Mastering and the different media

FrantzM · Jun 4, 2010

Hi

I was going to post this in the Kind of Blue thread in the Music Section but think it belongs in a general discussions

That a person doesn't like it is OK. To each his own. I do believe however that this album seem to enthrall most if not ALL Jazz lovers. It is that good for a Jazz Lover. Let put this aside.
Most people do not realize what mastering of any album is about. What you hear from an album is dependent of mastering. Same recording will sound VASTLY different with different mastering. The mastering process involve quite a bit of adding and subtracting what was on the recording ... We have Mastering Engineers here in this forum and I would like them to chime in ( Bruce B

) .. Where are you ?

).. Suffice to say that for a given recording mastering can make or break what one finally hears.

Now about the different format for a given piece. I have 3 Pieces for KOB. An old Columbia Stereo (6 eyes) which escaped unscathed a calamity I tend not to name, a Classic Record 4 Pieces and a Columbia/Sony Gold Super-Bit-Mapped ... They ALL sound different. Not slightly in any way, 3 different pieces for anyone who is not deaf. I find myself listening to the CD more often becuse of practicality, it is a simple thing and now that it is on an HDD , a click of the mouse and music ...!! In term of pure sonics the Classic Records are much better.
Now the question comes, are the differences due to the media or the mastering? How much of the comparison we make on the quality of the medium are due to the mastering?
We must understand that the Music Industry is ..well .. an Industry .. They produce what they believe their customers wants. Yes, once in a while, they do thing out of the conviction of its value. They are after the profit however and one way to get that is to produce what in their mind the customer wants, so mastering DOES take into account who will listen to the product and on/ through what it will be played... So are the differences finally due to the medium or the mastering.. I don't think it is an easy answer.
It remains however that a medium maybe intrinsically superior to another. I will sidestep the analog vs digital debate but R2R seems superior to LP thus I would expect the R2R of a given piece to sound better than the LP.
This goes even further than thinking that one can apply the same process to master an LP and A CD.. Not really, there steps taken in mastering an LP that are not necessary in Cd and (maybe) vice versa .. So how do we compare the different formats? How can we infer from these tests the intrinsic value of a medium?

I sincerely are welcoming the input of people actively involved in this last but definitive steps, the mastering process on the subject ..

Frantz

MylesBAstor · Jun 4, 2010

FrantzM said:
Hi

I was going to post this in the Kind of Blue thread in the Music Section but think it belongs in a general discussions

That a person doesn't like it is OK. To each his own. I do believe however that this album seem to enthrall most if not ALL Jazz lovers. It is that good for a Jazz Lover. Let put this aside.
Most people do not realize what mastering of any album is about. What you hear from an album is dependent of mastering. Same recording will sound VASTLY different with different mastering. The mastering process involve quite a bit of adding and subtracting what was on the recording ... We have Mastering Engineers here in this forum and I would like them to chime in ( Bruce B ) .. Where are you ? ).. Suffice to say that for a given recording mastering can make or break what one finally hears.

Now about the different format for a given piece. I have 3 Pieces for KOB. An old Columbia Stereo (6 eyes) which escaped unscathed a calamity I tend not to name, a Classic Record 4 Pieces and a Columbia/Sony Gold Super-Bit-Mapped ... They ALL sound different. Not slightly in any way, 3 different pieces for anyone who is not deaf. I find myself listening to the CD more often becuse of practicality, it is a simple thing and now that it is on an HDD , a click of the mouse and music ...!! In term of pure sonics the Classic Records are much better.
Now the question comes, are the differences due to the media or the mastering? How much of the comparison we make on the quality of the medium are due to the mastering?
We must understand that the Music Industry is ..well .. an Industry .. They produce what they believe their customers wants. Yes, once in a while, they do thing out of the conviction of its value. They are after the profit however and one way to get that is to produce what in their mind the customer wants, so mastering DOES take into account who will listen to the product and on/ through what it will be played... So are the differences finally due to the medium or the mastering.. I don't think it is an easy answer.
It remains however that a medium maybe intrinsically superior to another. I will sidestep the analog vs digital debate but R2R seems superior to LP thus I would expect the R2R of a given piece to sound better than the LP.
This goes even further than thinking that one can apply the same process to master an LP and A CD.. Not really, there steps taken in mastering an LP that are not necessary in Cd and (maybe) vice versa .. So how do we compare the different formats? How can we infer from these tests the intrinsic value of a medium?

I sincerely are welcoming the input of people actively involved in this last but definitive steps, the mastering process on the subject ..

Frantz

Hi Frantz,

One could write a book on the subject

The first consideration in evaluating a reissue is finding out what was the source tape (or was it a digital copy esp. nowadays) for the vinyl transfer. One finds, the more one investigates, that over the years, few albums are cut from the same master tape and that of course has a huge effect upon the resulting sound. Take for instance, the AP Art Pepper Plus 11 45 rpm release. Chad's 45 rpm release is the only Plus 11 cut from THE original master tape; all others, including the original release or even the AP digital release, were cut from a different tape.

