In part yes, the problem that I perceive is that he tends to put in the same generic bag today and yesterday, when sonic constructs are portraits of eras and historical moments that are always changing. Yes, and that's what makes making and even talking about sound objects so difficult to do. That's why engineers tend to resort to mathematics and physics, trying to minimize the greatest possible number of variables that may change the desired result. Not to mention that today there is an infinity of variable factors that need to be taken into account (style, genre, source of reproduction, target audience, etc.).

So, that crap talk "make the best mix and don't worry about anything else" ends when you deliver a wonderful mix made for a mobile game and the art director says: "Nice pal, but I need your music/sfx sounds good on this shitty device, not just on your production setup!"

 

Last edited: May 1, 2023

People in the 90s listened to the gated drums of the '80s and hated it and reacted to it greatly and went back to a different kind of drum sound for the most part. And that helped define the 90s, but the gated drum sound and the samples were what the 80s were, it was cool back then and people are rediscovering those production techniques again because of the nostalgia factor... it's all good. I know a lot of people wonder if the vast majority of the music coming out now will be found relevant by future generations and probably no, a lot of it won't but a lot of it will. 80% of 60s and 70s music is no longer interesting or relevant either, just the cream that rose to the top or great stuff that got completely overlooked in the first place.

 

Last edited: May 1, 2023

He is right in every respect, but he forgot about lot of other things like overdrive and fuzz, auto-tuning, massive reverbs, flood of synth sounds in general, rhythm machines, ducking, FIR filters, 'ultra wide' stereo, etc.
The root of all of that evil being not greed but Machine Worship.

 

Okay, I'll see you that one and raise you that no recorded music is legitimate and true music reproduction cannot exist; you must experience it live in a venue.

 

Is there anyone here who thinks it's a good idea to release a death metal album with the dynamics of a jazz quartet? No? Good!!!

 

Actually, yes... He is right. The "modern" mastering process is partly to blame, but when most tracks these days are made with this "louder is better" paradigm in mind the fault lies with the producers as well. 95% of the junk getting released now is mastered in such a way that it has all the dynamic range of a pile driver. Just one solid waveform, peaked at +-0, across the board. The resultant audio from this waveform usually has whatever was meant to be prominent in the mix smashed together, individual instruments barely able to be discerned from one another. ANY sort of subtlety that was there is no longer audible.

The vinyl mastering process by default leaves much of the original dynamic range (assuming that it ever existed in the first place) in place. This is simply due to the fact that any attempts at making a vinyl master peak/chopped solid at -+0 would send the disk cutter flying across the room in a flash of lightning. That's not to say that vinyl mastering can't produce crappy audio. There is still the production side of the audio process where bad recording and mixing techniques can ruin a track just easily.

I do not buy into the ideology that you (as producers and engineers) can't do anything about it. Certainly no one can UNDO the damage of what the modern mastering/production processes do to make an audio track sound crappy. HOWEVER, we as producers/engineers can take control of our own production process. We can choose NOT to play the "loudness" game, and mix and master in a way that enhances the particular track so as to return the transparency and dynamic range of your tracks to the listener. It's a choice. The one size fits all production/mastering process (as in all tracks and genre's) is a myth. If you don't believe that then just listen to the radio for 5 minutes...

 

Last edited: May 1, 2023

Again, it is the context that will define: who is your client, does she/he want some similarity to style, genre, what will be the format and delivery conditions and, mainly, why you are doing this job...

 

BS.
Real music starts and ends in the brain. Any attempt to make it physical by causing air to vibrate is a demotion of the real unadulterated idea.

 

Guitars and basses are often square wave-like when they reach the input of my console. Singers train for years to compress and distort their voice to deliver a toasty performance on the mic. And honestly? I love it. Whole genres live from their high distortion and loudness. There are people who enjoy it when their face makes acquaintance with a brick-tight wall of sound. Don't blame the producers or mastering engineers for that. It's part of the art.

That's BS

 

That's not entirely crazy. I recorded a country singer a couple years ago and dude walks in the booth and sang like he had already been melodyned and compressed, right down to artifacts. It was WEIRD.

 

Actually, I agree with this. I have composed many songs and long form pieces in my head and, having thus experienced them, not bothered to record them because I'm too lazy, they'll never be as good, and having heard them myself, no one else matters.

 

...are you my twin flame? lol

 

We all like what we like.
There are styles and genres I could live without ~~HOWEVER~~~ that has nothing to do with accuracy.

Ambiguity and tarring everything with the same brush using a specific technique or approach, or over-generalising never served anyone well with the accurate truth. We can all round-table the flaws and shortcomings in a variety of idioms but it is a waste of time. This is because, as but one example, what serves a pumping trap-house-techno-EDM tune well will serve an all acoustic jazz outfit incredibly poorly.

It is fine for everyone to like what they like but it is ridiculous to try and put so many styles and genres with different mixing requirements
(and they do!!!) into the same square box.

 

...applied precision distortion everywhere... now music too?!?

 

Hes right! I just can't listen to Haydn on any medium..! I (and my equally rich friends) just hire a fcking chamber orchestra, equipped and dressed properly and ofc not taking a bath for at least 3 weeks before the performance..



So yeah hes wrong on that - sure I can do something about it ffs!

 

Last edited: May 2, 2023

I fell asleep half way watching this video. Anyway, being a 70+ young boomer musician, I’ll tell you one thing. Music has to be mastered the way it sounds live on stage. Things that make a difference; a small club, a big hall or an open concert? Now imagine, do you feel comfortable listening to your favorite band / act live? This is your audience, you master for them, end of story!

 

Yeah man, most definitely. I always listen to music with my line array speakers when I'm at home. The neighbors have hired the mafia to kidnap my baby daughter to make me stop, but to hell with them. Music is meant to be heard like in a live setting.

 

Did you find FinalMaster's YouTube channel?
There's an important bit of context that I feel is missing.
Hi-Fi, or High Fidelity, means that what you reproduce via your speakers is sonically exactly the same as what you would've heard in person were you there.
And from that standpoint yeah, your audio is bad. This guy is correct at every point.

However, you don't need Hi-Fi. You most likely won't care even if you could tell the difference (which you can't without giving a lot of money to a lot of people). Hi-Fi is bordering audiophilia and isn't even applicable the moment you introduce the first synth or sample or indeed an overdriven guitar into your song, because there's no High Fidelity representation for things that don't exist outside of low fidelity mediums. And the only truly Hi-Fi medium is the clean freaking air anyways, with nothing else in the signal path between the instrument and your ear.

tl;dr he's technically correct but it doesn't matter because the evolution of music making made his goals virtually impossible and also meaningless.

 

I wonder if they'll ever remaster Dark Side of the Moon for the Millenium ear (compress the hell out of it, remove much of the dynamic range and boost the volume). It would be bangin.