How hard is it to train a mastering engineer?

[abyssinianson]

mmm. simple solution:

client: can you make our songs as loud as (insert foreign album name here)?
studio engineer: no.  but zach can help you with that

yup. i agree that a mastering engineer's role is important but, as always, the bulk of the pudding has to start with the recording process. it seems I always hear about clients on this forum wanting their band to sound a certain way. Emulating a particular sound is fine but it has to be made clear that unless you have comparable instruments, it is going to be a helluva chore to pattern a small amp with a stomp box in front of it to sound like a Diezel or a Bogner that some popular band may be playing on a record with a mortage worth of mics and processors behind it. The band members (your clients) have to realize that there should be a firm sense of realistic goals in place because your engineer can do a great deal of audio magic but they can't turn water into wine and their ain't no way a Fender Showman is going to sound like a Bogner on steroids.

Band members need to do their homework first and know what they can do and can't do in the studio. It sounds like you guys and gals have had a heck of a time sparring with some very unrealistic requests from clients I feel your pain.

[zach lucero]

korek

ey skunk, the level the mastering guy can dish out is dependent on the mix parin. not all songs are mixed the same way.

[skunkyfunk]

korek

ey skunk, the level the mastering guy can dish out is dependent on the mix parin. not all songs are mixed the same way.

Zach, I just wonder from a mastering engineer's perspective.... what factors make it less likely for a 2-bus mix to get 'louder'?

A lot of mastering engineers say these pointers for mixing engineers can help out in giving room for the mastering process:

1.  Exaggerate the kick drum and anything that has very loud and short transients (like say a bomb explosion sound effect in the mix).
2.  Add more mids to the instrument, like around 3dB at 250Hz and 500Hz for the midrange instruments like guitar, piano, snare drum, etc.  The 'iwas-butas' approach for the mastering...
3.  Do NOT do the fades in the outros.  A fade envelope will seriously change once it hits the mastering compressors.
4.  Do NOT take out the noise like hum and hiss in the silent parts.  The mastering engineer must have better tools for audioscrubbing.
5.  Mix with NO peaking in the final rendered mix.
6.  Always give mixes in 24-bit and NOT audio CDs.

[zach lucero]

its about balance.
1. what you mean exagerrate? louder? more reverb? more eq to make it pronounced?

2. do what ever it takes to make your mix as balanced as possible.

3. yep

4. not necesarilly. comunicate with the mastering engineer. if you can take it out sa mix palang then do so. the hum and hiss should have been avoided nung
tracking stage palang. it also depends, hums and hisses from a noisy amp or loud condedser can add character to a recording.. there are nice recordings whith noise that was left alone.  a  mixing engineer  can opt to  leave some creaking  noise from a chair in the mix  because it can make  the recording more organic, and make one listening to the recording imagine the musician playing with the acoustice guitar on an old chair.

rule of thumb is its better to hear a crappy instrument that sounds real, than a hi-end one that sounds fake. e.g a great engineer can make a cheapo quiapo guitar sound just like what it is, a cheapo quiapo giutar, as if its right in front of you. as opposed to hearing a martin or taylor that sounds like its plastic.

5. yep

6. not true. 16 bit is fine. it depends on the system. sometimes it is better to dither with the same system that recorded the music to avoidd compatibility issues with the system of the mastering engineer. Audio cd's are fine too, only if you have an ultra hi-end transport, great digital cable, and converter, and a good master cdr. otherwise forget it. some suites that have this can dump the digital data to tape and add some analog squish to the master. some run em through tube preamps. if you don't have the geAR then  the safest is still data of course and not doing any d/a-a/d convertions

an example of a mix that will give the mastering engineer a hard time in jacking up the level would be a mix pronounced in the 3khz to 4khz. a female voice already pronounced in the range, if not micd and tracked properly will rip your tweeters when you master it.

[zach lucero]

nga pala, that goes for any frequency na exage.

[skunkyfunk]

yup. i agree that a mastering engineer's role is important but, as always, the bulk of the pudding has to start with the recording process. it seems I always hear about clients on this forum wanting their band to sound a certain way. Emulating a particular sound is fine but it has to be made clear that unless you have comparable instruments, it is going to be a helluva chore to pattern a small amp with a stomp box in front of it to sound like a Diezel or a Bogner that some popular band may be playing on a record with a mortage worth of mics and processors behind it. The band members (your clients) have to realize that there should be a firm sense of realistic goals in place because your engineer can do a great deal of audio magic but they can't turn water into wine and their ain't no way a Fender Showman is going to sound like a Bogner on steroids.

Band members need to do their homework first and know what they can do and can't do in the studio. It sounds like you guys and gals have had a heck of a time sparring with some very unrealistic requests from clients I feel your pain.

Well, I've already been programmed to think Pinoys, in general, want to buy a "Ferrari for the price of a Toyota..."  It is practically the reason why fake signature clothes and bags sell much here.  It is practically the same thing with some clients in recording.

One time, I really got so pissed because a client was texting me in the wee hours saying  their mixes were not as loud as some modern release, while he was havinh helluva goodtime partying while I was busy "loudening up" his mix to almost unlistenable condition.  It's like, they'd rather have a squashed up waveform with heavy clipping for as long as it's loud, than a pefect mix that is like 1.5dBFS RMS softer.    And they cannot afford Zach's services either when you point them to him.

[skunkyfunk]

its about balance.
1. what you mean exagerrate? louder? more reverb? more eq to make it pronounced?

Exaggerate - maybe shoot its level around 2-3dBFS louder than normal.  Say you have a perfect mix, try making the kick fader a tad louder.  I save 2 versions - the balanced version and the one with the slightly louder kick version.

2. do what ever it takes to make your mix as balanced as possible.

Which makes me think what "balance" means to a record producer.  Say you pick out two foreign million-dollar production CDs, say MAROON 5 and THE WHITE STRIPES.  Play them both on your deck or iPod, they kind of sound "balanced" to my ears, but definitely both mixes are far from each other.  I think with the Maroon 5 album, I think the mixes were made to have the instruments have more separation, than that of the White Stripes that sound so trashy.  I love both albums, but to approach the recording process of both necessitates 2 very different methods.  I cannot discount that The White Stripes had a very muddy and middy final mix before the mastering stage where the treble was evened out.  [/quote]

an example of a mix that will give the mastering engineer a hard time in jacking up the level would be a mix pronounced in the 3khz to 4khz. a female voice already pronounced in the range, if not micd and tracked properly will rip your tweeters when you master it.

I guess what you mean is once you compress or boost the highs and mids, the 3K area starts to sound piercing.  Or causes fatigue...

[zach lucero]

for 1 and 2 when i say balance, i mean the levels of each instrument. for your last paragraph i mean not in the fatiguing way. i mean if any is too pronounced, when you master, that frequency will be the first to rip or clip. so if the mix is balanced, then one can jack it up to a good level, adding gain and compression and eq gradually w/o a particular frequency sticking out. Two differently mixed and tracked songs, with good balance among the levels will both have a better chance of getting subjectively "good levels".  That's why the kastigo album is one of the loudest ive ever done, hazel's mix was balanced and jacking it up was a breeze. i could still make it louder, pero prumeno na muna ako before we get too crazy with the levels. if the guitars were too piercing, or the vocals to loud, or even the kick too spiked, there will always be a disadvantage, where "leveling" is concerned. but again that's not always a bad thing. louder is not always better ika nga.

[zach lucero]

tsaka sometimes whith pinoys trying to get ferrari performance with a toyota, well sometimes nasa druver din yun. pinoy pa, nakakatuwa actualy some of the stuff i hear when i find out what equipment they use.

[KitC]

trying to get ferrari performance with a toyota,

That sounds like a scene from "Fast and the Furious". On a technical note, you can turn a toyota into a ferrari with some really good engine and suspension parts, a racing chip, and some nitrous oxide (hey! it's only the mech. eng'g. in me talking).

I always find it a challenge to make good with whatever available gear I've got, but no amount mastering knowhow will polish a turd. You're right... it's still up to the driver.

[skunkyfunk]

I think the indian and the pana/driver and the car/player and the instrument arguments are kind of moot na hehehe.

To some extent, I agree that the mastering engineer's biggest asset should not be the signal chain he uses, but his ears and skills.  But as any mastering engineer should know, "You cannot EQ what you cannot hear..."  That is why you must have a bare minimum of equipment that can do the job and achieve superior results.

And those ATC mastering monitors almost made me faint.