From Ohm to Om — The ZenMastering Blog

It used to be that plugin was a four-letter word in pro audio circles. I’m here to tell you that time is past. But here’s the caveat: most still do suck eggs. There are only a small handful of companies producing truly professional quality offerings. Here’s who made my short list…

The first I’ll mention is PSP. It’s run by two guys in Poland who are dedicated to delivering creative and affordable plugins that are — above all — incredible sounding. In my opinion, their stuff is the best bang-for-the buck out there. Specifically, their compressors, limiters and equalizers. The only downside is that — when used in the highest resolution mode — their plugins can bring your computer to a standstill. You need a really robust machine (minimum dual core, suggested quad core) to handle these. Mac- and PC-compatible.

The second is Voxengo. They make a pretty staggering amount of audio tools and, from what I can tell, they’re all developed by one guy: Aleksey Vaneev. They’re stuff isn’t the prettiest to look at (there’s nothing wrong with their GUI’s…just spartan), but the sonic quality is first class. Specifically their compressors and limiters. I’ve found their EQ’s leave me a bit flat…but that’s for my taste. As a bonus, their prices are VERY affordable. PC-compatible.

The final company is the one garnering the most buzz in my circle (the mastering world): it’s Algorighmix. They get the prize for being “as good as hardware.” The trade-off…their stuff ain’t cheap. Four figures per plugin. And, as of this positing, they only have equalizers and sound restoration tools for sale. No compressors (yet) and no limiters. But if you’re looking for the best digital EQs and sound restoration tools out there, give them a listen. Same caveat as applies to PSP: their plugs will eat weak computers alive. Mac- and PC-compatible.

When I was fourteen I rented a Tascam cassette four-track PortaStudio from a local music store, and my fascination with capturing and manipulating sound began. Over the past twenty-five years I’ve had the good fortune to record in a variety of professional studios based around various technology formats: all-analog two-inch, ADAT and ProTools. And what I’ve learned along the way is that though technology will change — and can improve — the creative and technical work-flow, it doesn’t replace the integral steps required to create a professional recording. In other words: the same skill and knowledge are required to produce a professional product whether you’re using a cassette PortaStudio or a ProTools HD rig.

In the ongoing pursuit to create great sounding recordings, sometimes it’s good to back away from the technical minutia of meters, knobs, and software to think about the bigger picture; to conceptualize how things work, and the best way to accomplish them. Once that’s been solidified in your mind, it can be a lot easier to reach your goals.

Sounds simple…and perhaps it is. But in an age when everything can be done on a computer in a bedroom — and much, if not all, of a recording can be realistically created through samples and synthesizers — it does take a bit of objectivity and historical perspective to understand how great recordings have been made through time…and why they’ve been created that way.

Recording
Recording, or tracking, is its own specialization. The process of combining the best instruments, amps, microphones, and preamps to suit a recording situation is a skill that takes years to develop. Knowing when to mic an instrument vs. use a DI box (or a combination of both), how to mic drums for different sonic results, minimizing/ avoiding multi-mic phase cancellation, and how to match vocal mics to vocalists are all cut-no-corners processes; a combination of research, talent, luck and experimentation. The decision to track dry or print with effects is another important option. Once all these decisions are made, there’s not much going back, unless you can re-record parts. And then, after the technicalities have been ironed out, understanding what the band is looking for so they feel comfortable enough with your abilities to let go of their worries and anxieties so they can really lose their inhibitions and deliver a no-holds-barred performance. These are all responsibilities that lie in the hands of the tracking engineer. The process is an art, and it has probably more importance on it than any other step in the overall recording process, if only because it’s the foundation of everything that comes after it.

Mixing
Mixing is the next important step in the production process. The “goods” have been delivered in tracking and now it’s the mix engineer’s job to put all the pieces together in a cohesive package that serves the band’s style of music ad their artistic intention. This is probably the process that’s benefitted most from recent technological advancements, as things like automation have made it possible to A/B various mixes instantaneously, as well as allowing people across the globe to collaborate at the speed of light. But there are still many creative and experience-based decisions that need to be made. How should the drums sit in the mix: upfront or in the back? How tightly are the vocals tucked in with the other instruments? Is compression an integral part of the sound of the band’s style? Is the stereo spread wide and ethereal, or tight and straight-forward? What oversights were made in tracking that need to be compensated for in mixing? These are all realities that the mix engineer deals with that are unique and separate from anything the tracking engineer would have thought about. It’s where the parts become whole. It’s also where the musicians will more than likely be interested in getting involved, so the mix engineer needs to be creative, technically adept and fairly easy to work with, personality-wise. Like tracking, the mixing skill set is unique and a combination of technical and artistic.

