IK and Gavin Lurssen set to unveil revolutionary mastering product at NAMM 2016

[Scotty]

Although the thread has some negative elements it is actually a good read on the whole with some valid points. The hobbiest angle is valid and ironically this is where a software product may elevate the track enough to justify the one time expense of a "revolutionary" product. The vast majority of my stuff does not generate income. Enough of it does (combined with recording others) to pay for my studio and the gear. If a product comes along that can do better than I can to do in my space I'd probably buy it and use it on my material that I value. I might even be tempted to pick it up if it provides an education as part of using it. For example I learned to track live drums better by using products like BFD. It isn't a perfect substitute for real drummers but the education you get by experimenting with mic bleed and kit pieces within software is invaluable as the knowledge gained translates to live recording. Hopefully a software product that isn't just a black box but generates feedback and provides decision making opportunities might help the user understand how to finalize their tracks and get better quality mixes in the long run. I'd have to put IK's Arc in this category as well. There is no substitute for a professionally built room with acoustic treatment but given that this is not always practical I can get better results with ARC and as I am applying acoustic treatments I can measure if they are having any impact on the space. That was revolutionary and educational as well. Marketing hype aside, if a product can achieve this I'd take a look at it just for the educational value. Let's see what they come up with. It might be worth the effort.

[incubus]

I certainly hope it *is* revolutionary. Haven't seen "revolutionary" since about 1997.

So, this didn't catch your eye?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... &A=details

[antithesist]

lol... wasn't expecting that, inc!

[do_androids_dream]

You're doing a lot of talking Mr Billington - Let's hear your masters.

This topic isn't about me, if you think it is then you have misread something.

I wanted to try to guage how much of what you're saying is from experience and how much is theory. I guess I was being what you might call an 'agitator'. Theory, without experience, will only get you so far. What I see on forums is 'too many words' (as my Dad puts it) - a dialogue that can always be found going on somewhere - in any music forum - to the effect of 'don't bother with an ME - buy this plugin or use this plugin chain'. It's just absolute bunkum and it's saddening to see just how much the idea is believed. Mastering is a skill that must be learned through experience. It's about knowing WHEN TO DO NOTHING just as much as any other action. If anyone ever tells you that they 'always put The Glue on the master buss' for mastering purposes then this tells you right there that they know nothing about mastering - they've got it arse about face. It's like saying I always use a hammer to cut a piece of wood in half.

I mastered an album last year where 8 of the tracks just had a limiter - 2 tracks just had an eq and a limiter - and one track had a plugin chain about 10 strong because it had a very different sound and needed to be 'adjusted' as much as possible to get it sounding like the other songs. This is the kind of everyday skill ME's have - which cannot be replaced with a plugin in any shape or form. It's strange how the base skills of a discipline are routinely ignored by both some (note I said 'some'!)posters and plugin manufacturers - it almost seems like a willful ignorance just so the experience of paying a large amount of money and using all the impressive sounding presets (presets are WORSE than useless for mastering - often very damaging) by big names can't be tainted with the ugly truth that most haven't got a clue what they're doing..

Having read your subsequent posts I can see that you're making some thought out points about learning and educaton in general so I'm not targeting the above at you particularly.

[Burillo]

i think it's a problem of terminology more than anything else.

i put stuff on a master bus when i finish a track, i listen to it for long periods of time to correct those little things that catch my eye (technically, my ear), and more often than not i do that with plugins that are described as "mastering" plugins. however, in no way, shape or form i would call this process "mastering", and i believe no one should either - because it's not. just call it something else - finalizing, hamstering, whatever - to distinguish it from actual mastering done by people like do_androids_dream and Bob Katz. that would go a long way to clear up the confusion between mastering and just finishing the mix. you don't need mastering if all you do is put your tunes on sound cloud for your friends' enjoyment.

[ghettosynth]

i think it's a problem of terminology more than anything else.

i put stuff on a master bus when i finish a track, i listen to it for long periods of time to correct those little things that catch my eye (technically, my ear), and more often than not i do that with plugins that are described as "mastering" plugins. however, in no way, shape or form i would call this process "mastering", and i believe no one should either - because it's not. just call it something else - finalizing, hamstering, whatever - to distinguish it from actual mastering done by people like do_androids_dream and Bob Katz. that would go a long way to clear up the confusion between mastering and just finishing the mix. you don't need mastering if all you do is put your tunes on sound cloud for your friends' enjoyment.

Why not, Bob Katz does. It is the label for that final process whether you do it yourself or someone else does it. I called it "finalizing" in another thread, but I realized that's just silly. We don't have a different label for mixing, or tracking.

From page 281 of Bob Katz' book, "Mastering Audio, The Art and the Science"

Many readers are interested in trying their hand at mastering or need to master a project that they can't afford to send out to a mastering house. If you find yourself in that situation, don't fret about not having optimum acoustics or even the right equipment, for talent is more important than tools. If you have lots of time, follow good judgement and the advice of this book, you can overcome economic obstacles and produce a decent-sounding master.

He goes on to discuss all of the things that we do, checking the master on different systems, giving your ears a rest, etc.. The only thing that he emphasizes is the same thing discussed earlier, get a second set of ears to listen to your work.

[antithesist]

Mastering vs. professional mastering settles it for me(ME=meme?).

There's still a lot of grey area in there, but I'll be doing stuff while others worry about that.

[Peter - IK Multimedia]

This is related, too, for anybody interested in the possibility of having Gavin (and Reuben Cohen) mastering one of their mixes live at NAMM 2016: http://www.ikmultimedia.com/news/news.php?id=637

[chris.r]

this will be not T-RackS 5... now it's getting even more mysterious

[scintillator]

But I find at the KVR, 'mastering' is highly over-emphasized.

Unlike music theory, composition, or FM synthesis.

Wonder why.......

Tweak-a-knobbery.

[jancivil]

i think it's a problem of terminology more than anything else.

...when i finish a track, i listen... to correct ... with ... "mastering" plugins. / just call it something else - finalizing, hamstering, whatever - to distinguish it from actual mastering. you don't need mastering if all you do is put your tunes on sound cloud for your friends' enjoyment.

"finalizing"

Many readers are interested in trying their hand at mastering or need to master a project that they can't afford to send out to a mastering house. If you find yourself in that situation, don't fret about not having optimum acoustics or even the right equipment, for talent is more important than tools. If you have lots of time, follow good judgement and the advice of this book, you can overcome economic obstacles and produce a decent-sounding master.

He goes on to discuss all of the things that we do, checking the master on different systems, giving your ears a rest, etc.. The only thing that he emphasizes is the same thing discussed earlier, get a second set of ears to listen to your work.

I typically print a 2-file towards a new project and put a 'master' EQ on the channel for a final 'objective' view of it. I think that even this can amount to overthinking it, and some results I've seen people remark as an exceptional mix were cases where I never did this. Objectivity as opposed to being too close to something is clearly a truism in life. My opinion is that the notion of mastering that's promoted here tends to be an arm of marketing, of software products and the service of professionals with a bit of a dark art on offer. And it tends to be true that this applies the most to those of us with not such a happening mix at hand. I've been here. I saw in this thread one in-the-know type admit that the skill set of mixer and masterer are largely identical.

[do_androids_dream]

Objectivity as opposed to being too close to something is clearly a truism in life. My opinion is that the notion of mastering that's promoted here is an arm of marketin products and the service of professionals with a bit of a dark art. And it tends to be true that this applies the most to those of us with not such a happening mix. I saw in this thread one in-the-know type admit that the skill set of mixer and masterer are largely identical.

Mastering isn't a dark art. It's mostly technical and mostly quite 'unmusical' in nature really. It's a process that largely removes the art and focuses mainly on the technical. I think it's near impossible for the creative mind behind the music to produce close to the best possible master of that piece of music. That's why the role of the mastering engineer - in music by serious musicians and intended for release to legions of fans - is still very much in place.

The skillset of mixer and mastering engineer don't really cross over that much imo. Mastering can be almost like fitting square pegs into round holes. It's knowing how to take one thing and mold it into the shape of something expected by the audience. It's like the final quality control in a factory.

[jancivil]

My former musical partner-in-crime made an album a few yrs back, the first time he recorded all of it strictly thru his own devices to Pro Tools, and there was no professional to mix it. So: this had all the impoverished features of an in-the-box result; it was a thin-sounding obviously digital home result. Not loud enuff, lacking "glue"... Not really even so much mixed, a result of someone that had not mixed hardly at all. The same story as everything I made ITB pre-2010, frankly. Fortunately this person is known in a certain crowd and Tom Dimuzio offered to master it for free. At this juncture that was the only help for it. And all of his previous work, with professionals engineering the recording, the mixing, the mastering (back then mastering to vinyl, which is meaningful per se) sounds superior to this object. It is what it is.

[do_androids_dream]

My former musical partner-in-crime made an album a few yrs back, the first time he recorded all of it strictly thru his own devices to Pro Tools, and there was no professional to mix it. So: this had all the impoverished features of an in-the-box result; it was a thin-sounding obviously digital home result. Not loud enuff, lacking "glue"... Not really even so much mixed, a result of someone that had not mixed hardly at all. The same story as everything I made ITB pre-2010, frankly. Fortunately this person is known in a certain crowd and Tom Dimuzio offered to master it for free. At this juncture that was the only help for it. And all of his previous work, with professionals engineering the recording, the mixing, the mastering (back then mastering to vinyl, which is meaningful per se) sounds superior to this object. It is what it is.

Not meaning to sound rude at all (really I'm not!) but what's your point?

[jancivil]

If a product comes along that can do better than I can to do in my space I'd probably buy it and use it on my material that I value. I might even be tempted to pick it up if it provides an education as part of using it. For example I learned to track live drums better by using products like BFD. It isn't a perfect substitute for real drummers but the education you get by experimenting with mic bleed and kit pieces within software is invaluable as the knowledge gained translates to live recording.

I completely concur with all of this. I only developed mixing chops thru having proper tools, and the software I rely on is called a 'mastering suite'.