SH Spotlight Question for Steve: "What is a mastering console?"

Steve,

You mentioned that when you mastered the recent Bob Marley compilation that you bypassed the mastering console. In another thread you said it would be best to bypass that mastering console in the case of the Beatles albums. So this is two-part question:

1. What is a mastering console and what does it do?

2. When would you want to use it and when wouldn't you?

I realize in your case we would be talking about an analog console and not some Sonic Solutions console or some other DAW. Thanks.

 

Well I'm certainly not Steve, but this is a fairly straight ahead question.

A mastering console is basically like a recording console but smaller and designed for mastering. It's basic function is to control and process the source material before presenting it to the master recording device, whether digital or analog.

For stereo analog mastering, there would generally be a couple of faders to control the incoming level of the signal, as well as equalization, possibly compression, and sends and returns for outboard processors. One can bypass the console to eliminate it's effect on the signal if desired. To do this means that the signal may have to be controlled by other means. For example, supposed the level of the master tape is deemed too low. Since the console is bypassed, there is no easy way to increase the level, so the output of the playback tape deck might have to be increased. Generally the input and output levels of studio equipment is pre aligned and not varied. Of course, this is not a rule etched in stone. The same would go for eq. If eq is deemed necessary by the mastering engineer, you either have to go through the console or patch in an outboard equalizer.

This is the same concept as bypassing the recording console in search of better sound. Many people will take a microphone, run it through an external preamp, and hook it right up to the tape deck, hence bypassing the recording console. While this eliminates a lot of options for control, it also bypasses a lot of electronic circuitry which can have a degrading effect on the signal. Of course one has to go through the console for mixing. When you look at a signal flow schematic for a recording console you'd be surprised how many active components you go through. Some consoles might have 20 amplifiers or more between mic and tape recorder. Many audiophiles would cringe at adding 1 extra amplifier to their systems, so you can see why the premise of console bypass has appeal.

 

Thanks for the explanation, Steve.

A lot of people obviously did the same thing, i.e. record directly into the recording machine while bypassing the console(James Jamerson at Motown, among others).

BTW, what tape box is that in front of you, if you remember?

Evan

 

Very interesting. I sometimes used the tape playback eq for mastering and once I got my butt chewed off by the mastering engineer who will go unnamed. My thought was that the eq was in the circuit already, so why not 'misadjust' the controls a bit if it can help with the sound. Generally pro analog tape machines have 2 playback eq controls, one for 10k and the other for 100 or 50 Hz. They are pretty broad and are somewhat similar to some of the tone controls found on home playback equipment.

Most people consider this misadjustment a definite no no, but when you are mastering IMO all bets are off. Like I always told people, there are no real rules. You don't have to list your procedures on the record, just make it sound right. I guess to a degree, you have to know the theory behind the rules so you can know when you can break them.

 

I'm not sure that is what James Jamerson did. I know that had direct inputs in the studio which had active electronics in them, similar to what their bass and guitar amps would have, but from that point I'm assuming that they went through the recording console. Unless you have multitrack machines you'd have to run everything through the console for premixing prior to recording to 2 live tracks.

I LOVE Jamersons bass part without exception, but the sounds they got from him were extremaly raunchy, though glorious at the same time. He never changed strings and have a very dull sound. Also his sound could have tons of distortion and other noises on it. None of this seemed to matter as their stuff sounded great in whole. Listen to some of the 'Karaoke' stuff Motown released, or the soundtrack to "Standing In The Shadows of Motown" and this will be obvious without the vocals obscuring the parts.

Of course, as usual, I always reserve the right to be wrong.

 

If you check the Recording Sessions book, McCartney did this as well during the Sgt. Pepper sessions.

Evan

 

Well I'll have to check the book on that one. If Paul played right into the tape machine, through a preamp of course to boost the extremely high impedance of the bass with low level to the low impedance high level needed at the tape recorder input, there would have had to be a whole track dedicated to his bass. On top of that there would be no eq or processing on it.

