iPlod
Posted on | November 3, 2008 | No Comments
As far as I know, I’m the last person in the world, 40 or under, without an iPod. What gives? Well, I don’t really have any interest in listening to .MP3-compressed music.
I’m a gear slut…but it’s gotta be audiophile. My computer’s sound card cost more than my computer, so that should tell you something about my standards.
While the rest of the entertainment world shuttles at warp-speed to HD (Blu-Ray DVDs, and 7.2 home theatre surround systems), somehow people settle for bad-sounding audio.
I know, I know…convenience. I guess I’ll just plod along in my little audiophile shell while the rest of the world gets to wherever they’re going as fast as they can.
Thoughts on Speakers
Posted on | November 1, 2008 | No Comments
I did a post some time back on subwoofers…so I thought I’d take time to outline some thoughts on speakers.
Speakers (or, monitors in studio lingo) are the single most important component in mastering. They deliver the sound an engineer listens to and if they’re not accurate then nothing else really matters. Mastering legend Doug Sax once said, “if your speakers lie to you they’re useless.” Agreed.
In mastering, look to see if a studio is using what are considered world-class, audiophile monitors. In my opinion, there are only a handful of speakers that are consistently used throughout the mastering world:
That’s a pretty short list but, honestly, those are about the only speakers that are consistently used by serious mastering professionals.
What About Active Monitors?
The only active speakers among that group are ATC. As a general rule, professional mastering facilities use passive speakers, as active speakers have much higher distortion levels (a compromise of having the amp built-in to the speaker) and the amplifiers are of lesser quality than what can be designed in Class A or monoblock amps. Active, nearfield monitors are great for project studio tracking and mixing, but can’t deliver the realistic soundstage required for professional mastering.
Paul’s End Rant
Posted on | October 30, 2008 | No Comments
Just a little teaser…the Nov/Dec issue of Tape Op (which should be out in a few weeks) will feature an article by me on the last page. The coveted Larry’s End Rant will actually be Paul’s End Rant for this issue. Though I’m not sure if they’ll change the title on my account.
I’m very excited to have another article in Tape Op. (My first article in TO was over 3 years ago!) Keep an eye out for it…it’s a rant-worthy subject.
Random Things Relate to Music
Posted on | October 27, 2008 | No Comments
There are a lot of things in life that, in essence, have nothing to do with music or mastering…but have helped me become a better musician and mastering engineer.
When I got out of college I moved to San Francisco and got a job at Peet’s Coffee & Tea as a barista. At the time it was just a paycheck while my band gigged and tried to move further down our music biz path. In the process, though, I learned how to make a great latte (among other fineries…such as how to pull an espresso and the art of Turkish coffee). To this day I relate a good mix (and the process of mastering) to making the perfect latte: milk at the bottom (low end), espresso in the middle (midrange) and foam on top (high frequencies). If any one of them is out of proportion, you’re screwed.
My interest in Zen philosophy and yoga is another good example. Both have given me a philosophical vantage point where I try to achieve a balance of sound with as few steps as possible. Some people might think of this as “audiophile”, but I think that puts a connotation on it I’m probably not interested in having. I’ll do whatever needs to be done to get the sound I’m looking for (some of which might make an audiophile cringe), but I always see the challenge to get from A to B as efficiently as possible.
Although I’m always interested in learning something new about music (and the craft of mastering), I’ve found that other areas of life have given me perspectives I probably couldn’t have realized if I hadn’t gone down those paths.
What’s That Smell?
Posted on | October 25, 2008 | No Comments
So, as part of my “I’ve learned from my mistakes” series, I’ll just say that if you’re going to bi-amp your speakers, make sure you removed the binding post jumpers. Otherwise, you’ll be feeding 60 cycles back into your amp and wondering what that smell is.
On a related note, I suggest to speaker manufacturers that they include jumpers with their speakers, but not have them factory-connected. It’s easy to forget they’re there and then when you decide at some point to bi-amp…well, let’s just say it’s better to have to add something than remember to remove it.
Component Matching
Posted on | October 23, 2008 | No Comments
You probably read a lot about properly matching components in audio; the right preamp for a microphone, the right direct box for a pickup, the best amplifiers for a speaker. With all the audio marketing that goes on, it’s hard to say what’s really valuable what’s hype. However, proper component matching is very important.
Probably the best example I can give is that for acoustic instrument amplification. Until about 10 years ago, it was very difficult (and expensive) to get a good live sound from an acoustic instrument. The only people that really succeeded were obsessed geeks (like me) or well-known artists (like Neil Young) who had access to great techs. But today, almost every guitar you buy has a great built-in pickup system.
What happened in that time frame is that manufacturers got hip to building preamps and equalizers that were properly matched to pickups. It’s pretty much as simple as that. It starts with the pickup, and then goes to the preamp, then to the equalizer then to the sound system. If each of these stages is optimized, you’ll get great results.
It’s the same for making recordings. It’s important to have good gear, but really important to have gear that plays well together. It will give you that extra bit of clarity and texture you’re looking for.
True North?
Posted on | October 18, 2008 | No Comments
I was doing some casual listening tonight of a professionally mastered disc. At some point, I noticed that the DAW (a reputable company, but not my main mastering DAW) I was listening through showed the track had clipped. Here’s the image:
I thought that was strange. Surely a reputable mastering facility wouln’t let a disc go to replication with a clip. So, I ran a meter that I usually use for checking masters and came up with this:
It’s not a snapshot from the same part of the song…it’s actually later. So if it had clipped it would be there.
The first example is one where the program material hit zero…probably for a single sample. In professional audio, a clip is characterized by three consecutive hits at 0. So, while the first program is a bit more “proactive”, it’s not accurate in a professional sense.
This is a good example of the value of utilizing professional-grade software when making a recording. Or, utilizing a studio that does.
Rhymes with Joe the Plumber
Posted on | October 17, 2008 | 3 Comments
Mike the drummer
Sold my Hummer
Sticky summer
What a bummer
Dumb and dumber
Jaime Sommers
Woody lumber
Think you can do better? Let’s hear ‘em…
Value Proposition
Posted on | October 16, 2008 | No Comments
In a business, how you differentiate yourself from a competitor is called the value proposition. In mastering, some studio’s value proposition is having a “secret sauce”. But I think that a value proposition that’s just as important is a “do no harm” credo.
This falls into the ZenMastering tagline “analog warmth, digital precision”. I deliver the “colored” sound people want, but not at the expense of my own sense of professionalism in regard to making something really sound better.
The hallmark of great recordings is a clarity and realism that makes you think you’re “there”. It takes a lot of knowledge to get that sound, and there’s a lot of value in it for the musician.
A Little Experiment
Posted on | October 15, 2008 | No Comments
This is part of an e-mail I received from a new client:
“In talking with my bandmates at practice this week, one of our
guitarists expressed concern about the overall tone of [one song].
Specifically, he was disappointed that it was too “cold” and “empty.” He had been hoping that the end result would have more “warmth” and that all of the tracks would be more “saturated” and “present” in the mix. I’m not sure if this is something that mastering can help with, but I thought I would ask.”
So, the experiment is that I haven’t received the EP to master yet, but I’m going to try and hit what the client is asking for. I’ll post their reaction when I receive it…positive or negative.
I think this is a good experiment b/c people often wonder what’s possible in mastering. In all honesty, it depends on the recording. But this will be a good acid test for that elusive warm, saturated sound.
About This Blog
From Ohm to Om reflects the opinions of mastering engineer Paul Abbott, owner of San Diego's ZenMastering.
We welcome comments from readers...pro or con!
