Mastering your music

[Freuds_Cat]

I dont know why I hadn't considered this before but I heard a conversation between a producer and an engineer the other day that shocked me. They were talking about their schedule for the following week and how they had to work out how much time they should allocate to mastering an album for mp3. 

I really dont want to get into a rant about why with all the modern technology that we have available to us we choose(?) to listen to music that is effectively 10% of what it should be. And I know I shouldn't be shocked that songs are being mastered to suit the media they are to be played on. I mean thats what mastering is all about right? I still felt sad, or was it dissapointed, when the realisation that these guys were going to be doing this hit me. Stupid of me I know. 

[hieronymous]

I bet half of what they were talking about was how to get it as loud as possible!

[Chris P.]

I don't know if this is a bad case. As a band you want to have your songs sounding as good as possible.

Fact1: A lot of bands make special masters of songs for radio broadcasting, because of the enormous compression on radio stations. Songs sound bad on radio, compared to a CD, but with a special master you can make it sound better.

Fact2: Most older records, which came out on vinyl, don't sound that well on CD and needed a remaster for CD.

Fact3: An awful lot of people listen to MP3s, so why not invest some time and money in letting your songs sound as good as possible on this medium?

I also think that a lot of bands and producers abandoned the idea of mastering as loud as possible.

[Basvarken]

+1 What Chris said.

[Barklessdog]

I also think that a lot of bands and producers abandoned the idea of mastering as loud as possible.

My biggest compliant.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

I also think that a lot of bands and producers abandoned the idea of mastering as loud as possible.

Instead of outright  maximum average level, now you have "shaped" mastering with the intent to make the music to be perceived as loud as possible without being so squashed. Almost exactly opposite to the fashion of RIAA equalization curves were applied to vinyl masters, modern mastering relies heavily on shaped upper midrange harmonic distortion, which actually makes badly done modern CD's sound very much like overcompressed vinyl masters without the proper equalization. In other words, much of the bad music that sells in large large numbers digitally actually sounds like bad vinyl. In these cases, this generation of producers ends up being sonically nostaligic for its predecessors' mistakes; those who forget the past and all. ...that and a large number of supposed "professional" engineers and producers are just outright incompetent.

[Freuds_Cat]

I don't know if this is a bad case. As a band you want to have your songs sounding as good as possible.

Fact3: An awful lot of people listen to MP3s, so why not invest some time and money in letting your songs sound as good as possible on this medium?

I dont think you got my point Chris. I dont mean that they shouldn't make songs as good as is possible for mp3 format. I had just forgotten to consider that songs had to mastered for anything besides Vinyl, CD or Radio. And because I'd forgotten to consider it I was shocked when I heard the conversation. I'm still struggling to come to terms that the vast majority of music listeners are happy to accept such poor sound as being normal.

Anthony makes some very good points too. You are not the only person I've heard voice that kind of opinion.

[Dave W]

What percentage of listeners can tell the difference between a wav file and a properly done 320 kbps mp3?

[Barklessdog]

My best music is heard in my car, which I use an Ipod even though CD's sound superior. Its all about the ease.

90% of the music I listen to is on crappy speakers through my computer at work.

[Pilgrim]

What percentage of listeners can tell the difference between a wav file and a properly done 320 kbps mp3?

And even if they are capable of hearing the difference, are they listening through headphones or other equipment which reproduce sound with sufficient quality so that the difference is audible???

[Freuds_Cat]

I dont see why bought music shouldn't be like all other products. Cars, TV's, Cooking equipment, whatever. People buy items based on the amount of use they think they need it to be capable of or what level of quality or features they think suits them. Mercedes cars sell well, so do 100hz Hi Def TV's. And so does Hi end stereo equipment when it comes down to it. Lots of it.

As far as being capable of hearing the difference goes, the tried and tested (by me) truth is that if you have a medium quality music system and play a CD to 5 Joe Normals from the street and then directly after it played the same song as a 128b mp3 then yes most ppl can tell the difference. Do the same in most factory fitted car stereos and most cant.

My point is this: Are you happy that the music you buy today starts at a low quality rather than you buying it at high quality and having the choice to reduce the quality yourself to play in car the for example? Buying mp3's (or whatever variant you choose) is fine for background music in my mind but you then have to go and buy the song again in a higher quality format if you want to sit down and listen to it on your schmiko Hi Fi. Mp3s also suck when you are trying to learn basslines by ear from them in my experience.

[Dave W]

At 128 kbps on my stereo, usually I can easily tell the difference. At 320 (or a 224 or above VBR or above) I don't think I can. OTOH how many people who buy mp3s are intending to ever play them through quality gear?

[Psycho Bass Guy]

What percentage of listeners can tell the difference between a wav file and a properly done 320 kbps mp3?

I'd wager it's much higher than generally believed. Most people who use mp3's do so because of the convenience factor and quality is a non-issue for them. With standard A/B blind tests, I think people's ability to discern the difference would be startlingly high.

And even if they are capable of hearing the difference, are they listening through headphones or other equipment which reproduce sound with sufficient quality so that the difference is audible???

Mp3's do most of their damage in the audible range that just about any cheap speaker can reproduce easily. Even on crappy computer speakers with s/s THD figures in the double digits, aliasing artifacts from truncated bit depth still stick out like a sore thumb.

[Dave W]

There's no doubt that a lossless format would be ideal. And I've heard some truly awful sounding mp3s @ 128. Still, I don't think most could tell a lossless format from a properly done VBR at high bitrate or a CBR @ 320, for most music, using the kind of speakers or headphones most people use.

[Highlander]

I moved here in '92, and with a brief exception when I got the record player down from the loft for transfering some Loretta Lynn stuff belonging to Jackie that (I think) has still not arrived on CD, I haven't played a single LP of my own... I even stripped my vintage wharfdale speakers and colour-co-ordinated them with our lounge but they still got the thumbs down for being somewhat large...

I was persuaded by Roshina to buy a #2 iSod some years back and the only reason I get a CD out is to transfer it to iFumes, and then the CD gets packed in a box in the loft with whats left of my vinyl (which still numbers in the hundreds)...

I've said it before but at 70mph/100kph it sounds fine to me...

Welcome to the future...