Mastering
After mixing has been wrapped up, it’s on to mastering. In my experience, mastering is the least-understood of all the steps in the music production process. Due to misleading marketing, many people believe mastering is a process performed by a magic black box processor or plug-in that “sweetens” the sound and makes the mixes loud. In fact, mastering’s job is to ensure that the recording sounds as consistent as possible in all playback situations; that it “translates” successfully to everything from a high-end home theater system to an iPod. This is the hallmark of any really well-mastered recording: sonic consistency. To accomplish this, the finished mixes need to be analyzed in a balanced, neutral listening environment by an engineer who hasn’t been involved in the tracking or mixing process. This guarantees two things. First, that the person doing the mastering hears everything (warts and all) through an audiophile-grade playback system. Second, that the engineer mastering the project has an objectivity that’s otherwise been lost through countless hours of tracking and mixing. The combination of these two components is what professional mastering has always been about. The signal processing utilized (as well as how loud and densely a project is mastered) is determined by the style of music, so that element fairly arbitrary. If the monitoring system and objectivity are in place, an experienced mastering engineer can utilize a myriad of tools to accomplish the job successfully.

**************************

If you conceptualize the recording process as being built from these three integral components, you’ll be working from the template that has produced all the great albums in history. As you can see, each part plays a unique and irreplaceable role in the big picture. You may never have access to items like U47s or Neve consoles, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make great-sounding recordings. There are more affordable tools available at the recording musician’s disposal today than ever before in history, from budget to boutique. But the process for creating a great recording hasn’t changed, and it isn’t something you can buy. It’s a concept you need to understand, and then work within it using the tools at your disposal.

I’m a mastering engineer who works almost exclusively with independent artists. And as most of my peers in the professional audio community aspire to accrue more major-label credentials, I dig deeper into the indie trenches. Why? Anyone will tell you it makes more sense go after a handful of big fish than a school of small ones. The answer is simple: working with indie artists is where I can make the biggest difference.

Each month I’m contacted by musicians all over the world who are interested in making their recordings as professional sounding as possible. They essentially fall into two categories: The first are those interested in attracting a major-label deal by creating the best sounding recording on a real-world budget. The second are intent on circumventing major labels, yet need to create a product to sonically go head-to-head with anything out there. Regardless of genre or medium, the thread that connects all these artists is the desire to effectively convey their unique message through sound. I take this desire seriously.

I take it seriously because, before starting my own mastering company, I spent years as an independent musician myself. Writing original music; setting-up residence in cities like San Diego, San Francisco, New York; recording everywhere from no-air-conditioning home studios to world-class, espresso bar-in-the-lobby facilities…and sitting through more management, record label and contractual meetings than I’ll probably ever remember. Eventually, my love for music and fascination for audio technology led me to mastering. And through all my years of artistic trials, tribulations and evolutions, I never lost my interest in the elusive, indefinable quality which only exists in an independent musician.

Now I don’t have anything against major-label artists. And I try not to put anyone’s work on a pedestal, regardless of artistic intent or success. But the truth of the matter is that the majority of top-dollar, major-label albums are so well recorded that, in many cases, the mastering aspect can be fairly mundane. Don’t get me wrong, no matter how great a recording is, mastering for major label albums—if only to objectively verify what the recording and mix engineers have done—is crucial. And the people doing the work on these recordings are some of the most talented technicians around. But usually a major label release arrives at a mastering studio in A- or A condition and the mastering engineer applies the finishing touches to bring it up to A or A+. And, in most cases, those “finishing touches” must fall in line with the record label’s expectations.

With indie recordings, however, it’s not uncommon to receive an album of C or B- sonic quality. This is not due to lack of talent, but rather the result of realistic conditions like finite resources and limited technical expertise. The songs, however, are often groundbreaking. The challenge is to turn these diamonds-in-the-rough into products that can sonically stand with major-label work. For me this is where it all comes together, as I have the opportunity to utilize my full range of mastering skills; elevating an album that might have never received a second listen at the A&R office into a disc that gets noticed. And after clients hear what professional, judicious mastering can accomplish, they trust me to apply my sonic skills to their art. In short, I’m encouraged to be creative and asked to interject my perspective. This rarely happens in the world of corporations.

The job of an independent artist is so hard that the only reason anyone writes, records, performs, and releases his/her own music is artistic belief and absolute conviction. The singles, EPs and CDs I lend my expertise to represent the culmination of months—if not years—of these artist’s lives, usually funded on their own dime. Among them are the names of tomorrow, whether they go mainstream or become underground icons. These are the artists I want to be working with.

On my rant about “you get what you pay for”, here’s a good example:

Recently my friend (and DIY mic designer) Rick Wilkinson came over and we recorded some music with his latest ribbon creation (a stereo blumlein ribbon mic).

We ran the mic into an M-Audio DMP3 mic preamp. After the recording we started talking about using a better preamp for the tests. I suggested the True Systems P-Solo.

The other day, Rick sent me this e-mail comparing the preamps:

Another thing is THD: Total Harmonic Distortion

The True Systems preamps distorts 1/4 as much (and it’s 4x as expensive)

Maybe You *Do* Get What You Pay For…

Are you obsessed with sample rate resolution? Gotta make all your recordings 24/96…32/192…64/384? Well, let me drop some knowledge on you. And this is free — on the house — advice: you’re wasting your hard disk space.

