big percentage of cases are) perhaps some more thought than just "go for it" would be appropriate........considering "go for it" usually implies opening up your wallet and spending your retirement funds.

So "go for it" doesn't cut it as good advice for somebody who has hearing loss, doesn't know exactly what kind of hearing loss he's got, or what his prognosis is for the future.

The whole post was a joke ... and why are you repeatedly quoting "go for it"?

Seriously, some hearing loss is normal for everyone, and in mild to even medium degrees can be worked around with skill. We have no idea the hearing loss of engineers who get paid a lot of money everyday AND do great work just the same. The brain is always interpreting anyway, and if it needs to interpret more, it can. The results are all that matter and those are up to the individual ... assuming it's not major damage of course.

No one wants to lose it, but we all do. I had a scare at the recent AES tests, low on the Right. After getting home with a few days of good rest from traveling, no lack of sleep, and no loud trade show, I tested better that most people my age. So even as I say that it's not a big fear, I wear plugs not only to sleep, but in the hot tub/shower, the car, and out in public if it's not too weird. A hat helps cover them up. It's a cheap vacation from noise and less overall fatigue.

[jamsmith]

Originally Posted by silverking

You can't compensate for hearing loss with EQ, it doesn't work that way......so you might want to do a bit more research on your specific hearing loss before sinking too much cash into mastering equipment.

I would be interested in some more elaboration on that. Siemens offers hearing aids with 16-band eq built in. Hearing loss effect different portions of the hearing spectrum. Why wouldn't boosting those frequencies for according to the specific fletcher-munson curve for the listening level compensate?

[jamsmith]

Valid points about hearing loss and the mastering profession. But my quest is many-fold. For starts, even with headphones and Cool Edit, my mastering work is far better than a lot of these jokers with Pro Tools and Tannoys offering $25 per song mastering. My sense of dynamics is still good. As an experienced engineer, my critical listening and technicalo skills are better than these guys. (What good is great hearing if you don't know what to listen for and can't figure out what the equipment does?) I don't expect to be replacing Bob or Bob - ever, but I know I can get these project studio releases to sound better than what they are getting for their money with Jim-Bob and his fancy computer.

Second, the science intrigues me and I am better at it than most. I became a top notch programmer without cracking more than a primer on the subject. Its kind of funny that when I started programming, I was told that with no degree and real crappy math skills, I would get nowhere as a programmer. Within 2 years I was a senior programmer fixing shit the Ph.Ds ****ed up. I am putting (and have put) a lot more study into this than I ever did with programming. In the end, I am sure my room designs will be outstanding and in the process I will develop software (the one thing I am really good at!) to help the rest of you. I do a bit of AutoCAD programming so I will probably create some plugins for that.

Last, eventually between the room design and the electronics, I will hope to find a young gold-eared person to become the principal engineer to go after big project. And no matter how off my frequency perception gets, I will always be mother****er with editing!

[silverking]

Originally Posted by lucey

The whole post was a joke ...

It can be difficult to tell with your posts.

[jamsmith]

Originally Posted by drakewire

Well I dont have time to answer all your questions, but

1) mastering analogue or digital doesn't matter as much as what your hearing, the room your hearing it in, and how you read your meters.

Thats not really the question. Its about transfering from the digital domain into analog then converting back to digital. Why is that a bad thing if the components used are of sufficient quality?

Originally Posted by drakewire

Well I dont have time to answer all your questions, but

2) Bob Katz is an icon round here, so if he said it, its because its tried and true.

I am not going to disagree with that. I was turned on to this guy by Bob Ludwig himself. But that is a lousy answer. There is always a reason for something. (Except my wife)

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by jamsmith

snip

1) I hate to make a public ass out of myself and seem to be questioning Mr. Katz, but... I read an article where he says once in digital, it should stay there (except for maybe transfering to a nice ATR). Here is my conundrum: The pieces I am considering for mastering are analog (funny coming from an avid digital recordist and computer programmer). If I am using extremely high quality AD/DA converters, why should this matter?

