****Mastering Challenge Vote Thread****

[ngarjuna]

Well, speaking only for myself of course...

the reason my "master" probably sucks is because I'm not a mastering engineer. I have neither the setup nor the experience in such an area. If a client came to me after I finished a mix and asked me to "master it" I would almost certainly refuse as the mix would be pretty much where I liked it already, what more could I add without ruining it to some extent or another?

But this contest wasn't about fooling a client into thinking I'm a mastering engineer (which, again, I'm not). It was about a lot of non-mastering-engineers (a guess on my part, but I'll bet I'm right) giving a shot to a discipline we don't normally get to work in with no real downside other than being savaged on KVR (which really is a pretty small price to pay honestly).

So the implication you make, that most of the examples demonstrate that they were made by non mastering engineers on equipment not really designed for mastering, is really not much of a surprise to me. In fact, if Geoff had wanted pro mastering, he probably would have hired a mastering engineer.

But more to the point, saying "those all suxx0rz" is completely useless to everyone (with the possible exception of the one beating his chest in superiority -- a person who claims over a decade of experience in mastering and an actual setup dedicated to that task, probably unlike most of the 11 examples here). It would be the perfect opportunity for many of us to learn about the weaknesses of our particular efforts but blanket condemnation doesn't tell anyone anything other than you think you could do a better job. That's swell and good but, again, it contains no useful information for the people who participated in this exercise. If the comments were specific they would help people understand what they could do better next time. Instead we have just a so-typical internet bashing post telling us we're no good at it. Oh well.

[Kim Lajoie]

I'll show mine if you show yours.

Ok. Mind you, I'm no mastering engineer either!

Anyway, here's my version. And here are my preferences for the official versions:

The not-so-bad:
1. Nacarat (just a little chunky)
2. Aeneous (just a little sibilant, too much limiting)
3. Indigo (a little subdued)
4. Ultramarine (something strange going on in upper mids)
5. Vermilion (a little muddy)

The not-so-good:
6. Russet (too chunky)
7. Perse (top too harsh)
8. Mazarine (too much smile, too much limiting)
9. Nigine (What? Added reverb?)
10. Zinnober (Too much lower mid, too much limiting)
11. Morel (too boomy, harsh upper mids, too much compression)

Curious about how people think mine compares.

-Kim.

[eduardo_b]

But more to the point, saying "those all suxx0rz" is completely useless to everyone (with the possible exception of the one beating his chest in superiority -- a person who claims over a decade of experience in mastering and an actual setup dedicated to that task, probably unlike most of the 11 examples here). It would be the perfect opportunity for many of us to learn about the weaknesses of our particular efforts but blanket condemnation doesn't tell anyone anything other than you think you could do a better job. That's swell and good but, again, it contains no useful information for the people who participated in this exercise. If the comments were specific they would help people understand what they could do better next time. Instead we have just a so-typical internet bashing post telling us we're no good at it. Oh well.

I think it would take a book -- there are a few already available -- to explain how and why when it comes to mastering. All I can say is that if the mix is decent to good, mastering is an exercise in subtlety, not obvious excessive compressing and limiting. I think simply comparing those versions that many of us thought were the best with the rest will explain by example.

[ngarjuna]

No, it would not take a book to explain why certain ones are preferred over others. I'm not knocking Bob Katz (it's practically my bible lately and I don't do any mastering, it's just a great book for audio engineers of all sorts) and the like, but there have been plenty of posts where people who listened and ranked were able to summarize what they didn't like about the various messages in less than a complete sentence per mix. It may not be super specific, but it's a great starting point for someone who wants to revisit their master and make corrections after the fact in order to actually learn something from this exercise and grow as an engineer. In contrast, a post which simply says they all suck and I could do better offers absolutely nothing in terms of a starting point for either learning or attempting to re-work one of the masters.

I'm not even saying the criticism has to be friendly or positive, but specific would qualify as useful at least regardless of the attitude behind it.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Kim friend: I will let you know what i think and also kilroy's and bduffy's. As i am in the dirty 11 somewhere so the track is more than familiar to my ears now! and since you took the time to listen to my attempt then its the least i can do.

To the folk getting a bit het up about the whole thing: chill out its only an experiment on Geoff's behalf and a bit of fun for us all like ngarjuna said and i have already said: we are not mastering engineer's and do not have the equipment (well me for one at least (and ngarjuna i gather) at home and even at work the kit is pro but not mastering grade)

so enjoy the dressing down's (however brOOtal), the advice and occasional compliment

bmanic was putting things into simon cowell like terms, and i quite like simon cowell's blunt honesty and watching him bury people's dreams with a few home truth's (which the poor pricks family clearly fail to see/choose to overlook)



Smug, Smarmy, Arrogant, Rude, Loaded & Sleazy (But Usually Right)

[eduardo_b]

I'm not even saying the criticism has to be friendly or positive, but specific would qualify as useful at least regardless of the attitude behind it.

