Topic: To nomalize or not?

[momule]

You are right on the money.   Although I think the low quality of some tapes may actually perpetuate our ability to record because it doesn't compete with the commercial stuff.

that's a good point . But to me they should have nothing to worry about as long as they have there shit together. As they have a whole lot more to work with than us . Including compressors and finalizers and so on. which (if used correctly) can dramaticly improve any recording.

The Muletracks are a prime example here . The first few dozen shows were horrible (and I mean Horrible) I'm betting if your average mini disc taper had a Board feed he could have produced better tapes.
 I'm not sure if it was from Slim's mix or the post production. I honestly thought Peter would do good things for um, But was kinda let down by a few of the shows he put out including the Big House show. The mix was not so hot and overall sound was very low (almost seemed more of an audience tape instead of a SBD matrix.) And being a long time mule fan it was hard for me to fork out $15 bucks for a SBD that sounded no better than my aud tape..

[pfife]

You know, there's a reason why most tapers don't master recordings, right?  It has nothing to do with a lack of skill or desire...

[momule]

why is that?
Not trying to be a smart ass, just didn't know if there was some unwritten rule I didn't know about.

[pfife]

Most want to leave the recordings unadulterated in order to give the best representation of the gear possible to other tapers.  Many times, someone will say "I'm trying to decide between X and Y - which should I get?" and people will tell them to check out sources of each - if they are mastered sources, it piles on more factors in the decision making process, and determining the true capabilities of the gear. This is also why people are totally neurotic about sourcing...  I personally buy into this.

There are also people that argue that post-processing is messing with an otherwise accurate historical representation of the event as it actually happened.  I agree with this less, as many things that the taper does will have an effect on the recording and its accuracy to the recording in a historical sense:  mics, caps, mic placement, mic config, mic cables, pre, recorder, A/D, sample rate, mistakes,  and bit rate all are variables.

Of course, there are a vast number of people who really don't know how to master recordings, and I'll count myself in that category.  But, I don't think that encouraging people to do more mastering is going to result in more good recordings, as most people will make them sound good on the system on their computer, and when played on many other playback systems, it'll sound like crap.  That doesn't mean that people couldn't learn to master recordings effectively, just in my experience, mastering is the most difficult part of recording...

I know a lot of people here, especially shun compression...

Definately interested to hear your opinion.

[momule]

Most want to leave the recordings unadulterated in order to give the best representation of the gear possible to other tapers.  Many times, someone will say "I'm trying to decide between X and Y - which should I get?" and people will tell them to check out sources of each - if they are mastered sources, it piles on more factors in the decision making process, and determining the true capabilities of the gear. This is also why people are totally neurotic about sourcing...  I personally buy into this.

There are also people that argue that post-processing is messing with an otherwise accurate historical representation of the event as it actually happened.  I agree with this less, as many things that the taper does will have an effect on the recording and its accuracy to the recording in a historical sense:  mics, caps, mic placement, mic config, mic cables, pre, recorder, A/D, sample rate, mistakes,  and bit rate all are variables.

Of course, there are a vast number of people who really don't know how to master recordings, and I'll count myself in that category.  But, I don't think that encouraging people to do more mastering is going to result in more good recordings, as most people will make them sound good on the system on their computer, and when played on many other playback systems, it'll sound like crap.  That doesn't mean that people couldn't learn to master recordings effectively, just in my experience, mastering is the most difficult part of recording...

In reply I could agree in some parts with your reply to parts about x-y , But If your judging your Rig by the sound that someone else is making of another band in another city on another night... your a braver man than I.... Or Crazy or both 
And again what gear did ya hear it through when making these decisions.? DO I need to hear it through the same gear to get an accurate representation of the gear used? 

The problem I see is most of the tapes I hear are not an accurate representation of what ya heard that Night , As if it was a lot of Engineers would loose there job's. And ticket sales would be down..  plain and simple.

I simply think that if half the folks spent half as much time reading about how and why and where to use certain mastering techniques we could all benefit from it.. Not only from better tapes for us all but maybe a better name among the "community".

