What's Your Sound?

[lucey]

No one really asks this, but some people do assume that a ME has "a sound" and is thus best for this or that. This view is based on one or two records they've heard before, and their lack of imagination.

To be fair to this view, there are a few MEs that tend to work in a certain sphere and are known as such, but the sound of any record is a matter of the chain and the person's take on that record. The subjective part is the most important factor and can be very easily guided by you the client. With the same chain we can make a tight low end record, a dynamic record, a phat record, a record that's all mids, etc.


In short, a ME that exists to serve does not have one sound. It's far more interesting to work with the client, rather than making a cookie cutter week out of it.

[William Bowden]

I do believe that even on a subconscious level there are certain things we tend to go for or do or look for though - a bit like some painters have a style. I used to think I didn't have "a sound" at all, but then a few years ago I was asked to put together a compilation for a band spanning a ten year period. Four different sets of recordings, four different sets of mixes, and I'd mastered all of over the years it in 4 different rooms with 4 different chains, monitors - hell everything.

When I loaded it all up I became increasingly amazed and bewildered at how it all hung together so incredibly well - surely that was impossible!! I ended up not changing a thing, and it gave me pause - especially considering all the gear I'd lusted after and bought, all the 'improvements' I thought I'd been making over all the years - all the money...

So I was forced to conclude that it was all a massive fluke, or I'd been repeating the same mastering sentence somehow over all this time!!

It'll probably never happen again, but when I think about it, a lot of the other guys I know have a recognizable sound too, so I don't think you can make a blanket ruling on this issue - and most people seemingly don't recognize their own sound, but recognize others more easily, so I think a kind of personal 'blindness' can come in this regard.

As always YMMV

The King

[lucey]

I agree with you, actually. To say that a ME given a direction to be "dark and phat and not too loud" would end up with the same setting a decade later is a totally different point. My point was more along the lines of, 'Lucey's sound is best for rock and dance but not for pop or jazz.' Or similar. to assume that if you want a big low end, and my last five records you heard were tight, that I don't do what you want.

The same goes for loudness. I've had some people oddly assume that I would not like to do a dynamic record, either because they think all MEs are slammers by design of the profession, or because they heard some of my loud work. How many clients say "not too loud" and then say "louder than that" ?

So we end up pushing, but don't NEED to, and can easily back off.

[William Bowden]

Well as long as you're busy you must be doing something right.

I cut my first lacquer back in 1988 on our old VMS-70, and since that time I've probably been in and out of fashion in various genres over the years, at one stage it was all rock, then hip hop, at the moment well it's all kinds of things but I notice a new trend in lo-fi retro and wall of sound stuff coming my way. People do judge you on certain records sure, but in the long run a body of work garners interest in very different areas. This week it was hiphop/soul, rock, rock pop, a Sigur Ros germanic band, a lo-fi sixties band, some acoustic stuff, a very sixties girl's album (like Rodiguez), and finally a jazz crooner.

It was a very busy week!

And thankfully I'm seeing a definite trend against slammed, most still want it loud but not crazily so, some hope here I think from the ipod headphones actually! Of course the metalcore band next week won't be so openminded!

Happy knob twiddling

The King

[lucey]

I've also seen some loudness bitching on the other GS forums lately that makes no sense. As if "mastering" = "make it louder than I wanted it" ???

Originally Posted by William Bowden

Well as long as you're busy you must be doing something right.

Oh I'm not hurting for work. My point was to again publish the idea that mastering is a service, and MEs are more flexible than they can be given credit.

Any ME would like to drop the level a db or 2. And if a client asks for something, they'll get it.

[KyleDiSanto]

I like things to be punchy, but I also enjoy making things sound the way the Client wants it.

By using our established trust, I will advise and be VERY open and up front about certain things they might ask for, i.e. SUPER LOUDNESS

And if that is what they want, that is what I will deliver. This is a service.

The real trick, IMO, its giving them what they want without compromising the sound as much as possible.

[leaper]

Hi,
I've been mastering for almost 20 years now and can honestly say that I have never considered having a specific "sound".
It's an interesting idea, but perhaps many of us are too closely involved to notice these things?
Things come and go in waves over here. For example mid nineties was full of Hip Hop and Dance (lots of vinyl), 2000's was predominantly World music and Jazz, the last 2 years have seen a big resurgence in metal (thrash, death, doom, etc) and throughout the years I've always been lucky enough to master extreme noise music (a personal favorite!).
I'd like to think that due to having a passion for all forms of music, I can understand each project and help to bring out the best in it.
Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the CD's I'm proudest of are often the ones that haven't needed too much work..ha!

