Atmos Mastering?

[BL MGM]

I don't think anyone was saying that. I think the argument was about the potential limiting of dynamics which hasn't been the case with Atmos and certainly has been the case today with stereo mastering. Another gentleman mentioned that was only in the mixing phase. I said it has been from mastering which is obvious since the same mix "remastered", can have less dynamics.

Remasteing tends to be louder because 25 year old CDs were lame. Not punchy.

There is a time where a bit louder is more musical not less. Dynamics do not equal musicality. It's not so dogmatic or easy.

Listen to Shania Twain "the woman in me" ... the remaster vs release and let me know. My work

 

[BL MGM]

Something for everyone to ponder: The RMS or LUFS average of a track in stereo or in atmos being lower than that same track processed with other choices does NOT equate to a sound that is more dynamic in the track.

A lower average can sound MORE compressed and have LESS life dynamically. It's all about the interplay between freq and dynamics, the gear and the choices matter. This is high level thinking, but this is real.

Bad engineering in mastering happens, and bad taste from the creative team happens. That is not somehow a global "mastering is to blame" issue ... these are specific people on specific records. And ALWAYS approved by NOT the mastering engineer.

We serve, we are not Gods. It's just lazy and uninformed and frankly bigotry to think otherwise.

I welcome you to listen to The Pale Emporer by Marilyn Manson and tell me how it needs to be more dynamic, for example. Or again Shania "The Woman in Me" vs the release and tell me how you prefer the more dynamic 90s record.

 

[LB-V]

Listen to Shania Twain "the woman in me" ... the remaster vs release and let me know. My work

Nice....probably an obvious answer, but the remaster is the Atmos version or a stereo remaster?

 

[BL MGM]

Nice....probably an obvious answer, but the remaster is the Atmos version or a stereo remaster?

There is no 90s atmos right ?

Stereo remaster

 

[GilWave]

This is, quite simply, wrong. Dynamics processing—compression, expansion, limiting, gating, etc.—can be done at any point in the record production process, including during mastering. During recording, processing can be applied to individual tracks; during mixing, to individual tracks and/or the full mix; and during mastering, only to the full mix.

I was referring to the loudness-wars smashing of audio tracks to get them to sound as loud as possible - often resulting in 'brick wall' clipping of the stereo file. This is not done in the mastering phase, in fact many mastering engineers have to try and 'fix' this problem when handed over-compressed mixes.

 

[himey]

I was referring to the loudness-wars smashing of audio tracks to get them to sound as loud as possible - often resulting in 'brick wall' clipping of the stereo file. This is not done in the mastering phase, in fact many mastering engineers have to try and 'fix' this problem when haded over0compressed mixes.

Never?

 

[GilWave]

Never?

Ask any mastering engineer - they abhor smashed audio, it makes their job so much harder. They work on the finished mixes, not the individual tracks, and they have a standard for levels as part of the ISRC Red Book mastering standard.

 

[JediJoker]

Ask any mastering engineer - they abhor smashed audio, it makes their job so much harder. They work on the finished mixes, not the individual tracks, and they have a standard for levels as part of the ISRC Red Book mastering standard.

I was referring to the loudness-wars smashing of audio tracks to get them to sound as loud as possible - often resulting in 'brick wall' clipping of the stereo file. This is not done in the mastering phase, in fact many mastering engineers have to try and 'fix' this problem when handed over-compressed mixes.

Unfortunately, mastering engineers are often pressured by clueless record execs—who outrank them—to deliver crushed, lifeless masters. Just look at many CD remastering campaigns from the mid-'90s onward for your proof of that. Those records were not remixed, just remastered to "compete" in terms of loudness. Even good/great mastering engineers—like Bob Ludwig—have been pushed to do it.

 

[dobyblue]

The idea that no mastering engineers are smashing is hard to substantiate - there are many out there quite happy to slam the snot out of everything, some without asking and some because that’s what the client wants. If the first group didn’t exist, you wouldn’t be able to select certain engineers and see everything their hands touch come out slammed like some engineers from Metropolis, Sterling and The Lodge.

Friend of mine sent off some mixes to Gateway to be mastered by the second most famous engineer there and got back a heavily slammed master. They asked my advice and I recommended reaching out and saying you wanted the majority of the dynamics left intact, similar to Bob’s work on Chinese Democracy. Gateway give one free remaster if you’re not happy. They got back a much better release and went with it.

 

[BL MGM]

The idea that no mastering engineers are smashing is hard to substantiate - there are many out there quite happy to slam the snot out of everything, some without asking and some because that’s what the client wants. If the first group didn’t exist, you wouldn’t be able to select certain engineers and see everything their hands touch come out slammed like some engineers from Metropolis, Sterling and The Lodge.

Friend of mine sent off some mixes to Gateway to be mastered by the second most famous engineer there and got back a heavily slammed master. They asked my advice and I recommended reaching out and saying you wanted the majority of the dynamics left intact, similar to Bob’s work on Chinese Democracy. Gateway give one free remaster if you’re not happy. They got back a much better release and went with it.

