The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
No compressor on mixbus?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #121
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by clearwave View Post
In the 70's were the guys who used bus compression butthurt at the guys that didn't use bus compression? and vice versa? or is that a 2019 thing?
As I said, it was kind of a "bone of contention" among us...

...But I don't recall any fistfights or police calls or anything (or even hard feelings).

We were all buds, respected eachothers' work, etc.

It was kinda more like a "Ginger or Mary Ann" kinda thing!
.
I personally never booked a session or observed a session between 1963-1979 where any engineer (or me) used bus compression on a console at mix. Not here in LA, not in NY, and not at Criteria in Miami. That isn't to say it never happened, and hey, in 1974, I owned a dbx 162 that I coulda used that way.....but never did.

Inconceivable.... at least I would've gotten the bug to try it if even anyone would've routinely mentioned it to me...even via monthly R-E-P. But nope. The entire mindset of doing that would've screwed around with the final 15 or 30ips tape headed for mastering. Circa 1974 for sure.

You stick Andy Wallace back there in 1974...in front of the console and 24trk (time traveling with his 21st century workflow)...and have HIM mix "Radar Love"......with his mindset of compensating for the me....and compensating for radio's sta-level....we woulda indeed had Radar Love sounding like a precursor to a 3 Doors Down mix.

That would not have been good. Or hey, if you're a certain age, maybe you think that'd be very good.

At any rate, I don't remember anything between red faders and the 2-trk. Plenty going on at the locked multitrack machines tracks....obscene amounts of printed processing and stuff inserted on the group faders and channels.....but not at the mix bus.

I got around A LOT in those years, booking time at major places. Stealing ideas too. Just never ran across the concept. I did however (and still do) sit in for all mastering sessions for my stuff....although no way would I ever attempt to master myself. I also don't believe in mixing my own stuff.

I also don't give myself appendectomies.

Loading up a master bus....not for me then or now. I have a very deficient skill of "desiring glue for a mix" at the mix stage of things. Glue is what my mastering engineers add to the final concoction.

I do though, get the desire people have to do it all themselves. It became very limiting and unsatisfying for me to do that trip by the later 70s. Personally, I wouldn't want a singular guy on my track. Mojo for me comes from having several different guys involved.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #122
Lives for gear
 
RedBaaron's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fromthepuggle View Post
I was reading through the monster 'What is On your Master Bus (analog only please)' thread, along with some others, and was surprised by how many people say 'nothing' on their mixbus (the thread has both mix and master bus). Some people have all sorts of compressors and eq, and others just not a thing.

How is this possible? I'm guessing this means using plugins on the mixbus, but some claim to not even do that?! Is it really possible to do everything at the tracking and sub-mix stage? I guess if you track vocals and instruments with compression and compress the drum-bus, but still, wouldn't there be a need for something to glue it all together at the end, whether a saturation device, compressor, line amp, something?

Curious people's thoughts on this.
It's certainly possible not to have it over the mainbuss and it's done exactly like you said--just applied to individual tracks or group busses. In a large track-count project, I will sometimes keep a lcompression/saturation/limter effects chain on the master as a stopgap just until I have time to go back and add it to the individual channels I want it on and freeze them, but I always do eventually and then leave the master as open as possible.

There are a couple reasons to avoid too much main buss compression during a final mix:

1) Usually with Reverb & Delays sends, it sounds better to compress/limit/saturate the source track and route that out to the Send track, than to process the whole thing.

2) There is usually a lesser amount of dynamics processing needed for drum/percussions from the other instruments --especially tinny-sounding things like cymbals.

3) More individual control over the compression can be applied to individual tracks, and not every track really needs compressing.

That said, I don't think that that a single SSL buss comp does much to alter the overall sound. Once it's level-matched there really isn't much difference. Just a bit of transient control, mostly. Most mixers will have a target RMS average they're aiming for, so if they hope to get it load it load enough without clipping it will at least mean transparent brick-wall limiter at the end to keep the peaks from going in the red.


