Fantastic tracks ruined by mastering/mixing.

[HappyHorse]

I did already on page 2 here, but here is my copy/paste:

 

"Powerful, more maximal mastering. This doesn't mean there is no dynamics of course but less then before... But it doesn't infect the music in any (negative) way imo :)"

 

 

 

Well, maybe we'd better discuss it in real life, cause that answer appeard too vague imo.

 

"Moden mastering = more maximal and powerfull.": I still don't get what you mean exactly by that.

 

 

Maybe cause of the limitations of online chatting...

Plus: we do not support "old" or "new" mastering. We like to find the best mastereing. That's why I ask a full detailed explantion

The more details the more we understand eachother.

 

any how, gonna end the online discussion, no point any more in doing it.

[Anoebis]

"Moden mastering = more maximal and powerfull.": I still don't get what you mean exactly by that.

More maximal = less dynamics compared to before, more loud and crystal clear

[mars]

@ Mars: I just asked what he means by it. I never heard that term "modern mastering" before.

 

Plus: I'm very eager to learn about everyone here, every label, every sound engineer and not argue nor pretend I know everything

And that is the point: learning by asking questions.

 

 

 

Plus I think it's very interesting all label owner here talk openly about how they feel about mastering styles,...etc.

So we can get an insight in eachothers approaches, feelings about sound colors,... and that's a really cool trend imo: so we start understanding the diffrences between the labels.

 

So instead of starting to go in defent modus, we can better write and and explain eachother what we do, so we gain knowlegde so we can improve all steps of production

 

If I would know everything about sound engineering I'd never come here and start asking questions

It looks clear to my language use here I'm not saying "I don't like what you do" or "I know everything about sound".

Not gonna put energy in a "label vs label" thingy: no one learns anything in this type of discussion

 

Opinions differ, and I like that! That's democracy, that's what can makes us grow: "Goa Lives" <3

 

There are schools that can teach you properly sound enineering (SAE, Audio Institude) in your very own country. In your shoes I wouldn't ask on forums for truncated bits of information from mostly uneducated people; I would make the investment and go straight to the source where solid knowledge is given out. Or at least ask on dedicated forums.

 

That's a choice I won't do: clearly, when you or us are about to get anything mastered we know the tracks by heart and know deep inside where the emphasis should be put, or in which areas the tracks shouldn't be insisting too much. So I trust my ears and heart and guts rather than equations and graphs and believe that if I cross the line I'll be biaised. Since artists and audience are happy too, I don't feel the need to dig deeper, so far.

 

If you want a way of improvement I'll give you the only one I have: I always ask Tim Schuldt in which areas the tracks were weaker so I can inform the artists and they may find ways of enhancing their production.

Who said there's a "label vs label" thingie? I said I abominated these rhetorical "dynamics" discussions. Seems you're more in defense mode than I am actually héhé

Nah I'm pulling your leg. My position is the same all the way to the existence of the label itself. We created it to release the music we would have bought if we were regular listeners. For me it's all about feelings, nothing about rhetorics. 95% of what we release is fresh but if, for example...say...we want to reissue an old CD to enable people to enjoy some old glorious release like we do/did, we'll do that proudly too

[mars]

 

I never said not use Tim - lol! I actually don't care who uses who.

I care about how they do it and what makes the sound diffrent.

 

Oh I understand now, we're on opposite sides of "the means to an end". IMO both approaches are valid.

[Drosophila]

I think BOTFB and the gang prefer the 'rusty' sound. And to be honest I think it totally suits the music.

 

agree, I have always liked the rough unpolished sound when it comes to BOTFBs, Ka-Sol and other Schlab releases for that matter, its a perfect match!

[Djuna]

@ Djuna: modern, maximal mastering does not mean there is no dymanics at all. Less compared to before, of course. But not, non. And that was my point, you can't master music like in 1996 anymore if our tracks are played on all big festivals... I saw it many times before. The modern goa tracks that take the crowd into oblivion, while the old school ones have less effect (on HUGE soundsystems) simply because of their mastering.

Honestly... 30% of the tracks I would like to play in my sets, I can't mix with modern goa tracks because the difference is too much.

I'm glad that someone mentions Hallucinogen's albums as well here. These albums are simply fantastic pieces of sound, which, regarding mastering (and mixing too of course), has never been done with a newschool release. But is it that way bad, just because it's more than 20 years old? True, there are good goa trance tracks that are difficult to mix with other tracks because of their mastering/mixing, but that's not a reason for brickwall limiting new music. Hallucinogen, Shakta, Asia 2001, old MWNN, ... there's nothing wrong with those albums, they are perfect examples for powerful, dynamic, energetic and compelling music.

