Any ME's Regularly using character AD/DA converters?

[MichaelPatrick]

Isn't there a poll somewhere here showing how many MEs use Dave Hill's HEDD? That's pretty transparent plus some "character" knobs. I guess I'm wondering how many who use a HEDD regularly turn those knobs regularly too?

[BringItBack]

Not just acheivable "color" or vibe, a specific sound from a specific unit is what we're talking about. Not cloning or replacing it with a sound that mimics it, but simply getting that sound from that box. A musician's/producer's vision from production to tracking to mixing includes envisioning what will happen in mastering. An unsolicited pass through those converters may change the mix too much, but upon request? Just like someone may like the "sound" (or transparency) of a high end converter someone else may like something not so transparent.

This discussion has been hypothetical for most (if not all) of us all along - for those with an aversion to the hypothetical - if none of the brands mentioned at the beginning of the thread are in your website's gear list - how could you discuss regularly using them as an ME in any other context?

[lucey]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

Not just acheivable "color" or vibe, a specific sound from a specific unit is what we're talking about.

A single piece of gear, at mastering, or mixing, or tracking .... is nothing without a real situation. It's part of a chain. It brings a color, within in a palate, on a painting in progress ... in other words, it's all relative.

Originally Posted by BringItBack

Not cloning or replacing it with a sound that mimics it, but simply getting that sound from that box. A musician's/producer's vision from production to tracking to mixing includes envisioning what will happen in mastering. An unsolicited pass through those converters may change the mix too much, but upon request? Just like someone may like the "sound" (or transparency) of a high end converter someone else may like something not so transparent.

If you're leaving the primary color for mastering you're missing out on what's so great about mixing. How is it not clear that mixing is where most of the power lies? Individual tracks, very powerful. Two tracks, much less powerful.

Mastering is a nip and a tuck and with any luck a better overall quality of sound than what went in. If that means color, fine. Anyone can mash up your tone, but primarily before the converter.

If I need even more color than the chain and it's gain stages driven I might use the HEDD after conversion. But this is very rare.

When most people say they want color, all they really need is to hear what's in the mix already. Once the mix is revealed, it's got more distortion than their mix was exposing.

[wado1942]

And musicians will be replaced by MIDI computers?

Didn't that happen in the 80s, then again in the mid 90s? Now Pro Tools is doing essentially the same thing with beat detective, sample replacement etc while Melodyne takes us the rest of the way there. Yeah, there were musicians involved somewhere in the recording process but you're certainly not hearing them on the final record. Not really anyway.

We're still waiting for someone to manufacture a "color" converter that is more desirable than the combination of the best "colored" analog devices and a high-end transparent converter.

I've heard of custom jobs like one purist, direct to stereo outfit that uses ADCs with predominantly tube circuitry.

Why bother with a gear list then.

I list my record/mixing gear so my clients have an idea of what I'm capable of doing as far as live recording situations go etc. I DO NOT list my mastering gear because #1, it's pretty well all modified or custom built and nobody can go out there and buy the stuff I have to get the same results. #2, I sometimes use the gear in unconventional ways that again, can't be reproduced with a simple patching together of rack unuts.

I agree that the customer is always right

This IS a service business and I work very hard to please my clients but they are NOT always right. Case in point, I had a guy send me a single to be mastered and it was such a mess, I said it wasn't anywhere near being ready for mastering (it was loaded with phase issues). He said he had worked on it for months and didn't want to remix it. I said I could take his money, but if he's not happy with the mix, he'd never be happy with the master either. Now he was ready to push for having a master made but neither he nor his clients liked the mix so I convinced him it would have been a waste of money. I don't like turning away clients, and I've worked on some genuinly lousy mixes and made great improvements, but I still have to uphold a degree of quality for myself.

If you're leaving the primary color for mastering you're missing out on what's so great about mixing.

I agree. The project needs to be 98% of the way there before it reaches my hands (as mastering engineer). I actually recorded a country band recently and we all wanted to go for a 50s sound because it fit their style. So I pulled out all my old semi-retired mics and recorded everything live in 2 days virtually no overdubs. The tape got at most 2 passes per song. I didn't use any gobos etc, turned off the NR on my 16-track and kept the levels really low to exagerate the noise on the deck. Then on mixing, I hit the 1/4" stereo tape pretty hard to saturate the mix. It still wasn't quite enough so the band had notes on leaving in flaws like false starts or "we're rolling" comming from the talk-back monitors. I mastered it personally and added extra noise in the gaps between songs. You should have seen the look on the banjo player's face when I played the reference CD when he came to pick up the media. He couldn't say enough good things about it. It's the dirtiest serious project I've done to date. It's dirtier than country records from the 50s ever were, but it's what people think those records sounded like. Now if we had tracked on computer with just 3 guys in the room, overdubbed everybody else later and mixed in the box like their last record, it wouldn't have all the wonderful character it does.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

Isn't there a poll somewhere here showing how many MEs use Dave Hill's HEDD? That's pretty transparent plus some "character" knobs. I guess I'm wondering how many who use a HEDD regularly turn those knobs regularly too?

Rarely past "one" and the triode always stays off. But the conversion sounds pretty good.


DC

[BringItBack]

When classic songs are remastered, they usually sound better or worse than they did originally, depending on taste. Two-track coloration can be powerful, and just what a track needs. I don't see why it matters so much if that attribute comes from the converters themselves, but I'm not an ME. Somebody has to be using these converters during mastering and getting great results - maybe unorthodox and unnecessary in the mastering community but somebody's gotta be doing it somewhere.

If you select an ME based on good references, samples, word of mouth, etc., you would trust them if they told you they did their best work on the most transparent chain, even if they had color converters available. You are paying for ears, experience, and expertise before all else. If the ME didn't have them, or the client was completely unfamiliar with them, the topic would never come up to begin with.

[Waltz Mastering]

There are ME's known to swap out conversion for taste.

I don't think anybody would purposely buy a "colored" converter for their go to and only unit.

Someone starting out might use a less than ideal converter because that's what they have and they can get away with on that level, but as said in previous post, most conversion that is used for mastering is bought with the mindset of it being transparent in nature. If any so called "color" is wanted it would be derived by anything that might precede the conversion or possibly after it if that's what is called for.

"Colour" is a very subjective word, as is "character".

[pmx]

i think having several monitoring d/a's is as dangerous as having 5 sets of speakers, and there's no ME that does that. the d/a is part of the reference you have, together with the speakers, amps, etc.

having more than one d/a for the analogue loop could be looked upon as a matter of sound, but it becomes a processor on it's own straight away. i'd look at the dsp on the hedd as a separate processor, not as part of the conversion. still, also the d/a and a/d there is part of my reference and not likely to change for sound.

[Bob Olhsson]

Back in the '90s i switched between two or three monitoring D to As.

I eventually learned that D to As make errors of omission masking different things in the lower midrange. It's a moving target so one can't just assume what will be masked based on a single D to A. For that reason a converter than masks almost nothing is probably the best for monitoring.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

There are ME's known to swap out conversion for taste.

Like:


Chris Gehringer of Sterling Sound

and

“Mastering in Manhattan,” Electronic Musician’s feature story on mastering engineer Greg Calbi.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Like:


Chris Gehringer of Sterling Sound

and

“Mastering in Manhattan,” Electronic Musician’s feature story on mastering engineer Greg Calbi.

IN the MONITORING Side? I doubt it. Everyone is seeking the most neutral and accurate DAC on the monitoring side. Perhaps in the processing side, though neutral is where I would go... and we've been down that road already in this thread.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by bob katz

IN the MONITORING Side? I doubt it. Everyone is seeking the most neutral and accurate DAC on the monitoring side. Perhaps in the processing side, though neutral is where I would go... and we've been down that road already in this thread.

Not for the monitoring, but for the playback or capture.

[Jamzone]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I don't know of any converter line stages that are better than a number of devices that can supply as much character as one might ever want and then be fed into a transparent converter. You're really talking about what would only be a one trick pony for mastering. I've always felt mastering gear first needs to be able to do transparent extremely well. Then one can add spice to taste.

"Character" or "color" is used in mastering to reduce the contrast between different elements of the mix. In mixing, it's used on individual elements to increase the contrast between them and the rest of the mix. I think the best place by far to add character is in your mix where you still have control over the individual elements.

One could call it 'glue', right??

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Not for the monitoring, but for the playback or capture.

Agreed. For Processing.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Not for the monitoring, but for the playback or capture.

I suppose if you have a selection of converters that is easily switchable and includes a neutral set. Why complicate your life, why not use a neutral converter and have a selection of patchable analog outboard gear that you can combine repeatably at will?

[BringItBack]

I think in any case your 1st options/integrations for tracking/mastering should be transparent with the character conversion being additional (probably seldomly used) options.

[swaff]

Originally Posted by macc

Signature worthy, that.

Macc, just FYI, I tried to visit your website and it told me your site had been blocked as an "attack site."

Here is the link it sent me to for "More info on why this site is blocked."

http://safebrowsing.clients.google.c...vertbeats.com/

Best,

Swaff

[macc]

Thanks for pointing that out - my web dude is aware of it and is on the case. Seems to be a false alarm but it still needs sorting out.

Very irritating

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

I think in any case your 1st options/integrations for tracking/mastering should be transparent with the character conversion being additional (probably seldomly used) options.

Not really. A massive passive on the 2 bus is wonderful but it requires different eq. and level settings in the mix. The reason color is a bad idea in mastering is because you no longer have control over the mix and any attempt to compensate for color in mastering is guesswork. Decisions about a mix need to be based on hearing the mix in as many listening environments as possible. Issues like color are a critical part of this process. This is why finishing a mix in the mastering room is always a compromise.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

This is why finishing a mix in the mastering room is always a compromise.

Agreed. But sometimes this is the only option that a project has. A producer brought me a project that he had mixed himself (reluctantly) but he is not a mixer. The budget was not there for him to hire a mixer and he is depending on my expertise to help this project in as quick a time as possible. It is a compromise, it was a compromise from the beginning. But using every tool at my disposal, I was able to improve the project greatly, he said, "Bob, it sounds like you remixed it." And sadly, that's just the approach I had to take, and among my tools I used every bit of color at my disposal.

Agreed, "Fix it in the Mastering" is always a compromise, but nowadays with the increased toolset available to him, a talented mastering engineer can improve the sound of any mix better than ever before in audio history. "Remixing" is NEVER my first choice, however, and when the mix is not up the job, the first thing I always recommend is a remix and when appropriate I even give specific suggestions as to how the mix could be improved.

To summarize, there are now three possible clients that come to us for mastering:

a) The client who is an experienced mixer and knows what he wants and would like the mastering to reflect his mix and if anything, only make light corrections to help marry the tunes together and/or minor overall corrections that do not alter the mix

b) The client who did his best, is not that experienced at mixing, and is looking for some "magic" to happen in the mastering stage, on one or more tunes

c) The client who really is expecting changes and fixes, may not realize how many of them really should have been accomplished on the mix side, does not have the budget to remix, and perhaps shouldn't even be putting out this album in this condition. But when, despite our best advice and suggestion on who to go to for a proper mix, he insists that he wants us to work with his existing mix, and he wants to put his remaining money into a "mastering effort" and pay a premium price for that, and we (may even) agree to do it for him. [please excuse the convoluted sentences, I'm sure I could have expressed myself better given more time!]

[johnlink]

Originally Posted by bob katz

c) The client who really is expecting changes and fixes, may not realize how many of them really should have been accomplished on the mix side, does not have the budget to remix, and perhaps shouldn't even be putting out this album in this condition. But when, despite our best advice and suggestion on who to go to for a proper mix, he insists that he wants us to work with his existing mix, and he wants to put his remaining money into a "mastering effort" and pay a premium price for that, and we (may even) agree to do it for him. [please excuse the convoluted sentences, I'm sure I could have expressed myself better given more time!]

I suspect your convoluted sentences simply reflect the convoluted sort of process that happens with type-c clients.

John Link

[sanddigger1]

Originally Posted by macc

Thanks for pointing that out - my web dude is aware of it and is on the case. Seems to be a false alarm but it still needs sorting out.

Very irritating

Sometimes it happens because of another site located on the same server.
Also, the Google service that brings those alerts is notoriously unreliable (as many google services...).

[Bob Olhsson]

I'm not saying we shouldn't add color and do all kinds of stuff to make the most of a mix. It's just that it is a compromise, it isn't necessary if people budget their time well and is certainly not something I think a producer should figure on doing.

People leaving production decisions for mixing rather than tracking is bad enough!

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I'm not saying we shouldn't add color and do all kinds of stuff to make the most of a mix. It's just that it is a compromise, it isn't necessary if people budget their time well and is certainly not something I think a producer should figure on doing.

People leaving production decisions for mixing rather than tracking is bad enough!

Right on, Right on!

[macc]

Originally Posted by sanddigger1

Sometimes it happens because of another site located on the same server.
Also, the Google service that brings those alerts is notoriously unreliable (as many google services...).

This has been taken care of and the google warning should be gone any minute... would be appreciated if a mod could clean these posts up though

Thanks all.

[BringItBack]

Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of Bob Katz's B or C client in most cases - either someone who didn't have the knowledge, budget, personnel or gear to get the mix exactly way they wanted it (or got it exactly the way they wanted it and don't realize the errors behind their choices) and the mix isn't bad enough for the ME to flat out reject it.