[finetuner]

I once quoted a well known ME in an interview that i wouldn't trust an ME who has a sound of his own.

Simply can't afford to since it's a service business. But then when you look very close we will all sound different because of our rooms, experience, gear, mood, rest (or lack thereof), phase of the moon...

There might be another interesting human factor which is our personal approach to processing audio in general. Taste will still play a part subconsciously.
It's what helps to form your vision of where to take that mix you're going to work on.


Anyway, i agree with Leaper that it's probably hard to notice your own sound - as subtle as it (hopefully) is. It's easier for other folks to comment, provided they know a lot of your work in order to distill out a common denominator.

A long time client once told me that i have a tendency towards being too careful / conservative.
I immediately recognized my stance of 'don't do harm to the mix'. Healthy approach or not, he just liked me to push things a little bit further (not level wise fortunately).

So once again it comes down to communication with the client as some may want to keep things pure and others won't mind you to completely change the sound.


side note: a nice experiment involving this subject is the 'WUMP' initiative on 'the other' mastering forum ( http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/f/31/0 ) Every once in a while you can sign yourself in along with many other engineers to work on one song, then listen and comment to each others work afterwards. It doesn't tell the whole story but it can be a nice experiment to see where you stand between others.

[domokunrox]

ME should be transparent.

If you add a flavor that doesn't enhance what the mixer intended, you're not doing your job right.

You should only do something drastic, if the Mixer or Producer asks you to fix one of their mistakes.

You have to always keep in mind that your opinion is a 2nd opinion, and your job is to prepare the product for its final medium. And of course, everyone's favorite, MAKE IT LOUD!!!!!

[lucey]

Originally Posted by finetuner

Anyway, i agree with Leaper that it's probably hard to notice your own sound - as subtle as it (hopefully) is. It's easier for other folks to comment, provided they know a lot of your work in order to distill out a common denominator.

I agree with this. A client told me once, "your sound is what you do to my mixes in the first 15 seconds". And that's likely true. Taste and gear have an effect.

But still, it's a service biz. Any direction for that taste and gear is more than possible, it's preferred.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by lucey

I agree with this. A client told me once, "your sound is what you do to my mixes in the first 15 seconds". And that's true.

But still, it's a service biz. Any direction is possible.

Right. I know what quality of sound that I do like (and that's how I earned my reputation and why many people seek me out becaue that's my specialty), but I also make many records for my clients in the style that they prefer. I have many clients working in musical styles that would surprise you...

BK

[JCRockit]

My sound is usually "BAM" I start out with "boom" then add a little "crunch", some "wack" once in a while too...

[PatrikT]

This "sound"-thing is about tiny differences in how different people hear and pretty much unavoidable.

Gear and techniques have, and should have, little to do with sound at the mastering stage.


Best of Regards
Patrik

[Peakly]

Originally Posted by PatrikT

Gear and techniques have, and should have, little to do with sound at the mastering stage.

Doesn't that partly depend on how much an ME does? If he's making a significant contribution to the sound, then his imprint will be that much bigger.

Mychal

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by domokunrox

ME should be transparent.

Not when horribly digital mixes that have been done at home come through the door. That is the last thing some clients are after. They want enhancement, warmth, mojo or whatever you want to call it in order to make their demo presentable.

If the mix is fantastic, for sure, transparency is the way to go. But some of us are not that fortunate and it doesn't bother me at all because turd polishing takes skill.

[jojamba]

i wont be terribly subjective on this issue -

i do think that there is GOOD sound and BAD sound - ultimately though there are a milieu of factors that contribute - however the issue is inevitably tied to MUSIC and being as such.... i have the right to come to the conclusion that when sound is well crafted EVERYONE can hear it -


did i just make sense......?

so much for objectivity!

[soundgeezer]

Interesting thread, as I was recently asking myself which part of making a record is the one that really makes the sound: recording, mixing, mastering.

I think that while the choice of artists, instruments, mics, preamps, cables, rooms etc. is building the landscape the raw core of an album, the part of mixing really is the place where the coloring of it takes place.