Some labels, RCA for instance, will only send their master tape to a few trusted mastering engineers such as George Marino or Bernie Grundman (have to say wasn't impressed with Marino's mastering for Chad; while more dynamic, the Power of the Orchestra was also very electronic sounding and the strings were screechy)

In other instances, the labels lost their original master tape (or it could have been stolen) and only have a back up or dupe for mastering. Many labels, unfortunately, took poor care of their masters (or the masters were recorded on the infamous Ampex tape with stick shed syndrome) and the originals were damaged (say some where along the line, they put the tape near a magnet

) As one recording engineer said to me, the factor with the biggest effect on the LP's sound is the tape generation, not the speed. He'd rather have an early gen 71/2 ips master tape than a later copy of a 15 ips recording.

Next, there is the issue of tape aging and losses. Those issues were eloquently spelled out in JGH's interview with Keith Johnson many years ago in Vol. 7, no. 4, Stereophile 1984 (a must read for all audiophiles in my estimation).

Then as long as you mentioned KOB, one must account for how the tape was handled. Hobson found in the course of researching the recording that the master tape was actually 1.5% too fast and wasn't corrected for when cutting the original Columbia 6-eye. So when Grundman cut the LP for Classic Records, he adjusted the tape deck's speed to account for the speed discrepancy. (I think CR also cut one side at the "normal" speed and one at the "corrected" speed).

Another consideration with the LP is the cutting lathe. For instance, Mercury's the best lathe (and sounding discs) is identified by the P17 on the lead out. Coincidentally, Wilma once remarked that the P17 lathe performed its best, just before it was going to break down. And Mercury isn't the only label with "selected lathes." Doug Sax had/has his "favorite" lathe. Furthermore, as we know with the Decca, the sound among other things (remembering that the earlier the album, the better the sound as a general rule) varies with whom mastered the album.

Those are but a few of the variable that come immediately to mind!

FrantzM · Jun 4, 2010

Myles

I welcome your input on the subject and wold like you to tell us more. One thing I know for sure is that given a recording session , it happens that there are more than one Master tapes. Not copies of a given Master Tape ( no plural) but different Master Tapes ... I would like Bruce to chime in, as he's been involved in many re-mastering projects ( I think)

Frantz

Bruce B · Jun 4, 2010

Yes, blame the mastering engineer!!

We're the last step in the process, but we're also a service industry and the customer is always right. Sometimes we can influence their (producer/label) decision and try to steer them in the right direction.
With the new tools we have now we can pretty much make it sound any way you want it. Most people never know what the original mix or source files sound like and thus have no frame of reference. The last RMAF I played source files against the mastered files and people were amazed at what the transformation was.
Speaking of source files, sometimes the tape is in really poor condition and no amount of processing can get it back in shape. I've in the past, taken a production SACD and gotten the DSD files off of it because it was used many years ago when the tape wasn't as worn out or they had used a version of the tape that was closer to the 1st generation.
Many times, the only files that are available are 24bit DAT or MO discs. You would be amazed at what these so called "low-rez" 24/44.1 files can sound like. Every digital file I receive for mastering, I upsample to 32/352.8kHz because modern workstations process files natively at 32-64bit anyway. I always try to keep file conversions to a minimum. Also upsampling to these high sample rates can be advantagous when you do any analog processing. Running the music through nice transformers, EQ's and such can add some of the missing 2nd and 3rd harmonics and give it a more natural sound.
Digital processing can be used to dig out some of the buried ambience and details. Some of the more common processors that are available to mastering engineers are:

Millennia EQ and Comp
Crane Song EQ and Comp
Manley EQ and Comp
Rupert Neve analog processors
Sontec EQ
EAR EQ and Comp
Dangerous EQ and Comp

You will fine 1 or more of these peices in every single mastering room in the world. Each can add it's own sonic signature. Every mastering engineer buys the equipment that suits their own ears first and then something on the opposite end of the spectrum. Hopefully though, they have a very transparent signal chain so that when the signal does get to these processors, they can make a logical decision on whether the music needs a 1/4dB adjustment here or there. Also hoping the room or monitoring equipment isn't making that decision for them! I will post later on engineers adding reverb, M/S processing , tape emulation an other "tricks".
It's certainly a slippery slope. It's all a matter of taste. The medical oath of "First do no harm" should be the mantra of every engineer!

Regards,

Steve Williams · Jun 4, 2010

But the long and the short of it is that the mastering engineer flavors the mix to his taste

I guess one can ask if the mix done by the mastering engineer ever sounds like the master? It probably doesn't as reflected by all the different sounding releases of the same album.

