Bob Katz rocks! - An A/B Mastering comparison

[jordanstoner]

Just wanted to update any who are interested - the album is now in online stores, including iTunes and Amazon.com. Just search for "View From Space."

P.S. Merry Christmas to all Slutz!

[fuse]

Originally Posted by kjg

Choosing to compete is a decision that always influences the product. And indeed it is a business decision. So, what does it have to do with art? If you want to make NO compromise anything, you have to accept that this might influence your sales.

An artist can choose to compete as part of his/her artistic views. Compare it to an architect that wants to build a 1 mile high skyscraper. An artist could try and make the best selling album of all time. But would that then be a business decision or an artistic view? In this case it can be both.

Part of being an ME is being able to give a honest opinion about a mix. With your kind of reasoning you couldn't because an ME can't taking the artistic value into account so he cannot value any mix since clipping and skewed mixes could be done on purpose. ME's are being paid for valuing mixes and adjust them according to what the client indicates and their own ideas. In fact the reason why most people go for a certain ME is because of his/her previous work so they really value his/her input.

To the OP. Good for you if you like the "1995" sound. Personally I liked the discussion because as a consumer I would like to see more "1995" out there so I can bothered to buy more music. As an ME I try to force customers into stepping down on the loudness war because you'll get gutted on GS about it.

[Edward_Vinatea]

Originally Posted by fuse

An artist can choose to compete as part of his/her artistic views.

I don't think we make records to "compete" but because we have a passion to create something that is beautiful, inspiring and driving to us. Those who choose to do this motivated by the lure of fame and money usually {if not always} end up making a mediocre record.

Compare it to an architect that wants to build a 1 mile high skyscraper. An artist could try and make the best selling album of all time. But would that then be a business decision or an artistic view? In this case it can be both.

No one can plan to make the best selling album of all times, that is simply false. Having said that, circumstances in life {timing, good material, good marketing, promotion etc} may result in high unexpected record sales.

Part of being an ME is being able to give a honest opinion about a mix.

There are very few ME's that are sought after for this alone. I am one of those few that have no problem doing that even though the client may sometimes cancel the job. Other than process and do QC to the material's sequence, criticizing mixes is not the function of a ME.

With your kind of reasoning you couldn't because an ME can't taking the artistic value into account so he cannot value any mix since clipping and skewed mixes could be done on purpose. ME's are being paid for valuing mixes and adjust them according to what the client indicates and their own ideas.

I don't think what Klaas-Jan said was flawed, the ME shouldn't really attempt to correct anything without instructions from the client, thus communication is paramount, however, when no specific instructions {other than level} have been given, the ME should try to present or polish the final product without really trying to add or make a drastic change to the mix balance. In this case: Jordan wanted more dynamics, point taken by Bob K. Jordan understands the trade offs of that decision.

In fact the reason why most people go for a certain ME is because of his/her previous work so they really value his/her input.

True, but this need is only so much the result of 'hype'. There are many capable MEs who don't work for major labels that can do a great job just as well.

Regards,

[fuse]

Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea

I don't think we make records to "compete" but because we have a passion to create something that is beautiful, inspiring and driving to us. Those who choose to do this motivated by the lure of fame and money usually {if not always} end up making a mediocre record.

Now you're just being artistic represionist because you're limiting an artist in his/her choice of artistic expression. About 100yr ago there was this artist who canned his own feces and at that day it was considered being un-artsy. Same way you can consider your view of point on the fact that an artist wants to compete in some way. E.g. what about having the first concert in space?

No one can plan to make the best selling album of all times, that is simply false. Having said that, circumstances in life {timing, good material, good marketing, promotion etc} may result in high unexpected record sales.

Wouldn't be that the best incentive, that it cannot be done. If you would sell the album for 1ct and spend lots in advertising you might be able to reach that goal anyway.

There are very few ME's that are sought after for this alone. I am one of those few that have no problem doing that even though the client may sometimes cancel the job. Other than process and do QC to the material's sequence, criticizing mixes is not the function of a ME.

How can you perform a QC when you do not fully understand the artistic meaning of the material. What if the clients tries to record a rock album which is mixed like a jazz record? What if the artist would create an organ composed of jet engines which would result in badly clipping mixes? Would that be intentional or not?

I don't think what Klaas-Jan said was flawed, the ME shouldn't really attempt to correct anything without instructions from the client, thus communication is paramount, however, when no specific instructions {other than level} have been given, the ME should try to present or polish the final product without really trying to add or make a drastic change to the mix balance. In this case: Jordan wanted more dynamics, point taken by Bob K. Jordan understands the trade offs of that decision.
...snip....
True, but this need is only so much the result of 'hype'. There are many capable MEs who don't work for major labels that can do a great job just as well.

Beside the 'hype' an artist still can choose a ME that he/she thinks will be suited for the particular album because of the 'sound' of their previous work. Otherwise every ME could have the exact same setup as everyone else and it wouldn't matter. Would that choice of picking a ME be an artistic choice or a business choice?

My point would be that this isn't a black and white issue but depends on context. Communication indeed is paramount but never perfect. So you'll always end up with a blind spot which you as ME have to fill in to your own opinion because it's impossible to think like your client. In theory that would be artistic repression but during normal (daily) jobs it's impossible to avoid fully. You'll then end up discussing a matter of taste whether how little an ME should do.

[Edward_Vinatea]

Originally Posted by fuse

Now you're just being artistic represionist because you're limiting an artist in his/her choice of artistic expression. About 100yr ago there was this artist who canned his own feces and at that day it was considered being un-artsy. Same way you can consider your view of point on the fact that an artist wants to compete in some way. E.g. what about having the first concert in space?

Why do you need to go to the extreme of creating a picture of feces in connection with my opinion? Please, don't blow a fuse on me for saying something you don't agree We are only discussing points of view. Anyway, what you said "artistic represionist"? I am not tying to repress art in any way. I am only saying that those who get into the business for the wrong reasons never make it. At best, they are well known for their music mediocrity which ironically means they can not compete with a great musician-songwriter or performer who enjoys high volume sales because his/her music has great demand. These differences are not premeditatedly planned, either you have it or you don't, that's the big distinction.

Wouldn't be that the best incentive, that it cannot be done. If you would sell the album for 1ct and spend lots in advertising you might be able to reach that goal anyway.

The best incentive is to know that you will have fulfillment, joy and you'll be sharing that with others. The fact that you can make money in the process is strictly business not art.

How can you perform a QC when you do not fully understand the artistic meaning of the material.

I don't need to 'understand' the music to do 'QC' and simply check things to make sure the material has no sonic issues. If there is a flat note or something out of tune, that's not the purpose of quality control to me.

What if the clients tries to record a rock album which is mixed like a jazz record? What if the artist would create an organ composed of jet engines which would result in badly clipping mixes? Would that be intentional or not?

One can make an unorthodox mix, that's not the point and has nothing to do with doing QC. You can do whatever you want as an artist and/or as engineer, as long as you communicate to the ME what you expect from the mastering, you can send whatever mix you please.

Beside the 'hype' an artist still can choose a ME that he/she thinks will be suited for the particular album because of the 'sound' of their previous work. Otherwise every ME could have the exact same setup as everyone else and it wouldn't matter. Would that choice of picking a ME be an artistic choice or a business choice?

Many non 'A-List clients' MEs list their equipment on their sites, so it wouldn't be too difficult to know if they understand the kind of sound you are looking for. Their discographies will also let you know if they are experienced in a particular music style.

My point would be that this isn't a black and white issue but depends on context. Communication indeed is paramount but never perfect. So you'll always end up with a blind spot which you as ME have to fill in to your own opinion because it's impossible to think like your client. In theory that would be artistic repression but during normal (daily) jobs it's impossible to avoid fully. You'll then end up discussing a matter of taste whether how little an ME should do.

Aren't all these concerns, questions and dilemmas what we discuss every day on this forum ad nauseum?

[fuse]

I'm very sorry Edward but I don't think you're really paying attention to the content of my messages. Please try and read it again and this time try to be unbiased as much as you can.

[Edward_Vinatea]

Originally Posted by fuse

I'm very sorry Edward but I don't think you're really paying attention to the content of my messages. Please try and read it again and this time try to be unbiased as much as you can.

What part of your comments would you like me to read again? And, am I biased to what?

[Zownd]

Originally Posted by bmanic

I agree 100% with this statement. It is technically fixing some problems in the mix, very transparently, but I also think it is way too subtle and kind of misses that polished "it has been mastered" sound that I usually go for. Of course this is all depending on the clients wishes but that mix would have benefit from this quite a lot I think.

Cheers!
bManic

I'm in the same boat! it's very neat! the original mix is done very very well!
Would love some more b@lls in the mastering! that said, if the client is happy Bob will be happy :-)

Cheers,
Mark

[kjg]

Originally Posted by fuse

An artist can choose to compete as part of his/her artistic views. Compare it to an architect that wants to build a 1 mile high skyscraper. An artist could try and make the best selling album of all time. But would that then be a business decision or an artistic view? In this case it can be both.

My point was phrased in the context of the discussion and concerned choosing to compete with commercial products for sales.

An architect that wants to build a one mile high skycraper will probably not choose straw as a material. His wish to compete with other architects on height results in limitations on what he can do with regards to material. That is his choice. If is main goal is straw, he should not compete on height. If the goal is height, he can't use straw.
If your main goal is sales, do not release 11/8 Croatian speed bob-hop. If that music represents your aesthetic though, accept that sales might be not reach Britney levels.
Choice. No need to moderate.

I was simply saying that I do not believe in censoring the medium. If someone chooses extremely loud or quiet (relative to the limits of the medium), or all over the place, then so be it. This persons has his reasons and is free to make choices on how to use the medium, whether the reasons are commercially driven, artistically driven, or both.

Part of being an ME is being able to give a honest opinion about a mix. With your kind of reasoning you couldn't because an ME can't taking the artistic value into account so he cannot value any mix since clipping and skewed mixes could be done on purpose. ME's are being paid for valuing mixes and adjust them according to what the client indicates and their own ideas. In fact the reason why most people go for a certain ME is because of his/her previous work so they really value his/her input.

I do not understand how you get from what I said that an ME cannot take artistic choices in to account. He should.
An ME should work on the sound quality and presentational quality of a piece within the artistic reference frame set by the artist. An ME does not have to, and should not want to, provide artistic input. He should have become a writer or musician or maybe even arranger, producer, mixer instead.
That does not mean he is not creative, and it also does not mean he should not know the art and style of art to do his job well. Without a reference frame some calls are impossible to make.
If there is ambiguity about whether some aspect of the piece's sound quality should or should not be 'corrected' because it might be part of the artists vision: that's what a phone and refs are for.

Because of the ME's individuality, he will do his job differently than others, and some will prefer his approach over others'. Yes.

I don't see where we disagree, really.

Merry Christmas, btw
Klaas-Jan

[fuse]

Originally Posted by kjg

An ME does not have to, and should not want to, provide artistic input. He should have become a writer or musician or maybe even arranger, producer, mixer instead.

My point would be that sometimes it would be impossible to handle the material without (albeit slightly, if not abysmal small) alter the artistic value. Most ME have musical backgrounds anyway so they would need to have such a reference because it helps them.

The original post would be a perfect example for this. The original mix is considered lacking balls for some people. If I'm correct your take on beefing it up would be an artistic decision the artist should make. Still some would have altered to their vision anyway and would have presented that result to the artist. For the sake of the argument lets say the artist would have the same requirements for both cases yet the outcome would be different.
Then it's up to the artist if he/she likes this different version or not. It most certainly wouldn't be the first time that an artist (or A&R) accepts it even he/she isn't completely happy with it.

If there is ambiguity about whether some aspect of the piece's sound quality should or should not be 'corrected' because it might be part of the artists vision: that's what a phone and refs are for.

I think a lot of ME would attest to the fact that this would be an ideal situation and that they most likely would be confronted that a client would like to have it done before a certain deadline.
In that case it makes more sense to me doing exactly what the client asks of you. But not everybody does this and still can get away with it. And sometimes it is for the better because it gets higher sales an/or better reviews that way so I don't think it would be wrong by default.

Merry Xmas to you all as well.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by Shy

Sorry, the mastered version doesn't sound much better than the original to me except the improved overall frequency balance. The kick drum is still far too weak and clouded by the guitars, as is the snare. I agree with minister, much too polite.

You don't think that's a mix issue rather than a mastering issue or performance issue?

[LonDonsen]

Bob_Katz_SuperPro_vs_German_Amateur

I was just curious how a little german amateur like me who has tiny little mastering skills and cheapo gear like Ozone 4 etc. would compare to a super pro mastering legend with tons of experience and all that expensive hardware stuff! All I used was Ozone 4 and my 100€ AKG headphones!

Have a listen if you got that question as well (16bit 44,1kHz):

DOWNLOAD:
RapidShare: 1-CLICK Web hosting - Easy Filehosting

Listen with the soundcloud player:
bob-katz-superpro
german-amateur-ozone4



My conclusion is: Bob has a 100 times more experience and a 100 times better gear but only 1-5% better sound IN THIS CASE, but that's just a matter of taste, of course!

[Zownd]

My conclusion is: Bob has a 100 times more experience and a 100 times better gear but only 1-5% better sound IN THIS CASE, but that's just a matter of taste, of course![/QUOTE]


Dangerous grounds my friend.
Your version is louder therefore already hard to compare.
Your version misses punch on the drums
your version has boom in the vocals
Your version has more low end but the snare misses the size of bob's mastering.

besides this is a very good mix! so it didn't need that much.
Also mastering can very much be about subtleties. But to me this is not 5% my friend tutt
I would have made it more edgy, but the original mix-engineer is happy with what bob did and that is what counts.

That said it's a very good exercise :-) but it sounds like you tried to approach bob's master. It would be so much more interesting to hear what you'd do without listening to his version.

cheers,
Mark

[8080JP]

Originally Posted by LonDonsen

Bob_Katz_SuperPro_vs_German_Amateur

I was just curious how a little german amateur like me who has tiny little mastering skills and cheapo gear like Ozone 4 etc. would compare to a super pro mastering legend with tons of experience and all that expensive hardware stuff! All I used was Ozone 4 and my 100€ AKG headphones!

Have a listen if you got that question as well (16bit 44,1kHz):

DOWNLOAD:
RapidShare: 1-CLICK Web hosting - Easy Filehosting

Listen with the soundcloud player:
bob-katz-superpro
german-amateur-ozone4



My conclusion is: Bob has a 100 times more experience and a 100 times better gear but only 1-5% better sound IN THIS CASE, but that's just a matter of taste, of course!

THe main difference between the 2 versions is that the Bob Katz version sounds incredibly balanced where the other one has about 60 different frequencies or maybe less or more that stick out and make it more messy even thought the sound is clear.
Good attempt however, BETTER THAN WHAT I COULD DO

This could be because it is louder and different frequencies are fighting for space in the speakers.

I would give the Katz version 9 or 10 out of 10 because it is so balanced and that is the art of of the masterer.
It is friggin difficult to do.
I personally search for masterers who can do that.


Also in the context of an album maybe the song required to be less bassy as a contrast to the next super bass heavy track.


When masterers get it like that there is a good chance of the record selling in massive loads.

When there are 2 many bumps everywhere, in the ninetees the record would have been thrown in the bin.

However in the noughtees there are alot more bumps generally because of the loudness.

Remember this, it is impossible for the musician to create those eq bumps
so its not good if the masterer sticks them in.

[Edward_Vinatea]

Originally Posted by LonDonsen

My conclusion is: Bob has a 100 times more experience and a 100 times better gear but only 1-5% better sound IN THIS CASE, but that's just a matter of taste, of course!

Sorry, but your conclusions are biased and flawed. You should always read all posts to understand the context of a thread. This I say with the intention to help you in future posts.

Regards,

[DamnYankee]

Originally Posted by LonDonsen

Bob_Katz_SuperPro_vs_German_Amateur

I was just curious how a little german amateur like me who has tiny little mastering skills and cheapo gear like Ozone 4 etc. would compare to a super pro mastering legend with tons of experience and all that expensive hardware stuff! All I used was Ozone 4 and my 100€ AKG headphones!

Have a listen if you got that question as well (16bit 44,1kHz):

DOWNLOAD:
RapidShare: 1-CLICK Web hosting - Easy Filehosting

Listen with the soundcloud player:
bob-katz-superpro
german-amateur-ozone4



My conclusion is: Bob has a 100 times more experience and a 100 times better gear but only 1-5% better sound IN THIS CASE, but that's just a matter of taste, of course!

Uhhh... you're starting off with a great mix to start with. Secondly, I'm not sure what you're hearing but the Superpro soundbite is very, very smooth. The other amateur version sounds very brittle.

[Beyersound]

Originally Posted by datune

Seriously, I know people who buy a $120 5.1 Logitech Speaker System for their computer and think they have a good system!

;-)

Some of the most important overall mix assessments can be made on little computer speakers! tutt