If you want to hear what the master heard, or wants you to hear, ask him what setup he used, and enjoy. Good point. Since much of what you can find has been done on ATC then that would be an option I'd recommend investigating (if you go that way and I am not saying it is the only way or even the right way). Here is just the output of one Mastering Engineer that uses ATC (there are more than five pages and you'll find many of your favorite artists like Pink Floyd, Diana Krall, Natalie Cole etc.) Last I heard he still uses Benchmark DAC1 also. |
No speakers sound the same. If you want to hear what the master heard, or wants you to hear, ask him what setup he used, and enjoy. Other then that, just hope he knows his monitors sound and how to adjust to a balance sound. You would hope it has been played on a full range rig, at least once before turning in the final mix. |
One thing that the recording industry here lacks is something like the TONEMEISTER that they have in Europe. Someone who is trained both in electronics and music who is present at the recording session and follows the recording at each stage until it is finished. This ensures some degree of continuity. I had assumed that this was mainly a German practice but I saw recently that the University of Birmingham in England was offering degrees in it so apparently the practice is common there too. ATC has a very good rep., some of the monitors in use in the old days were pretty dire. We now can hear things that the recording engineers could not, what is amazing is how good some of the older recordings sound. Some have suggested that this is because there weren't as many ways to screw up the sound then. Nevertheless, modern recordings done right are amazingly good. |
It would be interesting to compare recording engineer's monitors with mastering studio's monitors. Stan, You make an excellent point. I know of only one speaker manufacturer that is popular and has consistent products BOTH in recording AND in mastering BOTH as near-field as well as far-field main monitors: ATC. They are not "bright" in the treble sense but they are certainly more forward in the midrange than what most consumers seem comfortable with (as you correctly point out - not comfortable enough for broadcast work). Definitely a tool to hear every microphone placement issue and mixing level details in the recording but still enjoyable enough for compression and final EQ touches in mastering to create a product that translates well to target market. Until ATC came along, speakers typically used to sound completely different from the small monitors to the big bad main monitors used to impress clients and run bass checks - EVEN if they were from the same manufacturer!!! |
The basic point is this, in most cases the mastering engineer never heard the music being recorded. Therefore his frame of reference is what sounds best TO HIM. Many prefer monitors that are by most standards somewhat bright, in order to be able to pick up everything on the tape. I myself prefer broadcast monitors, in that in most cases they can be easily compared to the performance they are monitoring. In my experience they often sound softer in the top end than the ones used for mastering. I am basing this on my experience with BBC monitors and also with Nelson Reed, which was designed for movie playback and was [ and may still be ] Kavi Alexander's monitor speakers. It would be interesting to compare recording engineer's monitors with mastering studio's monitors. Tony Falkner uses Quad 57s for playback, I doubt if any mastering studio does. |
No piece of studio equipment is perfect. Skilled engineers understand the flaws of the equipment they are using and compensate. It's a translation process. Engineers and producers also make assumptions about how the music will be heard. If they think it will primarily be heard on a portable music player using low cost headphones in a compressed audio format, they engineer it to sound the best under those conditions. Very few records are engineered under the assumption that it will be heard on systems comparable to those displayed on Audiogon. |
Everything in the whole process from the time the sound leaves the instrument/vocalist's voice to the reflections in your room after the music leaves the speaker can color the sound.
I try to focus on the things I can control - room, equipment, system synergy and then try to enjoy recordings by companies I can count on to make good music. |
Sthomas - Yes, I get that. But you are missing my essential point (I think). You say you like weight and slight warmth in the sound. But what we hear in the home may not be what you want us to hear if your studio monitors are flawed in some way. If the monitors you use are already weighty and warm in nature then what we get will not be as warm and weighty as you foresaw. If your monitors happen to be a bit lean, them what we hear at home will be tilted too much towards weighty and warm. This means that the studio monitors must be as neutral and full frequency as possible for you particluar sound standard to be realized in our homes. Thanks for your comments. |
I have a recording studio.
Everyone has different tastes in mastering. Some like to bump the bass. Some like bright crisp high's. Ive always liked weight and slight warmth to the sound. I dont want it to be thin. I basically like a fat full sound, with no hint of muddiness, and a airy top end.
check out love songs, by warren hill, or born 2 groove by Eugo Groove. Great albums. |
To add another variable to the previous valid points, re: Recording Engineers, their abilities, knowledge and monitors: (http://www.digido.com/honor-roll.html) (http://www.digido.com/level-practices-part-2-includes-the-k-system.html) |
I suppose the skill and experience of the recording mixing engineer can come into play if they know the defficiencies of the monitors themselves and compernsate accordingly in the mixdown but can we really count on this? It's all about skill and experience, all the time, period. Can we count on it? Er, we have no choice. The recording/mastering engineer's tools (monitors, console, microphones, etc.) are the same thing for their art as the instrument for the instrumentalist. You could just as easily ask questions like "can a pianist ever get a light, delicate tone on a big Bosendorfer?" Or "can a flutist ever get quick, clean articulation on a heavy-wall Miramatsu?" Yes, there are some truly bad instruments out there, and some really amazing ones . . . but that's really not the point in the end. |