+T for intelligent conversation without getting all bent out of shape
Nick

[pfife]

Most want to leave the recordings unadulterated in order to give the best representation of the gear possible to other tapers.  Many times, someone will say "I'm trying to decide between X and Y - which should I get?" and people will tell them to check out sources of each - if they are mastered sources, it piles on more factors in the decision making process, and determining the true capabilities of the gear. This is also why people are totally neurotic about sourcing...  I personally buy into this.

There are also people that argue that post-processing is messing with an otherwise accurate historical representation of the event as it actually happened.  I agree with this less, as many things that the taper does will have an effect on the recording and its accuracy to the recording in a historical sense:  mics, caps, mic placement, mic config, mic cables, pre, recorder, A/D, sample rate, mistakes,  and bit rate all are variables.

Of course, there are a vast number of people who really don't know how to master recordings, and I'll count myself in that category.  But, I don't think that encouraging people to do more mastering is going to result in more good recordings, as most people will make them sound good on the system on their computer, and when played on many other playback systems, it'll sound like crap.  That doesn't mean that people couldn't learn to master recordings effectively, just in my experience, mastering is the most difficult part of recording...

In reply I could agree in some parts with your reply to parts about x-y , But If your judging your Rig by the sound that someone else is making of another band in another city on another night... your a braver man than I.... Or Crazy or both 
And again what gear did ya hear it through when making these decisions.? DO I need to hear it through the same gear to get an accurate representation of the gear used? 

Well, I didn't mean to imply that it is the only criteria for making a decision on which gear to purchase, but it can be used to help determine whether a certain peice of gear is right for you or not - and most would advocate listening to multiple shows using the gear in question.  For instance, I've listened to enough tapes using a certain kind of mic (which will remain nameless....  ) to know that I'd never want to own that brand of mics.  I've also heard a number of tapes using a certain other brand of mics that totally kick my ass, and make the speakers seem to melt into the wall... (and those will remain nameless as well...)

I don't really see how the playback gear matters much - what do you mean by "hear it through the same gear"?

The problem I see is most of the tapes I hear are not an accurate representation of what ya heard that Night , As if it was a lot of Engineers would loose there job's. And ticket sales would be down..  plain and simple.

Nah, some people just hate live music, so they wouldn't buy it.  I have a number of friends that are that way.  Further, some people like going to concerts - I have a number of friends who are that way too.  I happen to be both.

I simply think that if half the folks spent half as much time reading about how and why and where to use certain mastering techniques we could all benefit from it.. Not only from better tapes for us all but maybe a better name among the "community".

No dispute there.  In my case, I never do anything more than normalizing - but that's because I know my skill limitations, and I've never felt it was necessary.  However, there are people here that say if a tape made by a good taper w/ good gear sounds like crap on your playback, then your playback sucks.  However, that's definately debatable!

+T for intelligent conversation without getting all bent out of shape
Nick

You as well.

[Craig T]

Contrary to what some here have said, I actually think many of my recordings played back through my home system sound better than it did during the live event.  I typically don't do any "mastering" (on rare occations a touch of EQ to drop some bass out).  Maybe I'm the greatest taper ever.  Some have said I am "the man".  

[pfife]

Contrary to what some here have said, I actually think many of my recordings played back through my home system sound better than it did during the live event.  I typically don't do any "mastering".  Maybe I'm the greatest taper ever.  Some have said I am "the man".   

awesome.  I know what you mean though!

[momule]

I know a lot of people here, especially shun compression...

Definately interested to hear your opinion.

If used correctly, I see no problem with it. Simply learn to use it correctly and It could be a valuable tool ..
If compression, Limiters, gates, finalizers and so on were not used the studio stuff would sound just like our live recordings. And you would prolly have a hard time justifying the cost if the Cd/dvd's.

I find it funny that some folks were saying to compress the peaks then normalize. that seems crazy to me as I would simply normalize and apply dynamic compression to the peaks/over's all in one step. (see the above post for a pic)
Its funny for me as 90% of the stuff I read here goes against How I have been instructed.