 

 

 

Who wants to go back anyway?

 

I do! And you did, 10 years ago, remember? Wasn't that the main reason why you started Suntrip, because you weren't satisfied with the new modern music? I'm with that idea too, only I'm adding another aspect to that thought.

 

 

For the people that know nothing about mastering, you can have spectral views pretty easily in many programs. There

 

Can you explain your last sentence? Seems like the internet took a bite out of your post.

 

 

Here we go again... you guys are a piece of work when it comes to mastering that almost holy word that's been so badly used on your forums: "dynamics". There's no point in answering these questions. I prefer to release music rather than pretend to be an expert at anything and "discuss" endlessly about it in a void attempt at filling empty spaces.

 

In short: we work with a reliable sound engineer that, for the last ten years has succeeded in pleasing our artists, the audience and ourselves, that is not "coloring" the tracks after his own "paw", that has never failed us, never delayed us, never bullshitted us. Good work and peace of mind, which allows us to focus and spend more time on other aspects and other releases that are appealing us.

 

Be sure that when we have more than 5-6 people not liking Suntrip's mastering, of course, we'll use another studio!

 

 

Thanks for not using any sarcasm... This is getting really difficult if you guys keep seeing this as a personal attack. I never said here that you shouldn't use Tim Schuldt for your mastering work - glad that you've found a decent partner to work with, that's of course also important but not really something I wanted to bring up to the subject.

 

I said it one psychedelic.be before; but you can almost tell by only analysing the waveform which mastering engineer has mastered the track: Work of Engineer X has only 6.2dB to 6.5dB of dynamic range (we can talk about RMS too if you're tired of hearing that word), Engineer Y 5.7dB, Engineer Z 4.7dB, ... What this means is that every track which goes through the hands of a mastering engineer is being treated the same way, even though the styles of the artist vary a lot! So yeah, that's pretty much what "colouring the tracks after his own paw" means actually...

[Anoebis]

True, there are good goa trance tracks that are difficult to mix with other tracks because of their mastering/mixing, but that's not a reason for brickwall limiting new music. Hallucinogen, Shakta, Asia 2001, old MWNN, ... there's nothing wrong with those albums, they are perfect examples for powerful, dynamic, energetic and compelling music.

of course that is not a reason, but if all the other modern music is treated that way... and it sounds better on a dancefloor, there is no reason to stay behind, limiting yourself and go back to minor 1996 mastering. What do you think! MWNN, Simon Posfor, Shakta,... They all master their new tracks MODERN, not like in 1996! And that has a reason... You will always have people that are stuck in the past... But we wan't to have a modern interpretation of the past, and that is working damn good

 

 

I do! And you did, 10 years ago, remember? Wasn't that the main reason why you started Suntrip, because you weren't satisfied with the new modern music? I'm with that idea too, only I'm adding another aspect to that thought.

I actually wanted to revive the old school music... (not mastering?) Which we did clearly. But we didn't want to copy 1996 all the way, we evolved to a modern interpretation of the old music. Which is exactly where I hoped for... (I never stopped listening to other types of modern psychedelic trance!)

 

About the dynamics, in Adobe Audition, you have the "Spectral Frequency Display" button. And you can see a lot... That's why I say not all dynamics are gone at all, but of course it is less then before...

But I told you already as well. For instance Dimension 5, they were super enthousiastic about the new mastering and liked it much more compared to their old stuff... Are all the "old" artists deaf? or are they willing to evolve?

[Manuser]

I think we ought to remind ourselves the best artists of the 90s have quite a decent mastering, something you can still play at festivals (like someone here pointed out - Hallucinogen for example).

Yeah indeed

to be honest i am not a specialist of the question at all, but this track from X-dream really amazes me how clear it sounds, i can't believe it was made in 1996, just incredible!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq8ROlyHnzc

[HappyHorse]

Now the topic really get's interesting: everyone finally explains into detail how they see this mastering and dynamics.

Now we really see the different perspectives: very interesting!!!

 

I must agree with Oopie & Manuser: old mastered tracks sound very good on festivals now.

Why shouldn’t they? Been playing those tracks at parties for 10 years now: works like a charm.