The idea that you know the inside of the mastering business from your chair is hard to substantiate

Fact is that 99% of the people who say they want it "not too loud" actually want it louder than you would guess, they simply want to make sure it's moving air. So what happens? We default to the general arena of most approvals, because when we go lower it's not loud enough for them.

Your friend did the right thing. Get a revision. Simple. I do 2-3 revisions if needed no charge, because this is all very personal and subjective.

Yet the notion that mastering engineers are this breed of humans who like hot records is absurd. Please, stop that myth, it's just not true and frankly it's insulting.

 

[dobyblue]

The idea that you know the inside of the mastering business from your chair is hard to substantiate

Fact is that 99% of the people who say they want it "not too loud" actually want it louder than you would guess, they simply want to make sure it's moving air. So what happens? We default to the general arena of most approvals, because when we go lower it's not loud enough for them.

Your friend did the right thing. Get a revision. Simple. I do 2-3 revisions if needed no charge, because this is all very personal and subjective.

Yet the notion that mastering engineers are this breed of humans who like hot records is absurd. Please, stop that myth, it's just not true and frankly it's insulting.

Spot the straw man. (Hint: I bolded it)

I said SOME are happy to do it, and have listed several mastering houses that consistently do it (as far as popular music goes). As for being insulted, I don't see anywhere I've stated "all mastering engineers yadda yadda yadda", so if you're insulted it's not based on anything in my post. To reiterate, "The idea that no mastering engineers are smashing is hard to substantiate", which was in response to the absurd claim that smashing doesn't occur at the mastering stage made a few posts earlier.

This is no "myth" - an individual artist not on a label paid good money for one of the top mastering engineers (AA at Gateway) to master his newest single and got back a very hot master. Yes, my friend did the right thing, because the mastering engineer did not. He wasn't instructed to make it hot by the artist, nor by any label suits, that was the default he went with.

We all know the engineers that oppose it, some are vocal about it even though they still will deliver hot masters if the client wants it (Bob Ludwig, Greg Reierson) and others who would rather turn work away than put their name on it (Kevin Gray, Barry Diament).

 

[BL MGM]

Spot the straw man. (Hint: I bolded it)

I said SOME are happy to do it, and have listed several mastering houses that consistently do it (as far as popular music goes). As for being insulted, I don't see anywhere I've stated "all mastering engineers yadda yadda yadda", so if you're insulted it's not based on anything in my post. To reiterate, "The idea that no mastering engineers are smashing is hard to substantiate", which was in response to the absurd claim that smashing doesn't occur at the mastering stage made a few posts earlier.

This is no "myth" - an individual artist not on a label paid good money for one of the top mastering engineers (AA at Gateway) to master his newest single and got back a very hot master. Yes, my friend did the right thing, because the mastering engineer did not. He wasn't instructed to make it hot by the artist, nor by any label suits, that was the default he went with.

We all know the engineers that oppose it, some are vocal about it even though they still will deliver hot masters if the client wants it (Bob Ludwig, Greg Reierson) and others who would rather turn work away than put their name on it (Kevin Gray, Barry Diament).

I've tried to be friendly, and you seem to want to be legalistic, so let me be blunt… you're wrong. On all fronts.

Meaning both your assumptions are wrong, and your conclusions.

1. Everything gets approved by the client, the mastering engineer is a service provider. Read that over and over until you truly get it.

2. There are not "some" mastering engineers who are more inclined to be more dynamic in any objective sense. It's all a gray scale, everything is compressed ... and at the end of the day ... see number one.

3. As I mentioned, and you've skipped over : the first pass people send out is based on what their normal / typical customer base is expecting from them. Unless we are interested in starting everything from scratch, there's no point in being extremely dynamic in a world where that is not normal he asked for. Thus there's nothing loud-biased about doing what we think is expected in providing the service. It's just a first pass, revisions are an option.

If your friend specifically asked for a dynamic pass, communicated their needs, and it came back slammed that would different. That would be a communication mistake, but it still wouldn't prove your point, because you don't have a point. Everyone I know, and I know a lot of people mastering records, is more than happy to make a more dynamic pass.

4. As I've mentioned previously and this is huge and not well understood: A measurably more dynamic record does NOT necessarily sound more dynamic, or sound better. Two things at the exact same RMS or LUFS integrated measurement could have a very very different sound. One of them could be quite thin and seem very dynamic, and the other one could be quite thick and dark, and seem very compressed. At the same average level.

And ... Both might sound bad. Nothing to do with the level

The interplay between frequency, balance, harmonics, compression, limiting, and Mid Side power balance is the cocktail of mastering ... and within that cocktail lies the secrets to making things sound good, at any average level.

The average volume level making something SEEM DYNAMIC within that equation is a much smaller factor than you are making it.

