mastering stragegies when working with sparse mixes

[bonne]

I was reading the thread "Hate to Say it (mastering overrated story)" and wonder if a sparse mix with no heavy guitars/bass/drumkit/synths etc. would be easier to get ready for CD without or with little mastering, than say a full dense mix.

Let's say you only had a few acoustic instruments and vocals, a minimalist singer/songwriter type setup like you hear quite often at the moment.

Jørn

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by bonne

I was reading the thread "Hate to Say it (mastering overrated story)" and wonder if a sparse mix with no heavy guitars/bass/drumkit/synths etc. would be easier to get ready for CD without or with little mastering, than say a full dense mix.

Let's say you only had a few acoustic instruments and vocals, a minimalist singer/songwriter type setup like you hear quite often at the moment.

Jørn

Hmmmmm.... maybe you've answered your own question. :-). The more complex (potentially congested) a mix is, probably the harder it is to master. But I must say that I hear a lot of ruined acoustic masters lately, as the acoustic artists have started to join the loudness wars. That's another salvo, as the next step would be for the electric artists to complain that they're not louder than Norah Jones. The problem is that Norah Jones has been overcompressed and made overly loud.

But to return to your question, I think a "hands-off" mastering engineer (one who only adds processes if they would help the mastering) would probably have a much easier time of mastering a quiet, minimalist recording than a complex, highly arranged recording.

[bonne]

Hi Bob,

Am I right in assuming that the sparser mix might not even need much prosessing in mastering, other than adjusting levels between tracks, somewhat like smaller ensembles in classical music.

Fewer sound components competing in the overall soundstage leaving each component more room without being masked by other more dominant elements (read: bass drum, bass, synths, powerchords etc.).

Jørn

PS: Got your book for my birthday last year. A GREAT READ!! Thanks!

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by bonne

Hi Bob,

Am I right in assuming that the sparser mix might not even need much prosessing in mastering, other than adjusting levels between tracks, somewhat like smaller ensembles in classical music.

Fewer sound components competing in the overall soundstage leaving each component more room without being masked by other more dominant elements (read: bass drum, bass, synths, powerchords etc.).

Jørn

PS: Got your book for my birthday last year. A GREAT READ!! Thanks!

Hi, Jem. Wonderful you like my book. My next challenge is seeing if I can create an even more comprehensive second edition that's just as easy to read.

Any style mix, if the mix is good, needs less (or no) mastering processing. So, the better the mix, no matter what type of mix, the less processing it needs. A client of mine doing rock and I have a little contest going to see when he can produce a mix that needs absolutely no mastering processing. I define "needs" as if the mastering helps make the mix sound better, not worse.

A lot of mastering engineers are staying in business just because someone thinks you have to process a "dense mix" to make it louder even if the mix already sounds excellent and cannot be improved.

[lucey]

Recording is a collaborative craft, there are always options. If any mix is good (whatever that may mean) mastering is like rolling a ball downhill, a ball that can be pushed easily from target to target. If the mix is not good the ground is flat or maybe uphill, the ball can get heavy, and the targets are more limited ... some are impossible. The mix is important, not the style.

Simple music with dynamics that has good level and EQ relationships from instrument to instrument yet is out of EQ balance overall has as many options for a new EQ layout as does a dense rock mix that's balanced in terms of EQ and has many choices for level/loudness. Choices, choices.

Originally Posted by bob katz

...I define "needs" as if the mastering helps make the mix sound better, not worse...

A lot of mastering engineers are staying in business just because someone thinks you have to process a "dense mix" to make it louder even if the mix already sounds excellent and cannot be improved.

That's rather presumptuous. Any judgment of "needs" or "improved" is in the ear of the client ... and going to mastering is the choice of the client. If a client wants something more than the mix offers them they can choose to remix and/or go to mastering. If they're happy, they're happy. It's as simple as that.


(bonne, I've never heard any mix in any style that couldn't be a little better through mastering, and from all the anecdotes that mixers tell of their own 'best' work even those mixes get a little something to push them up a notch. The only internationally known rock mixer whose mixes I've heard did very dense work and was wide open to ME interpretation, as his records show.)

[bob katz]

In response to:

Originally Posted by bob katz
I define "needs" as if the mastering helps make the mix sound better, not worse...

Originally Posted by lucey

That's rather presumptuous. Any judgment of "needs" or "improved" is in the ear of the client ...

Brian, there's nothing in sentence 1 above that says "in the ear of the mastering engineer". That's rather presumptuous of you, too!

[lucey]

Easy now. You made this criticism ...

A lot of mastering engineers are staying in business just because someone thinks you have to process a "dense mix" to make it louder even if the mix already sounds excellent and cannot be improved.

This is ragging on MEs (or clients) who are making things loud because loud is better to them ... yes? Mixes that "cannot be improved" ... right? That would be according to you, yes?

I'm saying that the people making the record have the say of what's right or wrong, improved or not. Obviously there's a lot of fear of 'not being loud enough' ... fear that I wish was not there ... but it's still their call.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by lucey

Easy now. You made this criticism ...




This is ragging on MEs (or clients) who are making things loud because loud is better to them ... yes? Mixes that "cannot be improved" ... right? That would be according to you, yes?

Fair enough. But don't paint me into a corner by bending my words because this situation is a serious problem. And undenyingly there are a lot of mastering engineers taking advantage of this fear to make money because the EASIEST thing any masteirng engineer can do is make a recording louder. But doing it while also subjectively improving the sound is a whole other story.

Regardless, in terms of your point... of course there is no accounting for taste. If a client really LIKES it squashed, edgy, harsh, squared, distorted, bright, narrow, small, and fatiguing----then let 'em do it. I've a few of my clients that actually like it that way. I can state 100 OBJECTIVE reasons why that's a mistake, but after explaining some of them to them, if that's the way they want it, I make sound "fantastic" (to them). By the way, that forces me to just turn my monitors down to elevator music level; which is exactly how their fatiguing-sounding music will probably be listened to. But please don't turn this discussion into strictly an argument over taste... there are some complex issues here, and an M.E. who stands up and discusses what good music sounds like is a perfectly valid thing.

[lucey]

The Golden Rule says "he with the gold makes the rules", and in this case it's the clients. That's all I'm saying.

Yes, Fear and Greed are both very serious problems ... both globally, and in music. In music, fear is expressed through over-limiting ... to keep up with the Joneses. It's the over-chemicalled-manicured-lawn-syndrome of suburbia, and there is no way that you or I will stop it. You wrote a nice book, are knowledgeable, and you have music at heart ... yet I'm done listening to MEs blame other MEs for what clients demand, over and over in an attempt to make themselves superior.

Powerful technology, fear, and a 50 year push for "louder" are a reality beyond ... "A lot of mastering engineers are staying in business just because someone thinks you have to process a "dense mix" to make it louder even if the mix already sounds excellent and cannot be improved."

Like you, I have explained the thing repeatedly to clients, and that's all I can do .... but there is still a reality out there, a half-century long trend ... and that human foe called Fear. Until the top MEs get together on a standard for first passes, a strategy I've outlined numerous times, or until this ancient trend passes (and both are unlikely) this is the world we live in.