Does any one ever listen to the blend of the instruments and how their parts sound (tone wise) in a mix submitted for mastering? There is a lot of talk on the Gearslut mastering board about doing mastering entirely by listening and adjusting and processing used in the process - exclusively using one's ears. There'a a lot of talk about listening to things like frequency spectrums. I ask, What about the mix?
I guess if one wanted to limit oneself to exclusive "ear mastering," never looking at meters or analyzers, and one has success doing it, I think it is great for them, and they should continue. I know it works for Stevie Wonder.
I have never particularly done this, nor do I want to start now. I feel that each of these measuring devices all give us an alternate view (from a different sence) of the same thing we hear - so why not? My experience tells me that all things should pretty much agree: What you see matches what you hear. I have amazed students by telling them, just what a responce spectrum or metering/analysis will look like/read out like - just by listening. I am seldom off by very much.
Some very well-knowedable and good mastering engineers have told me they don't look much at meters and sometimes even cover them up, so they doesn't influence what is heard. I suggest that maybe they are looking at meters or spectrums on first listen - which is too soon (in my opinion). I recently had the honor of mastering mixes from the old Motown group, the Contours, for an upcoming 2010 release. The first song was a remnake of their hit, "First I Look at The Purse." Well as I heard that for the first time, I was in my car, and I listened to the mix.
By listening to the mix, I mean following the instrument parts, what they are doing and how they compliment each other; listening to the instruments' tone. In 2009, I have worked at two production studios some 60 miles from home base, doing sessions 2-3 times a week) and I have a lot of listening time, and like any producer/engineer, I know what my car stereo sounds like.
Besides listening to the mix I see how I have to change the volume knob and the bass/treble controls between (or within) songs to get a more consitent product. This is as far as I go in ME type analysis. I'm trying to get into the engineer/producer's head as to what was attempted, mix wise, and even what was intended by the arranger/writer. Sometime corrective DSP is necessary because of problems in the mixing. These problems can be caused by the mixing being done on particular monitors (e.g., with no sub-woofer or "hyped" midrange by the manufacturer), monitor levels used in mixing, or by inexperience. But sometimes things that the ME thinks needs "corrected" are quite intended by the producer.
Back at home base, I bring out the analyzers and meters. Those instruments playing the music can be "seen" on a spectrum analyzer or meter pointer and I use all forms of observing the mix visually as well as by ear.
What areas you decide to apply EQ can be more finely tuned with analyzers than by my ear. Having the DSP in tune with the mix has beautiful results. A bass line in the Key of E has a second harmonic at 80 Hz on an analyzer display, and this frequency would be different for the key of C (Hmm... where's that Carnegie chart ?). We're talking choosing a frequency in 1/12 octave steps - my ears aren't that good and my pitch recognition is even weaker. The analyzer helps with this - although not essential. Meters help me decide exactly where to make 0.2 - 1.0 dB changes in the volume envelope - again not essential - but accurate and quick.
Most important is to make the cut have competative/client requested levels/loudness, while perserving the intent of the original mix and the original tone on instruments. After acheiving that, any correction needed can be applied.
So the Contours say, "First I Look At The Purse." I Say: "First I Look At The Mix - By Listening."
Bob
Recording Website Forum
Author