Even though just about any software program today can record at 24/96 or higher, the A/D converters that come with those applications don’t spec. out anywhere near that type of resolution. Most “bundled” converters (those that come as part of an interface package along with mic pres.) are good for about 20/48. Yeah, really.

That’s why I recommend people record and mix down at 24/48. For starters, it saves you TONS of disc space. Second, you can work faster because your DAW has less integers to crunch. Third, there’s no benefit in tracking at a resolution higher than your converters have a capability to deliver. Finally, I’m skeptical that anyone can really hear much difference between 48 and 96 in PCM recording.

If you’re among the very few people that have Benchmark, Lavry, Weiss, or Cranesong A/D converters (or some other boutique names I may have forgotten), then I’d say you’re good to go with getting some real sonic benefit out of 24/96. Apogee…maybe.

If you know how to make a great recording, you can do it at any bit/sample rate. Focus on the craft of capturing sound, not the bits it’s recorded on.

So, to dovetail on the concept of the last post (Cheap Gear…), if you’re technically inclined maybe you should try building your own ribbon microphone.

A good friend of mine (and musician/engineer/mad scientist) Rick Wilkinson has created a DIY Ribbon Microphone plan.

To hear what one of his mics sounds like you can download a recording of me playing acoustic guitar recorded by a stereo ribbon he designed/ built.

One interesting side-effect of the DAW revolution is that it spawned a huge interest in the retro market. Or, it helped create an interest in things that sounded warm and fuzzy.

You see, in digital there’s really nothing but what gets you in and out. The sources and converters. There is no “sound” to digital. And converters have long been the weak link in the equation, which is partly why digital stuff can sound flat and dimensionless.

Enter lots of tube gear and retro-vintage mics and preamps. Some of them are expensive and some are dirt cheap. Are the cheap ones any good? Well, you have to decide for yourself. But in my opinion, a $199 ribbon mic made in China sounds good for $199. But if you compare it to a $1,000 American-made ribbon mic, you start to hear the shortcomings.

IMO, a lot of what passes for “good” these days is really “good for how cheap it is” and not good on a playing field of the best stuff out there.

That isn’t to dissuade anyone from buying a $199 Chinese ribbon mic (or anything else in that pricepoint). It’s great that this stuff is even available to the average consumer. But one thing I’ve found to be true in life: you get what you pay for. Caveat emptor.

Are the volume wars finally over…or settling down? Over the past few years I’ve noticed fewer and fewer clients obsessed with the overall volume of their albums, and more interested in sonic quality.

Of course, getting the volume in a “competitive level” is still a priority/concern of many artists. But I think I see a positive trend (at least in my own clients) toward quality. And also trusting me as an engineer to do the right thing.

At the end of the day, it’s always been my opinion that crushing a recording just so it sounds as loud as the next disc in the CD changer (or, nowadays, the iPod) is a bad idea. Music needs to be mastered appropriately for its genre. Speed metal should be smashed. It wouldn’t sound right if it wasn’t. Conversely, acoustic-based music needs air to breathe…and it would sound just as ridiculous smashed as speed metal would if it had lots of dynamics.

Genres and taste aside, if you’ve never read it you should check out Frank Foti and Robert Orban’s treatise on what happens when music is played on the radio…and how it’s processed. It may change your mind on the concept of “radio ready”…as well as how smashing a track in mastering can really “F things up” when it comes to radio play.

One of the questions (or issues) I run into more than I can count is “what’s the best way to prepare audio files for mastering?”

Regardless of who masters your music, there are a few key things to be aware of. That’s why I wrote this article.

Take a read, and feel free to let me know if there’s anything I forgot to address…I’d be happy to amend it for a more complete document.

1. ZenMastering is San Diego’s only dedicated mastering facility.
2. Owner and chief mastering engineer, Paul Abbott, has been featured as a columnist in EQ, Sound on Sound and Tape Op magazines.
3. Paul was profiled in Music Connection magazines 2002 “Masters of Mastering” issue.
4. Paul is a voting member of the Audio Engineering Society (AES).
5. We mastered REM bassist Mike Mills’ cover of the Big Star classic Jesus Christ Was Born Today for the 2006 Red Apple Foundation holiday benefit single.
6. We have mastered music for clients in over 30 states in the U.S., and more than 15 countries around the world.
7. We have some of the finest analog and digital equipment available, from converters to processing to speakers and amps. View our equipment page for details.
8. Our mastering room was setup and optimized by George Augspurger, one of the music industries most prestigious acousticians and a legend in the field of studio design.
9. Paul is available to answer questions about recording or mastering for any potential client, either by e-mail or Web conference.
10. In addition to being an accomplished mastering engineer, Paul has a beautiful wife, a loyal dog and a mischievous cat…and is an avid practitioner of Ashtanga yoga.