Mastering software shortcomings?

[Chicago Sandy]

Spent all day yesterday in the studio first finishing overdubs and then mixing our trio's first demo. We did four songs--I sang lead on one I wrote, Susan on two she wrote (the second of hers is short and we needed a funny song that she and I hadn't previously recorded together) and Kate sang lead on a traditional song. I put bass on everything but Kate's; conversely, the only song with percussion was mine (Kate and Susan would otherwise have only sung--I played both guitar parts, bass and harmonica). Originally, Kate was to play a little hand-drum that's like "Honey, I shrunk the bodhran" (or a tambourine sans jingles) and Susan was to play her Native American drum (a smaller, primitive wooden version of a djembe, with a deeper sound). Susan was going to play the drum on every beat, and Kate wanted to know what I wanted her to do. I decided I definitely wanted a syncopated "bup......ba-bup, bup.....ba-bup" rhythm. Susan wasn't comfy syncopating, but Kate was game. Susan came up with the idea of using brushes on her drum, and then switched to one brush. It just wasn't working--the brush was just too loud and low-pitched and the little tambour was not resonant enough--till I had them switch instruments. Suddenly it began to click (though I still wasn't crazy about the sound of the brush being dragged back on forth on every beat but hey, I'm not the band's percussionist though I was once an actual drummer--I can't play both drum and guitar onstage at the same time--so it wasn't my call).

We tracked the parts and then mixed--the syncopated drum went perfectly with the bass, and we tried to ease back on the brush track. Our engineer got it to where the brush was soft if not quite subliminal, though it still sounded a bit like sandpaper--but my vocal was front and center, just as clear as the leads on the other three songs.

Then he mastered all four tracks, using his "mastering suite" software, and I took the disc home. I played it, first on my laptop and then my home stereo, and I was horrified--my vocal was suddenly buried and squashed-sounding, too warm with no "edge" at all, and the brush sounded like white noise. In fact, it sounded like distortion on my vocal--you have to listen very hard to realize that they're two different tracks. Yet the lead vocals on the other three songs sounded nice and clear, just as they had in the studio.

What had to have happened was that #$%^&* brush was occupying the same spectrum as my voice, and that when its attack transient peaks were compressed, so were the upper frequencies of my lead vocal. No brush on any other track, thus no undue compression of the others' lead vocals. I am going to ask for a mix sans the brush (mastered and unmastered), plus a copy of the unmastered mix of the song with the brush. (To be on the safe side, I will re-record the brush part with just the tips very lightly "bouncing" against the tambour head and only on the two and four--I tried it and that's what I want......but Susan doesn't feel any more comfortable playing only on the two and four than she does with syncopation).

I can't help but think that a separate mastering engineer would have listened and adjusted EQ and levels more appropriately (and perhaps pointed out the inherent problem with the brush before going ahead with mastering), whereas a computer algorithm is like a set of ears without a brain. I know it sounds extravagant to have a four-song demo professionally and separately mastered (especially when we're going to have to ultimately get the full album mastered), but it's my song and my chance to shine--as well as the lead track on the demo. (The engineer liked it so much that he kept telling me what a great song it is, and ever since last weekend has been going around whistling my guitar solo).

What's your experience--does having your tracking and mixing engineer do the mastering using an automated software mastering suite compromise the integrity of the song vis a vis using a separate mastering engineer (with a fresh set of ears, no emotional investment in the mix, and no ear fatigue from having tracked and mixed all day)?