Maybe the approach on the mastering back in the days, makes people still like the music of that era so much? It had this roughness on it, which I adore too.

I do not like crystal clear sound, takes out the organic feeling imo.

But again: it's interesting to see everyone defend their taste of sound.

So that proves the point mastering is very important issue.

I’m eager to know how the same music than would sound if two different labels would release it - let's try?

[Shpongled247]

This has been a nice discussion to follow

 

To me, I always thought that if an Artist didn't like the way his stuff was mastered by a label, surely they would say something or not work with them. If they weren't happy they wouldn't let it be released no? So questioning mastering sometimes, to me, i see it as almost questioning the artist themselves.

 

Was weird to see Suntrip bought up in this discussion lol. They have some of the nicest and more gentle releases in this scene, (See Khetzal: Corrole, no?) for the type of music they are releasing. Modern, punchy sound that wont sound out of place being played on a huge F1 rig after some prog or full on artist maxxing out the system, while still retaining musical dynamics and character the artist wanted.

 

Those saying the old tracks still work, sure they do, because they are simply great tracks! But frankly, hear them after a night of "modern" music and tell me the crowd doesn't notice a change in "perceived volume" or power.

 

That, whether you like it or not, directly translates to possible decline of energy on the dancefloor.

 

Lastly, Tim Schuldt, as far as I have ever heard is one of the best in the game, and there is a reason he is so highly regarded. Each to their own though and there are certainly people here more technically knowledgeable than me.

[Imba]

I have played many of my tracks on parties/festivals and most of them were old... not CD releases with no good mastering, or no mastering at all or my own mastering with default presets from FL studio compresors (as i dont understand mastering i did that way) and all rocked well.

 

Ofcourse im happy with Tim Schuldt mastering. He mastered some 10-11 tracks of mine and they are 'best'. I don't care of dynamics, loudness, compressing if sounds cool and without some distortion.

 

And then there is 'modern' factor. Tracks are made different these days, not just analog/digital change but also so called multilayering. Not counting drums and percs now you probably have minimum 5-10 layers going on together, and probably 20 sometimes on most intense parts. I don't know but maybe this way you cant have much dynamics? Maybe it's stupid what i just said as i don't understand but who knows...

 

 

World changes, people changes, standard changes. Today producers want all ultra fat and full power.

 

As long as this can be very informative topic, giving some knowledge i found it annoying some time same as eternal and pointless DAW wars

[Anoebis]

Wasn't the topic, tracks that are RUINED by bad mastering? I think that isn't the case with Suntrip material

 

So, back on topic I guess...

[Balance]

The thing is that I couldn't really care less. If I don't like the music or the way it sounds I won't listen or buy it. It's more interesting to see how defensive Suntrip get over this. They even say it's a minor number of fans saying they don't like the mastering yet they take it so offensively. If they are so balky with their sound then why get so worked up? If you are happy with your products then negative criticism of any kind should be digested, taken on board & then either used positively in the future or else forgotten like water off a ducks back.

[Penzoline]

Eh it's still a highly relevant and an interesting tangent. I think it's totally crazy I didn't even think of people mastering for festivals or parties, but I guess that's because my music consumption is home listening 100%

 

Personally I listen to so much music that I do notice the differences(Unless it's a trashy audio system, but then everything sounds equally shit regardless), it is a massive change whether a track is flat, sharp, bloomy, soft or whatever you want to throw in here. You don't even have to get technical about it, just the way it sounds is enough. And as said, newer equipment get more and more revealing as the years go by.

 

On parties people will pay even less attention to these things because everything is loud regardless and the sound systems already colour the music pretty heavily(There's a saying everything sounds great in a party).

 

At least to me, mastering can make and break a track as I automatically gravitate toward things that sound more enticing and pleasing rather than boring and flat and the production has a huge impact on how the bass sounds, how sharp or dull the highs are, how busy it sounds or how much breathing room the layers have. Homogeneity is also an issue I agree, not everything should sound the same, but for the sake of consistency for an album that's a different thing..

 

Now obviously people who do mostly notice these things are not the majority, but why does one have to always go for the lowest common denominator? This is why we have the loudness war in the first place. Musical quality is the most important one yes, but again if something sounds like it's been through hell like the tracks in my original post, then it doesn't matter, the tracks will be forgotten.

 

a couple pages back I posted a comparison of D5 iron sun and it's remix, tell me you don't hear a difference with them.