You may have misinterpreted some of my writing, because at our website I do stress how underrated good digital processing is and how warm and spacious a result can be obtained by a skilled engineer using, for example, a TC MD4 totally in the digital domain.

Regardless, in summary, in the "analog versus digital" debate, both on our website and in my book, I mention that we have to balance the tradeoffs. The losses of converting to analog versus the nice colorations or advantages of the analog processors we may have.

There is always a slight transparency loss going D/A/D, but sometimes that very loss (softening of the sound, loss of clarity) is EXACTLY what the material may need. And often, the analog processors we choose produce the sound we are looking for, outweighing any of the losses.

If the analog processing is absolutely minimal and the material is extremely transparent, then the losses may outweigh the perceived improvement.

I hope that makes you feel a little better about using the analog tools :-).

[drakewire]

Thats not really the question. Its about transfering from the digital domain into analog then converting back to digital. Why is that a bad thing if the components used are of sufficient quality?

Well I would say, thats a thought and yes, a lot of ME's do this, but if you have the right room and speaker set up you can get Masters that rival anything that Analogue can do, especially if the Mix has been mixed analogue or has been summed, But the three prong transfers seems to be a big hassle that wont necessarily create a richer or better sound, in fact it might have specific unwanted noise, transient squashing, added artifacts that may be undesirable, etc. If a song has been mixed on say an SSL console, and then you get it and put it into the digital domain what would the point be of mastering it in digital then putting it back in Analogue only to put it back into digital? It doesn't make much sense.
Now, some mixes do benefit from mixing down to tape, and in this case, yes, you would be justified in doing this, but this is typically a mixing job that warms up a digital mix, it is not inherent of a typical mastering job. Mind you, there is nothing like the sound of Analogue, and for this I would applaud that. But, this is definitely a question of what kind of mastering we are talking about, a rap record wont necessarily benefit from analogue mastering, whereas a rock record will.
People like Bob are icons because they exhibit a great deal of tried and true knowledge, same thing with Ludwig, now mind you I don't think their concepts are the only, end all, ways of doing things, however, I would venture to live by and not against anything they say. But to further respond to the digital versus analogue debate, it all very much depends on your workload, digital can be just as fast if not faster than analogue mastering, and it can produce very similar results, the question being it all depends on what sounds good to your ears, if you want a three step process, then thats awesome, but usually you just need one or the other...

[jamsmith]

First off, thank you so much Bob. I guess I understand why Bob Ludwig suggested I post further questions to you. You really do seem to care about how the rest of us are coming along.

"...put it into the digital domain what would the point be of mastering it in digital then putting it back in Analogue only to put it back into digital? It doesn't make much sense."

I am not ignorant of the difference between analog and digital. However, I choose to ignore them as much as possible. To me they are just mediums for storing music. I do not want to get led around by the recording medium. Ideally, you should be able to transfer between any two mediums. You will always get some loss (except bit by bit digital copies.), but that is the price we pay for transfers. But to say it makes no sense seems to imply the medium is what is important. But here is the rub. I don't have access to the source code for a EQ plugin in Pro Tools. And they don't have knobs. I like knobs. I am a programmer and using a mouse keyboard all day sucks. And I don't like boxes where you press a button, move a jog wheel, press another button move a job wheel. And digital boxes a very expensive.

On the other hand, I can get analog EQs, turn the knobs, mark the face plates, turn two knobs at the same time. Even more with linear pots! I can open them up and replace components and modify circuits (hence the source code reference). I can get broken down shit cheap a reburish it for fraction of the cost (I once got a $14,000 Studer console for $250, n voltage regulator circuit burned out.) Plus they look cool (OK, not so important). I like the way electromechanical meters respond. So yes it makes perfect sense for me to want to convert digital to analog. If it really matter that much, hopefully I will get clients to mix to tape!

[sleepytownryan]

Originally Posted by bob katz

There is always a slight transparency loss going D/A/D, but sometimes that very loss (softening of the sound, loss of clarity) is EXACTLY what the material may need.

i've been waiting to hear this from a pro for a long, long time. you're a true listener.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by sleepytownryan

i've been waiting to hear this from a pro for a long, long time. you're a true listener.