Personally I think people attach too much importance to buss compression . The guys who complain about it and talk about how great everything sounded in the 70's are usually ignoring the cumulative, subtle compressing and saturating effect that tape and consoles of the day had. There's almost always dynamics reduction and/or saturation being added in various places one way or another. And on the other hand the guys who think it's some miracle pill that the overall mix quality hinges on , usually ignore that once level-matched, their mixes often don't sound that different without than with it--they're fooled by the "louder is better" ear trick.

I do think that it's better to use subtle compression from tape and console than compression plugins. I know of only one "mojo" compressor up to snuff (Weiss DS1-MK3) and two "transparent" compressors (VSC3 and The Glue) that I'd even consider using. And of those, on the main buss...if I had to, probably only The Glue would be transparent enough for my tastes.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Norton View Post
If you do use anything on your master bus, it’s important to frequently bypass it to see what you’re actually doing.

FWIW every mastering engineer I’ve ever worked with will ask if there was master bus processing and if there is, they sometimes ask for an alternate mix with all that turned off.
I’ve made hundreds of records using dozens of MEs and not a single one has ever asked me those things.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #124
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by clearwave View Post
It's hard for me to disagree any ideas here because I have literally done everything mentioned so far. But lately, I'm a "next to nothing on the mix bus guy". EQ, different levels of compression, saturation, tape simulation, whatever.......It's stepping on the mastering engineers toes.

Last week, I mixed a very important single for a quality label. I'm also the producer and they gave me the final say on the final master. I sent the "next to nothing compressed" mix to my 1st choice mastering engineer. I also printed a version with all the mix bus processing I wanted, I made lots of improvements and enhancements to my mix with my best tools. I was very proud of my "mastering" job and was prepared to submit it as the final mastered version. I worked very hard on it.

Yesterday I received the version the mastering engineer did (Howie Weinberg). He absolutely demolished my version. My jaw hit the console when I did a AB comparision. To be honest, it put a little dent in my ego but I know I sent the mix the right way, I gave him plenty of room to work.

It's teamwork. It's knowing what you do well and knowing when and how to pass the ball to the other guy. It takes experience, maturity, knowledge and patience. Sure, you could be THE GUY who does everything better than everyone, but you might be kidding yourself.
Music teaches humility! There is always someone better. Great post!...,
Old 3 weeks ago
  #125
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgrotto View Post
I’ve made hundreds of records using dozens of MEs and not a single one has ever asked me those things.
Well, I’m not lying about my experience

I personally do use master bus compression and it’s never been a problem.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #126
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
Loading up a master bus....not for me then or now. I have a very deficient skill of "desiring glue for a mix" at the mix stage of things. Glue is what my mastering engineers add to the final concoction.
Having assisted a lot, I can testify that "loading up the master bus" was usually a byproduct of Those With A Vote asking the mixer for more of this and more of that. Never less of anything. To a point, the mixer shoved things up. At the point beyond that, the master fader started to sneak down. At the point beyond that, the 2-track machine came out of "Cal" and the assistant (moi) trimmed the inputs and suggested to the mixer that we start to listen through the 2-track on input to keep an ear on impending meltdown.

So I wouldn't say that driving the mix bus was "glue" so much as something you could get away with if you were careful.

Any chance of you posting or linking to one of your final concoctions?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #127
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
I would guess that the vast majority of posters here use neither mix nor mastering engineers. I've interfaced with both extensively in the past, but not so much for the projects I'm working these days. Budgets usually do not allow.

Since I am often tracking, mixing and mastering engineer for my own material and for most of the clients I have, it's an interesting perspective that when I put on the mastering hat, I do often want a mix that was not buss-compressed by my mix engineer persona.
-The tracking engineer persona despises buss compressor. Who can know what's going on at that stage when everything is group-compressed?
-The mix persona is not so adamantly opposed to it... because, damn it all, it makes things sound a little "better" right now. And that makes everyone feel a little better.
-The mastering persona has conversations with the mix guy, just to keep things clear.

