Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Tone, Mar 31, 2008.
I want my turn!
In that sense I need to learn to see more (correctly.) To stretch the metaphor in the absence of better lights, I'd best use better glasses to make the best of what I've got.
Probably the FadeOut column from this month's Recording magazine says it best, at the end:
I've read the editorial several times, and I still can't figure out if he's kidding, especially with lines like:
Yes it's dark sarcasm in the magazine, BeatleJWOL. Might make the point better than a serious lecture.
April Fools' right?
The more annoying aspect for me is well after the event remixing or removal of the light and shade of the original recording through the misuse of contempary mastering tools.
That certainly unbutters my toast.
Gee! Maybe I should try mixing with cheap earbuds.
So what about this statement from a mastering engineer? :
"The secret to being a good mastering engineer is to be able to listen to a mix to hear how it could sound, and finally be able to push the right buttons to achieve the sound you have in your head."
Brickwalling the Mona Lisa:
I agree. But, someone with bad eyes or a misadjusted monitor would probably prefer the glaring version on the right.
and when the artist wants it brickwalled? What then?
Hopefully someone is in the camp that can educate the artist to what a different perspective is.If the artist then wants it done anyway,then I guess the mastering engineer has some thinkin' to do.
"Isn't the reason for Mastering to make the music LOUDER?"
Barry Diament, Ken Scott, SH, Greg Calbi, and a couple others
would find absolute inaccuracy in that statement.
The resulting volume is almost irrelevant, the songs need to
sound good together, who cares about their relative loudness
compared to the other discs in your collection?
Intelligently talk them out of it. Do you give an alcoholic a bottle of
gin for Christmas? Play an EMI mastered Donovan cd next to the
SH mastered AF or DCC discs. They'll get it, even without your coaching.
My top-40 lovin' daughter even gets it.
I played the (dubbed from) vinyl and cd versions of 'Modern Times'
for her, back to back on my iPod. She was shocked at the difference!
Not really, your example is still 'watchable.' IMHO, this example is more like what is being done to music nowadays (this one is really clipped because I clipped the histogram. I also gave it more contrast, which is the equiivalent of a smilie EQ. Yes, you can see some detail that is buried in the original, but look at what has happened to the colors.):
Apparently all anyone wants is detail at least in their music at the cost of destroying everything else. If you ask me "The Devil is in the Detail".
Exactly...which is why I tried to do a visual analogy that wasn't totally over the top.
I made one that looked just like that. I rejected it because any idiot would know that's wrong. The problem with brickwalled audio is that most idiots don't know it's wrong at all. This is why my brickwalled mona lisa looks as it does. I did enough to it to make it useless for more than a t-shirt imprint. It's ugly as sin to my eyes but most people, without the a/b comparison would never know there was a thing wrong with it.
Sorry, pointless contribution erased.
no they wont:thumbsdn:
Then that's what they want me to hear, so I respect them for that. I won't buy it most likely, but at least it will be what they want, not what some executive wants.
In the case of new releases, like the R.E.M. album for example, I am torn. I want to hear the music, but I am upset that the thing is so loud, when apparently the band didn't want it that way.
Well done, I agree.
IMHO, you can get both things if you do things right. The thing is that much like Hollywood blockbusters are about huge visual effects, music is being made to cater to shock value sensitivities, not to promote the subtleties that accompane and develop good taste. As I mentioned before, it's the industrialization of the boom box mentality.
I imagined so. The thing is that, just as Grant said, if someone has a misadjusted monitor he/she won't be able to see the difference. Remember, as McLuhan said, communication is the act of the watcher. If the person watching the message cannot see it, there is no communication.
This said, I believe that my version is more in line with what is being done to music nowadays because I have done the equivalents of clipping (clipping the highlights on the histogram, which is fact compresses the color and lightness information left) and smilie EQ (raising the contrast level) to it.
But, hey, your example was the inspiration for my input.
Separate names with a comma.