To what extent are y'all mastering by the meters?

[Confusionator]

My room and all my stereos suck so bad that, more and more, when I do rough quasi-masters, I rely on the frequency graphs of similar music and just try to match it.

I know this is bad form, but I wonder how many of the rest of you do the same.

[Masterer]

Originally Posted by Confusionator

My room and all my stereos suck so bad that, more and more, when I do rough quasi-masters, I rely on the frequency graphs of similar music and just try to match it.

I know this is bad form, but I wonder how many of the rest of you do the same.

I work exclusively by the meters. I don't even turn the speakers on anymore.

Music is terrible these days anyway.

[cap217]

I hope you are kidding! I dont want to pay you all that money for pictures!!!! I am going to PM you a question.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Masterer

I work exclusively by the meters. I don't even turn the speakers on anymore.

Music is terrible these days anyway.

But it looks better than ever!

DC

[MASSIVE Master]

Originally Posted by Confusionator

I know this is bad form, but I wonder how many of the rest of you do the same.

I would hope, none...

[Darius van H]

Meters are great for learning about sound.....using them to confirm visually what you think you hear.

But the end of the day, you've got to learn to use and trust your own ears.

i would suggest the more experienced you become, the less you'll use and rely on meters.

There's also an argument that says: the more you see, the less you hear (i think this is a general problem these days in music making with so much work taking place on brightly colored computer screens)

And you definately shouldn't try to match the "look" of another track.....that'll get you into trouble fast.

..................D

[chadly]

Originally Posted by Confusionator

My room and all my stereos suck so bad that, more and more, when I do rough quasi-masters, I rely on the frequency graphs of similar music and just try to match it.

I know this is bad form, but I wonder how many of the rest of you do the same.

It's a good practice when you're learning. No lie. Same with mixing. Seeing and listening ain't a bad thing at all.

The word "rely" however is what gives me pause. I don't "rely" on the FFT (freq graphs) or meters, but it doesn't hurt.

So I'm inbetween. I use 'em, but not nearly as much as you imply. Just weighing in.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by chadly

It's a good practice when you're learning. No lie. Same with mixing. Seeing and listening ain't a bad thing at all.

Seeing is good for art. This is music. FFT can't measure musicality or translation.

With software all around there's too much looking in all aspects of production already. Close your eyes, focus on listening.

[chadly]

Originally Posted by lucey

Seeing is good for art. This is music. FFT can't measure musicality or translation.

With software all around there's too much looking in all aspects of production already. Close your eyes, focus on listening.

Brian, I have to respectfully disagree. (I assume this was aimed at me because of the qoute)

When you're learning it isn't a bad idea to fire up the old FFT. And if you happen to be in a (gasp- this could never happen!) compromised listening environment it can help quite a bit too.

Besides that, I know of a number of other guys (mixing and mastering) who have a waterfall FFT running. Spectrafoo is even on their gear list.

Are they glued to 'em? Checking every little bump and frequency? Hell no they don't. And neither do I.






But they're on . . .

[Confusionator]

Yeah: "rely on" was too strong. I should have said, "turn them on and keep them on."

To an earlier poster, yes: I am learning--I'm definitely not an experienced, golden-eared pro.

I guess my point is, I can find trouble spots so well by using those meters. For instance, my hearing is basically nonexistent above 16k, and my monitoring is unreliable below about 40Hz, so those meters help keep me from making decisions that make younger people's ears bleed or inadvertently shake the foundations.


They also help me identify and work to counteract room nodes that affected tracking.

For me, I'm learning that seeing spectra of similar songs along with whatever I'm working on helps me get in the ballpark really fast. Of course, I'm always listening and adjusting by ear.

[swimslowly]

wow, using digital frequency graphs to master audio.

that's like putting a Polaroid of a toaster on top of a piece of toast and expecting the Sourdough to just magically turn golden brown.

or maybe it's a bit more like being color blind and having other people tell you when your clothes match.

anyways, have fun!

[streaky]

I only use the Meters when I want to reference something I'm workin on against a classic funk LP. Cabbage Alley's always a safe bet

and on a totally different subject - a question for Masterer...on your SS CDs is the sign on the building photoshopped? I always wanted to know

[Paul Gold]

To state the obvious, if it sounds better when you listen on a variety of playback systems then it's helping. If it doesn't then it's not. I've been using my speakers for eight years and trust what I'm hearing.

