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

[BringItBack]

I'm wondering if any Mastering Engineers regularly use the more character-oriented converters on projects. (Burl, JCF Audio, Universal Audio, etc.) These units have unique sounds - do they work well in everyday mastering chains and on a wide range of material or only on occasion?

[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.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

I'm wondering if any Mastering Engineers REGULARLY (typed thread title too quickly) use the more character-oriented converters on projects. (Burl, JCF Audio, Universal Audio, etc.)These units have unique sounds - do they work well in everyday mastering chains and on a wide range of material or only on occasion?

I wouldn't personally, but I do have an interesting point of view. I won't name names, but I tried out an EXTREMELY transparent and very accurate D/A/D pair recently (for inserting analog processing) and it revealed too much of the distortion in some of my rock and roll sources. I actually preferred a slightly more forgiving converter pair for rock, one that clips a little more forgivingly, is VERY slightly euphonic but not at all colored per se, just not as ultimately accurate as the converter pair I rejected. I don't regret my decision at all. The number of occasions where the EXTREMELY transparent converter would have prove to be a better choice, even with classical music (when on occasion I want to do analog processing) has proved to be very small. So, I must admit, that some small amount of "forgiveness and tolerance", while not coloration per se, has proved to be best for my operation. I don't know what to make of this; it doesn't mean I've given up my purist background, but it does mean that I've grown a bit more practical.

The converter pair I use is highly respected, known to be "transparent" but let's say on the "liquid" side of transparent, which I have now determined is a better place for me to be!

[BringItBack]

Thanks for the responses. I was just wondering what use guys with good ears, rooms, monitoring, and experience had for the newer approach of these converters. They do seem to be better suited for mixing as they seem a little heavy-handed for mastering, but they seem like they were intended to replace or diminish the need for character-imparting units formerly before/after converters in a chain. Just curious if that included anybody's mastering chains.

Based on the above responses, clear and clearer (or transparent and more transparent) are the usual options in mastering. Anybody switching out their transparency for character converters at the mastering stage?

[philip]

Originally Posted by bob katz

I wouldn't personally, but I do have an interesting point of view. I won't name names, but I tried out an EXTREMELY transparent and very accurate D/A/D pair recently (for inserting analog processing) and it revealed too much of the distortion in some of my rock and roll sources. I actually preferred a slightly more forgiving converter pair for rock, one that clips a little more forgivingly, is VERY slightly euphonic but not at all colored per se, just not as ultimately accurate as the converter pair I rejected. I don't regret my decision at all. The number of occasions where the EXTREMELY transparent converter would have prove to be a better choice, even with classical music (when on occasion I want to do analog processing) has proved to be very small. So, I must admit, that some small amount of "forgiveness and tolerance", while not coloration per se, has proved to be best for my operation. I don't know what to make of this; it doesn't mean I've given up my purist background, but it does mean that I've grown a bit more practical.

The converter pair I use is highly respected, known to be "transparent" but let's say on the "liquid" side of transparent, which I have now determined is a better place for me to be!

WTF? you gotta be kidding me? and you call youself a masteringengineer? You are a charlatan.

[bob katz]

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.

I wonder if "reducing contrast" is the right description of a processor or processors that result in bringing out inner details and making them clearer, enhancing depth and other factors. If each instrument has an even better defined space and all the notes can be heard better, is this a reduction of contrast? So my question is, if "everything" is made clearer and a veil seems to be removed, without hurting the sound or the tonality or enhancing the tonality (e.g. retaining warmth while still being clearer)---is this a reduction of contrast or an improvement in contrast?

[Joe_caithness]

Originally Posted by philip

WTF? you gotta be kidding me? and you call youself a masteringengineer? You are a charlatan.

big lol

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by bob katz

I wonder if "reducing contrast" is the right description of a processor or processors that result in bringing out inner details and making them clearer, enhancing depth and other factors?

That isn't what people generally mean by "color" or character in my experience.

