Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mastering (audio): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:15, 30 May 2007 editRert2 (talk | contribs)30 edits No objection to ISBN. It is probably more appropriate.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:11, 8 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,105 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(239 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talkheader}}
{{calm talk}} {{Calm}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

{{WikiProject Professional sound production|class=Start}} {{WikiProject Professional sound production|importance=Top}}
}}
== 16 bit/44.1khz ==
{{User:MiszaBot/config |maxarchivesize = 100K |counter = 1 |algo = old(365d) |archive = Talk:Mastering (audio)/Archive %(counter)d }}

{{refidea|https://pitchfork.com/features/article/9894-the-dark-art-of-mastering-music/}}
I think a little bit on the role of mastering in sample rate and bit reduction/dithering to CD quality would be good information in this article now that 24 bit recording is a big deal. Any thoughts? ] 23:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:I think it is critical to suggest that bouncing or recording mixes to as high a sample rate as possible and a minimum of 24 bit word size is critical for allowing mastering algorthyms the additional samples and bits for rounding and processing. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

::There's legitimate doubt that high sample rates are as important. Some processing, such as compression or EQ, can benefit from a somewhat higher sample rate like 96K, but 'as high as possible', probably 192K, is very likely unnecessary. I've seen people saying 192K converters sounded worse than lower sample rates. Besides, among professional MEs you are more likely to find them using analog chains and certain popular converters like Lavry or Prism, particularly those who make a practice of driving the D/A converters hard to produce apparent loudness- in other words, distorting them. Also note that fancy methods of wordlength reduction are not invariably chosen by professionals- simple TPDF dither remains popular due to a percieved lack of coloration. -Chris Johnson <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:::Especially EQ and filtering tend to misbehave when approaching the ]. This often happens gradually, which is why i think it <i>does</i> in fact make sense to go all the way up to 192 khz. Notice that this will only take the problem two octaves out of the hearable range. A typical example of the algorithm problem can be seen in the Sonic Timeworks equalizer, which actually reveals this issue on it's visualizer. I think the increased processing power in the future will raise the interest in having some headroom in the time domain. This will most likely be an important step in overcoming some of the differences between analog and digital sound processing in general. <small>] 10:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)</small>

::::Well, I went ahead and wrote something. Feel free to hack it up in any way you see fit! ] 15:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

==Loudness War==
Any issues with merging ] into this article? It's not really it's own topic and is really a mastering issue. --] 22:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:It should be linked (and it is), but it's a big enough topic to have its own article. Merging is normally done when two articles contain the same information, not when one article is a subtopic of the other. ] 22:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

::I disagree with the above posting. ] should be merged with ], however, it is not a ''dire'' issue. I do urge whoever has power to merge two articles to do so as soon as possible.--] 00:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Please keep seperate. ] is a bad enough issue that it deserves it's own article. That article needs some work, eg examples and a couple of helpful waveform images, not reducing to part of an article on a much larger issue. --] 02:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I agree with Spod, the ] is notable enough to deserve its own article by the same logic that ] and ] are seperate articles. -- ] 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::I agree with Dept of Alchemy and Spod too. Merging the rather large loudness war article into this article might confuse the reader more than benefit. Linking to an external article seems more appropriate. -- <small>] 10:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)</small>

::::::In theory, were there no loudness war there would still be an Audio Mastering article. The topic can have much more to it than simple loudness, for instance the need to produce audio that translates to many types of playback systems pleasingly, and the practice of sequencing (in some cases) album tracks or producing suitable timing for the pauses between songs, not to mention inserting ISRC codes, which is not a form of watermarking but a method of putting a unique ID on a CD track which can be read by some playback equipment to help in assigning royalties for airplay. -Chris Johnson <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

I did a comment on the discussion page for ]... anyone read that? Please feel free to rip me a new one if I'm out of bounds. I'm not a real wiki kinda guy. ] 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with some other editor who said that you should write an article about clipping on various players, or at least you should incorporate some points here. I think the ] article should also be part of Audio mastering article or at least we should have some cross references. And your point about using articles as sandboxes is right on the money. For example the whole RMS discussion is just sketchy. People don't realize that a straight line DC signal at 0db will have a maximum RMS but it will be inaudible, other then the initial loud pop. So here you go, maximum RMS but total silence :). Also what is louder a square wave at 0.001Hz and 0db or square wave at 1Khz and -60 db :). It amazes me that some people attempt to edit encyclopedia and have no knowledge on the subject. (This last sentence is just my rant and not addressed to you). Looks like you have spent a lot of time in broadcast environment so your point of view may be in contrary to some of the statements in the article and many comments posted on the talk pages, well...gooooood. --] 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


{{old move|date=26 August 2024|destination=Mastering engineer|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1243121527#Requested move 26 August 2024}}


==Bass punch, kick drum, bass drum, frequencies, waveform== ==Bass punch, kick drum, bass drum, frequencies, waveform==
Line 45: Line 20:
:You gotta be kidding. Who created the movement to merge the two. They are totally different. PLEASE REMOVE THIS REQUEST TO MERGE THE TWO. It is blasphemy! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> :You gotta be kidding. Who created the movement to merge the two. They are totally different. PLEASE REMOVE THIS REQUEST TO MERGE THE TWO. It is blasphemy! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


==External links== == headroom ==
Please refer to ] before adding external links. I don't doubt that Artmastering and audioplexus are legitimate companies, but I'm sure there are 100s or 1000s of legitimate audio mastering companies and Misplaced Pages is not the place to list them all. Moreover, the links do not add useful information that cannot be covered in the article. I will give the article on MusicBizAcademy the benefit of the doubt - for now - but I think it is more helpful to use the information in MBA article to improve this Misplaced Pages article rather than merely linking to it. The MBA link could serve as a legitimate ''reference'' to facts in the Misplaced Pages article rather than just sitting there as a bare link. ] 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

== References ==

From ]:
:Additionally, in the entire article about Audio_Mastering, this is the only section that actually has some support in the press as well as publically accessible pictures and references. Everything else has been contributed by various members based on their opinion rather than on notable facts or evidence and is placed there without any supporting evidence or references. If we follow your reasoning, then the entire Audio Mastering section should be deleted as "not notable", which would be a terrible waste! R. Watts

::This is a valid point. This article could use some references. ] 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I suspect it would be considered generally valid to provide some links to Bob Katz's 'Digido' site. Bob is a mastering engineer who has written a largely well-recieved book and has some decent online material which I believe would be generally considered acceptable. The danger here is from the number of MEs who would like to present themselves as innovators. I myself have stuff up on the web, but I don't think my content is anywhere near as mainstream and doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages as written. It is at airwindows.com and if I see stuff from there up here as if it is authoritative I'll edit it out myself, or at least pull it back to commonly accepted information without any inferences or propagandizing. -Chris Johnson <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


== Discussion about references and sources ==
I'd like to open a discussion about sources that we would consider as acceptable references for this article.

For example: I just picked up this book . The info in this book is partially obsolete but there are still a few good things in it. It really isn't a handbook, as the title says, but rather a collection of interviews with mastering engineers where the author asks a question and then he cites the answers from different engineers.

Some people raised objections against including links that may somehow lead to mastering engineers. I have a different point of view on this, assuming of course that certain level of scientific objectivity, accuracy and decency is maintained.

The field of audio mastering is roughly 60 years old. I don't know of any nationally accredited universities that offer BS degree in mastering and therefore there are no scholars on the subject other then the people who are actually doing it.

I'm against allowing mastering engineers spamming this page with their own promos and rants but if there is a good book or an article out there, then I have no problem with including it as a source, even if it eventually leads to some studio, under condition that:<br />
:* said book or article appears in a respectable publication or website
:* is written by a journalist or author with a verifiable track record,
:* is NOT written by a mastering engineer to promote his/her point of view or opinion.
:* is NOT a review of some "great mastering job" done for a record(s) release
:::(<small>Please feel free to suggest additional constraints in your comments)</small> --] 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The book that I cited, references 10 names in the industry and offers different points of view on the subject. I would consider it as a decent source for this article but I would like to hear your opinions. (Since, by counseling of ], user ] is advised not to post on this page, I'm entering a BIG VETO on his behalf so we all know that he disagrees. All other contrarian points of view are very welcome as long as they are signed by their respective authors. --] 08:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:There is also a book by BobKatz. He is a mastering engineer who conveys some of his own opinions in his book but the book is very solid and the amount of factual information overwhelmingly outweighs any personal opinions of his. I would suggest his book as another potential source to Audio Mastering article. This brings another potential constraints to the list above.

:* is written by a mastering engineer but contains factual, objective and verifiable information which overwhelmingly outweighs any personal opinions of the author--] 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== Spam or Burning Books ==
I'm writing this with hesitation as a few days ago I was attacked after reincluding this article which was deleted on March 5th by this user ] and attacked as spam by this user .

I just found out that this article, is on the list of recommended readings at at the Here is the link to the article on their server . It is being used to teach course "Tech 275 Digital Sound". In all this blind haste we just burned a book here...which was perhaps one of the best reference on Audio mastering that we ever had.

Please comment on reincluding it in References section.--] 21:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Clarification: I'm proposing this article at ewu.edu for inclusion in references section for ].--] 19:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


:Hello, Mike! I was the one who labeled the original article link and subsequent entry on artmastering as spam. Btw, I apologize for being so aggressive, but it was right around the time the mastering page was getting hit by spam almost daily. WIth all due respect, I would humbly request that both the gman/mastering link and artmastering entry remain off the mastering page. While the gman/mastering article does include a few good general-purpose bits of info, it suffers from major flaws that, unfortunately, render it spam, by which I specifically mean promotional material for Art Sayecki's mastering business. My main concern is the disproportionate coverage given to Art Sayecki and his mastering business in the body of the article. Sayecki is quoted a total of 10 times in the body of the text, while the other mastering engineers are quoted only once or twice. (also note the photo of Sayecki at the top of the page) I find this problematic for two reasons. First, the way the article is structured (Sayecki agreeing with noted mastering engineers / noted mastering engineers agreeing with Sayecki) it gives the impression that Sayecki is an authority on mastering, or at the very least is as notable as the other mastering engineers quoted. This is more than implied in the links section of the article itself, which reads, "he following is by no means a comprehensive list. These are simply the mastering houses that came up most often when talking to artists and others in the industry about quality mastering engineers and great sonics". The first listing is Sayecki's, and followed by such noted "name" engineers as Bob Ludwig, Bernie Grundman, Brian "Big Bass" Gardner, Stephen Marcussen, etc. As such, the article at times almost reads like a commercial for Sayecki's mastering services. This is understandable, as the article was written by Scott G, a client of Sayecki's. However, I find it unacceptable. Second, I have reservations as to whether the other engineers/musicians quoted in the article were actually interviewed by the author for the purposes of the article itself, and not just had quotes lifted from interviews in magazines, websites, etc without permission. If this is the case, then permission must be given, and the sources of the quotes should have been listed in the article (for example, "Larry Crane, quoted from interview in TapeOp #15, February 2001". Lastly, the 'artmastering' section that was added to the mastering page also seemed too much like promotional material, or marketing for Sayecki. I do not mean this to be an attack on Sayecki, as I'm sure he is a fine and capable ME. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] • ] {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->



::You have some valid points and we will talk about them. However, I have to say that you should have addressed them this way in the first place rather then vandalizing pages and attacking people involved, but your apology is noted. Now, let me make a summary of your points so we can have an overview for our discussion.


::'''Questions:'''
::#10 quotations of Art Sayecki.
::#Why picture of Art Sayecki
::#Others are agreeing with quotes by Art Sayecki, and perhaps they shouldn't because he may not be as notable.
::#Were the people in the article really interviewed
::#Why is Artmastering listed as first in the "links" section and the rest is below.
::#Why section on Artmastering was added in the same time as the link to the article was restored

::'''Answers:'''
::#In the entire article, including links, I counted 106 names of artists, engineers and producers, while Sayecki is mentioned only 10 times. I see no bias here. Just the opposite, other names and points of view overwhelmingly outnumber Sayecki's by 10 times.
::#This version of article doesn't have any pictures in it
::#Search engines return hundreds of entries on Art Sayecki so he is notable and known. I see no reason why others would disagree with him, particularly if the statements that he makes are correct. He also agrees with others so it is a reciprocal discussion.
::#I doubt that journalist like G-man, with hundreds of article in his portfolio, would write anything without interviewing his subjects, but bear with me and we will find out more. The article was published on 7 websites since Jan. 2004 (according to Google) If people in the article were misrepresented because they were not interviewed then they would have surely reacted by now, but that's not the case.
::#This version of the article doesn't have any studio links in it. However the links in the original section have been arranged in alphabetical order and thats why Artmastering is first as it starts with "A". Bob Ludwig is below because he is under "G" for "Gateway Mastering", Grundman and Gardener are also under "G" for "Grundman mastering", and so on.
::#I'm the person who re-included Artmastering section, as I found information to support it. I always do a basic research on my edits and in the process of researching Artmastering I found the other article which I consider as comprehensive so I reincluded it after I noticed that someone deleted it without any explanation. I also submitted the subject for discussion .

::As far as point 4. is concerned, perhaps the best way to find out is by asking the author G-man. His contact info is in the article. I will send him a brief email and if he replies then I will post it here.--] 22:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

::It took a little bit of waiting but I finally received a brief message from Scott-G the author of the article. Here is a summary: ''<br />...Conducting the interviews and performing research for this article took several months. Almost twenty studios were contacted with requests for information, interviews and pictures. Most of the studios extended great deal of support and provided interviews or comments featured in the article. Only one studio provided electronic images so the choice of pictures for the article took place by default. Some studios didn’t reply or replied after the publishing deadline so unfortunately they were not included in the interviews section....questions or comments may be directed to the mailbox provided in the article....-Scott .''<br /> If you guys have any other questions then please contact the author yourself and share it with us. --] 23:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Search engines return thousands of results on many mastering sites and articles. The point is not whether the ME in question has enough search results to support notability, but whether the other MEs have actually agreed with his views. To establish that, you would need to provide links to those ME's websites, "popular" music or engineering magazine interviews, articles and/or editorials, mentioning that they indeed agree with Sayecki's views on mastering. These quotes, naturally, need to come from different interviewers and not from just one. There is really no relevance on how many interviews this G-Man has conducted in the past and neither is Sayecki's perceived "fame by association". The point is, a statement from this interview's writer at MusicBizAcademy, would just not constitute a good enough proof of notability as this could also be perceived as not coming from a NPV . Finally, the external link to that article creates a problem with Misplaced Pages guidelines ( See ]) and should be avoided as recommended.] 01:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Your comments, just like comments of ] question the writer's professional integrity and honesty. This is considered a ] by wikipedia standards and a particularly aggressive one, as the person that you are attacking is not part to this conversation and can't defend himself. Not even mentioning that you have no proof to support any of your claims but only your conjecture. Additionally the manner in which you are doing it makes me question your motives as to objecting to inclusion of this article. If your interests were purely encyclopedic and motivated by civil discourse, then the appropriate course of action would have been to email the author and ask him those questions before making unsupported public accusation. But that's just my opinion. I also see no point in debating someones professional honesty unless a party to this article comes forth and states publically that he/she was misrepresented. So please stop unless you are such a party. And just as I told ] I will contact the writer with questions, since neither one of you dared to do that. As far as the external links are concerned inclusion of this article would meet every standard of wikipedia guidelines on resources and references, assuming that we get a consensus on the inclusion.--] 10:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::Hello Mike, I am so sorry you thought I was attacking you. And no, I was not putting into question the writer's professional integrity and honesty. I was putting into question whether the opinion of one interviewer was good enough reference. And now that you made me take a closer look at other comments, If the writer (Scott G) is also the ME's (Sayecki) client, then there is a conflict of interest that you can't deny and is noted at Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest guidelines ]. I have read the no personal attacks guideline you included on your comment. See ].Sorry, but according to the rules, you have taken "no personal attack" out of context. It clearly says: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Since Scott G is not the contributor but you are, then no personal attacks have ever been made. In other words, in order for you to say that I am making a personal attack against you, then you would have to be the writer of said article at MusicBizAcademy. I am only requesting for more interviews quoting those MEs agreeing with Sayecki's views. Is that asking for too much? It would help establish this ME's notability without further questions. That said, more interviews and quotes from all the MEs involved in the article, written by other reputable publications, will also merit the inclusion of said article on the audio mastering page reference links section without further questions. Your statements in the past apparently defend Sayecki and favor very much the content of said article. Are you yourself Sayecki's client?. ] 18:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::Here is a brief lesson for you on ]: '''"...Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles.."''' You implied that no interviews were conducted and now you are implying that I'm Sayecki's client. This is again a personal attack. So I'm telling you again to STOP. Now the other issue. No Scott-G was not a client of Artmastering when he wrote and published this articles. Check the dates and credits on his albums and read the info on this very page before commenting. While writing this article he learned about concept of "artmastering" and subsequently when he was releasing his next album he decided to have it mastered with the process of artmastering, this took place after the article was already written and published. After he became a client, he fully disclosed this fact in his subsequent articles. This is what an honest journalist does !. And "no" I never defended Sayecki or Scott-G before (other then in this discussion), but when I see people twisting wikipedia policy to justify personal attacks on anybody I will take an action. BTW, the information on Scott-G and dates of his album releases is available online, other info is right here on this very page . Feel free to read. --] 22:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::The definition on morality at Misplaced Pages cited by you, can not be applied to this situation because Scott G is not the contributor, you are. Nevertheless, no one is putting into question his integrity. On the other hand, if your are accusing me of personal attack against you because I asked you whether you are Sayecki's client or not, that was an honest question and it doesn't constitute a personal attack since at Misplaced Pages nobody is impervious from another editor's scrutiny and it is actually welcome and it should be expected. Again, you have taken "no personal attacks" out of context. It clearly says: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Let me put it to you in terms that you will understand; the content is the audio mastering page and you like the other editors, are a contributor. In any case, this isn't about Scott G's article. Just like those editors who asked more references and you are citing hereby , it's about getting more interviews and references that quote those MEs agreeing with Sayecki's view. That's all. So, please refrain from using the word "personal attack" in the future. ] 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Let me satisfy your "totally non attacking" curiosity. I'm not a client of Sayecki. Maybe in the future, as I think that his concept of "artmastering" is great. And if I ever become his client, I will tell you about it, just like Scott-G did.--] 01:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Good. I am glad you addressed the question. Now please do not quote me as "personal attacking" Scott G. the G-Man because I found out that on the 4th of Sunday, March 2007, he did write another article at Music Industry Newswire web site about Sayecki (http://musicindustrynewswire.com/2007/03/04/min160_220600), where he did not mention the fact that he was Sayecki's client, presumably because it would constitute a conflict of interest. It is however at Misplaced Pages. Second, I an not satisfied that on his own admission, Scott G is the owner of G-Man Marketing, where he consults on advertising, marketing, positioning, branding and sonic branding . Now, as for your proposed inclusion of the artmastering section on the 5th of March of this year (]), we have something at Misplaced Pages called "Attribution".(]) It says: "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." That said, your proposed artmastering article does not fall within these parameters either. Sorry. ] 13:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::The way you know that someone lost an argument is when they start personally attacking editors and not the subject. From where I stand ], your comments on Scott-G are inappropriate, just like your cheap attack on Mike by implying that he is a client, (read]),...but hey, I'm just commenting on your comments and not on you, I'm sure you are a sweet guy just like . :And in your last comment you are attacking Mike again by saying that he included article on Artmastering even though he knew that Scott-G disclosed about being a client of Artmastering. Dude, can you read ??? When an author discloses his association, it is done exactly to avoid conflict of interest, and Mike submitted it for discussion so people can examine the subject and decide (dede, read, read, read! ). And unless you can show that Scott-G was doing something wrong, you are attacking him again as a journalist. The Misplaced Pages policy is one thing but human decency is another and your comments violate both. But hey..., I'm just commenting on your comments and not on you. --] 18:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::biggy I don't see why you thimk jroad2 is inappropriate, all he saying is G-Man made interviews after becoming a client of the mastering guy himself but he did'nt make that public. If i read that artcle at musicnewswire.com i would thought G-man was neutral but he is full of caca for not saying he is a client too. G-man made it sound in that article like he didn't know Sayeki mastering personally ,why should we belive anything said on that article. The whole thing stinks and is spam!!! and stop calling good users like jroad2 bad because he is making good questions and i understand that G-man is not the contributor so he can be checked by anybody and is not personal attack is just checking to see he is legit. Luis<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] • ] {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

::::::::::::I'm sorry "Luis" but looks like ] you are pointing out the last part of a 4-part interview instead going to the first part where the author gives a full disclosure. Trust me, reading does wonders.--] 20:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

==Inclusion of book by Bobby Owsinski as a reference for this article ==
Since we are debating references I'm also proposing inclusion of the book by Bobby Owsinski as a resource for this article. I just finished reading it and I think it is a solid resource. Maybe a little outdated but the fundamental information in the book is good. Again, I remind everyone that the book cites quotes from 10 different mastering engineers which some may find objectionable. The names cited in the book are different then those cited in the article , with the exception of Schreyer (correct me if I'm wrong). The names in the book are: Sax, Calbi, Meadows, Olhsson, Collins, Schreyer, Ludwig, Grundman, Cheppa, Katz. Between those two sources we would have a very wide representation of opinions on the subject. BTW the book also contains more quotes from some engineers and less from some others (those darn writers just can't count :-)). And "no", I didn't count who said what how many times, as it really doesn't matter as long as the statements contained in the book are informative, correct and educational. Check your library, I found one in a library after I bought it.<br />
Comments please.--] 20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


==Lack of references for 4 years==
This article was created almost 4 years ago on June 29, 2003, and in all this time we were not able to cite reliable references. The main reason for this situation is that most books and texts on this subject are written by mastering engineers themselves, or point to some mastering lab. Therefore, whenever any reference is being cited someone deletes it because it doesn’t fit his/her interest or agenda and presumably advance business of a competing audio lab or engineer. We have heard irrational arguments that all mastering engineers should get a link here or nobody does, but I hope that common sense and a little bit of courage will prevail. Since every editor that tries to propose a source here, is being continuously attacked as having hidden agenda, then please take this fact under consideration when analyzing proposed reference and distance yourself from shouting and accusation and focus on the subject. By no means I'm trying to indicate that the sources that I proposed, or any other for that matter, should be accepted for granted, just the opposite, they should be discussed, but they definitely should be examined with a calm mind before being dismissed. This is just an opening step in this discussion. Maybe in a few months :) we will be ready to have a vote on this subject and pick at least one reference for this article (most likely by a majority vote...). And on a personal note, if you don’t like any suggested sources, then propose a constructive alternative, rationally discuss it and let others decide before going on a rampage.--] 05:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:I agree, that citable references are lacking in any diatribe concerning this subject, not only here... I will say (and I do not work for nor endorse) Bob Katz's book. I do feel his is the most unbiased but still, he does make opinions as to his beliefs. So again it becomes an issue as being citable. On another note, stub mixes that allow a mastering engineer the ability to process sections of a mix should be considered. I realize that it's a a fine line between mixing and mastering... a topic for discussion. ] 16:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

::Hey ], nice disclaimer :) ,don't worry real editors will never attack you for speaking your point of view and the ] are ignored anyway. As far as Katz is concerned I also think his book is valuable, and yeah he does speak out his point of view so one can call it biased, though this doesn't take away the value of the information that is being conveyed. And I think that in cases like this, where the reliable sources are hard to find, the spirit of wikipedia is to give us, the editors, a power to make some judgement calls and decide the value of the resources as to their inclusion. As far as mastering of stub mixes is concerned I also see no problem, it is a technique that was used for a long time, probably all the way back in the eighties, and it should be at least mentioned in ] article or here.--] 22:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Yea stem mixes (why i call them stub's got no clue...) I tried it a few times with some recent acts (also tried it with the latest Twisted Tower Dire CD but never used it). I recall back in the day at Blue Diamond and Alphastar in Pgh. we did this for something.. went to 1/2" 4 track and 1/2" 8 track (that was noisy) with stereo subs for shipment to a mastering house the clients used. We just called it "mixing to multitrack" (real inventive)... No clue what happened after that. We'd always have a 2TR running tho...

:::::But in my experience, it does allow for some nice things, such as fixing drum mix/rhy track balance after the fact (wish I'd have done Deadly by Desire like that back in 1988.. I just remastered that) as well as being able to process individual mixes in Wavelab using the individual effect bins, then glam it all together with processing in the main effects chain. ] 21:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::I think it all started when the first mixing boards with sub-groups came out. They allowed groups of instruments to be assigned to the sub-group faders as stems. Then engineers quickly discovered that they can also process the stems (sub-groups) individually, and compress them, EQ them and so on. Just like you described, many pro-studios use this approach in one or another way either for mixing and sometimes for mastering. I play classical so I don't have much use or experience with stems, but I can easily see that guys doing rock, pop or anything with drums, could find a good use for that. --] 22:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::: I noticed someone has a wiki for ]. How to handle it in wiki-dom I dunno... link to it? ] 00:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::::There was a controversy over this a while ago. Someone spammed this page with separations. I don't know enough about it, as I don't use it, so I'm a wrong guy to comment. At first glance though it sounds like a new term for an old concept of stem-mixing/mastering and I personally don't see a need for a new name. But maybe there is a difference. Maybe other editors know more on the subject and can comment. Also the article on separations doesn't have any resources either.--] 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::After thinking about it maybe someone should create an article on stem mixing and mastering. Unless someone bits me to it I will do some research and write an article on stem-mixing and stem-mastering.--] 03:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::This will remain a highly debated topic at WP for a few good years to come. As modern audio mastering progresses, new theories will continue to emerge. I am hesitant to say this, but Maximum Delivery Potential (MDP) a term made up by EdXXXX VinXXXX around 1995, which was mocked and ridiculed by other members at WP and dismissed as just spam, will emerge someday. I know this "MDP" techniques are for real, as much as Mike Sorensen, who swore and obsessively advocated for "Artmastering". I think artmastering and his creator are alright. The problem is, these are emerging theories and it will take many years too catch on and be notable. So for now, it only looks like editors promoting or trying to spam Misplaced Pages. If these new theories are any good, there will definitely be an "Artmastering" and a "Maximum Delivery Potential" or "MDP" section at the ] page. For now, I suggest and advise all members, to refrain from bringing controversial mastering theories whether or not are proven and tested, and also from making great claims, or the same thing that happened to me and Mike Sorensen, will happen again (Read the incident at ).

==]==
Thanks to suggestion by ] and a few hours of reading, learning and work I created yesterday an article on ]. I managed to find a reference for it :) which wasn't easy. It turned out nicely and it may be a potential supplement for this article. There is still the question of separations whether they are really a new different technique or just a new marketing term for an old stem-mixing/mastering technique. Other editors may be better equipped to answer this question. Comments are welcome.--] 09:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
: Wamnet, Mike Sorensen is temporarily absent and I would like to continue this discussion. How would you like to have a new section called "Mastering by Separations" or "Stems Mastering". If Mike Sorensen never comes back, it would also be a good tribute to his contributions. Although, I doubt that he won't come back to this forum. Anyway, I am studying with a mastering guy who told me that, it is another technique, but that he thinks it will probably never replace mastering from HD stereo interleaved audio files. What do you think?--] 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

== Vinyl and Lacquer ==

Seems like this discussion board doesn't talk at all about vinyl mastering, lacquer cutting, lathes and so on. The industry is going digital but vinyl is still an important aspect of the mastering process. Also the history behind it is interesting. --] 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a little story in one of the discussion boards about . --] 20:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:Hi Vinyl Joe. I commend you for resisting the temptation to edit the Audio mastering page! This page is in my view, one of the most debated pages on WP audio pages, and important to every amateur and professional engineer out there. Therefore, we must be absolutely sure not to edit it, or make changes without a good consensus approval. Of course, correcting grammar mistakes or spelling stuff, is not an issue.
:As far as including a section for vinyl mastering, I think we've already had that section before and was deleted (I am not sure), however, as far as I know, the process of mastering comes prior to the creation of lacquer, and thus, not part of "audio mastering". Also, I've never heard of such a thing as mastering being done in 1900. Maybe you are referring to the process of making a record. Most people will tell you that, although is part of the audio mastering history, is not modern audio mastering. Anyway, what you are proposing is already at the audio mastering page section . To protect you from any accusations of spam, I have wikified your link. Cheers.] 13:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

::I didn't realize that you did edited the article page without seeking consensus. Please refrain from doing it again. Although, I understand your proposed contribution, it needed to be revised. Also, lacquers come after the audio mastering process these days, not before. Maybe so in the 1940's. If you don't agree, please comment here, but do not revert my edit. Thanks.] 19:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't believe that you understand the vinyl mastering process. The lacquers are sometimes cut on the fly as a part of the audio mastering and not after. So the lacquer becomes the master just like a CD or DAT tape, and the way in which lacquers are cut directly influences the sound quality. The mechanics of cutting becomes a factor in the shaping of sound, just like EQ or compression, and therefore it is an integral part of audio mastering process.

:::I also don't belive that I have to resist writing this page before I get a consensus. I just red this http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Consensus and it says just the opposite. You write first then the consesus is reached by the community. Also what I wrote is just a common knowledge for anyone who has the basic understanding of vinyl mastering process. I don't mean to be rude but I feel that you don't fully understand the vinyl mastering and your advice on editing is also incorrect. --] 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't think you understand this part on the definition of WP consensus:
:::''"everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community" ''

:::Also, I welcome you to this talk page to create a discussion, but I also urge to read the tags posted on the top. If you don't like it, then you should probably go ahead and make your own page as the fellow Joachim suggested.

:::One more thing. If you are referring to albums like the latest "Zero 7" album, which was in effect transfered to lacquer and then back to digital, then you may believe that "lacquer mastering" is a necessary part for the definition of mastering, but in reality, it will misguide people to believe that it is needed. Now, I worked once upon a time on a studio where we used to cut "One-offs" for test pressings. The source material was usually mastered and we tried to keep it "flat". But, I am sure you didn't mean that type of "mastering".] 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

:::One more suggestion, if you don't want to make a new page, and you're bent on including your section, and you want to expedite consensus, then maybe you should join the .] 23:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Hi there. The idea of describing the mastering process of a vinyl is quite interesting, as this medium has more tricky limitations than CD, and thus serves as a good example of how the medium type affects the mastering process. I am often asked how this works, and information on this topic is sparse. The above discussion seem to imply that LPs are a thing of the past. This is not the case - at least not in Europe. I still master stuff for vinyl now and then. So basically i think the vinyl mastering process should at least be available <i>somewhere</i> on wikipedia. ] 21:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::How about this? You guys make a new page, call it "Vinyl and lacquer mastering", then when it's all done, we will reference it at the "Audio mastering page" Feedback, please? ] 22:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


I don't understand why do you insist on commenting on this topic if you don't understand the subject.

"Zero 7" album is irrelevant and not representative of how records are made. I'm talking about every single case of mastering for every vinyl release. In every case the type of amplifiers, the type of cutting head, the mechanics of cutting and the entire analog audio signal chain are critical elements that influence the sound of the final lacquer which is also the final master.

Similar principles also apply to analog mastering. The quality of electronics, and the entire signal chain, influence the sound. And in cases where analog tape is used as the master medium, then the mechanics of a tape recorder also influences the sound.

BTW analog mastering is still the preferred method of mastering by top mastering studios such as Grundman Mastering or Gateway Mastering. Here is Bob Ludwig at front of SPL MMC1 analog console with 120 volts railes for killer headroom http://www.spl-usa.com/Ref/bob_ludwig.html

Analog mastering is still the preferred method by great majority of Grammy winning artists and it needs to be explicitely mentioned here. --] 05:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


::::VinylJoe, why are we discussing analog mastering now? It's not an issue. Of course, it's still in use and still common, we use it at the studio. Please refrain from advocating Vinyl stuff in here, though. And, that's not what the line in question:<b>''"Analog masters such as audio tapes are still in use today"''</b> is referring to. The line refers to the practice of bouncing the mastered material to audio tape. It's not the same, so please get your facts straight. And, please don't try to impress this forum with whatever Ludwig and Grundman use. Who cares? There is no need to cite names and post external links, either. Everything we need for referencing is already here at WP. You can improve the article with some reference to the analog equipment used still today, but changing the direction of the definition with confusing older technologies such as lacquers, it's not a good idea. As I said before, It would misguide readers to believe that lacquer mastering is needed and is a common step in the mastering process. I don't think people will agree with your proposal to include that. You are also advised to join the WikiProject I mentioned above to gain consensus. Regardless, I believe, if I called it in for a vote, they will not support your POV. One more point to add, if we continue adding to the description of audio mastering concepts like lacquer mastering, then somebody else is going to bring up "CD glass mastering" and by then, the concept will be extremely confusing at best. Good luck. --] 08:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Hey guy stop patronizing me about what I should or shouldn't refrain from. I was just reading your user page, and you used another person's name without his permission, and you try to lecture me on what I should refrain from !

Where I come from what you did is called '''Identity Fraud'''. So my advise to you is refrain from commenting on this page as you have no knowledge on the subject of vinyl mastering and no credibility. --] 23:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

== Small revision ==

I have made a small revision to terms that were not clear on the second paragraph of the definition. Any objections? Please let me know. For the record it does not constitute adding new information.]

== Introduction ==

I'm not sure the following sentence makes much sense:
<blockquote>A mastering engineer may be required to take other steps, such as the creation of a PMCD (Pre Mastered Compact Disc), where this cohesive material needs to be transferred to a master disc for mass replication.</blockquote>
"This" cohesive material? It's too far away from the beginning of the second paragraph, where this term is (loosely) defined. Also, this sentence has logical problems: steps -> creation -> needs to be transferred?
#An engineer may be required to take steps; (Okay, this is fine.)
#Which steps? Steps, such as creation of PMCD; (This is fine, too.)
#What is the creation of a PMCD? It's where this cohesive material needs to be transferred... <- Flaw in logic here.

Do you think it should be rewritten to sound more English and make more sense?
] 17:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

:Point well made. No opposition here, and unless someone else does not object to it, go ahead and revise it, Sir. BTW, I did try in the past to bring up a new page called "PMCD" (Pre-mastered compact disc) so as to reference it to the mastering page, but as some people know, I was viciously attacked and accused of having a hidden agenda to promote my studio with "keywords". That just killed my desire. Thus, the reason why it reads so disconnected. But, if you are interested, we should work on that. Cheers. ] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
::A separate page on PMCD would be great. I'd be delighted to help, although I don't know much about PMCD, apart from the fact that not all disc burning apps follow the standards that are mandatory for creating a valid PMCD (such as Pre-Master cue sheet that specifies the number of channels, pre-emphasis, copy protection bit, ISRC, UPC/EAN, and so on). Right now I'd love to have the sentence fixed so it makes some sense. Problem is—I'm not sure how (i.e. I don't know what the author was trying to say). Any suggestions? ] 12:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I was the author. Some users reverted it and added several things (Some of which it was nonsense), I countered, and it went back and forth, etc. Bam! That's what was left. I will try a new revision and let you know. Is that OK? Thanks for your feedback! .] 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:::: Oooh! I knew something was wrong here. So, something went wrong during "mixing and editing" that cannot be fixed by "mastering," eh? ;) Looking forward to your revision, Jrod2. ] 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Hi UMRK, I apologize, but I don't entirely understand your question. I would like you to start the PMCD page and then I will join you. What you said before about PMCD: ''as Pre-Master cue sheet that specifies the number of channels, pre-emphasis, copy protection bit, ISRC, UPC/EAN, and so on'', would be a good start. Thanks for the feedback . ] 14:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Oh, I just meant that the reason the sentence in question doesn't make sense is because whoever was editing it after you wrote it (even if you edited it yourself) lost a few bits. I know how it happens: you delete a word here, move another part there, and sometimes you just forget to reread the edit. This results in an (unintentionally) garbled text. I'd appreciate it if you would just reword that sentence, and we'll be done with it. Meanwhile, I'll start a new page on PMCD. Deal? ] 00:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Dear UMRK, sorry I didn't have time to respond before. I like what you are doing so far, and I will try to bring in a contribution to that page. If you want to reference it with links, please read my recommendations below. That said, there is the first link, "Greendot", that should be taken out. The reason is, we don't like to give companies free promotion. I'll be in touch. Regards. ] 08:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

== Digital audio for mastering or Analog ? ==

I am currently in the process of studying Nika Aldrich's "Digital Audio Explained" and felt at liberty to modify the section that pretty much dissed digital in favor of analog technology. I felt that it is quite subjective and can not be ratified. Here is the revised wording:

There are mastering engineers that feel that digital technology has not progressed enough in quality to supersede analogue techology, but on close review of the parameters of audio as relevant to human perception - the characteristics of simple, complex and band-limited waveforms, noise, and the physiognomy of the ear - analog recording methods can be demonstrated to be " incapable, however, of recording audible perfection."

Please have a look at the reference which I personally find to be of great value.--] 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:We appreciate your contribution, but it has been deleted. The way you get your opinions accepted at WP's audio mastering page, is by creating the necessary consensus. You are welcome to propose links that: Do not mention an engineer's name and his website. If it mentions an engineer's name, then he must not be a living person. If you mention a website, it must be non-profit, i.e. org, learning institutes or University pages. These links I find acceptable. Please, don't forget to sign your comments with your name, next time. ] 08:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::That's not how Misplaced Pages works, IMHO. See ]. --''']'''] 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

::: Obviously I did not consider my addition "unhelpful and unconstructive content" or I would not have taken the time to edit my first submission to make it fit for inclusion. I feel that it is completely uncalled for to label my entry as "vandalism". I even gave a source for my quote whereas the original wording talks of "Many mastering engineers …" without any reference as to what that means. Well, I hope people visiting this page do not get the impression that digital technology has not yet replaced analog technology for reasons of quality as well as usability, because that was the gist I picked up and that made me want to share. I won't try that again. Suit yourselves :-) --] 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


], one of the sources says:
::: One addition I feel I do have to make before I log off: Doesn't anybody else find it strange that there is talk of "consensus" followed by the statement that "These links I find acceptable"? Honestly, who is the censor? --] 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
{{Blockquote |text=This .wav file peaks at 0db but is fine because there are no distorted flat spots in the wave. The high hats are hitting at 0db and everything else drops down, leaving good dynamic range. I can work with this.}}
So I don't think my edits qualify neither as POV, or as original research. ] (]) 19:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


:The specific statement is cited to ], and is a reasonable representation of the issue. Of course, headroom is more complex than what Katz asserts, as . Zero dBFS can indeed be workable if the waveform just barely kisses the ceiling, and at the same time, −10 dBFS does not guarantee a distortion-free recording—it could be the case that someone distorted and clipped the signal in the recording process, then gained it down in a later step.
I agree with you Andrew you on this part. I have been lectured by Jrod guy too. He is trying to appear as some kind of a spokesman for this forum and tries to impose some rules that are misrepresentation of wikipedia policy. I find it funny that a guy who spammed wikipedia to the max is now the voice os consesnus. --] 00:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
:We should either tell the reader more detail, or trim the numbers away and just say that headroom is essential. ] (]) 22:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
::I don't think the current text is a good representation of the situation, I definitely think a better explanation is needed, for example there's no mentioning of 16 or 24 bits audio, and while a -3, -10dBFS headroom is a usual recommendation, it does not paint the whole picture. Feel free to propose a paragraph, as you are not happy with the changes I made. ] (]) 00:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
:The paragraph is documenting recommended levels. Katz suggests 3-10. John Rogers claims 3-6 is the norm. I trust Katz and also lets go with the superset. It is unlikely a 0 dBFS signal will be undistorted. You may be thinking of 0 ]. Or maybe you and this source don't understand how ] works. ~] (]) 15:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
:::The 0dBFS could come from a DAW that was configured to normalize its output, the digital signal will not be distorted, but there's a high chance the signal will get distorted once it's converted to an analog signal. ] (]) 17:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
::::And thus the recommendations for providing mastering engineers with a recording with more headroom. ~] (]) 14:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
], I think mentioning 24-bits is a pretty important qualification, mixing to 16-bits and leaving 10dBFS of headroom leaves you with pretty much 14bits of data, which is... bad. ] (]) 19:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
:14 bits is 84 dB of dynamic range which is the difference between the threshold of hearing and hearing damage. Nothing clearly bad about this. Mastering engineers fight the tendency for levels to be pushed in mixing. It is a misconception that lower levels will somehow sound bad when aligned properly by the mastering engineer. ~] (]) 22:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
::That sounds like original research, I think Katz is pretty clear here: "In 24-bit recording you can make a perfectly good mix that peaks between -3 and -10 dBFS with no loss of quality" and "Always mix to 24 bit files". ] (]) 00:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
:::I had a look at what Katz says in ''Mastering Audio'' (Chapter 16) and he gives an example of an acceptable 16-bit recording at -3 dBFS. His -10 dBFS example appears to be for a 24-bit recording. So we're both right depending on which end of the range we're talking about. ~] (]) 14:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


== Merge ==
::::Andrew, first of all, get yourself in the habit of signing up on all your comments. Second, this is the way you get consensus, by proposing changes. No it's not WP policy. In this situation, the best course of action. We've just had the audio mastering page vandalized so much, that, other than protecting the page itself (And hindering effectively its development) we need to build consensus first here at the talk page. This why, vandals can't accomplish anything here. And I a not referring to you, but real persistent and shameless one. As for my opinion I am entitled to it, and so do you. But, I don't dictate policy. There is a difference. ] 11:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
{{dtop|result=There is consensus to merge, though consensus as to what the final title should be should be ascertained via ] ] 18:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)}}
We have articles on ]s and the field of mastering, but the same page for ] and ]. The scopes of these articles are nigh identical, and there is little to gain by keeping them separate. This article is a lot better so most of the content will be from here, but to match ] the title for a merged page should be ] ] 00:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


:Pinging @]@]@] from previous AfD discussion ] 00:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
But I disagree with you Andrew on the digital recording. It seems like you and NikAldrich (whomever he may be) appear as the voice of digital technology for this forum while in fact this is not the case. I also find the contribution of 60.70.248.194 to be correct. Top mastering studios still use analog equalizationa and compression and the digital technology is used as a delivery medium for playback, editing and formatting of the material prior to replication. But the sound processing is still done in analog domain because it simply sounds better, so statement that analog is not capable of sonic perfection is utter nonsense. '''YOUR ENTIRE BODY INCLUDING YOUR EARS ARE ANALOG :)''' --] 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
::{{small|meant @]}} ] 01:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::VinilJoe, I am not going to tolerate more personal attacks from you. I left you a second warning at your page. Use civility and ], if you don't, you'll be blocked and removed from these discussions. I am not the authority, but I am making sure people like you don't take the subject on audio mastering to satisfy their own personal believes and agendas. I supported the idea of you making a page that we can reference to audio mastering, but you don't want to do it. I also asked you to join the , but you don't want to do it either. Nevertheless, I believe that both analog and digital have the specifications that deliver great sound. What I don't know, and you should discuss further, is how "lacquer mastering" is different from "analog mastering", and what are the specs on that format (Lacquer) like for example: its headroom (dBFS), ASDR, signal to noise ratio, wow and flutter, etc.] 12:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
:Sounds good. ] (]) 08:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' merge. ] (]) 10:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' merge. ] (]) 13:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' merge. I do think there is currently an unncessary contentfork, but I think we should look at separating out the profession (history, awards, rising role in music culture) from the activity (technology, transition from analogue). <span style="color:#ef5224">]</span> (]) 22:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::@] I disagree that everything worth including couldn't fit on to one article. There are some professions that definitely should have separate articles from their fields (e.g. ]/]) but imo "mastering engineer" is too specialized to be one of them. The field is barely a century old, and it's more heavily linked to the available technology it rechquires than most. A combined article's "history" will have much more to say about advances in gear than advances in pay-scale. ] 17:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems like I am in the minority here so I am happy to bend to consensus if it remains, but I think the activity is a much more comprehensive article topic than the profession. To put it in a word, I think the action is ''prior'' to the profession. If discussing the history of mastering, there was a time when mastering was not a sufficiently developed or broad activity so as to be its own job. In that frame, mastering engineers are a subset of the big blob of mastering (the activity) in thingspace. I can't imagine a world where a job is notable but the activity you do in the job is not. <span style="color:#ef5224">]</span> (]) 21:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' merge, too similar a scope to justify separate articles. ] (]) 20:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' merge, '''but''' into mastering, not mastering engineer. I don't see why we have to match audio engineer. Mastering is a specific process, unlike audio engineering, which is refers to a set of processes that only make sense together when in the context of the profession. I agree with ] that ''mastering'' is really the notable topic here, not ''mastering engineer''. ]<sup>]]</sup> 04:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
::@] I can live with this, as I care more that we don't have redundant articles than which article title is chosen. Perhaps, as a compromise, a merge can be preformed first, and then a ] debate started over the best title? ] 16:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
::I would be happy with this and would not contest it <span style="color:#ef5224">]</span> (]) 16:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Requested move 26 August 2024 ==
::::::Well,...you may be up to something ]. If one looks at ] contributions and some of ] contributions, I'd say they look let's say at best questionable . --] 04:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Rert2, Your comment above is just a sign of your frustration. Yes , I have another account and its legal, many admins know it. Now, stick to the subject at hand. Period. You persist in adding Bob Katz book to the audio mastering page. Sorry, WP is not here to sell books for Bob Katz. There many other sources that may be eligible for inclusion, BUT FIRST WE DISCUSS THEM AMONG ALL THE EDITORS, OK? One more thing, You are not going to find ] posting links at the ] page to promote http://MusicMasteringOnline.com either, so I suggest any insinuation of spam by me, to be taken to your own personal talk pages and not here. ] 09:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
Katz is an authority in this field, while http://www.MusicMasteringOnline.com is ZERO, nobody, zilch, zip, nicht, null, nada ! So that's why Rert2's link can be considered as a reference and your link can be considered as nothing. --] 14:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
:Katz an authority? ROFLOL. You mean an authority on how to sell books! Anyway, please, I don't want to laugh too hard as I am at work. But, the point is it violates WP guidelines. OK? Read this . Now, stop this ridiculous attempt at promoting Katz book. By the way, MMOL is more than a mastering lab than you'll ever know. it's not located in some state where nothing goes on but in THE CAPITAL OF THE MUSIC WORLD, OK? You got some nerve.. ] 15:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 02:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::Hey Jrod, I'm not frustrated with your edits, and I never said that you are a spammer, what I meant is exactly what I said, that your contributions are questionable. But since you mentioned yourself as a spammer then I have to agree with you. All it takes is a quick look at your contributions under fake name ] , which BTW you used without permission of the owner, and the picture is clear, you are a spammer as you said. --] 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
----
:::Rert2, You think you are being subtle? You have been warned to stop making personal attacks, but you won't let up! Your frustration is making you uncivil, erratic and unworthy of forming an opinion on this forum. I am the most senior editor on this page right now, and instead of showing respect, you bringing stuff from the past that only god knows why is relevant to these discussions. This tactic of trying to discredit me with accusations of spam, already cost Mike Sorensen his precious user page (See: ]. Be smart, don't be next. I am not going to say that I am in command of the discussions, but I will make sure that there is going to be a discussion on anything that you want to include on the article page. Got it? If you don't like it, GO AWAY. So far, you and the other user are just acting as offensive and disruptive editors. Believe me, there are many eyes monitoring what you do and say on this forum. So, at this point, do you think I care about what you think about me? ] 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


] → {{no redirect|Mastering engineer}} – Basically a procedural RM I promised to hold after the ] above, and promptly forgot about. I hold no strong feelings one way or the other
::::No frustration, just simple observations of facts. I don't care about your seniority because it started with spamming, nor I care about your warnings because you are sneaky vandal who removes legitimate reference links and harasses other editors. I will revert you within the 3 revert rule as much as I can. And hopefully other editors will help if appropriate. --] 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Pinging original participants; {{u|BrigadierG}} {{u|NicolausPrime}} {{u|Slatersteven}} {{u|Popcornfud}} {{u|InDimensional}} {{u|BappleBusiness}} ] 01:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
: Using books or textbooks as sources is perfectly fine; however, instead of Amazon, using the ISBN number (see ]) is preferred. I'm sure that no ill will was meant, and I recommend the Katz book be added (or changed) to link to the ISBN. Please see the ISBN link I just added for an example. ] 01:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I agree this current title should be retained. I would support moving it to ] as the primary topic though. ] should be moved to ]. ] (]) 03:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The article is about the concept, not the occupation. ] ] 04:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)


:'''Oppose''' as proposed, would support merging the other way around or merging both articles to ] as proposed above. <span style="color:#ef5224">]</span> (]) 09:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
::I have no problem with ISBN. I'm perfectly fine with this form of referencing. Actually it may even be better way to indicate the reference. --] 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::@] the merger already happened ] 12:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''': The concept, not the occupation, is clearly the primary topic. ]<sup>]]</sup> 03:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - Article leads with {{tq|Mastering, a form of audio post production, is the process...}} A ] case could be made for ] → ] but that's a different proposal. ~] (]) 16:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

Latest revision as of 09:11, 8 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mastering (audio) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconProfessional sound production Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
On 26 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Mastering engineer. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Bass punch, kick drum, bass drum, frequencies, waveform

Add pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.238.233.138 (talk • contribs) .

The other loudness war is on FM radio!

The other loudness war is happening in FM broadcasting. There are dedicated FM processors that would be of little use for CD production. See for example http://www.omniaaudio.com. Therefore, I do not think that merging loudness war into audio mastering would be appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.238.233.138 (talk • contribs) .


Jeffason's comments:
You gotta be kidding. Who created the movement to merge the two. They are totally different. PLEASE REMOVE THIS REQUEST TO MERGE THE TWO. It is blasphemy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffason (talk • contribs) .

headroom

User:Kvng, one of the sources says:

This .wav file peaks at 0db but is fine because there are no distorted flat spots in the wave. The high hats are hitting at 0db and everything else drops down, leaving good dynamic range. I can work with this.

So I don't think my edits qualify neither as POV, or as original research. Uwsi (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The specific statement is cited to Bob Katz, and is a reasonable representation of the issue. Of course, headroom is more complex than what Katz asserts, as John Rogers explains. Zero dBFS can indeed be workable if the waveform just barely kisses the ceiling, and at the same time, −10 dBFS does not guarantee a distortion-free recording—it could be the case that someone distorted and clipped the signal in the recording process, then gained it down in a later step.
We should either tell the reader more detail, or trim the numbers away and just say that headroom is essential. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the current text is a good representation of the situation, I definitely think a better explanation is needed, for example there's no mentioning of 16 or 24 bits audio, and while a -3, -10dBFS headroom is a usual recommendation, it does not paint the whole picture. Feel free to propose a paragraph, as you are not happy with the changes I made. Uwsi (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The paragraph is documenting recommended levels. Katz suggests 3-10. John Rogers claims 3-6 is the norm. I trust Katz and also lets go with the superset. It is unlikely a 0 dBFS signal will be undistorted. You may be thinking of 0 dBTP. Or maybe you and this source don't understand how signal reconstruction works. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The 0dBFS could come from a DAW that was configured to normalize its output, the digital signal will not be distorted, but there's a high chance the signal will get distorted once it's converted to an analog signal. Uwsi (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
And thus the recommendations for providing mastering engineers with a recording with more headroom. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Kvng, I think mentioning 24-bits is a pretty important qualification, mixing to 16-bits and leaving 10dBFS of headroom leaves you with pretty much 14bits of data, which is... bad. Uwsi (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

14 bits is 84 dB of dynamic range which is the difference between the threshold of hearing and hearing damage. Nothing clearly bad about this. Mastering engineers fight the tendency for levels to be pushed in mixing. It is a misconception that lower levels will somehow sound bad when aligned properly by the mastering engineer. ~Kvng (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
That sounds like original research, I think Katz is pretty clear here: "In 24-bit recording you can make a perfectly good mix that peaks between -3 and -10 dBFS with no loss of quality" and "Always mix to 24 bit files". Uwsi (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I had a look at what Katz says in Mastering Audio (Chapter 16) and he gives an example of an acceptable 16-bit recording at -3 dBFS. His -10 dBFS example appears to be for a 24-bit recording. So we're both right depending on which end of the range we're talking about. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to merge, though consensus as to what the final title should be should be ascertained via WP:RM Mach61 18:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We have articles on Mastering engineers and the field of mastering, but the same page for Audio engineer and Audio engineering. The scopes of these articles are nigh identical, and there is little to gain by keeping them separate. This article is a lot better so most of the content will be from here, but to match audio engineer the title for a merged page should be mastering engineer Mach61 00:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @NicolausPrime@BrigaderG@Slatersteven from previous AfD discussion Mach61 00:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
meant @BrigadierG Mach61 01:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good. Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Support merge. Popcornfud (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Support merge. NicolausPrime (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose merge. I do think there is currently an unncessary contentfork, but I think we should look at separating out the profession (history, awards, rising role in music culture) from the activity (technology, transition from analogue). BrigadierG (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
@BrigadierG I disagree that everything worth including couldn't fit on to one article. There are some professions that definitely should have separate articles from their fields (e.g. Police/Police officer) but imo "mastering engineer" is too specialized to be one of them. The field is barely a century old, and it's more heavily linked to the available technology it rechquires than most. A combined article's "history" will have much more to say about advances in gear than advances in pay-scale. Mach61 17:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems like I am in the minority here so I am happy to bend to consensus if it remains, but I think the activity is a much more comprehensive article topic than the profession. To put it in a word, I think the action is prior to the profession. If discussing the history of mastering, there was a time when mastering was not a sufficiently developed or broad activity so as to be its own job. In that frame, mastering engineers are a subset of the big blob of mastering (the activity) in thingspace. I can't imagine a world where a job is notable but the activity you do in the job is not. BrigadierG (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Support merge, too similar a scope to justify separate articles. InDimensional (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Support merge, but into mastering, not mastering engineer. I don't see why we have to match audio engineer. Mastering is a specific process, unlike audio engineering, which is refers to a set of processes that only make sense together when in the context of the profession. I agree with BrigadierG that mastering is really the notable topic here, not mastering engineer. BappleBusiness 04:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@BappleBusiness I can live with this, as I care more that we don't have redundant articles than which article title is chosen. Perhaps, as a compromise, a merge can be preformed first, and then a WP:Requested move debate started over the best title? Mach61 16:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I would be happy with this and would not contest it BrigadierG (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 26 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Mastering (audio) → Mastering engineer – Basically a procedural RM I promised to hold after the merge discussion above, and promptly forgot about. I hold no strong feelings one way or the other

Pinging original participants; BrigadierG NicolausPrime Slatersteven Popcornfud InDimensional BappleBusiness Mach61 01:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as proposed, would support merging the other way around or merging both articles to mastering as proposed above. BrigadierG (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@BrigadierG the merger already happened Mach61 12:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: The concept, not the occupation, is clearly the primary topic. BappleBusiness 03:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - Article leads with Mastering, a form of audio post production, is the process... A WP:PRIMARYTOPIC case could be made for Mastering (audio) → Mastering but that's a different proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: