Bob Katz is right.

[badhorsie777]

I know many mastering engineers trumpet the "less compressed" call, but Bob Katz is the one I've been reading about. Thanks to this board introducing me to a virtual Bob, I went to digido.com and in two days read every one of his articles. Out of curiosity, I threw together a quick demo of two e. guitars, bass, and drums (drumcore sounds). I left off the flux limiter that I've been loving on everything, the bus compressor, and kept my levels peaking lower than normal. It was a heavy riff and it just killed without all that extra gain reduction. I just finished a cd, and I know my next one will have better leveling and dynamics... I didn't have to eq or hi-pass even half of what I'm used to... and there wasn't the bass build-up I'm used to (probably by not compressing properly).

Anyway - Bob, I'm so glad you're on this board and you've really impacted me with your desire to help. I'm in your debt and I wish I could meet you just to say thanks.

Take care,

Matt Garwood

[staudio]

Bob's insights and wisdom are a daily help to me in my own engineering career. His willingness to share his experience and techniques is an immense asset to all engineers and artists.

Thank you Bob Katz.

[zooloo]

+1

...actually +many

[dubrichie]

+ more.

[bcgood]

Bob Katz = Master Jedi

[macc]

When 900 years old you reach, mix as good you will not

(Sorry Mr. Katz, I couldn't resist. You don't look a day over 800)

[Alécio Costa]

Bob Rules!

[streaky]

'Bob Katz is Right' is a great title for a book

[badhorsie777]

If I had more than say... one album under my belt I might write that very book...

It just really goes against your audio presuppositions - compress to a level comparable to current cd's... and a bit hotter will make yours stand out. You just never think there's another way until someone makes such outlandish claims - it'll sound punchier with less compression... ?! I was really digging the sound of this cd I just finished (and I've remixed it 3 times already - the thing's GOING out) but I see a much better path for my next recordings.

I'm working on a guitar instrumental CD right now and that riff I recorded that opened my eyes sounds sooooo good with extra headroom. And it's ROCK for crying out loud - the one genre I thought really NEEDED to be compressed thick and agressive. Our presuppositions are so powerful - I know I'm waxing philosophical here, but it's true. We think we're being "so creative and different" but it's still the same ol same ol. I finally understand why I love Lyle Lovett (try saying that 3x fast) on his movie soundtrack album... it's THAT sound.

I personally challenge everyone to redo their default template (if you use one - I do) and bypass/remove the mix bux comp and/or limiter. Mix with peaks between -3 and -10 (24 bit) and compress individual tracks only - with an ear for natural sound, not false other-worldly impact. Only go there if it's an effect that's intended to sound creative and different (Bonham's tunnel-o-kick drum, for instance). Let the channels do their own work and at the end, don't assume you need anything - decide if you do. Even hard rock (my example) can benefit from this approach. I'm sure I will break this rule and catch myself for a while, but it's got its payoffs - and it's cumulative. One track may not tell you what you're gaining, fidelity-wise, but at the end of just 5 or 6 tracks, I noticed big time - and the bass buildup and eq problems kind of disappeared on their own.

I'm definitely in the "honeymoon" phase right now - but if you recall when you had an engineering breakthrough, you'll appreciate my giddyness :)

Thanks everyone for this board - it's a mind-blowing resource to a young guy like me learning how to get the music off his fretboard and into a finished product.

-Matt

[Factory101]

An excellent balance of art and science - my technical understanding of phenomena outside of audio has improved considerably too...err..and I'm a scientist.

There's always a job going as Science Minister in the UK if you feel in the mood Mr. Katz!

[lllubi]

Algorithmix announced Bob´s K-Stereo processor as a plug-in with Vst3.
Hope this is going to be in the 1000€ range so i will not have to decide
if it would be smarter to buy some outboard gear instead.

[macc]

Algorithmix announced Bob´s K-Stereo processor as a plug-in with Vst3.

[Crash]

Originally Posted by badhorsie777

I finally understand why I love Lyle Lovett (try saying that 3x fast) on his movie soundtrack album... it's THAT sound.

Have you heard Lyle Lovett's "Baby Don't Tolerate" CD? I never thought I would see one of his CD's crushed..but that one is. Audible distortion and all...truly sad.

I assume your screen name is a Vai reference?

[badhorsie777]

Nope - haven't heard that CD... and that's a shame, considering his "not-like-anyone-else-soundwise"-ocity is exactly what made him cool!

