Are Mastering Engineers Responsible For Bad Mastering Demands?

You got that right in spite of the promise of "superior sound quality" all the time. We're just lucky we have had a legacy of fine sounding music to go along with the poor sounding music. Not everything can have the dynamics and life of something like the Fantasia soundtrack.

 

Hmm. Yeah I guess that's true.

 

For years I have said that most brickwalled CDs are the result of what the client wants, not some renegade doing as he or she pleases, like this forum seems to think.

 

They get their name on it because they need the work.

 

It's not a cop-out when these people want to eat and work.

We understand that people have to take a stand, but it's nice when a person is also in the position to do that. Most aren't. These people know they are part of the problem by brickwalling, but what can they do if they are trying to rise in the industry? It's the whole system that's screwed up.

There are people trying to create a standard like Bob Katz and his K-System, and the Pleasurize Music Foundation, but their efforts are largely being ridiculed or ignored.

 

Bob Ludwig for example has been mastering for a very long time and so I would assume he should be in a financially good position.
So surely he could afford to take a stand and refuse to brick-wall but he continues to be one of the worst offenders I know of.
(that is unless there are recent (re)masters by him that are not brick-walled that I am not aware of)

I write to artists and mastering guys and tell them I don't like their brick-walled CDs.
We all need to do the same so that they take notice.
Seems to me people just take s**t and never tell the people responsible.
And if feedback, be it good or bad is not given services will decline.

 

I understand the whole argument of a mastering engineer only doing what they are told, and having the choice of doing as told, or not getting the job. But I know for damn sure I would never put my name on something that didn't stand up to my standards. But, then again, I don't work as a mastering engineer, and probably wouldn't last two seconds in the music industry, due to my desire to tell off just about everyone running the industry.

 

Steve, do you have any stories to share where a client tried to get you to "go to the dark side" when mastering a project (names aren't important)?

 

Remasters by Audio Fidelity, Analog Productions, Mofi, etc are intended to be audiophile-grade by using original tapes and retaining the original dynamics.

Who ever said that major-label remastering campaigns were meant to do this? I would guess that beyond marketing alone, what the record company and artist are trying to accomplish is updating the sound to seem modern, which unfortunately probably means at least some level of compression in recent years.

 

I knew an Oscar-winning mixer over at Universal, and he once told me that he's had first-time directors with zero experience yell at him and say, "no! It's gotta be louder, and the music's gotta start there, not there." Even when the audio engineer has been in the business longer than the director's been alive, they sometimes don't want to listen.

 

If they would just put 11 on all the controls, then you could start loud and still have room to go louder.

 

But isn't it also a problem that everyone can not agree on what is good sound? It's not an exact science.

Most people here love the work of our host. Outsiders probably don't.

I would love to see a test where 2 different masterings are available on the same commercial CD and consumers would then fill out an online questionnaire, one question being "Which version do you prefer?"

The next question could be "Are you a member of stevehoffman.tv?"

But seriously, I wonder how a well conducted test like this would go over on the general public.

I can think of some of the worst mastering contenders as prime candidates.

TV

 

A lot of the industry people actually groan when they find that out.

But, it wouldn't happen so much if the industry people would just make the effort to make audiophiles understand what they have to deal with.

 

We all wish more studios were equipped with a Producers knob.......

 

Would you agree that 95% of the end users of the product don't give a cr@p about mastering and look at recorded music as a disposeable product, not unlike a cheeseburger? I think the record labels and mastering houses unfortunately cater to those demographics, not the other 5%. And unfortunately, we seem to be the other 5%.

 

You are right that the marketing claims of "superior" in regards to sound quality by the majors really means "modern."

 

Exactly right. That is why that no matter what efforts of awareness that are presented by specialized groups, and the YouTube video that explains this, this will never change. BTW, the labels do read our posts, and it does bother the record companies that we often have to buy OOP CDs that the major labels themselves had issued with good sound originally to get good sound because they don't make money on used product. There was even an article in Rolling Stone about this, the Metallica debacle, etc. and clients are still wanting this done. It is all about the cash from the masses.

 

I would add one more to that:

Type 4: Those mastering engineers who actually like to sound of maxed out audio. Lets not forget there are a generation of guys who have been mastering for a relatively short period of time. Most are very heavy handed when it comes to levels and presenting their work as having the "instant impact factor". Perhaps it is these young guns who are adding more pressure on the older, more established engineers.

 

Exactly- Their name is on that product, so they should stand behind the work they did. If they lose credential because of that later on it is their own fault.

 

Mastering engineers brickwall things because someone told them to and because they want to keep their jobs! Gotta do what the boss tell ya to!

 

I belive it would be better to write to the producer.
The mastering engineer is just told to turn volume up.

 

I always wonder how much loss of hearing as you get older plays into the mastering process? It's a natural process and if you haven't protected your hearing it's exacerbated. I'm talking about (re) mastering cds especially those with lots of percussion.

 

What if he was broke because he lost all his money in the Bernie Madoff scam? Would it be ok for you then if he needed to do what he was told by the guy cutting the cheque/check?

 

Exactly this. If the money is the most important thing you're in the wrong business and a sell-out.

 

You know even though I've been on the side of the engineers through this thread I agree with this. If a mastering engineer loses respect among audiophiles or their peers because they chose to master certain CDs in a way that pleases their bosses but violates the principles of good sound then that's the way it is.

We all make choices in life. They have benefits and drawbacks. The benefit is a good payday with the prospect of more to come. The drawback is their reputation is diminished among some of their peers. I'm not judging their choice, people need to get paid and they aren't preventing a bad product from being released, but I'm also not going to be upset when they experience the drawback associated with it.

As far as the morality of it I honestly can't say its immoral. If the artist is clear that he, she or they do not want their music reissued or remastered in that way then it gets dicey but if that's what the artist wants, that's what they want. Quite frankly good sound is subjective anyway. Artistic intent is clearer. I'm not saying its the right thing to do, certainly I respect people who stick to their guns. There is something to be said for integrity. I think there is a middle ground between immorality and integrity and this issue is an example of that.