A great example of the importance of mastering

[Bob Womack]

I recently encountered an example that really highlighted a lot of what can be improved by a good mastering job. I've put together a little page with a lesson/challenge and description of it HERE. Help yourself!

Bob

[Zeke808]

Awesome article Bob. I really enjoyed that. By nature I've always been a "the song itself is king" person but over the years find myself really paying more attention to (and having a big interest in) the art of mixing and the sound of different producers.

Not sure how many people here are into ABX testing, but I'm really looking forward to buying both of these and doing ABX testing to really examine the differences.

-Zeke

[Bob Womack]

That particular album gives you a great idea of what it takes to play with the big dogs in recording - reverse reverb, tape flanging, splitting accompaniment chords between two instruments panned left and right, panning, double-tracking, subtle background instruments, etc. It's thirty-seven years old and still full of lessons, when it is mastered correctly and the stuff can be heard.



Oh, and I agree that the song is king and should determine the techniques you use.

Bob

[muscmp]

i'd be more interested to hear the audio fidelity cd vs the vinyl version. we all know how bad cds were when they first came out.
i have quite a few mobile fidelity albums. i'll have to pull them out, see if i have cd copies and do my own test.
thanks bob!
mikeB.

[Bob Womack]

I'm afraid my copy is cooked. Back then we just had to play them over and over again to learn the stuff.

Bob

[Zeke808]

This thread has lead me to think more about the production (and post-production) of an album. When it comes to "real" commercially created records like this one who are the people involved and what are their roles? I have no experience in this or have I even read a book on it but what I'm thinking off the top of my head:

1) The songwriters and musicians (of course)
2) The Producer - Helps with arrangement and other ideas to bring the songs to life.
3) Recording Engineer - Mic placement, equipment choices, etc, etc to make the best sounding recordings possible.
4) Mastering - Mixing, EQing, etc of all the tracks for the final product.

Do I vaguely have the right idea here?

So, in this case, for the 1990 release you're saying the mastering was done haphazardly, but then on the 24K release they started with the original recordings and completely remastered this, right?

Any feedback or musings-in-general would be welcome as I find this process very fascinating and wish to learn more.

-Zeke

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Zeke808

When it comes to "real" commercially created records like this one who are the people involved and what are their roles? I have no experience in this or have I even read a book on it but what I'm thinking off the top of my head:

1) The songwriters and musicians (of course)
2) The Producer - Helps with arrangement and other ideas to bring the songs to life.

He also directs the business of recording, often right down to choosing the engineer. Quite often he also helps with song selection.

3) Recording Engineer - Mic placement, equipment choices, etc, etc to make the best sounding recordings possible.

Yes. Also, working with the producer, he mixes the music. In the best scenarios, his responsibilities overlap with the producer's, while he is responsible to the producer. Also, in the best scenarios, the relationship between producer, engineer, and artist is symbiotic.

4) Mastering - Mixing, EQing, etc of all the tracks for the final product.

Typically, the mastering engineer doesn't mix the tracks. He takes a semi-finished product and polishes it to a final state ready to be played back on whatever formats it is going to live in.

Do I vaguely have the right idea here?

Yup

So, in this case, for the 1990 release you're saying the mastering was done haphazardly, but then on the 24K release they started with the original recordings and completely remastered this, right?

Yes, it appears so. One doesn't want to diss a colleague.

Any feedback or musings-in-general would be welcome as I find this process very fascinating and wish to learn more.

-Zeke

There are usually multiple copies of any project floating around. After a project is completed in the studio, a copy of the mixes are usually sent to the label for approval. After it is mastered, the masters go to the label's library as well. Now you've got a library problem - two masters. You have to indicated that one is mastered and the other isn't. They may be filed in two different places. Here are some scenarios:

1. Ten years later you send an intern to the library who asks for the "master" of the album. If the mastered version isn't found, they may grab the studio master, thus throwing out all the work the mastering engineer did. No-one involved in the original project is involved so no-one notices the difference until the run is printed and shipped.

2. One label is purchased by another. The masters get boxed up and shipped to the new label. The new and old label's nomenclatures for archival storage are different so the wrong tape is stored as the mastered version.

3. A format change (vinyl to CD, for instance) occurs and there is a mindset shift to the idea that no mastering is necessary for the new format. This happened industry-wide during the shift to CD. Uggg.

4. All mixed masters are lost. Rather than pay for a new mix to be done, the company grabs the best copy (Album, CD) they have and make a new master. Double Uggg... Someone I knew had a CD with surface pops from the album the label copied to make the master.

I got a copy of YES's Close to The Edge including CD label, jewel case liner and card, that was actually a CD by Frank Sinatra. No joke.

Does that help?

Bob

[Zeke808]

Thanks Bob - Yes, very helpful indeed!

-Zeke

[Raystrack]

Well I've just ordered it ($32) so I hope it's good.

I'm struggling to complete my own first album - never happy on the arrangements or knowing what reverbs to use (doing everything myself) - this will either be inspiring or more likely make me feel like giving up

[Bob Womack]

Be inspired! The album was a high bar for me when I was early in the business of learning guitar. It became the same when I became a recording engineer. Szymczyk really knows how to lay out a rhythm section and does some excellent ambient treatments as well. Block out time to study it repeatedly, listening at 85db, without the kids or dogs.

Bob

[Bob Womack]

By way of update, I sent a collegial email to the president of Audio Fidelity to commend him and his gang on the nice job he did. He actually got back to me and sent me a couple more to try out - Linda Ronstadt's Heart Like a Wheel and Lynyrd Skynyrd's Second Helping. Both exhibit the same mastering touch that brings them back to life. I got to study the work of Peter Asher and Val Garay (Ronstadt) and Al Kooper, Mr. Yankee Slicker, (Skynyrd), the way they were meant to be heard. It was very nice of them!

Bob

[Taylorplayer]

Bob - you are a great "resource" to have here on the forum. Very cool stuff indeed!

Bill

[Bob Womack]

Thank you, sir!

Bob

[Zeke808]

Bob (and others),

Hi, I've been meaning to drop by here and post this for a while - just getting around to it. So, a few months back now, I ordered the CD's from Amazon, got them, did some comparison listening and much to my dismay could not tell the difference. I even ripped them as wave files and did ABX (double blind) testing using Foobar2K and I failed miserably.

I'm using what I consider decent equipment: An M-Audio Delta 44 going to a pair of KRK RP5 Monitors. Do my ears just suck? Maybe... I had a friend who is into recording/synths/etc give it a try using his Pro Tools rig and he said he couldn't tell the difference between the two CDs. However, we are both amatuers and possibly are lacking what ear abilities the pro's have. (?)

So, my question to Bob and others: Have you guys scientifically confirmed your belief in the quality of the CDs and your ability to distinquish the difference by ABX testing?

-Zeke

[Allman_Fan]

I'm confused.

I suppose the "studio master" was what was used in the 1990 version that sounds . . . not good and this is different from the "final master."
Is the studio master in stereo or in 16/32?

If the studio master is in 16/32 then isn't the difference obvious?

If the studio master is in stereo then how did final (original 70s version) get to sound so good?