After that mastering should just tune the color to the right intensity on the whole landscape, without putting too many new colors on it (except the client wants it that way).

In classical recordings people often ask for that neutral mastering, but in many situations they would love to have a final stamp on their record and have all tracks fit together well.

[Bubbagump]

This thread is a bit old, but I will add my 2 cents from the other side of the glass. The difficult thing when shopping for an ME (and note I say ME, not shopping for a facility, I don't care if you are mastering off an 8 track in the back of a Yugo... as a customer personally I am shopping for the person who can get the job done.) is knowing where the client starts and the ME ends. For instance, I have looked through sites of many of the MEs on this site and sometimes I think the masters sound meh... The bass is too pumpy, the highs too brittle, dynamics murdered, whatever. But how am I to know as a customer if that is the result of the ME, or the client request, or a bit of both. What would be incredibly helpful is knowing what instructions you were given by a particular client and how you carried out those requests along with your own input to the project. Give me the story of how this song got from A to B. 90% of you are just swell guys to work with, but how we each speak the language and interpret it is really what it all comes down to in my ever so humble opinion. There is obviously a difference from one ME to the next in sound based on a myriad of factors, otherwise this would be a commodity... which it seems some of the afterhours, 1 hour photo processing, "drop it in the slot, get it next day" mastering houses are trying for.

[lucey]

it's easier than that ... free sample. speaking for myself, i hardly ever lose em.

[William Bowden]

Originally Posted by bubbagump

This thread is a bit old, but I will add my 2 cents from the other side of the glass. The difficult thing when shopping for an ME (and note I say ME, not shopping for a facility, I don't care if you are mastering off an 8 track in the back of a Yugo... as a customer personally I am shopping for the person who can get the job done.) is knowing where the client starts and the ME ends. For instance, I have looked through sites of many of the MEs on this site and sometimes I think the masters sound meh... The bass is too pumpy, the highs too brittle, dynamics murdered, whatever. But how am I to know as a customer if that is the result of the ME, or the client request, or a bit of both. What would be incredibly helpful is knowing what instructions you were given by a particular client and how you carried out those requests along with your own input to the project. Give me the story of how this song got from A to B. 90% of you are just swell guys to work with, but how we each speak the language and interpret it is really what it all comes down to in my ever so humble opinion. There is obviously a difference from one ME to the next in sound based on a myriad of factors, otherwise this would be a commodity... which it seems some of the afterhours, 1 hour photo processing, "drop it in the slot, get it next day" mastering houses are trying for.

Well I do think you have some responsibility as a mastering engineer if you take pride in your work. There are times when the client asks for something that is a disaster waiting to happen, at this point rather than simply 'doing what the client wants' it's best to have a discussion, or show them the consequences of a bad decision. I think it's surprising the number of people who have said that they do what the client wants. Sometimes the client doesn't know what he wants, or has difficulty putting it into words, or even worse he's banging on about something in the mix you fixed ten minutes ago, but he's not listening to the change at all - he just had a fixed idea in his mind of 'what's wrong'.

So many clients these days don't even go to an external studio before mastering, so the reason they (may) come to you might be so they can get an actual opinion about how to improve their sound. Sometimes as Ben F says, subtlety is the last thing they need because the mix is massively out of whack, no remix is possible, and they look to you for guidance. If the client runs the entire session, in an unfamiliar room, with unfamiliar gear, and an unfamiliar person going 'yeah, good call man' every time the client suggests anything, then well, that's laziness and irresponsibility - and disaster looms.

I usually like to have a listening copy way before the session, or even booking, so I can talk with the band if there are problems too hard to solve my end, or things that can easily be sorted to give a better result. This uses up time, but in 99% of cases it's well worth it for everyone.

So in some cases the mastering guy is making 70% of the decisions, or 100% possibly if the session is unattended. On the other hand, the guys with great mixes can look for a 10-20% improvement, very rarely maybe nothing at all!

The thing is at the end of the day, two people should be happy, the client and the mastering guy (and the engineer if there's one, or an endangered species: The Producer).

I personally don't have a website (except a myspace page), get all my work through word of mouth, and as a result there's a certain level of trust, understanding, and expectation from my clients.

If you're looking for an ME, ask your friends whose albums you like the sound of about who they used, what it was like, and how they felt about the whole thing. You can search the web forever, but your circle of musical friends are more likely to give you honest opinions than marketing pages or 'testimonials' from people you don't even know.

