M WORKS MASTERING

Another record we are proud of...

2012-01-15T17:24:00.000-08:00

What a joy to be able to help bring so much expression, joy and, well, music into the world.

Here's a review of just one example of a project we are proud to be a part of. Powerhouse modern big band with some inspired performing....and dynamics to boot!

http://www.jazmuzic.com/2011/12/cd-review-new-world-jazz-composers.html

Another vote for good sound....

2012-01-10T17:34:00.000-08:00

This piece gives some nice ammunition to those of us who believe that good sound is an important part of musical expression, and that regular ole people, even the mp3 generation (!) can discern differences in sound quality....and they might even prefer higher resolution.

http://tinyurl.com/7t7s4m3

Provides just a tiny hit of job security!

As I have said many times, I don't have much of a gripe about mp3....or cassette or whatever, so long as it is where it belongs: in the domain of the consumer. In fact mp3 represents a leap forward for people in many parts of the globe.

Where I DO have a problem with it is when it is confused with professional production tools. That is a non-starter in every way. It is tough soetimes to distinguish between a professional tool and a hobbyist toy when they both reside on the same platform; laptop, desktop or tablet. Indeed there is a world of difference however!

But really what IS loud

2011-11-25T18:01:00.000-08:00

For years now my brethren in the mastering profession have been jumping up and down in defense of music and in self-defense, trying to raise flags about what is happening to music during the so-called Loudness War.

Indeed, the way that the RMS level have been creeping higher and higher as the dsp tools we have are better and better at hiding the distortions of limiting and compression, has caused immeasurable harm to the presentation of recorded music. It permeates all genres and affects pretty much ALL artists. It's frightening to think that we adapt to it, assimilate the new sound and begin to become numb to the effects.

There are developments on the horizon for creating a level playing field in the presentation and playback of music to the consumer that hold some hope that we might return to what Mastering folks might call 'sanity'....

but....and....however...

I think that the story that has been told thus far about the loudness war, how it is motivated by the fear of A&R , PD's in radio and other decision makers might reject an artist, only tells one part of the story. I think there is something significant that is escaping everyone's attention. Perhaps it is being 'masked' the the gross issues of RMS volume, but beneath the surface I think part of what is happening is that the craft of producing recorded sound is suffering. I think the art of making a good, well balanced recording is eroding and I think that the real ART of making a truly loud record is being lost.

A couple of years ago I gave a presentation to my fellow faculty at Berklee entitled 'What IS Loud?'. I sought to deconstruct the idea of loud. Focused on frequency distribution, the art of arrangement in music, the art of dynamic control in mixing and it really looks like making a truly loud recording involves time, skill and even, yes, nuance.

I hope to slowly unfold this topic....especially if we end up with the new BS1770 standards for playback reference, I think it will become clear what loud and GOOD mean again.

Metadata, ISRC, UP and QC

2011-08-24T23:11:00.000-07:00

What is metadata?

Any information that is included within a program, whether it is for a download or creating a disc, that is not the program itself. It is embedded within the digital file (as a download or when burned to disc). Examples are track IDs, start and stop IDs, ISRCs, UPCs, and CD Text information. One of the things that the mastering engineer is responsible for is understanding what these are and including all this information in a master.

What is an ISRC?

It stands for International Standard Recording Code. It is a number that is allocated to any publisher (record label, artist, or anybody that is owns a catalogue of music). It is registered in the USA with the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and in Europe with GEMA (a performance rights organisation) . The code is a unique identifier that gets attached to every single piece of music (each song within a record would have its own ISRC code). Any time that the music is played over the air, downloaded or streamed, the identifier is logged. This is vital in the payment process .

http://www.usisrc.org/

What is a UPC?

It stands for Universal Product Code. Is a number assigned to a product. Traditionally it has been a physical item, such as a cereal box in a grocery store, which has a bar code (and correlating number) to scan at the checkout to identify what that product is. The same is true of CDs or DVDs. But they are also used to track downloads in some cases, so you should register and include it in your product.

What is QC?

This is what is known as Quality Check. Mastering is the final process before distribution. As a result, it is the mastering engineer’s job to make sure that there are absolutely no flaws in the program (a dropout or a click for example). The mastering engineer should give the client assurance that there is no problem with the audio.

