Mastering (again...)

Robert Henke · Post by **Robert Henke** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:16 am

[ selfpromotion, kind of: ]

This summer I made a long interview with my favorite mastering engineer, Rashad
Becker. It took me much longer to transcribe it then I thought, but a few weeks ago I
put the first part online, got some encouraging resonance for my little journalistic
excursion, and now it is finally completed.

The talk covers a wide range of topics, from technical to more philosophical questions.
If you are interested, it is here:

http://www.monolake.de/interviews/mastering.html

Robert

wiffbi · Post by **wiffbi** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:52 am

nice read, thanks for that!

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:07 am

I like the section about volume wars

I've been a long time advocate for "f*ck the volume wars, just make it sound good"

Martyn · Post by **Martyn** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:32 am

That was a thought provoking read, thanks for posting.

Pasha · Post by **Pasha** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:50 am

Good. Thank you for sharing. Intriguing read.
Do not forget to post the other chapters when you will have them available!

-Best
-Pasha

4.33 · Post by **4.33** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:14 am

thank you!

Johnny Beat · Post by **Johnny Beat** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:55 am

I've seen links to this one float around the web. I should definitely read it

Enrique · Post by **Enrique** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:36 pm

Nice read, thank you! There is always something one can learn from a good mastering engineer...

BTW: There is a bit of text written twice! It concerns the question "Would you say there is a specific Berlin sound in mastering?". The repeating part starts with "Most certainly..." and ends with "...which makes it comparable?".

Enrique · Post by **Enrique** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:48 pm

Wow, already corrected!!!

Turbo Henke...

craw · Post by **craw** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:11 pm

interesting read ... On a side note robert I wasn't aware that you used to work at dubplates and mastering. This studio has a pretty impressive reputation in the electronic community for having a pretty distinctive sound. On records such as 'phylips trax' or the 'burial mix' series, how much of the sound of the record as an end product came from the production, and how much from the mastering ... it seems to a lot of people that the mastering on such records is what gave these amazing records such an edge. Is that true?

I mean it seems that many producers have tried at some point to be basic channel clones, but as far as I know no-one has successfully pulled it off ... is that due in any way to the mastering of these records, or M. V. Ozwald & Co.'s production skills? Or both? I guess I'm wondering what an unmastered version of 'phylips trax' would sound like on a CD.

PS. not in any way trying to be a basic channel clone myself, just fascinated about the sound quality of the records that came from that mastering studio during those times ... they were (and still are) very influential for a lot of people

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:34 pm

interesting read, but im not sure i agree with this engineers sentiment and lack of enthusiasm for some of the digital related aspects.

for example, it's a fact whether they like it or not that most people now listen to music on mp3 players.. ipods to be specific and for him to not have ever listened to music on an mp3 player is a bit ignorant of millions and millions of potential listeners, or am i missing something?

naph · Post by **naph** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:11 pm

very interesting read.. loving the "don't get too anal" parts.. actually i feel this as a very big problem for me.. need to learn to be more spontaneous...

ethios4 · Post by **ethios4** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:14 pm

Ooh, thanks!
Nice layout, btw.

Goran@Irrupt · Post by **Goran@Irrupt** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:42 pm

craw wrote:interesting read ... On a side note robert I wasn't aware that you used to work at dubplates and mastering. This studio has a pretty impressive reputation in the electronic community for having a pretty distinctive sound. On records such as 'phylips trax' or the 'burial mix' series, how much of the sound of the record as an end product came from the production, and how much from the mastering ... it seems to a lot of people that the mastering on such records is what gave these amazing records such an edge. Is that true?

I mean it seems that many producers have tried at some point to be basic channel clones, but as far as I know no-one has successfully pulled it off ... is that due in any way to the mastering of these records, or M. V. Ozwald & Co.'s production skills? Or both? I guess I'm wondering what an unmastered version of 'phylips trax' would sound like on a CD.

PS. not in any way trying to be a basic channel clone myself, just fascinated about the sound quality of the records that came from that mastering studio during those times ... they were (and still are) very influential for a lot of people

i myself am a huge fan of those records. and i totaly agree with you. they still sound unique and no one could still aproach to their sound. just listen to R&S's Showcase. amazing!
i'm sure a whole book fool of great audio tips could be written about Basic Channel crew and bwoy, would i love to read it.
now, on to robert's article...

w

ChiDJ · Post by **ChiDJ** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:03 pm

Great article Robert!

I really liked your discussion with Rashad regarding the visualization trap. I've always had this conflict with song writing on computers. He also alluded to the need for better controllers for computer based plugins. I found it very interesting that he had nothing negative to say about digital versus analog, but more the lack of tactile control we have over our GUI. I look forward to the day when I can just "listen" rather than "look" again.

Tod

PS - one spelling error: decimal "point" at the end of paragraph 1 in the "interface" section.