And yep - totally obsessed on vai's Alien Love Secrets when I started playing. Vai led to Satriani led to Eric Johnson... my personal style is probably most like Satch (except less whammy bar and effects - that's EJ's influence), but Vai's attitude to music is so refreshing... I know those three are almost trite answers to the "who influenced you" question every guitarist has to continually answer, but they were there when I was starting out and Vai especially shaped the way I compose rather than jam out a riff, solo, minor modulation, keychange, and call it a song. That stuff's been done and his playing is always nonconforming.

/long answer

:)

[Arturo Vaquero]

thanks bob.

[Bob Yordan]

Where is Bob Katz did he left or is he right?




He is one of the main reasons I am hanging around this forum.


Hi Bob

[jamsmith]

I don't think Bob is neccessarily more right than anyone else, he just has two abilities many of his peers lack - self-critical thinking that allows him to challenge his own biases and an honest desire to communicate what he has learned with others. This forum has two others like him in Ethan Winer for acoustics and Jim Williams for electronics. Other gurus pop in from time to time, but those 3 make enormous contributions far beyond the scale of what they probably have legitimate time for.

A thank you to all 3 of them.

[MarkRB]

Are there any definitive "Bob Katz" mastered records I should listen to?

[macc]

Originally Posted by Bob Yordan

Hi Bob

Was that to Mr. Katz or me? :D

Hello Bob (to you) anyway

[Bob Yordan]

Originally Posted by macc

Was that to Mr. Katz or me? :D

Hello Bob (to you) anyway

To both of you.

[narco]

It was bob's review that first put me on to lipinski monitors. I love working with them every day.

thanks bob from down under!

narco

[Beyersound]

Originally Posted by badhorsie777

If I had more than say... one album under my belt I might write that very book...

It just really goes against your audio presuppositions - compress to a level comparable to current cd's... and a bit hotter will make yours stand out. You just never think there's another way until someone makes such outlandish claims - it'll sound punchier with less compression... ?! I was really digging the sound of this cd I just finished (and I've remixed it 3 times already - the thing's GOING out) but I see a much better path for my next recordings.

I'm working on a guitar instrumental CD right now and that riff I recorded that opened my eyes sounds sooooo good with extra headroom. And it's ROCK for crying out loud - the one genre I thought really NEEDED to be compressed thick and agressive. Our presuppositions are so powerful - I know I'm waxing philosophical here, but it's true. We think we're being "so creative and different" but it's still the same ol same ol. I finally understand why I love Lyle Lovett (try saying that 3x fast) on his movie soundtrack album... it's THAT sound.

I personally challenge everyone to redo their default template (if you use one - I do) and bypass/remove the mix bux comp and/or limiter. Mix with peaks between -3 and -10 (24 bit) and compress individual tracks only - with an ear for natural sound, not false other-worldly impact. Only go there if it's an effect that's intended to sound creative and different (Bonham's tunnel-o-kick drum, for instance). Let the channels do their own work and at the end, don't assume you need anything - decide if you do. Even hard rock (my example) can benefit from this approach. I'm sure I will break this rule and catch myself for a while, but it's got its payoffs - and it's cumulative. One track may not tell you what you're gaining, fidelity-wise, but at the end of just 5 or 6 tracks, I noticed big time - and the bass buildup and eq problems kind of disappeared on their own.

I'm definitely in the "honeymoon" phase right now - but if you recall when you had an engineering breakthrough, you'll appreciate my giddyness :)

Thanks everyone for this board - it's a mind-blowing resource to a young guy like me learning how to get the music off his fretboard and into a finished product.

-Matt

+1 Matt! I have maintained the "no 2 buss crush" approach for 20+ years. I just listened to the Coldplay album "A Rush of Blood To The Head" thinking I would like it. It was so overcompressed(surely in mastering!) I couldn't stand to listen to it for more than 5 minutes. There were absolutely no dynamics, and it sounded really mono. This is unfortunately the case with many records today. I remember that what turned my head about a record not too many years ago(and still does) was clever use of dynamics usually through the arrangement. Those mixes really breathed well. If you squash that down to where everything is essentially the same volume, even the best engineered and mixed tracks become lifeless and boring. I call that the "mixing with compression" method. I read a Mike Shipley(he can mix a bit!) article where he said he doesn't use a 2 buss comp while mixing, only compresses individual tracks in a mix, and doesn't like them squashed in mastering. I was always enamored with the great dynamics of his mixes. I feel the same except I prefer to use a subtle 1.5 to 1 mix comp never gain reducing more than a db or two. I do use a good bit of track compression with mostly good vintage stuff, but when I start to hear something choke or sound unnatural I back it off (unless of course it is an intended effect). It is good to hear people actually talking about less crushing especially at the mastering stage. I have had about enough of the "my record has to be louder than everybody else's" approach that is so common today. Cheers

