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

[incubus]

I think arguing page after page about IK's policies is one of the weirder things people get up to on kvr.

It's actually one of the few officially sanctioned sports here.

Remember to catch and release, though.

HAHA!

But let's be realistic: People like to talk (I know I do) and there are gazillions of topics/opinions/variety/etc/etc.

With IK it's complex. I've been on their side........people don't like that. I've been upset about some of their advertising, people don't like that. Can't win.

I'm looking forward to it, whatever it is. Will I buy it? 99% chance of NO for more reasons than I care to explain, but new product/anticipation is good in this biz imho.

[ghettosynth]

And there is much more to mastering than just balancing songs to one another. Among many other things, it is also for correcting deficiencies during the recording and mixing process to attain the best possible sound for the artist's song.

So if these deficiencies existed in the recording and mixing processes in your environment, how do you think they are going to be corrected it unless the song is played back in amore accurate listening environment and then repaired by someone who knows what is wrong and how to fix it?

Like I said, I guess it all depends on the seriousness of the artist and the respect they have for their work.

Not to dismiss what MEs do, but, this sounds like FUD and that is why people will question/dismiss what MEs do. People always want to discuss mastering in nebulous terms. I'm not an expert, I don't claim to be, but I think the question of whether or not mastering is necessary is a function of many things. Terms like "fix it" are presented as if they are dichotomous, i,e., it's fixed or not, but they aren't, they are on a continuum. Really, an ME can improve a work to some degree. The question is how much value does that process have to the artist?

That said, I think that one of the most important aspects of the process is a different set of ears. Not only fresh ears, but ears that are being paid to pay attention to your music. To that end, I don't think that "mastering tools" are particularly useful as an idea to the typical KVR reader. They aren't going to give you better ears, fresh ears, or a different listening environment.

[JJ_Jettflow]

And there is much more to mastering than just balancing songs to one another. Among many other things, it is also for correcting deficiencies during the recording and mixing process to attain the best possible sound for the artist's song.

So if these deficiencies existed in the recording and mixing processes in your environment, how do you think they are going to be corrected it unless the song is played back in amore accurate listening environment and then repaired by someone who knows what is wrong and how to fix it?

Like I said, I guess it all depends on the seriousness of the artist and the respect they have for their work.

Not to dismiss what MEs do, but, this sounds like FUD and that is why people will question/dismiss what MEs do. People always want to discuss mastering in nebulous terms. I'm not an expert, I don't claim to be, but I think the question of whether or not mastering is necessary is a function of many things. Terms like "fix it" are presented as if they are dichotomous, i,e., it's fixed or not, but they aren't, they are on a continuum. Really, an ME can improve a work to some degree. The question is how much value does that process have to the artist? .

I think you are taking my use of the term "fix it" out of context to the whole statement. I am not trying to claim that by sending your mixes to a mastering engineer, he will "fix" all or any problems that may exsist. What I was trying to explain was that someone trying to master their own music in the same environment they mixed it in will be a futile effort. That is because the deficiencies in that environment that were there during the mix will still be there when you come to master it. But by sending to someone with a listening room that has been treated to a level higher than many mixing studios, those problems will stand right out and he will be able to compensate, or "fix" to the best of his abilities.

That said, I think that one of the most important aspects of the process is a different set of ears. Not only fresh ears, but ears that are being paid to pay attention to your music. .

+1

[kbaccki]

I don't think that "mastering tools" are particularly useful as an idea to the typical KVR reader. They aren't going to give you better ears, fresh ears, or a different listening environment.

I think that just about sums it up. I can see the usefulness of a decent mastering EQ for final balancing (the IK 432 is my tool of choice) or some light compression/limiting/maximizing to smooth out some dynamics on a final render... or squash the living hell out of it, if that's what you want to do... but really it's my same ears, and my same 3 or 4 pairs of cans, and a few small to large home stereo type setups, and a set of earbuds, and Mazda and Mini car systems. So really it comes down to the mix. If the mix sounds good, is balanced, has presence and clarity to me and a couple others who know what to look for, then IMO that's 95% of the overall goal for your average prosumer home studioist. At that point I think that same prosumer may be able to put a decent master EQ and mastering limiter to good use, with all the caveats in tow. And good versions of those tools exist today, you just need a basic understanding of what button does what.

[simon.a.billington]

Mastering involves the use of extremely high-end audiophile hardware (speakers, amp, cables, etc) being placed in a listening environment that has been tuned to be as acoustically perfect as possible. The music is then manipulated by an experienced mastering engineer with very accurate eqs, compressors and various other audio tools to correct the music and to make a coherent collection out of a set of mixes that may vary considerably from one to another.

The idea is that if the music is listened through a very accurate sound system in a near-perfect environment, then someone with the proper skills will be able to detect the problems and be able to correct them....but it only works if the person knows what to listen for and how to fix it and these are highly specialized skills that take years to develop.

I do not think that this is something that be achieved at home and trying is a waste of time and money.

That is mastering in the time of record labels and cds, fast forward to digital age and post cds era-- something still needs to be done tweaking a full mix to enhance and safe to play-- mastering, which can be done at home. Different goals- same process.

Agreed.

[murnau]

1. Rule of Mastering

If you reach a point where mastering really became important for your music you not try to master yourself.

[simon.a.billington]

Absolutely.

There's all sorts of different uses for all sorts of different levels of mastering.

Add to that there are so many times when a production sounds great when recorded and mastered in an inferior space, on arguably inferior tools only to have the vibe squeezed right out of it by a major label attempting redo it while spending a lot of money on better engineers and equipment.

It's not always about quality, sometimes even that should be giving way vibe.

[do_androids_dream]

There's all sorts of different uses for all sorts of different levels of mastering.

No, there is no such thing as 'different levels of mastering'. There are different levels of skill - great... and ..not-so-great - but the goal is exactly the same for every master. This is why it irks me (and probably a lot of other ME's) that people seem to be only too willing to pay hundreds of dollars for 'mastering' plugins but begrudge spending something like £20 per song (my rates for example) for pro mastering.

It's like calling yourself a car mechanic just because you have a garage full of shiny tools.. You're not a mechanic, you're much worse off - having spent lots of money on the tools - and you still have to fix your car..

[simon.a.billington]

There's all sorts of different uses for all sorts of different levels of mastering.

No, there is no such thing as 'different levels of mastering'. There are different levels of skill - great... and ..not-so-great - but the goal is exactly the same for every master. This is why it irks me (and probably a lot of other ME's) that people seem to be only too willing to pay hundreds of dollars for 'mastering' plugins but begrudge spending something like £20 per song (my rates for example) for pro mastering.

It's like calling yourself a car mechanic just because you have a garage full of shiny tools.. You're not a mechanic, you're much worse off - having spent lots of money on the tools - and you still have to fix your car..

Perhaps I need to be a bit clearer. Yes master can be like a car mechanic with a garage full of shiny tools.

We need to separate the idea of the process or mastering and the idea of good or magnificent mastering.

As I've said before even if someone is brilliant at mastering, their sense of over production can completely destroy the vibe of recording. All of a sudden, they aren't brilliant at what they do.

The whole thing is quite subjective.

You can have a brilliant guitarist, but as soon they try their hand out on jazz, they could completely suck, it's the same thing.

Then we need to separate the different uses for mastering.

I'm pretty sure, in your mind, you are thinking of just A-Grade prime-time rock or pop. There are other industries out there too, many of them Indy who don't have a $10,000 budget to hire Bob Katz. Do we really need to spend that much if we're mastering a small business presentation for example, or an Indy film.

Of course we are going to try and get the best possible results, but budget, time constraints, quality of production, threshold of diminishing returns, convenience are all going to be factors.

