IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Loudness/Mastering (Mark Waldrep)
DVDdoug
post Nov 16 2012, 10:39
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 2610
Joined: 24-August 07
From: Silicon Valley
Member No.: 46454



Recording Magazine, December 2012, FadeOut column, To Master, Or Not To Master, That Is The Question

Ex-Mastering Engineer writes a editorial... Here are some excerpts:
QUOTE
Back in 1989 I started my own mastering business...

...working on the CD & DVD of Bad Company's Merchant's of Cool... We crafted a great sounding record and then sent it to the record company for approval. It was rejected 5 times because they claimed it wasn't loud enough. After repeated applications of increasingly harsh dynamics compression, they were happy. That's when I stopped being a mastering engineer.

...In 2000 I started AIX records... Our Tracks are recorded during a single session in a live reverberant hall... and left unprocessed... no overdubs, no EQ, no compressed dynamics and no artificial reverb.

... Recently... When I listened to... CD tracks as mastered by a "Grammy-nominated" mastering engineer, I was shocked... lifeless, flat, and completely sterile... I called the manager and offered to remix the stereo tracks... I would only send an invoice if the client chose to replace the original tracks with mine... When the artist and manager heard the tracks I had remixed and didn't master, their jaws dropped. "How could we have spent so much money on a 'Grammy-nominated' engineer and gotten such harsh sound."


Mark Waldrep's company is aixrecords.com and iTrax.com. (AFAIK, the article is only NOT available free online.)



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C.R.Helmrich
post Nov 16 2012, 20:35
Post #2





Group: Developer
Posts: 688
Joined: 6-December 08
From: Erlangen Germany
Member No.: 64012



Interesting quotes. I met Mr. Waldrep at a conference of the Audio Engineering Society back in 2007. You don't find many producers/masterers who attend scientific conferences, so I give him credit for that. I wish there were more people like him, and less people who e.g. claim that lossless decodings sound different than the sources from which they were made.

(I have to say, though, that I don't mind a bit of compression/limiting).

Chris

This post has been edited by C.R.Helmrich: Nov 16 2012, 20:38


--------------------
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AndyH-ha
post Nov 17 2012, 10:27
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 2210
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 24222



Did he publish any ABX logs?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Nov 17 2012, 15:08
Post #4





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1061
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



ABX tests of what? Two differently mixed and mastered tracks?


--------------------
Ceterum censeo Masterdiskem esse delendam.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krafty
post Nov 17 2012, 18:27
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 278
Joined: 20-March 10
Member No.: 79175



QUOTE
Did he publish any ABX logs?


I don't think ABX applies here.
ABX is for discerning the same source for artifacts.
You don't need an ABX when you have a brickwall record and a dynamic one.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AndyH-ha
post Nov 17 2012, 22:00
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 2210
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 24222



QUOTE (krafty @ Nov 17 2012, 10:27) *
QUOTE
Did he publish any ABX logs?


I don't think ABX applies here.
ABX is for discerning the same source for artifacts.
You don't need an ABX when you have a brickwall record and a dynamic one.


ABX testing is for evidence of detecting differences, be they artifacts or the more heavenly pureness of $2500 interconnects.

Essentially you are saying that your belief system has faith in the audible differences of "a brickwall record and a dynamic one," so it doesn't require evidence.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Nov 17 2012, 22:17
Post #7





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1061
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



QUOTE (AndyH-ha @ Nov 17 2012, 23:00) *
ABX testing is for evidence of detecting differences, be they artifacts or the more heavenly pureness of $2500 interconnects.

Essentially you are saying that your belief system has faith in the audible differences of "a brickwall record and a dynamic one," so it doesn't require evidence.
Using ABX to compare different mixes/masters/versions of the same piece of music is pointless, since the null hypothesis that the tracks sound the same makes no sense, then. Creating a master which sounds exactly the same as another one is a pointless endeavour in the first place.


--------------------
Ceterum censeo Masterdiskem esse delendam.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Nov 17 2012, 22:25
Post #8





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10009
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



From my perspective you appear to assume that different mastering/mixing/versions must sound different, rejecting the possibility that there may only be subtle changes between them which may not be perceptible to all people under all circumstances.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Nov 17 2012, 23:45
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



So what would one have to do to properly ABX a modern brickwall remaster to, say, an '80s original pressing? Make sure the two are level-matched?

OTOH I think subtle differences in production aren't going to be noticed by most either. I have the Mobile Fidelity remaster of Faith No More's "Angel Dust" CD as well as an original pressing. I don't perceive a difference in sound quality or dynamics at all. The latter is just a little bit louder than the former.

I just hope this forum isn't going to start requiring an (assumedly genuine) ABX-log for anyone to say they liked an original release of a recording, issued decades ago, better than the obviously and usually nasty-sounding crap that's being reissued and remastered for today.


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Nov 18 2012, 11:58
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 1849
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



For the specific case at hand, the guy quit the job because he thinks that the record company demanded him to destroy the recordings. Of course there may be a “sure you really succeeded in ruining it, and that you didn't by chance manage to fool them into accepting a master you had done, practically, nothing about?”. But well ... really?

For the general question of differences between releases, there is no reason to rule out placebo in a (non-blind) review of some “new and improved deluxe edition” which may or may not be distinguishable from a previous release.


Now playing Deep Purple: “Maybe I'm a Leo” from the 25th anniversary edition (Glover's 1997 remix on disc 1, not the “remaster” on disc 2)


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Nov 18 2012, 13:13
Post #11





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10009
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Porcus @ Nov 18 2012, 02:58) *
But well ... really?

If you want to verify that they are different then yes. AFAIC, there are enough charlatans in the business for me to have grown skeptical.

As for this particular discussion, I'm wondering if it amounts to much more than a plug for a new record company, if anything.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd October 2014 - 18:46