5. Adam last I knew works in Bob's studio and developed his techniques and skills under Bob, so there is no reasonable assumption that somehow Adam likes hot records, and Bob doesn't, that's just ridiculous.

6. Turning down work because someone wants it a little bit louder really doesn't make any sense because the next person is going to give them what they want. So it's not some honorable stand of principal, it shows that the person turning down the work lacks the skill to make the most of a difficult request. Or they are too lazy to make the effort, or they are too arrogant to serve.

Maybe once a year do I get a mix that I have to politely request someone to redo because it's too slammed

Every day I get mixes that are quite dynamic. That aren't very good, because dynamics don't equal good sounding records.

Maybe once a year, does somebody push me beyond where it doesn't sound as good, and I make a point to tell them so, respectfully.

I work on a couple thousand songs a year and the skill and the challenge is making everything sound as good as possible no matter how it comes in or what the client is after.

It's clear that you have some real negativity towards "some" mastering engineers, and it's clear that you think you understand the day to day life of the mastering engineer.

Clients wanting things to be louder has always existed going back to the days of vinyl cutting, and the good news is that in 2023 we are far past the era of peak loudness, that was maybe around Death Magnetic.

 

[Quadrobineg]

Almost all Atmos releases on Apple and Today, even though they say 'Master", have n to been mastered. they are submitted to the service direct from the mix engineer - so technically they are mixes, not masters.

that is an interesting perspective but i tend to disagree.

the technical mastering - and he was explicitly talking about the technical mastering - consist of the creation of a file and applying compression codec to it (such as AC-4, H-mpeg, you name it.) and of course providing the volume image where that applies. ( BD)

so it seems irrelevant if a mastering service or a pet doctor does this, because everyone can do that.

the only issue what can arrive is that you might need to adjust the level to meet a certains LUFs, usually around -18, and that means you have to do it to many objects at once. but every software which can mix atmos can do that, isn´t it?

dithering is not required since we are going to compress, and there is normally also no analog targets.

limiting and adjusting the gain for systems smaller than 9.4.1. is normally done in the decoder, so you can forget about that, too.

in brasil there is a standard for it, btw., no idea why there is none for the rest of the world. and why dolby always makes "suggestions" instead of specifications, well. they did that before...

 

[BL MGM]

that is an interesting perspective but i tend to disagree.

the technical mastering - and he was explicitly talking about the technical mastering - consist of the creation of a file and applying compression codec to it (such as AC-4, H-mpeg, you name it.) and of course providing the volume image where that applies. ( BD)

so it seems irrelevant if a mastering service or a pet doctor does this, because everyone can do that.

the only issue what can arrive is that you might need to adjust the level to meet a certains LUFs, usually around -18, and that means you have to do it to many objects at once. but every software which can mix atmos can do that, isn´t it?

dithering is not required since we are going to compress, and there is normally also no analog targets.

limiting and adjusting the gain for systems smaller than 9.4.1. is normally done in the decoder, so you can forget about that, too.

in brasil there is a standard for it, btw., no idea why there is none for the rest of the world. and why dolby always makes "suggestions" instead of specifications, well. they did that before...

Anyone who submits and is released creates a master by default.

HOWEVER

That is a passe definition.

Atmos headphones need to beat stereo. The products are compared.

Stereo mastering is an essential part of the creative result for decades and yes a few bad eggs in there, yet a key ingredient.

Atmos is releasing mixes, often the cheapest mixes the reluctant label can get the artist to approve, is released.

Not even a digital nip tuck applied in a better monitoring room, it's just throw it up in headphones and hope the artist (who has the least info as to standards, in an arena with no sonic frame of reference standard) will approve.

 

[Quadrobineg]

That is a passe definition.

i find it essential to understand the difference; that does not mean that you have to distinguish between the two work steps.

the audio mastering part has been moving down to living room studios because the tools and the knowledge are now more available than 50 years ago. but unlike for stereo and oldschool surround, almost nobody can say that he has a lot of experience mixing and mastering immersive audio. it is still "new" and the difference between experts and talented people can be huge.

the two main reasons why semiprofessionals should not do the audio mastering themselves are imho:

1. EQ. this is the difficult part also for stereo.

2. one should not underestimate that "atmos mastering" will in best case also include placement changes. and it is not like this would be irrelevant if you make mistakes with that.

there are already threads in this and other forums about how to compress 128 channels at once. such software exists, but is hard to find, and you are probably better off making a custom app for it because in nuendo it is a mess.

 

[Quadrobineg]

Ask any mastering engineer - they abhor smashed audio, it makes their job so much harder. They work on the finished mixes, not the individual tracks,

stem mastering is unavoidable for immersive audio and it is also totally normal these days even among one man companies and hobbyists.

and they have a standard for levels as part of the ISRC Red Book mastering standard.

never heard about this standard for levels, that must be new. until now it was only dealing with sector size, pcm format, error rate, number of tracks and total length.

a mastering engineer does the level like the customer tells him to!