Maybe the labels could figure out a way to add screen shots to the packaging for a value added product.

[Masterer]

Originally Posted by streaky

and on a totally different subject - a question for Masterer...on your SS CDs is the sign on the building photoshopped? I always wanted to know

Yep.

[streaky]

Thought so!thumbsup

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by Confusionator

My room and all my stereos suck so bad that, more and more, when I do rough quasi-masters, I rely on the frequency graphs of similar music and just try to match it.

I know this is bad form, but I wonder how many of the rest of you do the same.

I look at the VU meters occasionally... does that count?

[Nordenstam]

VU meter, peak meter and oversampled peak meter are usually on, but not in view on the screen as they're mighty distracting.

[lucey]

Whatever works for you go for it. As a general principle I would never recommend MORE looking to anyone.

I have digital and VU meters on ... over to the side. The less looking the better as the brain only has so much energy to put into things, and I'm looking at knobs already. Visuals tend to overrule sonics in the brain, so it's dangerous to put a big software FFT meter front and center. (Monitors front and center are a bad idea in general, for other reasons.)

Useful in a bad room? Okay, if that helps. Great!

[Riccardo]

I agree looking distracts from listening.
I do look - occasionally - to check gain staging between say the output of an eq and the input of a comp... and also the AD meters.

[mrlouie]

Originally Posted by Masterer

I work exclusively by the meters. I don't even turn the speakers on anymore.

Music is terrible these days anyway.

hahahahaaa that was good, made me laugh

[Yannick]

I hate to believe some never look at the FFT.
eg. I have had the situation during soundcheck, where the main mic picked up/created (the tones were not in the room) a 15k and 18 K spike. In the control room this was not detectable, maybe on headphones. But on the FFT it was completely obvious.

So, if I had recorded it this way, some would let it slip through mastering ?

When mastering, I always have the meters on. For reference. I find it prevents levels creeping up, and some problems are better identifiable then by ear.

[inlinenl]

Metering is always present, analyzer, phase, AD ( hedd ) left and right balance of the original .. left and right balance of the input off the DAW .....

only takes 5 sec's to check if everything is running okay and if there was any strange EQ peak ..... after that forget and concentrate on listening and imagination ...

regards wim
www.inlinemastering.com

[cuts]

I only look at the meter when i charge the clients.....$$$$$$$$.......

[cdog]

Originally Posted by Masterer

I work exclusively by the meters. I don't even turn the speakers on anymore.

Music is terrible these days anyway.

Classic.

There is a famous thread on here about the guy who mixed by the meters.

With the speakers OFF.

It was a dare.

You should listen to this mix.

It was scary.

I did a quick search and couldn't find it.

Crazy.

But.... he tracked the instruments so it was cheating

[Brad Blackwood]

Originally Posted by cdog

Classic.

There is a famous thread on here about the guy who mixed by the meters.

With the speakers OFF.

It was a dare.

You should listen to this mix.

It was scary.

I did a quick search and couldn't find it.

Crazy.

But.... he tracked the instruments so it was cheating

This thread?

[Masterer]

Originally Posted by Brad Blackwood

This thread?

I Love it.

Check out that guys discography. Unbelievable. I have no problem believing he did a good mix just by watching the meters.

[Darius van H]

Originally Posted by Yannick

I hate to believe some never look at the FFT.

I only ever fire up the FFT when i want to know the exact frequency of a bass note.........otherwise i find it totally useless.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by Masterer

I Love it.

Check out that guys discography. Unbelievable. I have no problem believing he did a good mix just by watching the meters.

Hahahaha. Dude worked on Led Zeppelin III.

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=TERRY|MANNING&sql=11:uif2zfi2k~T4

[GPl]

Terry Manning....ns

[audiogeek1]

I mainly use my VU and Dorrough meters when doing a video remaster for DVD. Knowing what my peak is on these masters are very important. Most of the time they do not want to do 2 masters one for dvd and one for VHS. So I have to be careful so that I do not overload the VHS tape.

But with music mastering I will look at the Dorroughs from time to time to see how much the client wants me to destroy the dynamic range.

Mike