I know he would sit in the control room and do bass od's after the tracks were cut for the Pepper's album. Possibly he consumed a whole track, but with only 4 tracks to work with, I kind of think they put more than one instrument on the tape at a time. Of course this would take mammoth planing ahead of time or great luck. I think they had a bit of both, make that a lot of both.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I believe everything written about the Beatle sessions. There are too many unexplained things. That coupled with Martin saying they never pre thought about stereo mixes ahead of time, led me to this conclusion. If there were no thoughts of stereo, there would seem to be no center channel info on the early 'twin track' mixes. However there is some, albeit little, info in the center.

 

Yes, oftentimes during that time, Macca did have an entire track reserved for his bass. This was so it could be mastered higher/louder in the mix. The book will give you more detail. They could do this because they would often record a rhythm track on all four tracks of one tape and then mix that down to one track on another. Listen to the beginning of "Lovely Rita" which is audible evidence of this.

Ummm....this was supposed to be a question for STEVE, wasn't it?

Evan

 

That A&B configuration is another function generally associated with mastering consoles .

Often lp records were made up of tapes from different sources. Sometimes these source tapes were physically spliced together to make the side. Other times they were kept separate.

If they were separate, two tape machines would be used and switched in as A or B as needed. There would generally be duplicate processing capabilites for the A and B section.

This process could also be used to do crossfades and segues with 1st generation mixes.

In the pre-digital age, without this type of mastering capabilities, these segues if done by production team in the studio prior to mastering would have required a 2nd generation recording for the combined sections.

My mastering experience in the digital era is limited, but I'd guess it's not generally done 'on the fly' as it was for analog records. There, not only were you getting the sounds right, you are were in a 'performance' as you can't stop till you're done without having to start the whole process over again.

 

Sorry, I didn't realize that.

 

Meant it as a joke; no worries.

Evan

 

What are these things and just in case it's technical...what do they do?

 

Anyone can answer my question. Or have I stumped you all.

 

Sure look like amplifiers and/or crossovers as there is one in each speaker group.

 

I have done the same thing too, and it works great. My Ampex ATR has very accurate eq, and if it had the four speed PADNETS it would have a lot of eq pots! I can even get mastering tweakers for them, so I wouldn't need a screwdriver to adjust them. The only reason the engineer chewed your butt off is because its a pain to set up the repro eq properly. I can do it by ear, and be acurate to about a DB or so, but in most cases I pull out my MRL calibration tape.

 

Well in this case it believe it was a MCI mastering machine which was fairly easy to align for playback. If I remember right the adjustment pots were larger than on the ATR's. In my experience, the mastering machine was generally aligned to the master tape's playback tones prior to each session. This was done for both level and azimuth adjustment of the playback head. After all the mix machine might have been off a bit. Isn't that the main reason for printing tones on the head of the tape?

And while I'm talking about tones, I do have a couple of peeves. Tones IMO are valueable for eq and head alignment, but not as much for level. I've seen people mix and barely hit -3db on the vu meters, and others hit +3 at times. So in this scenario, the two mixes could have the same tones on tape, but vary by up to 6db in actual recorded level. I'd think a good mastering engineer would rely on their eyes and ears for the ultimate level adjustment, as you suggest, though the tones are a good starting point.

I've also seen engineers spend excessive time adjusting levels in an effort to get the all meter needles to precisely split the 0vu marks, and this to me is a joke. Even if they could get them perfect, they will tend to vary a bit from head to tail of the tape. I doubt anybody can hear a tenth of a db.

I think in my case, the mastering engineer just disagreed with the premise of the non standard practice. On top of that I think there might have been a bit of ego involved as well. After all, he was the engineer and it was his room. IMO, ego's have no place in recording as they often get in the way and cause tension. Most of the real pro's I've worked with generally left their ego's at home.

 

Thanks Steve and everyone else! I think I understand now. Basically you want to keep the signal path as short as possible and if you don't need the extra controls on the mastering console, then you don't use it.