On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:26:25AM +0100, Renato wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:49:20 -0800 > Ken Restivo <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 05:20:15PM -0500, Ricardus Vincente wrote: > > > On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 14:11 -0800, Ken Restivo wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:31:41PM +0100, fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 03:38:48PM +0100, J?rn Nettingsmeier > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > don't forget the most important aspect of mastering: a second > > > > > > pair of ears, in a very good listening room. > > > > > > > > > > Correct. > > > > > > > > > > > take that out of the equation, and all that's left of > > > > > > mastering is some parametric eq and (if you must) multiband > > > > > > compression. > > > > > > > > > > And I wonder why these shouldn't be done when mixing instead. > > > > > > > > > > In the 'old days' EQ and compression was required to adapt a > > > > > mix to the limits of the distribution medium (vinyl in most > > > > > cases). No such problem exists today. Why on earth should you > > > > > re-EQ a mix ? If the mixing engineer did a good job (by > > > > > carefully EQ-ing individual tracks), what chance do you have to > > > > > improve this by acting on the mixed signal ? If he didn't, the > > > > > way to correct for this is to redo the mix. Same for > > > > > compression, it's much more effective and less intrusive when > > > > > done on single tracks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the record, I hate mastering and compressed loudness-war > > > > mixes. I enjoy making use of the dynamic range of 16-bit (or > > > > more) audio. And, I also put the mastering (multiband > > > > compression, really) stuff in the chain while mixing, one of the > > > > wonderful things about JACK. It's just an insert on the master > > > > bus in Ardour for me, and my exported mixes are mastered. > > > > > > > > However, today's popular music must contend with limitations of > > > > the listener's equipment, just as it did in the days of > > > > turntables and six-peices-of-particle-board-and-an-8-inch-speaker > > > > turntable/stereo combinations. The limitations are different and > > > > so therefore are the solutions and workarounds. > > > > > > > > Today, people listen to music on iPods and truly wretched laptop > > > > speakers in noisy environments. And everything else they listen > > > > to is compressed out the wazoo. So when my lightly-compressed > > > > mixes come up on shuffle, they are inaudible, not just in > > > > comparison to other professionally-mastered mixes, but against > > > > the background noise they're competing with. > > > > > > > > So, next time around, I'm putting my mixes thorugh NAMA and > > > > squashing the holy hell out of them, until they sound like > > > > whatever the major labels are pooting out these days. > > > > > > Unfortunately most mix engineers suck. That's why you need a real > > > mastering engineer to fix your mixes. Taking the tracks back to a > > > guy with tin ears isn't going to help. > > > > > > Most people making records today are inexperienced and doing it at > > > home. > > > > Yep. I guess that's what mastering engineers spend most of their time > > doing: fixing bad mixes. > > > > curious: mix engineers suck but mastering engineers don't and they even > know how to mix better than mix engineers. > > what's the reason? Maybe that mixing is being done by self taught > people while mastering no? > That's the point that several people have made, and it seems plausible to me: The mastering engineers are making their living fixing mixes that home-studio people produce on Ableton or cracked ProTools LE. It makes sense to just learn to (or get help to) produce better mixes instead. -ken _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