On Stereo-Imaging

2011-08-22T07:31:00.000-07:00

Stereo-imaging tools are often included in DIY mastering packages or equalisers with stereo spreading facilities (most commonly offering some kind of mid-side processing options), so it is important to acknowledge their purpose and their limits.

As with many of the specialist tools we have for processing audio, they are great at solving specific problems. If you have something mono or largely in mono, for example, and you need to try and widen it, you can add reverb or perhaps exaggerate the little stereo information that already exists in the track.

But what exactly is the ‘stereo information’?

Well, it has to do with the relationship between the ‘out-of-phase’ information, and the ‘in-phase’ information. Anything that is in-phase happens at exactly the same time in both channels, and that information will appear to be centered. If anything is slightly delayed off to one side or the other, compared to the center of the image, it is ‘out-of-phase’ and is one of the things that creates a stereo sense of spread.

So when you are mixing, you are using pan pots, delays and reverbs (etc) to create a stereo image of individual elements within an overall stereo mix. However, when you go in during mastering and increase the out-of-phase component, you are changing the relationship between the out-of-phase and in-phase parts of the signal of the entire mix. You therefore are able to radically change the sense of the stereo image and the placement of each individual instrument in a song, which can be very dangerous if not treated with care. And although you may increase the perceived wideness, this is at the expense of the in-phase components in the song. That is to say, the elements that are dead-center, which also tend to be the most important elements of most productions – vocals, snare, kick, bass – are weakened.

So sometimes – in its various forms – stereo-imaging can be used to good effect. However, one should err on the side of caution.

Analog Versus Digital Signal Processing (dynamics)

2011-08-15T09:08:00.000-07:00

Limiters (peak limiters, protection circuits)

Most common is a digital plugin. Plugins tend to be much faster, cleaner, and have less overshoot than what you get in the analog-domain.

Compressors

When you look at an equipment roster of a high-end mastering studio, a compressor will more likely than not be seen in any of the studio’s analog gear. It seems that DSP (digital signal processing) plugins do an excellent job of recreating the dynamic-range control that happens in an analog compressor, yet they don’t quite seem to sound just as good.

What could be the reasons for this? Let’s speculate a little.

When audio comes out into the analog-domain, you get added distortion and noise. These are not necessarily characteristics that will be programmed into the digital circuits (or, algorithms). As a result, you get a subtly different overall presentation of the sound.

The detection circuit (the device used to tell the compressor when to compress the audio passing through it) is what really drives the action of a compressor. Another possibility, which was proposed to me by George Massenberg, is that sample rate for the detector circuit in a digital compressor needs to be much higher than the typical sample rates we are using now, because of the nuances that you typically get at the output of a compression stage. 44.1kHz may be sufficient for the audio passing through the compressor, but it may not present enough detail for the audio that is feeding the detection circuit for the compressor to do as good a job as its analog counterpart. It is speculation, but it is an interesting point to consider.

A lot of the time you will find mastering engineers using an analog circuit not because they’re going to use an EQ to equalize, or a compressor to compress, but because there is something about the filtering that takes place when running audio through that analog gear that changes the sound in a desirable way. So, a great compressor may be used not to compress, but simply due to the tone-shaping sound that is imparted to the program. This seems to be a common factor missing from many current DSP equivalents.

CDR Quality - Or Lack Thereof

2011-08-08T12:34:00.000-07:00

While we're on the subject of good sound (how's THAT for a non-sequitur?!) there's something that's slowly creeping into the world of music production, namely poor quality CDR's.

While I don't want to get into a long discussion of the CRC (error correction) that's built into the playback of a CDR, you should know that the CD format was built to tolerate errors. In some cases it will fix errors on playback perfectly. In other cases, if it can't reconstruct the data, it will 'approximate' the data. The implication is, when you play a CD you don't know if you are hearing exactly what was recorded to it. The difference is usually very subtle, and arguably fine for most consumers, but not so fine for those of us that work hard to craft recordings.

This problem is not so prevalent with replicated (pressed) CD's, but moreso with duplicated (burned) CD-R's....and it's getting worse. At my studio we routinely check every disc that's intended as a master, and in the last 6 months we have noticed a significant decline in the quality of the burns to disc. We can still get a workable master, but sometimes we run into a batch of discs that are unusable. We wouldn't know it if we didn't test, and that makes me wonder how many discs people make that are malfunctioning in ways they might find unacceptable....if they knew.