This view also seems to suggest that it's a black art and that no-one else can do it. That's not entirely true.

In fact, even the mastering greats all started somewhere and sucked at one point. Then they worked on their skills, worked on the real thing with whatever they had and got better.

You're view seems to be very dismissive of the fact that people need to start from somewhere and there are all sorts of uses and varying needs for mastering. There is a much bigger picture.

[do_androids_dream]

You're view seems to be very dismissive of the fact that people need to start from somewhere and there are all sorts of uses and varying needs for mastering. There is a much bigger picture.

If one is serious about their music then a much better investment is to go to professional. It will cost far, far less in the long run. If you're an artist then why waste years and years of effort trying to be a mastering engineer too? You'll spend loads of money to boot.

[simon.a.billington]

You're view seems to be very dismissive of the fact that people need to start from somewhere and there are all sorts of uses and varying needs for mastering. There is a much bigger picture.

If one is serious about their music then a much better investment is to go to professional. It will cost far, far less in the long run. If you're an artist then why waste years and years of effort trying to be a mastering engineer too? You'll spend loads of money to boot.

It is possible to be good, brilliant even, at more than one thing.

It's suggested that it would take around 10,000 hours to be brilliant at any one thing. That's around 5 years working full time on something, 10 years part time. Even then, this the extreme example.

If you have 50 years at your disposal, that's 5 things you could effectively become a master at. Again this is an extreme example.

It's certainly possible to become a master of many crafts.

You're just not thinking big enough.

[do_androids_dream]

You're view seems to be very dismissive of the fact that people need to start from somewhere and there are all sorts of uses and varying needs for mastering. There is a much bigger picture.

If one is serious about their music then a much better investment is to go to professional. It will cost far, far less in the long run. If you're an artist then why waste years and years of effort trying to be a mastering engineer too? You'll spend loads of money to boot.

It is possible to be good, brilliant even, at more than one thing.

It's suggested that it would take around 10,000 hours to be brilliant at any one thing. That's around 5 years working full time on something, 10 years part time. Even then, this the extreme example.

If you have 50 years at your disposal, that's 5 things you could effectively become a master at. Again this is an extreme example.

It's certainly possible to become a master of many crafts.

You're just not thinking big enough.

Of course, it's absolutely possible - and you do get these very rare folks that come along and seem to be able to do it all, but, for the vast majority of musicians out there being writer, producer AND mastering engineer is not the viable option that plugin devs will have one believe They make it seem like the plugin 'quality' is the weak link when it has nothing to do with plugins at all.

[simon.a.billington]

I will pretty much agree to that in most respect, but I see it another way...

They make it seem ACHIEVABLE, which it is for many.

Yeah, some gullible folk may fall for the hype and think it's as simple as point and click, but I believe most others know better.

It certainly within the realm of possibilities to design a piece of software that brings better master closer to the average user.

If I were to design such a piece of software, ARC would most likely be part of it, which may have been what they did, a hybrid of ARC, T-Racks, and maybe something like "sonic profiles" to act as a bit of frequency and dynamic "guide" to an ideal mix balance for a given genre.

There's all sorts of room for possibilities.

[do_androids_dream]

I will pretty much agree to that in most respect, but I see it another way...

They make it seem ACHIEVABLE, which it is for many.

Yeah, some gullible folk may fall for the hype and think it's as simple as point and click, but I believe most others know better.

It certainly within the realm of possibilities to design a piece of software that brings better master closer to the average user.

If I were to design such a piece of software, ARC would most likely be part of it, which may have been what they did, a hybrid of ARC, T-Racks, and maybe something like "sonic profiles" to act as a bit of frequency and dynamic "guide" to an ideal mix balance for a given genre.

There's all sorts of room for possibilities.

I will await their new product! If it truly is revolutionary then I'll have to eat a hat or something

[jezjez]

There's all sorts of room for possibilities.

I see what you did there