Most community colleges offer some sorta audio classes for a little of nothing. I figure if ya have $2000+ in gear what's $200 for an education on how to properly use the equipment.
I like the set up and expertise of a local Studio here in town  http://www.chapmanrecording.com/

[zowie]

Most want to leave the recordings unadulterated in order to give the best representation of the gear possible to other tapers.  Many times, someone will say "I'm trying to decide between X and Y - which should I get?" and people will tell them to check out sources of each - if they are mastered sources, it piles on more factors in the decision making process, and determining the true capabilities of the gear. This is also why people are totally neurotic about sourcing...  I personally buy into this.

I think what you wrote is pretty accurate as a generalization, but I don't buy into that mindset at all.  It's totally missing the forrest for the trees.  Don't make the music sound as good as it could because maybe some anonymous listener down the line will want to use the tape as a Consumer's Guide?  The toys are fun, but when they become more important than the music, something's gone wrong.

There are also people that argue that post-processing is messing with an otherwise accurate historical representation of the event as it actually happened.  I agree with this less, as many things that the taper does will have an effect on the recording and its accuracy to the recording in a historical sense:  mics, caps, mic placement, mic config, mic cables, pre, recorder, A/D, sample rate, mistakes,  and bit rate all are variables.

Good mastering should not (IMO) result in something that's different than the live event, but more like the event than the raw tape.  Subject to some exceptions.  Like if the room is unfortunately booming because of bad accoustics or bad sound guy, why the hell should I have to listen to that booming for the sake of historical accuracy if I can band-compress it out. 

Of course, there are a vast number of people who really don't know how to master recordings, and I'll count myself in that category.  But, I don't think that encouraging people to do more mastering is going to result in more good recordings, as most people will make them sound good on the system on their computer, and when played on many other playback systems, it'll sound like crap.  That doesn't mean that people couldn't learn to master recordings effectively, just in my experience, mastering is the most difficult part of recording.

I know a lot of people here, especially shun compression...

I do agree.  I'd rather a recording was left alone than made worse by someone who didn't have the ears of the equipment needed to do a decent job. (And a real mastering engineer will say that nobody but a small number of specialists with lots of expenisve gear can properly master, not even pro engineers who do the tracking and mixing.)

A lot of people shun compression because the way it is increasingly abused in the commercial pop CD "loudness wars" has made it fashionable to do so.  But many recordings are vastly improved by compression.  Many superb sounding audiophile recordings use compression.  You have to be a genius to get most close-miced singers or drum kits to fit into a multi-track mix without some compression. Ambient recordings of unamplified music are often benefitted by compression.

But an exception is tapes of PA sound.  Why?  Not because compression is "bad" but because there are already compressors running in the PA systems.  And exciters.  And eq.  And other stuff some tapers will tell you should never be used.  Well, yeah, if it's already been done for you, adding more to the tape can be overkill that ruins the sound.

[momule]

I don't really see how the playback gear matters much - what do you mean by "hear it through the same gear"?

if we did a "name that source" you may think it was Mk4>V3>Jb3 when enjoyed on your playback rig.
However I may hear 483>W-mod>Jb3 ..... because of the gear used to play it back..

and then lets not even get started on the IC's used and how long they were burned in and so on....     to many variables is all

[zowie]

If compression, Limiters, gates, finalizers and so on were not used the studio stuff would sound just like our live recordings. And you would prolly have a hard time justifying the cost if the Cd/dvd's.

Actually, the studio stuff would sound worse than our tapes, because a good house PA is running alot of that gear in real time on the live sound.  Tapers have things made pretty easy for them.

[momule]

I think what you wrote is pretty accurate as a generalization, but I don't buy into that mindset at all.  It's totally missing the forrest for the trees.  Don't make the music sound as good as it could because maybe some anonymous listener down the line will want to use the tape as a Consumer's Guide?  The toys are fun, but when they become more important than the music, something's gone wrong.


Good mastering should not (IMO) result in something that's different than the live event, but more like the event than the raw tape.  Subject to some exceptions.  Like if the room is unfortunately booming because of bad accoustics or bad sound guy, why the hell should I have to listen to that booming for the sake of historical accuracy if I can band-compress it out. 

Im just glad Im not the only one who thinks like this...

[zowie]

I find it funny that some folks were saying to compress the peaks then normalize. that seems crazy to me as I would simply normalize and apply dynamic compression to the peaks/over's all in one step. (see the above post for a pic)
Its funny for me as 90% of the stuff I read here goes against How I have been instructed.

If the compressor is set properly, the levels should be where they belong coming out of the compressor.  That may be the same thing as what you're saying.

[Brian Skalinder]

It seems to me that allot of "Taper's" don't really know much when it comes to mastering, Which IMO is half of the battle of making a good ambient recoding.. They simply go by what someone else told them one time , which was prolly false to start with...

Anyone nowwa days with a credit card can be a taper and can push some button's and make a recording. 
But it stands out to me the folks who can "master" ..... Ya know so that you can enjoy it without blowing your sub , or so that you don't have to crank your pre to get a 'listenable" volume..
 I pull and instantly delete a dozen shows a week cause they are not enjoyable to listen to . Either the bass is wayy too heavy(learn to use a paragraphic EQ). Or the overall recording is just very low (don't be afraid to run a bit hotter)

Very good points, MoMule.  FWIW, I rarely do much mastering with my recordings for several reasons:

• I generally like the way they sound
• I don't find the benefits (to me) worth the additional time and effort
• I make the recordings for my ears, and my playback, and am not set up with proper monitors to ensure it sounds "just so" on everyone's playback system
• the venues in which I record generally sound good - have good PAs, good people behind the board, not horrible (and granted not great, either) acoustics, etc., and I make the effort to secure a good location for my ambient mics
• the minor imperfections - and I don't mean something so blaringly awful that the recording's downright unlistenable - all contribute in some way to the character of the recording;  the flaws are part of the experience for me, just as I find a live band - warts and all - appealing.

.
I'm not interested in turning my recordings into uber-polished, perfect-sounding, exquisitely EQ'd masterpieces.  But I agree that a bit of discretionary mastering can make a significant difference in the overall end result of the recording.

If used correctly, I see no problem with it. Simply learn to use it correctly and It could be a valuable tool.  If compression, Limiters, gates, finalizers and so on were not used the studio stuff would sound just like our live recordings. And you would prolly have a hard time justifying the cost if the Cd/dvd's.

On the other hand, many studio releases waaaay over-utilize those nifty little features, so the resulting "mastered" recording sounds like horseshit - no dynamic range, very 'closed' sounding, etc.

I find it funny that some folks were saying to compress the peaks then normalize. that seems crazy to me as I would simply normalize and apply dynamic compression to the peaks/over's all in one step.

I think I'm one of the ones who said that - and yeah, I'd to it all in one fell swoop, too, but I described it as two functions because it's easier to understand for those who aren't familiar with those functions.  The intent was really to illustrate that two different functions together can accomplish a particular goal - either performed independently, or simultaneously.  I figure anyone willing to learn about compression will also learn enough in the process of experimentation, reading Help files and tutorials, etc., to realize they can apply the compression and normalization at the same time.

Its funny for me as 90% of the stuff I read here goes against How I have been instructed.

I, for one, appreciate the discussion and your perspective, and would love to see more feedback from you about the 90% of stuff "we" do here that goes against what you've learned.  The more we all know, the better decisions we can make about what's right for each of us to do individually.  Without the information, well...it's just an uninformed decision, hardly a good way to go about it.

Most community colleges offer some sorta audio classes for a little of nothing. I figure if ya have $2000+ in gear what's $200 for an education on how to properly use the equipment.

While I'm familiar with most of the concepts involved in master, and have dabbled a bit, I admit:  I'm no expert, and that's one of the reasons - along with the ones listed above - I don't fiddle as much with mastering as maybe I should.  I hadn't thought about taking a local community college class, that's a great idea.  As it is, my perception of my recordings as Good Enough doesn't exactly motivate me to dig into it further than I have already.  But taking a class would encourage me to explore more.  +T for the idea and good discussion.