Posts Tagged ‘Understanding’

Towards a deep understanding of the mastering process (part 2)

Thursday, June 28th, 2012

Second step: Benchmark measurements methods
Once we identified our key parameters, the question is now : how to measure it ? Otherwise, it’s hard to build a reference and we fall into the subjectivity. At this point, some mastering engineers might disagree and that’s okay. The objective here is simply to propose a different approach, a new perspective. Use it or not but, in both case, consider it. That said, let’s look at the tools we could use for our experiment:
  • Tonal balance can be measured via spectrum analysis
  • Perceived loudness can be evaluated by RMS measurement
  • Stereo can be measured with a vectorscope
What’s missing ? A tool to measure the harmonic content of a mix. We all know what is the problem with exciters. The more you turn the button, better it is… until it sucks ! It is a key parameter that is still based on subjectivity only. For an experienced engineer, it might not be a problem to adjust the “right” amount of harmonic content but, it’s not the case for every newbie home-studio owner that work in an less-than-perfect listening environment.
.
.
Third step: Define a standard range of values by reverse engineering
I really like this part which consists to analyze the key parameters of my favourite best-sounding records. I find it exciting, it’s like finding dinosaur bones. Let’s take the 10 best sounding albums of your musical genre and analyze them, both subjectively and objectively. How does it sound ? What do I like in these records ? Only in terms of sonic perspective, what’s different from other genre ? How the dynamic sounds like ? Does it sound bright, muddy, airy, warm or neutral ? Then:
  • Capture the tonal balance with a spectrum analyzer, then compare each of them with pink, brown and white noise
  • Measure the RMS throughout the song
  • Take a look at the vectorscope; how the mix behave in terms of stereo imaging ?
  • Try to print in your mind the degree of harmonic content.
Especially, if you’re testing similar sounding record, you will recognize patterns very quickly. Maybe only 3 records will be enough give you a very precise idea of how it should sound. More specifically:
  • Tonal balance: Is it closer to pink noise, brown noise or white noise ?
  • RMS: What is the max and min value. Is the range narrow ? Is the average making sense for your needs ?
  • Stereo: Does most records behave the same way ? Do you have a good idea of how it should look and sound like ?
  • Harmonic content: Are you going to make it shinny or raw ?
Personnally, I learned from this experiment that I like tonal balances that are between the brown and the pink noise, RMS values between -10db and -12db, a medium stereo spread with high harmonic content. This is a very very very powerful statement!
See you for the following next week !

Towards a deep understanding of the mastering process (part 1)

Thursday, June 28th, 2012


Introduction:

You’ve probably already heard the famous quote saying that inventors are people that have been forced to change field, because they see the never solved problem with a fresh perspective. I tend to believe it, since problem solving is often a matter of paradigm shift. Even if you know me for mastering music, first you should know that my background is based on chemical process engineering. If there is something that this field taught me, it is how to define a process, understand it in order to improve it. Sometimes this improvement simply consist to simplify its operation, reduce its cost or automate its critical steps. Well, I decided to apply this method to the mastering process…

 

First step: Identify the key parameters (Success criteria)
Whatever problem you’re facing, if you want to solve it, you will have to identify what are the critical aspects. It’s not everything that really matters; there is a notion of priority. For Mastering, I think that Izotope have already done a good deal of the job with its all-included bundle Ozone. Let me enumerate the components they’ve proposed us for mastering:
  • Equalizer
  • Multiband dynamic processing (expander, compressor and limiter)
  • Mulitband Exciter (tape, tube, etc.)
  • Reverb
  • Stereo tool
  • Maximizer
Investigating a little bit about the selection of these tools brings us back to the fundamentals. Are all these tools necessary for every case ? Certainly not. Do I add reverb to every master ? No. Okay, so…What does really matters ? To find out, let’s answer the following question: How should the perfect master sound like ? Let me guess for you:
  • Well balanced
  • Powerful
  • Focused
  • Rich
Oh, we start with 6 circumstantial aspects and came down two 4 fundamental ones. Moreover, if we speak the same english, Well-balanced refers to tonal-balance, Powerful to dynamics, Focus to stereo,  and rich to Harmonic content. Can we go simpler than that ? I don’t think so. Do I play with these 4 dimensions every time I master ? Yes. We just identified the fundamental parameters:
  • Tone
  • Dynamics
  • Stereo
  • Harmonic content
Wow, that simplifies a problem, doesn’t it ?