Create your own sound and forget about reference records?

[misjah]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

Mastering your own mixes is a bit of a challenge anyway, but I would do whatever puts a smile on your face when you listen to the track. If you are going to make a huge sonic sacrifice for the sake of level and not like the outcome chances are other people will feel the same.

+1

[thehightenor]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

Mastering your own mixes is a bit of a challenge anyway, but I would do whatever puts a smile on your face when you listen to the track. If you are going to make a huge sonic sacrifice for the sake of level and not like the outcome chances are other people will feel the same.

Yes, that's an excellent point.

You'd think record labels putting out artists even of the ilk of Sting would think the same way - maybe it's my age but I find albums with 2dB of dynamic range virtually unlistenable yet that's how they keep coming record after record.

I know this is a tired old subject (loudness) but it strikes me as a bit of an irony that an artist who only has to please himself (as a first base at least) get's to have his recordings with the least amount of sonic damage simply because there's no need to do otherwise.

Finally .... a postive slant to my utter commerical failure

tht

[JTransition]

I don't listen to reference tracks unless its a attended session and the customer insists ,whilst I do occasionally listen to a new cd or vinyl purchase in the studio that's about it.
Reading this thread I can see that I am clearly in the minority on this though which is cool because when I tried listening to refs @ the start of my career I found it to be a distraction.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by Fat larry

when I tried listening to refs @ the start of my career I found it to be a distraction.

It certainly can be.

Pop on a recent hit and notice, "Hey, that track is faster, more exciting, fatter" whatever and the next thing you're doing is figuring out why that track is doing that and you're trying to do the same. Forgetting that your track might be better in a different way. Paranoia sets in. "Why doesn't my song sound like that?" Answer - It's not your track. That one already exists. If you want what that track has then you're not an artist. You want that artist's success.

[Ninja_Edit]

a) Find an album you like the sound of, not one with the most similar composition.
b) Reference at an equal apparent volume.

[finetuner]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

... Paranoia sets in. "Why doesn't my song sound like that?" Answer - It's not your track. That one already exists. If you want what that track has then you're not an artist. You want that artist's success.

+1

We all learn by copying others, thats perfectly normal.
And you'll never stop learning - by experimenting and at times maybe by trying to figure out productions that put that smile on your face indeed.

Use that as a mental reference if you like, but trying to copy a sound of a different artist / composition / production 1:1 to your own production at hand seems pointless.

The answer is in the O.P.'s question - it's the paranoia that sets in as we deviate from that.

[ciperlone]

Reference tracks are good to use as a reference, but not to be copied. Unless your song has the exact same spirit as the reference track.
My reference tracks are songs that sound great to me, in terms of Music and production.
I use SOME reference tracks from John Mayer, because they don't feel over compressed and sound really good. But there are some Mayer'a songs that are not so good to me,that don't sound good for whatever reason.

For me, reference tracks are great to wash my ears, and I think that is their main purpose.

When I'm mixing, I usually lower the volume of reference tracks.
When I'm mastering (and competing with the loudness war), I know I'm close to finish when my Master sounds louder (but transparent) then many commercial albums, but less loud then every commercial album.

Loud is good, but there is a limit to limiting.
I don't like the sound of too loud albums, because they destroy the sound. If the listener wants to listen to it really loud, there's the volume knob for that.

[Adam Dempsey]

Every is project on its own merits and with respect to the mixes, but also whatever it takes.

Just yesterday: a split 7 inch (one artist each side). Both excellent, one needed just 2 bands of EQ, the other needing more EQ and significant compression (recorded as a run-through without mics even being finally set up, but it captured the "darker", "brooding" and roomy vibe). It would have been completely against the grain of that track for it to be as bright as the other one.

I sometimes offer reference tracks purely for new clients to get a feel for the mastering room and full range monitors... what translates in terms of lows/mids/tops and imaging.

[Joe_caithness]

Reference tracks = calibrate ears to space, wake you up a bit before working, drop em in every now and again to recalibrate

Copy? Aim to achieve? no.

[t_d]

i feel lucky because i work primarily in the experimental and avant garde genres where "rules" takes a back seat to overall space and mood. people tend to come to me because i have a "sound" and don't try to be scientific and transparent.

the more years i spend doing this the more i realize how flowing and spontaneous mastering can be, as opposed to adhering to strict technical guidelines and "norms."

[huejahfink]

Sometimes I have no choice but to match references because I've got a few clients who use me to 'pick up the spares' like adding digital bonus tracks to existing masters etc.

That can be a bit frustrating if the other engineer has done things to the audio that I would really rather not do (extreme brightness, clipping etc).
Still it's a challenge and I welcome the work!

[4damind]

Reference records/tracks are not bad, different styles often having a different "preferred" sound. I use sometimes for mastering reference tracks of records where I personally would say that they have very, very good sound.
But more for getting a idea about the loudness, frequency balance and stuff.

