Talk:Audio mastering/Archive 1

message: 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." [Nika Aldrich (2004): Digital Audio Explained; p. 97]
Please have a look at the reference which I personally find to be of great value.--Andrew.levine 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Jrod2 08:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how Wikipedia works, IMHO. See Template:Who. --Kjoonlee 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 :-) --Andrew.levine 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  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? --Andrew.levine 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Jrod2 11:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: VinilJoe, I am not going to tolerate more personal attacks from you. I left you a second warning at your page. Use civility and WP:AGF, 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 WikiProject Professional Sound Production, 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.Jrod2 12:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well,...you may be up to something VinylJoe. If one looks at Jrod2 contributions and some of Evinatea contributions, I'd say they look let's say at best questionable . --Rert2 04:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 User:Jrod2 posting links at the Audio mastering 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. Jrod2 09:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Links normally to be avoided. 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.. Jrod2 15:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Evinatea , which BTW you used without permission of the owner, and the picture is clear, you are a spammer as you said. --Rert2 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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: User:Mike Sorensen. 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? Jrod2 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  --Rert2 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Using books or textbooks as sources is perfectly fine; however, instead of Amazon, using the ISBN number  (see Wikipedia:ISBN) 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. Illuminatedwax 01:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --Rert2 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I to believe that the whole world thinks Nika Aldrich and Bob Cats are the last word in mastering? I just found out the amazing extent of how these 2 engineers have their links comfortably placed on almost all the audio pages at WP!! This is a disgrace! Effective next week, I am going to clean up any Cats or Aldrich and I am going to demand other alternatives. Be prepared to make your arguments people and play clean. I have good sense of smell, so if something ever smells rotten, the game is over. Have a good night. Jrod2 04:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital audio for mastering or Analog ? 

message: I have added the Katz book to the "See also" section because his book is not only highly regarded by many professionals, it is used as a textbook or is referenced by many universities in their audio courses. It also links to the ISBN number rather than Amazon.com. I added a Mix Magazine article I found talking about modern improvements in mastering; perhaps more information from this article could be added. I also added info about the digital/analog debate as it pertains to audio mastering; please correct this information if I have the wrong idea. Illuminatedwax 01:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not appropriate, you should delete it because Katz is not worthy of being the ultimate word in mastering and the link servers more as a selling tool than any practical use for the Audio mastering page. That's my opinion. Jrod2 03:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, if you have any better links, please suggest them. Otherwise we have no outside resources for users to follow up on. One of the most important parts of Wikipedia is the ability to use it as a starting point. Illuminatedwax 03:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Katz and other edits 

message: Let me give you just a few Grammy winning albums mastered by Bernie Grundman.
How is this for a mastering credit:
*Michael Jackson - Thriller (Jackson received 8 Grammy awards for this record. Best selling album of all times mastered by Bernie Grundman, 100 million copies sold)
*Norah Jones - Not Too Late  (Record received 8 Grammy awards, mastered by Bernie Grundman, 20 million copies sold)
*Fleetwood Mac - Say You Will (Album of the Year Grammy nomination mastered by Bernie Grundman, 300,000 copies sold within first week of release )
And here is a partial list of albums mastered by Brnie Grundman  .
You do the research and find out how many of them received Grammys because I have no time for correcting your totally disruptive, and unresearched comments. --VinylJoe 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me ask you a question , so you mean to tell us that Grundman was right there with Jackson and Quincy , totally involved in the recording process? BS! He got the job to do it after jackson an Jones mixed, that's all! Are you Grundman? Of course not, But, if you had been a mastering engineer (At least a competent one), and you got the job, do you think they would not have won those Grammys and the history of "Thriller" would have been quite a different one? So they won because of Grundman? If you think they did, I rest my case about you. BTW Here is a few comments  about how disappointing the sound of "Thriller" is on both CD and SACD formats. Keep in mind that these re-releases sound better than the original vinyl LP (Mastered by Grundman?). In my view, you are somebody who likes to show knowledge in all aspects of the music industry, all you have shown is that you really don't know how things work. I also find it hilarious that you consider these comments I erased from the audio mastering page "Technical" (LOL) Did you post all that? And, I am supposed to show my Computer Science degree on that account? You make me LOL. Right here is my degree...! BTW people, most ME's are aware of that "Grammy" fringe benefit, and it helps them get more jobs, free equipment, money loans and fake prestige. It's a cartel that is dying just like the majors are dying slowly. In the end, the music business will belong to no one and all of us will own it (Figuratively) and the reign of the record companies and their payolas will be over within my lifetime and certainly yours. At least their foundation will be very different from today's. Finally VinylGuy, I did have the chance to listen and spectrum analyze Norah Jones second album, I hope that wasn't mastered by Bernie because the sound on that CD was bad. Jrod2 21:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you are confusing mastering with recording. You may want to read about audio mastering before posting comments on this subject. Let me briefly explain it for you. Audio mastering is a step that is performed after the recording and mixing. So your question about Grundman's involvement in the recording process is absolutely irrelevant. As far as sound quality is concerned, both the Grammys and the general public embraced both albums which was reflected by awards and millions of units sold, therefore your spectrum analyzer and your negative opinion is of no consequence. Your other comments about nonsense such as money loans and free gear are equally irrelevant to this discussion and frankly meanspirited. Grundman builds his essential gear, and Ludwig paid for his gear and then had some pieces customized at his own expense. The gossip and misinformation that you spread is counterproductive to this discussion. --VinylJoe 19:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep all the advise to yourself, kid. The fact that I did say that Jones and Jackson mixed "Thriller" not Grundman, tells you that I know the difference, dah? In case you don't know, I've contributed and greatly revised in depth, both the Audio mastering and Mastering engineer pages. So, don't tell me what to read. Also, I will archive, when I feel like it, all this wasteful space you've written  above (Sections 18-19-20) including your deliberate attempt to erase evidence of your nonsense without leaving a valid explanation (In which you changed  after I left you a response, Fleetwood Mac's album titles from "Rumors" to "Say You will" making me look in everyone's view, nonsensical). Or, when you reverted my deleting these last  wasteful sections at this talk page (See: ) which wouldn't allow you to have more opportunities for trolling, of course. You have proven that you are incapable of maintaining a civil discussion and that you don't respect other editors opinions. That your edits are geared towards inciting a reaction from me, and to harass me, or otherwise, create an aura of authority on the subject of audio which you don't have. One only has to review your constant harassment to force me to prove that I have an academic degree, to know that it was just an act of trolling. I make real contributions at WP, but all you do is attack me with your utterly useless POVs, because again, you are a troll (Where the basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits). Your contributions say so . You are also a confirmed sock puppeteer and they never quit.  Bottom line, no one cares the opinions of trolls and sock puppeteers like you. I am in the business, I work with real mastering engineers. I get good info from the trenches. You, on the other hand, want to give the impression that you know the facts. How on earth do you know that ME's never receive endorsement gear, unless you are one who never did? One of the studios I work for, got free gear early this year from 2 big manufacturers. They sold it all off on Ebay. And yes, BANKS are MORE inclined to approve loans to mastering engineers or studio facilities that have received recognition or accolades in the music industry. Also, if I think that some mastering jobs were horribly done, that's MY opinion! And, it is allowed to me and to every editor at the talk page! I'll have the same criticism for any engineer that, in my view, is not qualified to be cited on the article itself. That is also ALLOWED at the talk page! Next, do me a big favor, don't disrupt this talk page, and please don't bother me, or direct yourself to me ever again.  Jrod2 04:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another unresearched comment by Jrod2 

message: Does anybody else feel that this discussion page needs sections 18, 19 and 20? IMHO, I think is nothing but a waste of good space! Jrod2 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone else feels it's necessary to keep the last 3 sections on this talk page, please speak up as I intend to delete them. Thank you. Jrod2 10:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't delete other people's messages, please. If the discussion is over, you can archive it instead. --Kjoonlee 11:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kjoonlee, Thanks for the advise, can you help me archive it? I have no idea as to how is done. Jrod2 11:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ARCHIVE has help. Don't do what I did to my own page, but move the article and copy back the headers and such to the original location. --Kjoonlee 11:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless sections 

message: Since we are debating references I'm also proposing inclusion of the book by Bobby Owsinski Mastering Engineers Handbookas 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 Mastering Your Music, 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.
Comments please.--Mike Sorensen 20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of book by Bobby Owsinski as a reference for this article 

message: I mean no disrespect to indie artists and their great music, so the word "mediocre" is referred strictly in audio engineering terms and not in musical content. That said, I raised this point before a user (I'd rather not mention by name) started trolling and deviating me from this subject. Some artists (Mainly indie) who get mastering samples from us, have told us that they spent big money with mastering guys who, supposedly, mastered famous bands and artists and even have awards in their studios. All this, only to be disappointed with the results. We do notice, in all fairness, that these indie artists original mixes were at best, mediocre. So, In many ways these mastering engineers hired to do the job were not completely at fault. We have noticed however, that there were instances of extreme neglect on the part of these "celebrity" mastering engineers. Perhaps they lose interest when they hear a mediocre mix and give up trying to make it sound the best possible way. Or, they simply don't have sufficient skills. How can this be, though? After all, they have the "golden ears", they are the "creme of the crop", they got the "awards", etc. Why can't they substantially make it a much better product? I know that my facility, along with some others online, can make this possible. I have good examples of these claims, however, I don't wish to embarrass other mastering engineers by name. It would be nice to test mastering engineer skills once and for all and put this theory to rest. The results could be searchable all over the web. The criteria should be: mastering examples with analog or digital gear, and the source should be mixes strictly from amateur engineers. A bad mix is not possible to fix and there are  many  reasons why a mix may sound "Bad". However, "mediocre" mixes can be rendered to sound OK or even GOOD, but it would require complete "mastery" of the mastering process and the correct use of the tools by the engineer!
Many of you here at this talk page have made big claims that leads everyone to believe that analog mastering is "only performed by professionals" and analog equipment, the best method to do so. It's time to make a final debate with real mastering engineers, real life examples from real artists out there on the web that are seeking to know if these statements are true:
*A} Award winning mastering guys can master mediocre records better than the rest?
*B) Only analog equipment can deliver the best sound out of a mix?
*C) Mediocre indie mixes can never sound like a major record?
This way indie artists and producers who have a limited budget and who already understand that their mixes are not the best, and who don't want to skimp on the mastering, but at the same time, don't want to unnecessarily throw away good money, can get a good idea of who will provide the best service and quality results.
I believe that it would be unfair to say that every major mastering guy with awards and what not, does not have the skill to convert those mediocre mixes to the best perceived sound. But let's be honest, indie production submissions for mastering usually suck. Should we blame the outcome on the mastering guy? 
Final point: As I said before, because these mastering engineers are only familiar, or used to receive great mixes from state-of-the-art studios and from engineers that have their own academy awards, because of this, the majority are incapable of resolving the most complex engineering problems in a mix. They might have been elevated to a status of excellency (Thanks to the major labels), yet, there are some real amazing unknown mastering engineers out there that would teach them, how a complex and difficult-to-master mix, gets rendered. My guess is that, as more and more people get involved to record and mix records without an engineering background, the more useful it will be that this new breed of truly amazing mastering geniuses, get noted and cited for the benefit of the new independent music revolution. I am sure all the mastering engineers cited on the Audio mastering page are the exception, that's why they are in WP. But, if they want to join in on the debate, it would a great honor to read their points of view. I know some of you are going to give me flak about this and I expect it, just don't make personal attacks because your debate will be over. Jrod2 19:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not. Wikipedia is for discussion and improvement, not debate and original research. --Kjoonlee 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kjoonlee, if you are not an engineer, then, what are you doing in here? Also, I was not necessarily saying "let's use the article page to debate this". We can debate any of these concerns at the talk page and if any consensus about these topics are reached, then maybe they can be added to the article itself. How are we going to improve the article beyond what it's been said without discussing related points and making people find sources of reference? We are talking about mastering, Pal. Where else can we discuss it? Finally Kjoon, there is a lot more flexibility at article talk pages than article pages themselves. So, I am going to assume that you are just a bit misguided today. Jrod2 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watching, reading, and editing, and pointing things out, of course. Nope, please reread WP:NOR and WP:NOT and WP:TALK, thank you. --Kjoonlee 22:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope! There is nothing on WP:NOR that says these rules applied to talk pages. Also on WP:TALK it clearly says "There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation...". You just want to keep things quit everywhere. You are lay-back, chilling editor. I am not. I want discussion(s). Thanks for your responses anyway. Jrod2 22:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kjoonlee, the truth is, if we are going to use talk pages "by the book", then, we should erase half of the sections above. Don't you think? Jrod2 23:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, read the rest of the links. If some of the sections are inappropriate, archive them, please. --Kjoonlee 23:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's debate "Celebrity mastering engineers are not good for mastering most indie artists and mediocre mixes".