In my case, I thought those ahead of me had pretty much made a case for or not for each of the 11 entrants. My overall impression was that at least half had used compression to significantly increase the loudness for no apparent reason and had introduced audio artifacts that only degraded the quality of sound. A little EQ and modest compression were the most that were needed to fix relatively minor issues. As Kim has pointed out in the past, the first rule of mastering is do no harm. Which means, mastering is meant to improve, not simply make different, the quality of the mix. If that seems vague, then I think the issue is why it does.

[Arglebargle]

Interesting, every track sounds very different.

[Zsolt]

While at first I was upset about bmanic's post, the reason I entered the contest was to learn more about mastering and what people thought of what I did. I did change the 'colour' of the song quite a lot, but this is not the job I'm doing professionally, nor did I have a lot of time to work on it excessively or listen to it critically time and time again.
So I guess the result is not that good, but I still wouldn't rate it as low as some have :s I guess my listening environment has much to do with it too.

I guess we'll just have to wait for the results before we can say more about what we did with the song and what tools we used.


regards,
Zsolt

[bduffy]

OK, so here's my take on it, as Kim and Kilroy have submitted:

Captivate_Me_bduffyMaster.mp3

Kim, I really liked yours! The best, in fact. But I may be biased, as it sounds similar to what I was going for, interestingly enough.

Kilroy, I really liked the punchy sound of yours; somehow the track felt more "together", warmer, but it seemed a little muddy to me overall. Maybe I've been listening too long.

getting back to the actual thread topic, I guess I should pick the best from the official submissions...brb...

[bduffy]

Yeah, I'd have to go with Nacarat and Aeneous (pronounced "anus"? ) as the best of the bunch.

[Geoff242]

First, thanks to everyone who is taking time to participate in this process. There is some really great discussion going on.

I really would like everyone's vote to count, so please remember rule #2.

• For your vote to be tallied, you must listen carefully and vote for every single entry. I will not accept partial votes.

Please take time to read the first post in this thread carefully.

[Nokenoku]

@bduffy
I really like your version. I think it's the best now.
Shows me, what my version is missing.

[eduardo_b]

OK, so here's my take on it, as Kim and Kilroy have submitted:

Captivate_Me_bduffyMaster.mp3

Kim, I really liked yours! The best, in fact. But I may be biased, as it sounds similar to what I was going for, interestingly enough.

Kilroy, I really liked the punchy sound of yours; somehow the track felt more "together", warmer, but it seemed a little muddy to me overall. Maybe I've been listening too long.

getting back to the actual thread topic, I guess I should pick the best from the official submissions...brb...

I think I like Kim's overall, but the vocal in yours is slightly softer (less of an edge) and would be good sitting in his version. His is also slightly lower in level, which I think is better, but all of them seem too loud and have lost some of the dynamic range in the process.

I have the original, yours, Kim's, Nacarat's, Aeneous' and Kilroy's open, and the visual differences are interesting. All except the orginal are close in levels, but there's much more content in the upper level range of -6dB to -0dB in yours and Kim's, with Nacarat a close third. The sound of these three is thicker than the rest.

I may have to try my hand at this if I have time today.

[bduffy]

Ah, glad to see we agree, ed. I was basically gunning to compete with commercial loudness, so yeah, it's probably brutalized; but like I said in the other thread, I actually think this mix benefits from a bit of squashing, because it's kind of disparate on its own.

And thanks Nokenoku for the nod!

@Geoff242: Sorry, I forgot the rules! My, my: I have to rate them all. OK, I'll do that and get back to you.

[eduardo_b]

Ah, glad to see we agree, ed. I was basically gunning to compete with commercial loudness, so yeah, it's probably brutalized; but like I said in the other thread, I actually think this mix benefits from a bit of squashing, because it's kind of disparate on its own.

And thanks Nokenoku for the nod!

@Geoff242: Sorry, I forgot the rules! My, my: I have to rate them all. OK, I'll do that and get back to you.

Yeah, I do think that the goal of loudness is critical here, because it determines the priorities of the mastering process. I have little time today, but I did a quick job, keeping the level somewhere between the original and yours and Kim's, with a wee bit of EQ in a couple of places. If you turn up the volume of the player a bit, it can be as loud but with more dynamic range and less ear fatigue. I would need to spend more time to get this really right, but it is what it is.

By the way, it's not unusual for mastering of the same material done by several engineers to come back and be rather similar and often not a lot different than what they were sent. If there were several songs together, that changes everything because now they have to be mastered in relation to each other. And, to some degree, this is a somewhat subjective venture, just like mixing, but with a different set of goals.

eduardo's