Would the professional producers/engineers who run their final mixes through Universal Audio, Burl, JCF or other not-so-transparent converters before mastering, possibly reserve that for mastering if given the option by their favorite ME? Maybe they'd rather be sure that sound was acheived during mixdown and preserved as much as possible during mastering OR maybe they'd like to hear it at the end of the mastering chain instead. Of course the people with sub-par mixes would probably (and falsely) think it would save their mixes and mix decisions, but the professionals familiar with the equipment might opt for that. The coloring of the sound would be a break from the usual neutral stance of but the conversion itself wouldn't - any analog mastering chain requires conversion during mastering, so the decision to convert the audio has already been made once you decide to master (OTB) - it's just a matter of deciding what to convert with. Compression, EQ, etc. are all options in an analog chain but conversion isn't. Conversion is a given. If a pro client with a fitting mix says "I know I want the track to sound punchy and warm" you reach for certain equipment. If they say "I love the sound of these (readily available) converters, can we put this at the end of chain" what's the difference?

Is it the addition of more variables, the cost, the annoyance of creating a slippery slope (If I do this, what will they ask for next kind of thing), or just tradition/industry standards that keeps most ME's conversion setups static?

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Not for the monitoring, but for the playback or capture.

I most definitely always want to give the process chain as much realistic, honest detail of the source as possible. So no skimping on the DAC.
Then back again, ensuring as much realistic, honest, detailed capture of any changes. So no skimping on the ADC.

I do believe that relying on "colour" can reduce contrasts in mixes that don't need it; sometimes it's more image depth than tonal. And for the other mixes, well the options are there... Maybe only a portion of those are at any one time, but seeing (or even knowing immediately from experience) what will work best is all part of the service. Ultra clean gain? Transformer gain? Tube gain? Active/passive? Digital gain...?

Struggling for an analogy.. it's kind of like why a painter needs to stand back from their masterpiece and see the whole picture in perspective as they apply the finishing touches, rather than hone it whilst viewing through a sheet of cellophane.. even clear cellophane... You'd be better off using a fine flyscreen and having someone move it left-right for a clearer view.. at least that's kind of like jitter reduction & dither in one.

[Bob Olhsson]

When you apply overall color, you often need to increase the contrast between some of the mix elements.

It's a lot like using filters in photography. A filter is a useful tool on an enlarger but it's nothing like the creativity of having a filter right on the camera and adjusting the lighting accordingly.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

When you apply overall color, you often need to increase the contrast between some of the mix elements.

It's a lot like using filters in photography. A filter is a useful tool on an enlarger but it's nothing like the creativity of having a filter right on the camera and adjusting the lighting accordingly.

There's a technical reason why this happens. Coloration caused by addition of harmonic distortion is ALWAYS a form of compression. In fact, harmonic synthesis is like turning a transfer curve on its side and looking at it another way. So a harmonic synthesizer compresses, adds "color" and reduces contrast (usually).

But at some "magical point" some harmonic synthesizers increase depth and reveal inner details subtlely which can be perceived as increasing contrast. It's just important to know when you've reached that magic point and subjectively improved the depth and not (terribly) disturbed the dynamics.

BK

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by bob katz

I suppose if you have a selection of converters that is easily switchable and includes a neutral set. Why complicate your life, why not use a neutral converter and have a selection of patchable analog outboard gear that you can combine repeatably at will?

Perhaps because the alternate "colored" converter in questions handles things with more aplomb than adding in another processor or line stage? After all if you are monitoring your process chain from after your ADC (and I think it's a mistake not to) then you can hear the total accumulative effect of the entire chain including the converter so you can determine whether this is to your satisfaction. Many transfer consoles allow you to switch to separate outputs with a single button push - so seems to me a second ADC for many would be just as easy to integrate into a mastering chain as an additional processor would be.

Anyway - I had a Burl B2 ADC in my studio for a brief demo and came away impressed. I think it did indeed do a default coloration but this was in fact subtle and came off as euphonic to my ear and I think it could in fact be desirable in many cases. If someone liked to clip at the ADC in order to increase average level the Burl handled this task better than any other ADC I have directly used. I ended up passing at the time as it didn't fit my budget at the time and it was something more of a "would be nice to have" rather than "I have to get this" type of thing - but I keep thinking of adding one here as an alternative rather than a replacement to my Mytek ADC.

Best regards,
Steve Berson