MylesBAstor · Jun 4, 2010

Bruce B said:
Yes, blame the mastering engineer!!
We're the last step in the process, but we're also a service industry and the customer is always right. Sometimes we can influence their (producer/label) decision and try to steer them in the right direction.

Guess that's why Steve Hoffman likes working with Chad

Chad pretty much gives Steve full reign! Anything you want buddy!

Well I guess Chad does ask how much will this cost?

MylesBAstor · Jun 4, 2010

Steve Williams said:
But the long and the short of it is that the mastering engineer flavors the mix to his taste

I guess one can ask if the mix done by the mastering engineer ever sounds like the master? It probably doesn't as reflected by all the different sounding releases of the same album.

Steve-You raise a good point!

I've always felt that the Producers/Recording Engineers/Mastering engineers from the Golden Age of Stereo really worked well together as teams. Certainly RCA, Mercury, Decca, etc had real teams. And those Producers knew what to do to get closer to the original recording. Sort of like a specialist in graphics who know just how much yellow or red to add the digitized picture to get it to the 4x5 neg.

FrantzM · Jun 4, 2010

Hi

let me get this straight. Please correct me when and if I am wrong:

The feed from the microphones through the mixer is on a medium. That it be Tape or an HDD is at this point not relevant to the discussion. Then comes the mastering part: The recording is modified, transformed, "mastered" and to me that is where the differences occur. I did not think that way but now ... Could it be that the supposed differences, some of them we deem, "vast", be traced to the mastering processes? Not that the medium doesn't have a say in the final sound, no! Only that mastering is what we, the consumers, mostly hear. I have heard some "master tapes", have rarely heard something straight out of the console feeds ... Could that be where the differences truly lie? The different masterings?

Frantz

MylesBAstor · Jun 4, 2010

Yep kinda like post-translational processing of proteins

Bruce B · Jun 4, 2010

FrantzM said:
Hi

let me get this straight. Please correct me when and if I am wrong:

The feed from the microphones through the mixer is on a medium. That it be Tape or an HDD is at this point not relevant to the discussion.

There are typically 3 stages to get an album to production.

1. Recording - this is where all the microphones are set up, be it in a studio or on location and the performance is captured either on HDD, tape or whatever.

2. Mixing - all the feeds from the microphones are blended together to get a good balance. Some individual instruments may need compression/eq or some type of level adjustment and panning. Then when the mix engineer thinks that a good balance is achieved, he will then do a stereo mixdown either to HDD or to tape.

3. Mastering - this 2 channel mixdown is then altered in a way to try and recreate the actual performance, or the way the producer/label wants it. Think of the analogy of the mix engineer fixing the trees and the mastering engineer adjusts the forrest. Once a mix enginner gives us the 2-track master, we can't alter individual instruments/voices UNLESS they are in mono and dead center. We have tricks to alter the instruments that are panned L/R, but it's a crap shoot. It's always a trade-off when the producer/label wants to make major adjustments and they can't/don't go back for a re-mix.

So yes, the mastering engineer can make or break a piece of music.

Regards,

Steve Williams · Jun 4, 2010

but why cant mixing and masering be under the same roof by the same company?

Great info BTW Bruce

RUR · Jun 4, 2010

I'm beginning to feel like a Sean Olive tool, but another aspect to consider is the apparently wide variation in in-room response between mastering studios. As he describes here, a survey of 164 studios using the same model, factory-calibrated monitor during the mastering process shows that response not only varies, but that, below 100Hz, the variance can be as much as 25dB (para 6). No wonder masters from "A" sound different from masters from "B".

FrantzM · Jun 4, 2010

RUR

That's the thing. Often we comment on the various sonics from different media when all t it might be are differences in a Mastering... Different mastering engineers, different sound. Different commercial imperatives or target customers ... Different mastering ... Too often we tend to forget this determinant step in our evaluations. It could well be the most determinant factor in what we hear at home ( assuming a reasonably accurate system). I also read Olive paper on mastering rooms very interesting... Engineers just like audiophile often focus on the speakers or electronics neglecting what at end, mostly influence the sound we hear and the degree of realism a system can approximate: The ROOM ...

Frantz

c1ferrari · Jun 5, 2010

Greetings, Bruce,

Thanks for the illumination. If one pursues Blumlein Pair stereo recording or something similiar, i.e. xy coincident pair, how would steps 2 and 3, enumerated below, be impacted

Vbr,
Sam

Bruce B said:
There are typically 3 stages to get an album to production.

1. Recording - this is where all the microphones are set up, be it in a studio or on location and the performance is captured either on HDD, tape or whatever.

2. Mixing - all the feeds from the microphones are blended together to get a good balance. Some individual instruments may need compression/eq or some type of level adjustment and panning. Then when the mix engineer thinks that a good balance is achieved, he will then do a stereo mixdown either to HDD or to tape.