 

Or another album I find unfortunately lacking in audio department was M-Run, he had 2 tracks on Erta Alé mastered by Colin and they sounded much better than anything in the album. I still find the album brilliant in it's own right, musical-wise, but I do not go back to it as much as I'd want!

 

And to note this is not directed at anyone in particular even if it might seem so, just talking general principles what kind of a change you can achieve just with how things sound.

[HappyHorse]

 

Or another album I find unfortunately lacking in audio department was M-Run, he had 2 tracks on Erta Alé mastered by Colin and they sounded much better than anything in the album. I still find the album brilliant in it's own right, musical-wise, but I do not go back to it as much as I'd want!

 

 

 

 

Interesting. Explain why plz?

Could be usefull (feedback) for future

Because he mastered his own tracks on the M-Run album.

[Oopie]

1) Now obviously people who do mostly notice these things are not the majority, but why does one have to always go for the lowest common denominator? This is why we have the loudness war in the first place. .

 

...

 

2) Or another album I find unfortunately lacking in audio department was M-Run, he had 2 tracks on Erta Alé mastered by Colin and they sounded much better than anything in the album. I still find the album brilliant in it's own right, musical-wise, but I do not go back to it as much as I'd want!

 

 

1) That's very well said and I for one would like to think that when you run a goa trance label, you want to release the best possible art. I do happen to think goa trance as a musical form differs quite a bit from let's say, full-on. It has harmonic texture and is (at best) layered, colorful music like classical, both breathing and sounding the best when having a wide dynamic range. Ultimately one shouldn't try to master all the psytrance music the same way...:!

2) I do agree. Wonderful compositions but a bit flat sounding end result. I remember playing a track from the album after I just played one from Portamento's... the change of mood couldn't have been more obvious.

[HappyHorse]

Goa is art. True!

And I learned more than ever before that mastereing is an art too.

 

Interesting topic....

Critisism makes us grow: thanks guys

[Shpongled247]

On Topic:

 

Cybernetika - All of his albums on Ekto actually.

 

I wanted to love them as they are quite creative and different musically, and he has some great atmospheres, but everything is just mixed too far back. I think in this case it may be how he kind of intended it, but I don't think the albums were professionally mastered at any rate. Would like to hear them with a bit more punch some day as i think there is some good stuff there, underneath a murky mix.

[Filteria]

I think there is some confusion here. I get a feeling that some of you are talking more about the mixing rather than the mastering. The only way you really can tell if the mastering engineer fucked up is if you listen to both the raw final mix and the final product.

 

It's seldom a professional engineer ruins the tracks. He has his own vision of what it should sound like, but I think it's up to the artist to tell the engineer what he wants. What makes a track fat/clear is the mixing from the artist in the first stage. A mastering engineer only have a wavefile to work it. Remeber that every little EQ boost affects the whole track. If you lack highs for instance, he might add that, but you get also hiss on every lead along with that. Remove some rumble from the bas and the track might get too strong in the mids etc etc.

 

Mastering is the final "polish" of a track. To make a album/compilation more "even" if you like. The 2 big fails are if they squeeze it too much (loudness war) or overcompress it so it "pumps" ugly. The rest I would say is taste.

 

Speaking about my own track Aqua Society. I just got a TC Electronics Finalizer at that time. For some reason the track was recorded with a compressor and a limiter, which is big no when it comes mastering. All the dynamics are already gone and the mastering engineer has nothing to work with. I don't know who did the mastering, but it's my fault it sounds the way it does.

 

I think it's up to the artist to tell the engineer what he wants. I always tell Tim to work veeeeery little with the compressor so the music can breath and each layer can do it works.

That's at least my 2 cents

[Penzoline]

Those are very good points. Obviously mastering is not the end of all and usually most albums are just fine.

 

I think you are also right that the artist can ruin his own track but for example the compilation that track was on sounded pretty bad in every track(unfortunately). From just listening a lot you accustom to hearing changes that you can't relate to anything else than mastering. There are huge differences with old school tracks that are mastered by engineer X and engineer Y for example. Or you take one artist, 2 different releases 2 different masterers (or time periods) and you can hear major differences. Again for example I thought M-Run on Erta Ale sounded much better than on his artist album and one of them had an external masterer and the other did not or the Dimension 5 2013 releases sounded much better than the 2007 one and they had 6 years in between. I think mastering can make a huge change in the end product along with the original mix.

 

But as Oopie mentioned I think we are generally way better off than what we were some years ago, I can't fault too many releases anymore for sounding bad. Which has been a great thing to witness, but I still like when things sound as good as they can.