[Doc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

I'm wondering if any Mastering Engineers REGULARLY (typed thread title too quickly) use the more character-oriented converters on projects. (Burl, JCF Audio, Universal Audio, etc.)These units have unique sounds - do they work well in everyday mastering chains and on a wide range of material or only on occasion?

This one is definitely suited for use in the context of your mix. The Burl ADC sounds like the Great River to me, [I know, stupid comparison, but what I am saying is that its sounds like GOOD IRON] which I believe is not a bad thing. {{{I am not a mastering engineer}}} Just a guy who likes something different hitting my earhole. The DAV-8 is eight custom AMPEX 351 line amps being fed from a simple AES receiver. Its not subtle.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

That isn't what people generally mean by "color" or character in my experience.

Interesting. I guess I lump anything that changes the sound in the general definition of "character". But regardless, I would not put that in to the converters, it should be available in external processing.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

I'm wondering if any Mastering Engineers REGULARLY (typed thread title too quickly) use the more character-oriented converters on projects. (Burl, JCF Audio, Universal Audio, etc.)These units have unique sounds - do they work well in everyday mastering chains and on a wide range of material or only on occasion?

No. If I want coloration it comes from somewhere else, never the conversion.


DC

[BringItBack]

So the consensus seems to be that transparency in converters is the rule for a mastering chain. It just seems to me that some of these converters are doing things sonically that are hard to duplicate with one or more units preceding a transparent converter. A "character" converter could shorten a mastering chain when it is understood by the ME and the client that their mix will sound significantly different.

I'm not talking about alchemy, I'm talking about legit mixes where the client is familiar with the effect that certain converters will have on a good mix and signs up for that. I mean Lavry, Weiss, Prism are advertised in the mastering gear lists along with the compressors, software etc. because people recognize the sound and/or the name. Why couldn't it be the same with character converters? I understand the need for extreme clarity on the monitoring side but not in the mastering chain.

[Riccardo]

I prefer transparency as well. When color is needed it usually comes from other processors like the Requisite L2 or the Elysia.

[Bob Olhsson]

Let me repeat, by far the best place to introduce character is in the mix where you still have control over the individual elements of the recording.

Mixers should never be trying to second-guess a mastering engineer. They should be making their mix sound exactly like what they and their client want to hear to the very best of their ability.

[lucey]

The idea is to preserve all that's good in the mix, and then add what can be added to that. This presumes a very clean starting point.

It's a matter of respect and of musicality, that serves all parties. The more the mix comes through the more interesting and diverse the catalog for the mastering engineer.

[wado1942]

A friend of mine has a Delta 1010, does that count? I don't think he actually uses it much anymore though. It has 16-bit performance in 24-bit mode, lots of aliasing etc. It actually gets worse at 96KHz.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by wado1942

It actually gets worse at 96KHz.

well that's not good ...

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by wado1942

It actually gets worse at 96KHz.

Nice. I wonder how they managed to pull that off...

[wado1942]

Nice. I wonder how they managed to pull that off.

Everything in it is fixed except the clock which is effectively a variable analogue oscillator.

[BringItBack]

I get that in a mastering context, color converters are like tinting the microscope lens instead of the slide being looked at. But you can wind up with a great mix, from a great mixing engineer that could still benefit from a pass through those type of converters. If you liked a specific converter's sound and you use it during mixdown, a pass through the most transparent mastering chain and converters would still alter the sound very slightly, and unnecessarily if the color converter had been used at the end of the mastering chain instead of being used at mixdown.

Specific A/D conversion requests are probably a rare circumstance nowadays, but probably won't be in a couple years for tracking and even mastering.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Let me repeat, by far the best place to introduce character is in the mix where you still have control over the individual elements of the recording.

Mixers should never be trying to second-guess a mastering engineer. They should be making their mix sound exactly like what they and their client want to hear to the very best of their ability.

Yup, Mixers should NEVER try to second guess a mastering engineer. And Mastering engineers should never try to second guess what the mixer was intending!

But if both the mix engineer and the mastering engineer can agree that the master sounds better than the mix, and a remix is not possible, and/or the mixing engineer feels he has already done the best job he can do, I'm comfortable with whatever method (character included) the mastering engineer employs to get the better-sounding result.

Doug Sax tends to use his sweet-sounding tube gear on many mastering jobs. Whatever character it adds to the equation, people seem to like a lot. Perhaps we need to define what "character" means...

BK

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

If you liked a specific converter's sound and you use it during mixdown, a pass through the most transparent mastering chain and converters would still alter the sound very slightly, and unnecessarily if the color converter had been used at the end of the mastering chain instead of being used at mixdown. .

That's precisely why digital rather than analog processing is sometimes the best sounding solution.

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. Should somebody manufacture such a product, I suppose there might be a demand for it. At this point the idea is pretty hypothetical.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

Specific A/D conversion requests are probably a rare circumstance nowadays, but probably won't be in a couple years for tracking and even mastering.

And musicians will be replaced by MIDI computers?

It's not about the gear, it's about the results. Anyone asking me to use certain gear is really not well informed.

I choose the chain, you just do you best to bring something great!

Originally Posted by bob katz

Doug Sax tends to use his sweet-sounding tube gear on many mastering jobs. Whatever character it adds to the equation, people seem to like a lot. Perhaps we need to define what "character" means...

True, true. Color is a relative term, from euphonics to distortion. A Burl AD is too much color, thus distortion. My Fairman and the Pacific's top end are a color I use all the time.

[BringItBack]

OK Mr. "It's not about the gear, it's about the results. Anyone asking me to use certain gear is really not well informed."

Why bother with a gear list then. I see you have your converters right there at the top of your gear list on your site. But why bother with those recognizable brand names and descriptions when instead you could just list "converters that yield great results". You list your equipment so you can attract business from people who have heard the name brands you're using or have used/heard the equipment before and like the idea of running their material through it.

Excluding the non-transparent converters from the conversation - If you happened to have varying types of transparent A/D converters readily available and a client prefers and requests a specific one, you would regard them as uninformed, of course, but would you humor them or send them packing? What if someone preferred a certain EQ or compressor? If somebody has a crappy mix and bad ears and they're making random suggestions and experimenting that's one thing - but as long as the sound is improved and the results and workflow remain professional, what is the big deal?

[Riccardo]

Input from the customer/client (be it the labels, A&R, Artist) is one thing and always welcomed/encouraged. Trying to understand what the project is all about is important to any serious ME. Trying to accomplish the artists vision is king.

The artist, customer or A&R making production decision at the mastering stage is plain wrong. It does happen sometimes out of insecurity, inexperience and sometimes plain ignorance and lack of organization.

The client requesting a specific piece of equipment would extend a decision making process from the mixing to the mastering stage whereas what we bring to the table is a security check, non-involved opinion, different ears, room , monitors and so on. Any gear driven suggestion or request by the client would defeat the very purpose of post production.

The gear list is because most people even if repeatedly told won't get it. We keep saying it is the man/woman before the gear. The room and the monitoring before the processing. The experience before the tools. Most of this still goes in and out of peoples brain without leaving a trace.

I guess a gear list is also useful to sort of distinguish or help categorize the price bracket of a facility.

Regarding your comment about crappy ears/mixes. One common problem (and it was raised in another ongoing thread the other day) is level/perceived loudness.
Too many times has happened that the ME states to the client "this is the limit, your mix potential loudness limit, any louder than this and it will awfully distort" and the client listening through basic monitoring (with induced distortion and low resolution drivers, amps, converters and monitoring) going "yeah it sounds fine on my studio
speakers, make it louder" This is another example where our ability/experience to tell the customer where to stop is completely defeated and annihilated. I am not talking about a level/loudness preference here but rather about the inability on the customer side (lack of experience as well as a lack of means) to listen to what really is going on in their mixes. Normal procedure would be "yes I go to mastering to make sure the level is adequate and not distorting, the balance is the best possible given my mix, Mr ME please do your job so that I can relax thinking all this things are being taken care of"

[macc]

Originally Posted by Riccardo

The gear list is because most people even if repeatedly told won't get it. We keep saying it is the man/woman before the gear. The room and the monitoring before the processing. The experience before the tools. Most of this still goes in and out odf peoples brain without leaving a trace.

Signature worthy, that.

[BringItBack]

I see your point Riccardo.

I was thinking along the lines of a client being attracted by references, maybe a sample and a gear list and knowing that they like the sound of a specific piece of gear in the Mastering Chain. The client arrives with the mix(es) and inquires about a certain type of gear being used to achieve the sound the client likes. The ME deliberates (or at least pretends to) for a few seconds based on what he knows regarding the sound/quality of that specific project and the mastering chain and workflow and responds with - That's not a good idea/We can try it but if it doesn't sound right you still get billed for the time/That could work but I think I know what you're trying to do and I'll get there another way - or something to that effect. I'm not saying someone should walk in and demand a specific chain and the ME has to oblige because the customer is always right but I think that there has to be an occasional tip picked up from a client who actually has a good idea (based on experience) regarding how to get the sound they want in a professional manner with a certain piece of equipment. I do agree that the ME has to check the client when they are sure something won't work. I'm not one of those loudness junkies though - I like detail, dynamics and volume knobs.


Concerning the topic of the thread - it seems most ME's don't even have any non-transparent A/D converters in their setups, so it's safe to say the answer is no.

[Riccardo]

I agree that the customer is always right and that we are in service business. At the end of the day if the customer still wants it smashed to pieces............... well .....
What I was trying to convey is that a "certain color" or sound of a particular piece of gear belongs to the mixing stage rather than the mastering.
Same as per the ongoing topic about wideners. That is achieved in the mix. Most of the times in mastering those tools are used to "dig deep" and fix issues when a recall of te mix is impossible rather than to artificially widen the stereo sound stage.

Back to the original topic I do prefer transparent conversion. With tubes and transformers already present in outboard gear I want to clearly hear how much every piece is contributing.

Having the option to offer colored conversion because times have changed and mastering is being seen as an extension of the mixing process where some pieces are not available for total lack of funds is a totally different matter. I still believe mastering should remain a different process where Q.C. and translation are the main targets for our service but at the same time I could understand younger engineers and producers trying to achieve something that just a decade ago was taken for granted (large format console, top analogue and digital MTRs, custom monitoring, control room designs, Fairchilds piled up in corners, drawers with C12's , M49s, 47s, 56s and so on, not to talk about apprenticeship and so on)

[BringItBack]

My logic (or lack thereof) was that if I wanted to use the converters themselves to influence the sound, I would probably want the ME to do it, if at all. I think the sound of the converter (if that's what one is trying to incorporate in the track) would be most apparent if all the eq and compression were done with it at the end of the chain.

I guess it makes sense that it would go against an ME's instincts to place a non-transparent, non-adjustable unit that cannot be bypassed in the mastering chain.

I do think that if it were going to be done (and had to clearly audible on the final master) mastering would be the best place to do it. I don't even like buss compressors at mixdown so I can't see asking the mix engineer to run the mix through converters that I was sure I wanted to hear on the final master. The ME would have better ears, room, monitoring, etc. - if it couldn't be done in mastering I probably wouldn't use the "character" converters at all rather than send them through an extra round of conversion at mixdown and wait to see how much of that sound survives the next round of tweaking and conversion in mastering.

[lucey]

This all seems hypothetical.

When you have an actual mix, you have an actual vision for it. The mastering is there to further that vision, and a cleaner converter is needed because most mixes are pretty close.

If an actual mix needs more color then mastering outboard and gain staging can do it.

End of story.