With respect to Bob, this is not news. Most high end mastering uses analog processing still today.

[James Meeker]

Hearing loss is inevitable as you age. Chances are a lot of the top engineers in the world can't hear much past 14 khz anymore.

The important part of audio occurs below 8 khz anyways....

[jamsmith]

Yeah but I think my loss is more in the more critical 2-4k range. If there was one major incident, back in the early 80s I mixed monitors for Foghat in a small club. Lonesome Dave had a Mesa Boogie crank the mids on 10. I literally tried to hide behind a sidefill. He must have been deaf (but not as bad as Leon Russell who brought in his own monitors - 2 Peavey SP4s about 2 feet from his ears run by about 4K watts. Dude has 2 Feedback Exterminators in series!)

Anyhow, three days later I was mixing my weekly metal show and looked down my VUs peaking uptoward +3 from my usual -1 or -2 for what sounded like the usual volume I mixed at. Wondering if my crossover gain was changed I asked my bud if it seemed louder than usual and he assured me it did. Most of the hearing eventually came back, but I think a bit was permanent. I guess I was a "Fool for the City"

[sleepytownryan]

Originally Posted by lucey

With respect to Bob, this is not news. Most high end mastering uses analog processing still today.

i guess i should have been clearer. i was referencing the idea that a quality "loss" might be a musical gain. it's quite a progressive idea that i don't hear much in everyday conversations with the typical engineer.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by sleepytownryan

i guess i should have been clearer. i was referencing the idea that a quality "loss" might be a musical gain. it's quite a progressive idea that i don't hear much in everyday conversations with the typical engineer.

Ah, gotcha. Musicality first, for sure. thumbsup

[just.sounds]

Hi,

I did some projects at the audiologie (don't know the english word) department of an hospital and learned about hearing aids. The eq in a hearing aid is to enhance what is left of the hearing but that does not mean that you hear everything flat. This goes over time and maybe never. So when you want to compensate for hearing loss you have to wear you're eq the whole day or don't use one while you are mastering. And if you wear you're eq the whole day i strongly suggest that you first master together with an engineer you know/trust. There are also hearing aids with stereo compressors I would not go there if i where you. I think that only the people at refined audiometrics could have the knowledge to advise you about this because they are the only company i know of that have great knowledge in both area's.

[jamsmith]

Originally Posted by just.sounds

Hi,

I did some projects at the audiologie (don't know the english word) department of an hospital and learned about hearing aids. The eq in a hearing aid is to enhance what is left of the hearing but that does not mean that you hear everything flat. This goes over time and maybe never. So when you want to compensate for hearing loss you have to wear you're eq the whole day or don't use one while you are mastering. And if you wear you're eq the whole day i strongly suggest that you first master together with an engineer you know/trust. There are also hearing aids with stereo compressors I would not go there if i where you. I think that only the people at refined audiometrics could have the knowledge to advise you about this because they are the only company i know of that have great knowledge in both area's.

Thanks so very much. This is probably the most valuable response I have ever had to anything I have ever posted on any forum!

[Bob Olhsson]

Hearing loss is not simply a loss of high frequencies. It often starts as holes in the midrange. Folks with a hearing loss are often more sensitive to distortion than people with "perfect" hearing.


Hearing is a very non-linear process.

[jamsmith]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Hearing is a very non-linear process.

What is so cool about Refined Audiometrics is this guy, an astro-physicist has come up with a solution that takes in all of those non-linear attribute into consideration. I spoke to the owner for about an hour, a very interesting person. He spent about 7 years doing research into the subject. What is even more fantastic is that while his focus was on a system restore a natural balance of listening to the user, he specifically zoned in on mastering. Hopefully in late spring I can go out to his lab and test everything out.

[just.sounds]

Glad i could help you!

the great thing about our hearing is that it adapts over time.
I know an engineer that listened through his binaural head with headphones when he was awake for a few days and then experienced the ultimate realism through headphones with a binaural recording. after a day or two the effect was gone! I think that would be the same with hearing aid EQ. It's mostly a brain thing.