Last time a client specified an outside mastering engineer, I send without comp. Plenty of individual comp on the channels, and also a lot of track manipulation to control individual transients, but nothing on the overall. That just felt like best practices.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #128
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro View Post
Last time a client specified an outside mastering engineer, I send without comp. Plenty of individual comp on the channels, and also a lot of track manipulation to control individual transients, but nothing on the overall. That just felt like best practices.
I do that when I know it's going to a "real" mastering person. But toward the end of the process I also listen through a bus comp, both reasonable and overkill, to make sure the mastering won't unmix my mix. Which it easily can if the client wants it really loud.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #129
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro View Post
Last time a client specified an outside mastering engineer, I send without comp. Plenty of individual comp on the channels, and also a lot of track manipulation to control individual transients, but nothing on the overall. That just felt like best practices.
I send the mix I and the client likes, and no stems either, mastering is not the place to remake the record, its about formatting, nothing else. on the other hand I will not do anything crazy, peak and RMS levels will be sane etc.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #130
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
I send the mix I and the client likes, and no stems either, mastering is not the place to remake the record, its about formatting, nothing else. on the other hand I will not do anything crazy, peak and RMS levels will be sane etc.
Sounds like a reasonable approach. Although, modern definition of mastering has strayed a long way from the formatting definition. In the classic vinyl era, mastering indeed was about matching all songs into a cohesive project and spacing songs correctly.

Today, in the era were the "album" has less meaning, many see mastering as the magic bullet; send off a sow's ear and get back a cashmere three piece suit.

I totally agree that it should be about formatting, not remaking the project.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #131
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro View Post
Sounds like a reasonable approach. Although, modern definition of mastering has strayed a long way from the formatting definition. In the classic vinyl era, mastering indeed was about matching all songs into a cohesive project and spacing songs correctly.

Today, in the era were the "album" has less meaning, many see mastering as the magic bullet; send off a sow's ear and get back a cashmere three piece suit.

I totally agree that it should be about formatting, not remaking the project.
I remember going to the mastering session with a famous blues singer in NYC. Mastering guy vaguely mentions that if we gave him the PT session files it would be a lot easier for him. Singer dude looks at me sideways and just as vaguely said: Sam and I like things the way they are, we just need you to level and space the songs.

That was the end of that conversation.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #132
Lives for gear
 

i like to hit my tracks with pretty much 'finished' signals so i use comps/eqs to tracks (if wanted/needed) for both analog and digital recording; same with the 2mix or 6mix (or more precisely: on one set of two master buses).

the way i look at mastering (which i hardly ever do for things i mixed) is pretty much the same as what a piano tuner does when doing a touch up on the piano after sound check, maybe with some instructions from the piano player... - i usually don't send out files for mastering: i take the band leader/musical director/conductor with me to attend the mastering session!

one of my mentors once mentioned (warning: this can be interpreted as being sexist!) that a comp/lim as used on the 2mix (during mixing or mastering) is like a push up bra: it can make something which already looks nice look even a bit more nice...

i remember using a comp/lim on the 2mix (or two for quad!) as early (or late) as the early eighties; this was mostly on classical music and for broadcasting.

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 2 weeks ago at 10:52 AM.. Reason: edited
Old 3 weeks ago
  #133
Haven't any of you guys received a master that sounds worse to you than the original? I've experienced this more often than not. Personally, I believe if the mastering engineer doesn't feel he needs to do much of anything, then I've done my job well. To me, the mixing phase is the best opportunity to get a finished mix, not the mastering phase. Anything that can be done in the mastering phase can be done easier in the mixing phase (IME - MINUS the other set of fresh ears, which DOES have its advantages). I never ever think to myself, "well the mastering engineer will make this sound better later."
Old 3 weeks ago
  #134
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
I remember going to the mastering session with a famous blues singer in NYC. Mastering guy vaguely mentions that if we gave him the PT session files it would be a lot easier for him. Singer dude looks at me sideways and just as vaguely said: Sam and I like things the way they are, we just need you to level and space the songs.

That was the end of that conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aural Endeavors View Post
Haven't any of you guys received a master that sounds worse to you than the original? I've experienced this more often than not.
Everybody want to have IMPACT these days A number of years ago, a client sent a group of songs I had mixed to the mastering division of a well-known duplication service. The songs we got back were somewhat unrecognizable from what we sent in.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #135
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro View Post
... the mastering division of a well-known duplication service.
Kinda says it all right there.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #136
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
I personally never booked a session or observed a session between 1963-1979 where any engineer (or me) used bus compression on a console at mix. Not here in LA, not in NY, and not at Criteria in Miami. That isn't to say it never happened, and hey, in 1974, I owned a dbx 162 that I coulda used that way.....but never did.

Inconceivable.... at least I would've gotten the bug to try it if even anyone would've routinely mentioned it to me...even via monthly R-E-P. But nope. The entire mindset of doing that would've screwed around with the final 15 or 30ips tape headed for mastering. Circa 1974 for sure.

You stick Andy Wallace back there in 1974...in front of the console and 24trk (time traveling with his 21st century workflow)...and have HIM mix "Radar Love"......with his mindset of compensating for the me....and compensating for radio's sta-level....we woulda indeed had Radar Love sounding like a precursor to a 3 Doors Down mix.

That would not have been good. Or hey, if you're a certain age, maybe you think that'd be very good.

At any rate, I don't remember anything between red faders and the 2-trk. Plenty going on at the locked multitrack machines tracks....obscene amounts of printed processing and stuff inserted on the group faders and channels.....but not at the mix bus.

I got around A LOT in those years, booking time at major places. Stealing ideas too. Just never ran across the concept. I did however (and still do) sit in for all mastering sessions for my stuff....although no way would I ever attempt to master myself. I also don't believe in mixing my own stuff.

I also don't give myself appendectomies.

Loading up a master bus....not for me then or now. I have a very deficient skill of "desiring glue for a mix" at the mix stage of things. Glue is what my mastering engineers add to the final concoction.

I do though, get the desire people have to do it all themselves. It became very limiting and unsatisfying for me to do that trip by the later 70s. Personally, I wouldn't want a singular guy on my track. Mojo for me comes from having several different guys involved.
Ok, this thread just got real between this and the few before it. Real advice from experience from those who clearly have it! Wow. Great advice here. That's not saying I'm gonna get rid of the bus comps, but it really does make me rethink a bit.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #137
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aural Endeavors View Post
Haven't any of you guys received a master that sounds worse to you than the original? I've experienced this more often than not. Personally, I believe if the mastering engineer doesn't feel he needs to do much of anything, then I've done my job well. To me, the mixing phase is the best opportunity to get a finished mix, not the mastering phase. Anything that can be done in the mastering phase can be done easier in the mixing phase (IME - MINUS the other set of fresh ears, which DOES have its advantages). I never ever think to myself, "well the mastering engineer will make this sound better later."
This is something I never understood...why would anybody want fresh ears (and in effect fresh thinking) especially at this stage of the production? Every decision that was taken up to that point in the production would have been done for a particular reason, why would you need some "fresh ears" to come and decide a new direction? What about the vision that guided the recording and overdub sessions and culminated in the final mix?

This is the same reason why I'm not really sold on the idea of sending tracks to be mixed by a specialist who had nothing to do with the process up to that point. You write, arrange and record with a vision, and then you send it off to some fresh ears to mix and create his vision, then you send it off to a mastering person with fresh ears to mangle into another vision? If the goal is to have a bunch of different names in the credits then yeah....but this sounds more like hit speculation to me.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #138
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aural Endeavors View Post
Haven't any of you guys received a master that sounds worse to you than the original? I've experienced this more often than not. Personally, I believe if the mastering engineer doesn't feel he needs to do much of anything, then I've done my job well. To me, the mixing phase is the best opportunity to get a finished mix, not the mastering phase. Anything that can be done in the mastering phase can be done easier in the mixing phase (IME - MINUS the other set of fresh ears, which DOES have its advantages). I never ever think to myself, "well the mastering engineer will make this sound better later."
+1

When I finish a mix it sounds exactly the way I want it to sound!
If it doesn't sound really fantastic then I need to re-mix it.

Mastering is such a massive compromise as you're processing a stereo file.
(I have no intention of sending an ME stems - I'm mixing the music)

To my view, an ME isn't there to make it sound "better" that's the job of the person producing the music.

Imho, it's a purely technical process and if the ME has to do anything other than the smallest 0.5dB of EQ or 0.5dB GR of mastering compression then something went wrong at the mix stage.

I also got tired of getting Masters back form ME's that sounded worse than the mixes I sent.

I have now after many, many years moved to Mastering my own music.
It took some financial investment to get the tools I wanted to do Mastering - but long term it will save me money.

On my last project five of my ten tunes got a flat transfer in terms of EQ.
1dB GR of further Mastering compression and 1 to 3dB GR of limiting.
Extremely light touches with compression, EQ and a limiter. 3 simple processors
and it sounded fantastic imho.

That's why, personally I mix into a stereo bus compressor and HEDD 192 pentode/tape saturation, the processing becomes part of the mix from the get go, they are part of my vision for the track. The times I've mixed without bus compression and saturation it never sounds as good to me - it lacks that little bit of "magic" I'm personally looking for in a mix.

Others prefer mixing with nothing on the mix bus, that's great for them, whatever works - there's so many approaches and that's what makes it fun
Old 2 weeks ago
  #139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
This is something I never understood...why would anybody want fresh ears (and in effect fresh thinking) especially at this stage of the production? Every decision that was taken up to that point in the production would have been done for a particular reason, why would you need some "fresh ears" to come and decide a new direction? What about the vision that guided the recording and overdub sessions and culminated in the final mix?

This is the same reason why I'm not really sold on the idea of sending tracks to be mixed by a specialist who had nothing to do with the process up to that point. You write, arrange and record with a vision, and then you send it off to some fresh ears to mix and create his vision, then you send it off to a mastering person with fresh ears to mangle into another vision? If the goal is to have a bunch of different names in the credits then yeah....but this sounds more like hit speculation to me.
Maybe not fresh ears, but specialism? I'm working on a kind of dubby mix right now...I can see where the rough is aiming for, but I can also see why it misses. I'm fixing a couple of things they've overlooked (bass clashes between 808s and the main bass), and overall it's heading in a much more "finished" direction. The artist wouldn't have achieved that on their own.

I don't really think it's "fresh ears" - I don't really like sending stuff off to be mixed by other people either - it's more skills and specialism. I don't want my mastering guy to re-invent the mix either, just pick up anything I missed and polish what he's sent.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #140
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
The artist wouldn't have achieved that on their own.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying the artist should produce, record, mix and mater themselves, I just don't understand why anyone would passion the work to someone new at every stage of the production.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
Just to be clear, I'm not saying the artist should produce, record, mix and mater themselves, I just don't understand why anyone would passion the work to someone new at every stage of the production.
Sure. But there is reasons to pass things out to specialists, just maybe not as a matter of course, and not whilst expecting them to reinvent the wheel.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #142
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Sure. But there is reasons to pass things out to specialists, just maybe not as a matter of course, and not whilst expecting them to reinvent the wheel.
Definitely.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #143
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
+1

When I finish a mix it sounds exactly the way I want it to sound!
If it doesn't sound really fantastic then I need to re-mix it.

Mastering is such a massive compromise as you're processing a stereo file.
(I have no intention of sending an ME stems - I'm mixing the music)

To my view, an ME isn't there to make it sound "better" that's the job of the person producing the music.

Imho, it's a purely technical process and if the ME has to do anything other than the smallest 0.5dB of EQ or 0.5dB GR of mastering compression then something went wrong at the mix stage.

I also got tired of getting Masters back form ME's that sounded worse than the mixes I sent.

I have now after many, many years moved to Mastering my own music.
It took some financial investment to get the tools I wanted to do Mastering - but long term it will save me money.

On my last project five of my ten tunes got a flat transfer in terms of EQ.
1dB GR of further Mastering compression and 1 to 3dB GR of limiting.
Extremely light touches with compression, EQ and a limiter. 3 simple processors
and it sounded fantastic imho.

That's why, personally I mix into a stereo bus compressor and HEDD 192 pentode/tape saturation, the processing becomes part of the mix from the get go, they are part of my vision for the track. The times I've mixed without bus compression and saturation it never sounds as good to me - it lacks that little bit of "magic" I'm personally looking for in a mix.

Others prefer mixing with nothing on the mix bus, that's great for them, whatever works - there's so many approaches and that's what makes it fun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aural Endeavors View Post
Haven't any of you guys received a master that sounds worse to you than the original? I've experienced this more often than not. Personally, I believe if the mastering engineer doesn't feel he needs to do much of anything, then I've done my job well. To me, the mixing phase is the best opportunity to get a finished mix, not the mastering phase. Anything that can be done in the mastering phase can be done easier in the mixing phase (IME - MINUS the other set of fresh ears, which DOES have its advantages). I never ever think to myself, "well the mastering engineer will make this sound better later."
It seems like you guys have never used a good mastering engineer before.

I've had things come back worse, so I didn't hire that person again.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #144
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by clearwave View Post
It seems like you've never used a good mastering engineer before.
...or their mixes don't need much if any help from a mastering engineer!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #145
Lives for gear
 

nothing on mixbus. i have two recorders so i can run through things afterwards.

always chain things in on the subs. it's what they're there for.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #146
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Kinda says it all right there.
Haha. Yeah, I warned him off to no avail.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
This is something I never understood...why would anybody want fresh ears (and in effect fresh thinking) especially at this stage of the production? Every decision that was taken up to that point in the production would have been done for a particular reason, why would you need some "fresh ears" to come and decide a new direction? What about the vision that guided the recording and overdub sessions and culminated in the final mix?
I agree with your thinking for the most part. In my case, it's always something I should have caught myself but didn't. Sometimes I can get so deep into the mix that I lose perspective and just should have put it off for a day or even a week. There can be a lot going on in some mixes that go unnoticed until they're pointed out as well. Seems it can always get better but it's not the ME's job, IMO, because they have less to work with.

I am working on an huge project right now I've done from start to finish with a clear and definite vision, which I can't see myself handing off to a ME, as I believe the chances are quite high of it going off track if I did. In this case, I'm mixing into a limiter on the master with heavy manual automation on the tracks, but mostly no standard compression is used on the tracks. Seems this is the best method for this project and the way it was recorded. As I'm mixing, again I am thinking in my mind that this is the finished sound with no mastering needed.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #148
Quote:
Originally Posted by clearwave View Post
It seems like you guys have never used a good mastering engineer before.

I've had things come back worse, so I didn't hire that person again.
I've used plenty of good mastering engineers, but that doesn't mean they always make things better. Sometimes it's out of their hands. Just listen to some botched mastering jobs on some major releases.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #149
Gear Guru
Personally I think mastering is extremely inexpensive and honestly good communication is becoming a lost art. The only real problem I have with digital tech is a larger one. It tends to isolate people and substitutes a keyboard with an actual conversation. Learning to delegate and express your desires in an abstract medium like sound, is essential. Certainly with clients, and certainly with technicians and artists/talent......

People are afraid of paying for a mastering engineer (that in many cases), costs less than a good meal? If you can't get good results from a pro, that's not the pro's fault and not expensive to learn. Much more expensive not to learn and not be able to function on a high level when it really matters and there's money and deadlines on the line.....
Old 2 weeks ago
  #150
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardis View Post
People are afraid of paying for a mastering engineer (that in many cases), costs less than a good meal? If you can't get good results from a pro, that's not the pro's fault...
Dude... where are you eating?
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Forum Jump
Forum Jump