Friends will hopefully have the time to tell you how the whole process got songs from A to B as you say, but if I asked you how your song went from that simple first idea, to a ten minute epic with 40 piece choir - it might be hard to remember and explain everything!!

Anyway, back to my Sound...

The King

[popruff]

This is your sound!

PopRuff Mastering - Online UK Mastering Studio And Audio Services

[lucey]

Originally Posted by jojamba

i wont be terribly subjective on this issue -

i do think that there is GOOD sound and BAD sound - ultimately though there are a milieu of factors that contribute - however the issue is inevitably tied to MUSIC and being as such.... i have the right to come to the conclusion that when sound is well crafted EVERYONE can hear it -

Assuming it's translatable, you're 100% right. Musicality is all that matters, and it's audible to the public.

Technically speaking, it's a wide world ... from a huge phat bottom with a dark top, to a tight bottom and a midrange to almost takes your head off, to asking for one thing but really meaning another .... people need very different things.

[lerone]

The better the mix, the less of a 'contribution' will be made to the sound (hopefully. But if you get something in that truly sounds terrible, and you are only able to work from that source, you can't help but to impart your sound due to the processing being far more dramatic than usual, but I guess in cases like this, it can only be a good thing.

[unitymusic]

I am not really a mastering engineer, so I'm sure I have a different perspective, but I surely would not want to hire someone to build me a house and have them ask me for instructions or rely on my input on how to do it...

If you're good then prove it. If you've proved it a client should trust you. If you're that good and a client doesn't trust you then you don't need the work.

With that being said, I do think it is inevitable for a [good] ME to have their "own sound" to some degree, as is the case with a mix engineer, the engineer who tracks the sessions, a producer and the artists themselves. Like someone else said it comes down to how you hear the music, as it is and how you think it should be. That doesn't mean all your records have to sound alike, just that they all have to sound good... Hopefully you've got good ears, because they tell you what sounds 'good'.

-Danny

[lucey]

Originally Posted by unitymusic

I am not really a mastering engineer, so I'm sure I have a different perspective, but I surely would not want to hire someone to build me a house and have them ask me for instructions or rely on my input on how to do it...

If you're good then prove it. If you've proved it a client should trust you. If you're that good and a client doesn't trust you then you don't need the work.

Within the range of technically acceptable is a HUGE margin for the subjective. Trust is a word that only applies after a client's taste is known ... they will then "trust" that I do this time something they like that is also technically acceptable, based on last time we worked out what that was.

It's not a house, but even then, how many well made houses are there? Architecture anyone?

[SCDBM]

I think, room, gear and workflow do define sound (your daily chain)
together with taste and feel of genres.

And about translating customer demands for example: louder and more highs, for me, most of the time mean cut more around 500hz.

So yes, a "signature sound" or genre specialization in my opinion exists.

[unitymusic]

Originally Posted by lucey

Within the range of technically acceptable is a HUGE margin for the subjective. Trust is a word that only applies after a client's taste is known ... they will then "trust" that I do this time something they like that is also technically acceptable, based on last time we worked out what that was.

It's not a house, but even then, how many well made houses are there? Architecture anyone?

My point was simply that this is your specialty and it would not make sense to expect the client to know or be able to do your job better than yourself. This would apply to pretty much anything, not just mastering or building houses, ha.

I also don't mean ignore the clients requests. There is a big difference between trying to provide them the product they want, and providing them a product that is under par because of something they thought they wanted.

-Danny

[lucey]

Originally Posted by unitymusic

I also don't mean ignore the clients requests. There is a big difference between trying to provide them the product they want, and providing them a product that is under par because of something they thought they wanted.

[ajv205]

i just want to say its amusing to me how uneducated musicians are. 90 percent of them think that mastering has the greatest impact on the sound of their record. so they budget accordingly and always show up to a mastering house with shit mixes thinking the mastering engineer will make it sound like a nickelback record.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by ajv205

i just want to say its amusing to me how uneducated musicians are. 90 percent of them think that mastering has the greatest impact on the sound of their record. so they budget accordingly and always show up to a mastering house with shit mixes thinking the mastering engineer will make it sound like a nickelback record.

Sure. That's a product of the DIY recording and mixing era. For many people who DIY their record mastering is were they first hire a pro.