Big-label mastering engineers don’t understand lossy formats, Article about Mastered for iTunes Options

[Kohlrabi]

Just found this article via twitter, circled among mastering "engineers" (in fact Heba Kadry reposted it, the girl who mastered the latest Mars Volta album, which reaches -12.79 dB on my RG scans, and is generally mastered in a horrible fashion).

This further backs my impression that most of them don't have a single clue of what they are doing. The section about the mastering practices of Rubin and Meller are especially eye-opening to me. Masterdisk "engineers" also apparently are now out to rape the Rush back catalogue. Further down they cite phase-reverse tests to prove AAC files are different from the original (wow, REALLY?).

The good thing is, I can use this article to decide which releases to avoid in the future. But I'm really at a loss what we can do beside that. I'm really fed up with mastering "engineers" destroying music releases.

This post has been edited by Kohlrabi: Mar 27 2012, 09:17

[greynol]

When I am in a position to improve something of mine I think is important and it is fairly easy, I generally take action and improve it. Maybe it's too late for Justin Colletti to amend or pull his article, if not then that's unfortunate, IMHO.

I wouldn't present information about the effects of the process of psychoacoustic coding primarily from mastering specialists any more than I would present information about the effects of food on the human body primarily from chefs (if at all!), no matter how reputable they are.

Also, how does reporting that someone has won Grammy awards or has a very successful career have anything to do with their ability to understand the intricate details of something when this knowledge is not necessary to do their job well, let alone at all?

This post has been edited by greynol: Mar 30 2012, 17:00

[TrustScience]

When I am in a position to improve something of mine I think is important and it is fairly easy, I generally take action and improve it. Maybe it's too late for Justin Colletti to amend or pull his article, if not then that's unfortunate, IMHO.

I wouldn't present information about the effects of the process of psychoacoustic coding primarily from mastering specialists any more than I would present information about the effects of food on the human body primarily from chefs (if at all!), no matter how reputable they are.

Also, how does reporting that someone has won Grammy awards or has a very successful career have anything to do with their ability to understand the intricate details of something when this knowledge is not necessary to do their job well, let alone at all?

What do you suggest would be good a way to amend the article? When you do so, please bear in mind that:

• It already states that related ABX tests invite skepticism of some the mastering engineer's claims.
• It links to articles on the merits of ABX tests in evaluating audio claims.
• I've offered to write a follow up if anyone cares to present good evidence that refutes these claims.
• I'm under an obligation to avoid libel, defamation, or any unproven statements on my part that these particular engineers can't hear the differences between these particular files.
• And that this is a news article about new procedures and tools being used by mastering engineers - not an article about ABX tests, sample rates, bit rates, perception, bias, the loch ness monster, or anything else.

If you care to make specific recommendation, I'd be happy to hear it. But please be sure to read the article in full before making your critique. I'm certain that you're an intelligent person, and based on your current analysis, it's hard for me to believe that you have done more than skim it. Don't sweat it. It happens to the best of us.

For the future, please also be aware that moderators are generally tasked with helping make forums more civil and their discussions more focused. If you feel you've done a lot to foster a cordial and meaningful conversation in this particular thread, I'll have to respectfully disagree.

At this point, I'd again ask that you to make amends by locking the thread down, and voicing any of your specific critiques to me directly via email - after reading the story in full, of course.

Thanks,

Justin

This post has been edited by TrustScience: Mar 30 2012, 18:25

[saratoga]

What do you suggest would be good a way to amend the article? When you do so, please bear in mind that:

• It already states that related ABX tests invite skepticism of some the mastering engineer's claims.
• It links to articles on the merits of ABX tests in evaluating audio claims.
• I've offered to write a follow up if anyone cares to present good evidence that refutes these claims.
• I'm under an obligation to avoid libel, defamation, or any unproven statements on my part that these particular engineers can't hear the differences between these particular files.
• And that this is a news article about new procedures and tools being used by mastering engineers - not an article about ABX tests, sample rates, bit rates, perception, bias, the loch ness monster, or anything else.

If you care to make specific recommendation, I'd be happy to hear it. But please be sure to read the article in full before making your critique. I'm certain that you're an intelligent person, and based on your current analysis, it's hard for me to believe that you have done more than skim it. Don't sweat it. It happens to the best of us.

Sorry to double post, but I missed this. Yes I think your edits so far are very good. You've removed almost all of the stuff that was misleading or irrelevant. One minor point I would suggest that in some of the quotes, you've removed clauses and sentences from the original quote that significantly change what the author is implying. In that case you may wish to add a [...] to make it clear that the quote has been edited to remove stuff the author originally said. Usually this isn't a big deal, but since the meaning is changed a little its a good idea here.

For the future, please also be aware that moderators are generally tasked with helping make forums more civil and their discussions more focused. If you feel you've done a lot to foster a cordial and meaningful conversation in this particular thread, I'll have to respectfully disagree.

I think the improvements suggested by greynol that you've made to your article are quite an accomplishment.

At this point, I'd again ask that you to make amends by locking the thread down, and voicing any of your specific critiques to me directly via email - after reading the story in full, of course.

I think making them in public makes much more sense, since a much wider range of people will be able to comment on them.