[sirflyguy2000]

Originally Posted by Chicago Sandy

Spent all day yesterday in the studio first finishing overdubs and then mixing our trio's first demo. We did four songs--I sang lead on one I wrote, Susan on two she wrote (the second of hers is short and we needed a funny song that she and I hadn't previously recorded together) and Kate sang lead on a traditional song. I put bass on everything but Kate's; conversely, the only song with percussion was mine (Kate and Susan would otherwise have only sung--I played both guitar parts, bass and harmonica). Originally, Kate was to play a little hand-drum that's like "Honey, I shrunk the bodhran" (or a tambourine sans jingles) and Susan was to play her Native American drum (a smaller, primitive wooden version of a djembe, with a deeper sound). Susan was going to play the drum on every beat, and Kate wanted to know what I wanted her to do. I decided I definitely wanted a syncopated "bup......ba-bup, bup.....ba-bup" rhythm. Susan wasn't comfy syncopating, but Kate was game. Susan came up with the idea of using brushes on her drum, and then switched to one brush. It just wasn't working--the brush was just too loud and low-pitched and the little tambour was not resonant enough--till I had them switch instruments. Suddenly it began to click (though I still wasn't crazy about the sound of the brush being dragged back on forth on every beat but hey, I'm not the band's percussionist though I was once an actual drummer--I can't play both drum and guitar onstage at the same time--so it wasn't my call).

We tracked the parts and then mixed--the syncopated drum went perfectly with the bass, and we tried to ease back on the brush track. Our engineer got it to where the brush was soft if not quite subliminal, though it still sounded a bit like sandpaper--but my vocal was front and center, just as clear as the leads on the other three songs.

Then he mastered all four tracks, using his "mastering suite" software, and I took the disc home. I played it, first on my laptop and then my home stereo, and I was horrified--my vocal was suddenly buried and squashed-sounding, too warm with no "edge" at all, and the brush sounded like white noise. In fact, it sounded like distortion on my vocal--you have to listen very hard to realize that they're two different tracks. Yet the lead vocals on the other three songs sounded nice and clear, just as they had in the studio.

What had to have happened was that #$%^&* brush was occupying the same spectrum as my voice, and that when its attack transient peaks were compressed, so were the upper frequencies of my lead vocal. No brush on any other track, thus no undue compression of the others' lead vocals. I am going to ask for a mix sans the brush (mastered and unmastered), plus a copy of the unmastered mix of the song with the brush. (To be on the safe side, I will re-record the brush part with just the tips very lightly "bouncing" against the tambour head and only on the two and four--I tried it and that's what I want......but Susan doesn't feel any more comfortable playing only on the two and four than she does with syncopation).

I can't help but think that a separate mastering engineer would have listened and adjusted EQ and levels more appropriately (and perhaps pointed out the inherent problem with the brush before going ahead with mastering), whereas a computer algorithm is like a set of ears without a brain. I know it sounds extravagant to have a four-song demo professionally and separately mastered (especially when we're going to have to ultimately get the full album mastered), but it's my song and my chance to shine--as well as the lead track on the demo. (The engineer liked it so much that he kept telling me what a great song it is, and ever since last weekend has been going around whistling my guitar solo).

What's your experience--does having your tracking and mixing engineer do the mastering using an automated software mastering suite compromise the integrity of the song vis a vis using a separate mastering engineer (with a fresh set of ears, no emotional investment in the mix, and no ear fatigue from having tracked and mixed all day)?

I think mastering software is great for what it is, but it does not compensate for too many frequencies in one spot, etc. You still have to have ears and experience. Oh, Bob Womack........

[Bob Womack]

What is it they say? "Any properly mature technology is indistinguishable from black magic." Something like that. Mastering is an art. It consists of correcting problems and tweaking the final product so that it sounds its best on the largest number of playback systems possible. I've never heard a professional product that was mastered by an automatic system. I've never heard of an album cover picture that was auto color-corrected by software.

There's no doubt that a mastering engineer can do the best job possible. You'd be surprised at the costs. A friend of mine had a complete album mastered at Abbey Road for about $1200. You can get a few songs done by a smaller house for far less.

If you use a mastering house, be sure to communicate with them. They might take your tapes, hear the problem between the brush and voice, and mistake it for an effect the producer desired.

Bob

[Chicago Sandy]

Thanks, Bob. I needed no convincing, of course--I think if a project is worth doing, it's worth doing correctly. Few things are more frustrating in this business than having cut corners against one's better judgment (or having been outvoted) and then having to constantly apologize for the result.