3. Mastering - this 2 channel mixdown is then altered in a way to try and recreate the actual performance, or the way the producer/label wants it. Think of the analogy of the mix engineer fixing the trees and the mastering engineer adjusts the forrest. Once a mix enginner gives us the 2-track master, we can't alter individual instruments/voices UNLESS they are in mono and dead center. We have tricks to alter the instruments that are panned L/R, but it's a crap shoot. It's always a trade-off when the producer/label wants to make major adjustments and they can't/don't go back for a re-mix.

So yes, the mastering engineer can make or break a piece of music.

Regards,

Bruce B · Jun 5, 2010

When a 2-channel "live" event gets handed to me, steps 2 and 3 can somewhat be combined. If we need to do any restoration work (removing coughs or noises), this can be the mixing part. Now mind you, mastering is not just adding EQ, compression and such. At this event, we also put the instruments/band into a "space". Making sure the stereo width, height and depth are correct. Mastering also involves putting the tracks into a timeline. Making sure fade in/out is correct and proper spacing between tracks. It also involves placing metadata, ISRC/UPC codes and then producing to final production, wheter that be a DDP file, mp3, RBCD, SACD edited master or what have you.
Mastering in of itself, is giving your tracks to an impartial ear. Usually someone that has recorded/mixed these tracks may have worked on them for months and sometimes even years! Having a fresh set of ears and perspective may have been all the material needed!

Regards,

c1ferrari · Jun 5, 2010

Bruce B said:
When a 2-channel "live" event gets handed to me, steps 2 and 3 can somewhat be combined. If we need to do any restoration work (removing coughs or noises), this can be the mixing part. Now mind you, mastering is not just adding EQ, compression and such. At this event, we also put the instruments/band into a "space". Making sure the stereo width, height and depth are correct. Mastering also involves putting the tracks into a timeline. Making sure fade in/out is correct and proper spacing between tracks. It also involves placing metadata, ISRC/UPC codes and then producing to final production, wheter that be a DDP file, mp3, RBCD, SACD edited master or what have you.
Mastering in of itself, is giving your tracks to an impartial ear. Usually someone that has recorded/mixed these tracks may have worked on them for months and sometimes even years! Having a fresh set of ears and perspective may have been all the material needed!

Regards,

I've heard your work, Bruce, on the FIM label -- it sounds GREAT! Thanks for the explanation

JackD201 · Jun 6, 2010

There are great examples of material for every medium just as there are terrible ones. It also happens when say a CD version sounds better than the LP release. I guess there are no hard and fast rules except that the good mastering engineers make the most of any given medium's potentials and are adept at downplaying the weaknesses. This applies not just to mastering engineers but to recording, mixing and post production engineers as well.

Like any art it is the artist and not the medium that defines greatness.

What makes music so perplexing is unlike the direct link we get with artists at a live show with no sound reinforcement, our LPs, Discs and Tapes go through a very long route with many other people making artistic and even business decisions along the way.

Bruce,

Perhaps you can give a quick summary of the strengths and weaknesses of each medium for us to much better understand.

Thanks!

c1ferrari · Jun 6, 2010

MylesBAstor said:
Yep kinda like post-translational processing of proteins

I think I still have my biochem book at my parent's house...LOL

MylesBAstor · Jun 6, 2010

Thought this was an interesting comment from Joe Harley of Music Matters Jazz (on Steve Hoffman's website) regarding the remastering of RVG Blue Notes-that I add are sensational reissues. One can not help but be impressed by the consistent quality of recordings from the master.

This is the nature of working with historical tapes. Sometimes there are technical imperfections with the masters that we have to work around. On the RVG tapes we fairly frequently encounter subtle to more noticeable overload, especially on piano. Rudy, of course, was mixing on the fly. He was also trying to maintain as much signal to noise ratio as he could to avoid tape hiss.
We have a somewhat similar situation with the Newk's Time session from Sonny Rollins. It has long been apparent that Sonny was walking around while some of these tunes were being recorded...so you end up with Sonny moving towards the left and Sonny moving towards the center and then right. Meanwhile Rudy is opening and closing mics to try and capture him.
The music is incredible and the actual fidelity is quite good. But we may include a note to explain the "wandering" that is heard on a couple of the tracks.

Is this recording technically perfect? No, but it's Sonny Rollins at his best.

The same can be said for the Clifford Brown recording from June 9, 1953.

The Smokester · Jun 8, 2010

Sometimes I see are pictures of cramped "mastering studio" showing tiny speakers in a restricted space. This always makes me wonder how, if this is the standard system on which the tweaked album was judged, how can the final result possibly sound good on a fully-dedicated, balls-to-the walls audiophile system. Do you guys have a pair of electrostatic headphones in a drawer or something?

Mastering and the different media

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator

WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads