[LAU] LV2, DSSI and the future of plugins

[Ken Restivo]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:26:25AM +0100, Renato wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:49:20 -0800
> Ken Restivo <ken at restivo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 05:20:15PM -0500, Ricardus Vincente wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 14:11 -0800, Ken Restivo wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:31:41PM +0100, fons at kokkinizita.net
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 03:38:48PM +0100, J?rn Nettingsmeier
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > don't forget the most important aspect of mastering: a second
> > > > > > pair of ears, in a very good listening room.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Correct.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > take that out of the equation, and all that's left of
> > > > > > mastering is some parametric eq and (if you must) multiband
> > > > > > compression.
> > > > > 
> > > > > And I wonder why these shouldn't be done when mixing instead.
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the 'old days' EQ and compression was required to adapt a
> > > > > mix to the limits of the distribution medium (vinyl in most 
> > > > > cases). No such problem exists today. Why on earth should you
> > > > > re-EQ a mix ? If the mixing engineer did a good job (by
> > > > > carefully EQ-ing individual tracks), what chance do you have to
> > > > > improve this by acting on the mixed signal ? If he didn't, the
> > > > > way to correct for this is to redo the mix. Same for
> > > > > compression, it's much more effective and less intrusive when
> > > > > done on single tracks. 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > For the record, I hate mastering and compressed loudness-war
> > > > mixes. I enjoy making use of the dynamic range of 16-bit (or
> > > > more) audio. And, I also put the mastering (multiband
> > > > compression, really) stuff in the chain while mixing, one of the
> > > > wonderful things about JACK. It's just an insert on the master
> > > > bus in Ardour for me, and my exported mixes are mastered.
> > > > 
> > > > However, today's popular music must contend with limitations of
> > > > the listener's equipment, just as it did in the days of
> > > > turntables and six-peices-of-particle-board-and-an-8-inch-speaker
> > > > turntable/stereo combinations. The limitations are different and
> > > > so therefore are the solutions and workarounds.
> > > > 
> > > > Today, people listen to music on iPods and truly wretched laptop
> > > > speakers in noisy environments. And everything else they listen
> > > > to is compressed out the wazoo. So when my lightly-compressed
> > > > mixes come up on shuffle, they are inaudible, not just in
> > > > comparison to other professionally-mastered mixes, but against
> > > > the background noise they're competing with.
> > > > 
> > > > So, next time around, I'm putting my mixes thorugh NAMA and
> > > > squashing the holy hell out of them, until they sound like
> > > > whatever the major labels are pooting out these days. 
> > > 
> > >  Unfortunately most mix engineers suck.  That's why you need a real
> > > mastering engineer to fix your mixes.  Taking the tracks back to a
> > > guy with tin ears isn't going to help.
> > > 
> > >  Most people making records today are inexperienced and doing it at
> > > home.
> > 
> > Yep. I guess that's what mastering engineers spend most of their time
> > doing: fixing bad mixes.
> > 
> 
> curious: mix engineers suck but mastering engineers don't and they even
> know how to mix better than mix engineers.
> 
> what's the reason? Maybe that mixing is being done by self taught
> people while mastering no?
> 

That's the point that several people have made, and it seems plausible to me:

The mastering engineers are making their living fixing mixes that home-studio people produce on Ableton or cracked ProTools LE.

It makes sense to just learn to (or get help to) produce better mixes instead.

-ken