[Penzoline]

On Topic:

 

Cybernetika - All of his albums on Ekto actually.

 

I wanted to love them as they are quite creative and different musically, and he has some great atmospheres, but everything is just mixed too far back. I think in this case it may be how he kind of intended it, but I don't think the albums were professionally mastered at any rate. Would like to hear them with a bit more punch some day as i think there is some good stuff there, underneath a murky mix.

You're right, his albums aren't as clear as they should, but I still love them to bits.

 

To be honest there's a ton of old school albums that don't sound very good anymore. I need to list a couple that I've found to be bad offenders in this regard.

[Djuna]

I actually wanted to revive the old school music... (not mastering?) Which we did clearly. But we didn't want to copy 1996 all the way, we evolved to a modern interpretation of the old music. Which is exactly where I hoped for... (I never stopped listening to other types of modern psychedelic trance!)

 

That's not my point, my point is that you think a modern approach is automatically better just for the sake of 'being modern'. If in 2004 someone would 've used the same arguments you use now against yourself back then ("don't try to go back to the past, this is the new age, with modern and better music! Act like it!"), what would you have said? It's an argument with no solid foundation in its meaning.

 

A second thing, and I said it before: mastering every single track like it's being done for 99% in this scene today - no life, everything loud - now ISN'T an evolution. You can't even talk about evolution if it's man made, with all our flaws. Most people are simply unaware that limiting that harsh is simply restricting the creativity of music. There are hundreds of companies, engineers and artists with much more knowledge this day who use their time to raise awareness regarding the loudness war. Are they deaf?

 

 

And then there is 'modern' factor. Tracks are made different these days, not just analog/digital change but also so called multilayering. Not counting drums and percs now you probably have minimum 5-10 layers going on together, and probably 20 sometimes on most intense parts. I don't know but maybe this way you cant have much dynamics? Maybe it's stupid what i just said as i don't understand but who knows...

 

Posts like this show that their is little understanding of the subject, even with respected artists who have a lot of releases over the years... To answer this question: no, the amount of layers has nothing to do with the (in)capability to make dynamic music. In a mix, all the tracks can be controlled according to the liking of an artist. For example, a film can have literally hundreds of tracks in postproduction, yet films have overall the largest dynamic ranges of audio mixes. Now that is modern...

[Imba]

Thanks for reply

 

Actually, i was never interested in such terms and stuff. I just do music without thinking and science... i don't even know notes man. I have zero knowledge for some stuff, i learnt while i was making music over years and if you ask me to explain some things i couldn't do it. I just do stuff, that's how i enjoy

[Balance]

Explains a lot about the E-Rection remix. It works pretty well but to me it seemed like it lacked a certain something to be amazing, and I suspect that somethig was actual formal musical knowledge. It's something I notice for sure in electronic music in gener, those who actually know what they re doing musical vs those with just the technical knowledge!

[Anoebis]

@ Djuna: well, the thing is, I am not 20 anymore, in a time where we were the only goa-freaks left in the world (luckely). When we started suntrip, there was NO other goa label left. So, it's logical we had to look to the past etc... In the last 5 years, a lot changed. And with that change, also my view on the scene. Back then, my view on the scene was Belgium. Now it is global. Also, the growth of the label had a serious influence, and a dynamic label needs to adapt somehow to it's surrounding. As said. One thing is sure for me. The music, and more particularely goa-trance, is my "mission". But, to bring this music to a serious audience on big festivals, you need to adapt a little to what is happening today. Not too much of course, and you know I still play enough 90s music in between, but a little. YES. Compare Filteria 2004 and today. I think the sound difference is clear and huge. That is the unstoppable evolution I'm talking about. And I'm glad we managed to keep goa-trance alive, adapted to today's standards! (with the clear important thing, that goa-trance is STILL goa-trance)

Explains a lot about the E-Rection remix. It works pretty well but to me it seemed like it lacked a certain something to be amazing, and I suspect that somethig was actual formal musical knowledge. It's something I notice for sure in electronic music in gener, those who actually know what they re doing musical vs those with just the technical knowledge!

Writing notes and "music knowledge" is not necessary to be a good artist... There are MANY famous examples of guitarists and classical music guys who didn't know a shit about notes and stuff... They just had a musical hearing and made the most amazing compositions. I also know of some famous respected classic goa guys, they are unawhere of that...