As somebody said "calibrating the ears" is a good description for this reference tracks/records

[grandmasters]

Sorry to say but this is a perfect example of why the mixing engineer should never master. You'll second guess it to death. The whole point of mastering is the 'third ear'... otherwise, what's the point?

[4damind]

Sometimes also the "third ear" will fail (also big names in the business). Some producers stopped to use mastering studios, because the quality was often not the expected quality.
It's all no rocket science and if people invest the time to learn the basics, having the tools, the ears and the results can bear comparison with other productions, why not.
There are no rules or things set in stone.

[skyy38]

In order to copy reference tracks down to and including the bone, you have to have the same gear, methods and people, which really isn't all that likely.

I was using the original soundtrack as a reference for my version of the Imperial Motif but I wasn't trying to do a replication- I was trying to capture the *impression*. Tempo and Key are different because I wasn't playing back the original over and over....

Original Imperial Motif-

Imperial Motif Ex From OST by skyy38 on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

And Me-

Imperial Motif by skyy38 on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

[grandmasters]

You can use that argument to dismiss everything from Doctors to Zoo Keepers. This is a Mastering Webboard so I assume most the people here believe in and support mastering.

I stand by my original statement that mastering should be done by mastering engineers.

And yes.... there are a lot of rules when it comes to mastering.

Originally Posted by 4damind

Sometimes also the "third ear" will fail (also big names in the business). Some producers stopped to use mastering studios, because the quality was often not the expected quality.
It's all no rocket science and if people invest the time to learn the basics, having the tools, the ears and the results can bear comparison with other productions, why not.
There are no rules or things set in stone.

[Jerry Tubb]

Originally Posted by grandmasters

I stand by my original statement that mastering should be done by mastering engineers.

Yes, and I stand with your statement as well.

No harm in the home afficiando experimenting with mastering, but when it's time for the real deal, build a relationship with a pro.

JT

[4damind]

The difference is that you need a degree to be called a doctor. Everybody can name himself a mastering engineer.

Mastering should be done by the people achieving the best results. Often this are specialised mastering guys but sometimes mastering/mixing/producers are the same people and they making great tracks with a great sound The result counts.

Originally Posted by grandmasters

You can use that argument to dismiss everything from Doctors to Zoo Keepers. This is a Mastering Webboard so I assume most the people here believe in and support mastering.

I stand by my original statement that mastering should be done by mastering engineers.

And yes.... there are a lot of rules when it comes to mastering.

[grandmasters]

You're not understanding. I'm not talking about Doctors, I'm talking about any expertise. If you're saying that anyone can learn anything and do a good job at it, I respectfully disagree.

We need experts. We rely on them. Real mastering engineers are experts in what they do. A degree means nothing to expertise.

"Mastering should be done by the people achieving the best results"
- That's totally relative. What someone thinks is the 'best result' may not be what someone (or everyone) else thinks. There is a big part of mastering that is technical and it's a mastering engineers job to weigh the technical with the sonic... and those technical requirements are different from mixing and recording but they are not exclusive from each other (the technical and sonic that is).

Again, and again, I will say that most of the time, your music will benefit from and deserves a real dedicated mastering engineer.

Noah

Originally Posted by 4damind

The difference is that you need a degree to be called a doctor. Everybody can name himself a mastering engineer.

Mastering should be done by the people achieving the best results. Often this are specialised mastering guys but sometimes mastering/mixing/producers are the same people and they making great tracks with a great sound The result counts.

[4damind]

You don't understand my point. You must have studied and a degree to name yourself a doctor. Everybody can name himself a mastering engineer and this is a part of the problem because there is no quality standard.

I don't say that anyone can learn anything. But some musicians can learn to mix and master. This knowledge has often some overlap, if you can mix you can also learn to master (yes, you need some experience, good ears, acoustic treatment etc)
And this is not only in theory, some producers do also mastering with very good results so they stopped to use mastering engineers.

I always say: try it! There are no rules to do not things. See if you have good ears and if you can achieve good results. Learn, read a book... visit a seminar or a private school like the Hofa, SAE.
Yes, often it's better to give this work to other hands with more knowledge and experience. But there is no rule that everybody must do it.

Originally Posted by grandmasters

You're not understanding. I'm not talking about Doctors, I'm talking about any expertise. If you're saying that anyone can learn anything and do a good job at it, I respectfully disagree.

[StringBean]

I'm surprised by how many top engineers eschew references. It's like--you need them, and then you reach a point where you don't. I think that point takes years and if you have to ask you still need to be referencing. I know I do.

[Tha_SkyWalker]

Originally Posted by thehightenor

But in making the record I want it will definitely be less bright and less "loud" than many current modern records.


Tht

I think the biggest thing your missing, is does it sound better?
Does it sound good having it brighter then louder? At the end of the day its how it sounds, either it does or doesn't.