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by Beyersound

+1 Matt! I have maintained the "no 2 buss crush" approach for 20+ years. I just listened to the Coldplay album "A Rush of Blood To The Head" thinking I would like it. It was so over compressed(surely in mastering!) I couldn't stand to listen to it for more than 5 minutes. There were absolutely no dynamics, and it sounded really mono. This is unfortunately the case with many records today. I remember that what turned my head about a record not too many years ago(and still does) was clever use of dynamics usually through the arrangement. Those mixes really breathed well. If you squash that down to where everything is essentially the same volume, even the best engineered and mixed tracks become lifeless and boring. I call that the "mixing with compression" method. I read a Mike Shipley(he can mix a bit!) article where he said he doesn't use a 2 buss comp while mixing, only compresses individual tracks in a mix, and doesn't like them squashed in mastering. I was always enamored with the great dynamics of his mixes. I feel the same except I prefer to use a subtle 1:5 to 1 mix comp never gain reducing more than a db or two. I do use a good bit of track compression with mostly good vintage stuff, but when I start to hear something choke or sound unnatural I back it off (unless of course it is an intended effect). It is good to hear people actually talking about less crushing especially at the mastering stage. I have had about enough of the "my record has to be louder than everybody else's" approach that is so common today. Cheers

I assume that you mean 5:1 for a compressor if you really mean 1:5 then it is an expander and not a compressor.

Also don't be so quick to assume that it was in the mastering that everything got smashed as a lot of stuff coming it today to our mastering studio is already smashed beyond belief.

Lots of artist today FORCE the mix engineer to do things to the music to make it loud and then present that already over compressed mess to the hapless mastering engineer asking him or her to make it louder. A good well done mix without a lot of two buss compression can be made very loud very easily while still keeping a lot of dynamics in the music. Once you take the life out of the music by over compression when you are mixing it can never be put back in.

A word to the wise....

[daverich]

bob is ninja.

Chuck Norris goes to Bob to ask if it sounds good.

Kind regards

Dave Rich

[lofi]

Originally Posted by bcgood

Bob Katz = Master Jedi

yap. i feel his presence here

[Beyersound]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

I assume that you mean 5:1 for a compressor if you really mean 1:5 then it is an expander and not a compressor.

Also don't be so quick to assume that it was in the mastering that everything got smashed as a lot of stuff coming it today to our mastering studio is already smashed beyond belief.

Lots of artist today FORCE the mix engineer to do things to the music to make it loud and then present that already over compressed mess to the hapless mastering engineer asking him or her to make it louder. A good well done mix without a lot of two buss compression can be made very loud very easily while still keeping a lot of dynamics in the music. Once you take the life out of the music by over compression when you are mixing it can never be put back in.

A word to the wise....

Hi Tom. The 1:5 to 1 was supposed to be 1.5 to 1, punctuation typo! I didn't absolutely assume it was in mastering(I poorly worded that sentence), but your point is well taken. If it was in mastering, I would think that odds were on the side of the artist or record company insisting that it be squashed into oblivion. I do not blame mastering engineers for this, (some of my favorite people are MEs) but I am tired of the lifeless, boring, irritating, mixes that we are subjected to nonetheless. It must really suck for you MEs to have to deal with that at whatever point it happens. Heres to dynamics!!!!

[jvt]

I must say I'm forever indebted to Andre Knecht for pointing me to digido.com and Bob Katz 7+ years ago. It provided me with completely different insight on how I work. (Using my trusty Katz K-Meter light saber, I was able to strike down the evil forces of the L2! )

Bob's book "Mastering Audio" is the best and most authoritative book on the subject I've ever read. It is my ultimate production reference. And when I encounter people who start that nonsensical chant about smashing their mixes to bits, I point them to digido.com to hopefully soak in some bits of wisdom. And of course, I can't wait to get my hands on that Algorithmix K-Stereo plug-in!

So Bob if you come across this thread, consider this a public "thank you" for all you've contributed to the community. And of course a big thanks to Andre as well.

[beyarecords]

Originally Posted by jvt

And of course, I can't wait to get my hands on that Algorithmix K-Stereo plug-in!

Huh? Who, where, when, how?

Do you have a link to this information?

[jvt]

Originally Posted by beyarecords

Huh? Who, where, when, how?
Do you have a link to this information?

The K-Stereo plug-in is not released yet, but it's "coming soon"

http://www.algorithmix.com/en/pro_products.htm

[Ken Paul]

Super nice guy!! Ten years ago I met Bob after an AES show presentation. I asked him a question and he asked me if I wanted to discuss it over lunch as he had another panel that afternoon. I learned more in that hour than I had in the previous year! My brain was sore for a few days after.

Ken Paul
Kengineering