THe answer is probably a move away from redbook audio to full resolution data transfer from local servers for consumers and studios alike....but for now we check our discs carefully, and make ddpi masters when we can.

The hype in Hypebot.com? "Compression Rules! Rick Rubin Masters Red Hot Chili Peppers Just For iTunes"

2011-08-04T08:26:00.000-07:00

www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/08/compression-rules-rick-rubin-masters-red-hot-chili-peppers-just-for-itunes.html

If you take the announcement about a track being mastered specifically for itunes at face value the idea is intriguing. So we know fidelity and itunes are somewhat at odds with each other. mp3/aac just don't sound great....so how could they make it sound better? Has Rick Rubin got some secret sauce?

So let's take a look at what might make an aac/mp3 sound 'better'. FIrst ff lossy encoders generate distortion, so to have a better sounding mp3, turn it down...what's the likelihood that that happened in this case? Also consider that RIck Rubin and his team are renowned for creating very very compressed masters. The comment from the audiophile website "...but considering this production Trio's history of sonic destruction it did not shock me." goes to the point. So do we think they would compress less, and turn the level down to make it sound better on itunes? What are the chances? It remains to be heard I suppose but really I wonder, Is this mostly an attention grab aka hype?

Should I (the Artist) Attend The Mastering Session

2011-07-29T04:08:00.000-07:00

Should I Attend The Mastering Session

Having the artist attend the session can often be useful for both parties, and make for effective and fast communication. However, it is not absolutely essential that the artist attends the session and it is commonplace that mastering sessions and communications are dealt with via FTP (file transfer protocol) and email/telephone respectively.

What If I Can’t Attend?

As mentioned, it is not essential that artist attends the mastering session. There are certain things that should be provided to the mastering engineer, however:

· The sequence – This is the song order of your album. There are many possible orders and this should be decided and given to the mastering engineer before the session.

· Notes – any questions and concerns you may have. For example, perhaps you feel one song is too quiet, or the vocal is not quite bright enough, or you want a warm and darker master. Let the mastering engineer know this, as he will otherwise take lead from what he is hearing and assume that it is the creative intention of the artist and producer.

Learning From The Artist

2011-07-28T03:10:00.000-07:00

Learning From The Artist

When working on a science experiment, conducting a poll or doing anything creative there is always a danger in beginning the process with the conclusion already decided. Not only will initial prejudice skew the results but it will often get in the way of discovering something more meaningful than you could have imagined or anticipated.

Where art is concerned, we usually look for a strong sense of identity and conviction in the creators or participants, and there lies a paradox. My clients want me to have a strong idea of how I think their recording could sound (or in some cases should sound), yet there have been instances where my clients have a strong idea and I learn from them. Just last week a client instructed me to NOT add any high frequency equalisation. He didn't want his project to be articulated, or 'opened up'. The texture he was after was murky and purposely distant. This is certainly not a choice I would have made, however the result was rather stunning. It evoked a feeling of warmth and melancholy, and allowed for a sort of intrigue that wouldn't have been achieved without his instruction.

It behooves us to always keep our ears and minds open, and to listen for those little nuggets that might indicate meaning or serve as a catalyst for new ideas. It allows the producer or engineer to do something different and out of the ordinary... and when has creating really been a place for the ordinary?

The Cost and Value of Mastering

2011-07-27T03:19:00.000-07:00

The Cost and Value of Mastering

What can one realistically expect to pay for mastering?

The range is huge and one tends to get what one pays for. Here is a good guide (for a 10-12 track record):

· $200-$300 - Cheaper options /mainly online

· $700-$2000 - An engineer with a fair amount of experience, and this usually allows for a full day in the mastering studio and a couple revisions.

· $2000 + - usually multiple days in the mastering studio, or one of the top mastering engineers around (Bob Ludwig, Doug Sax)

Fitting Mastering Into The Budget

Mastering is the final stage of the recording-making process, and it is by no means the least important. If one considers all the time that one spends making the record, the money for the recording, the mixing, hiring musicians, and the amount of CDs/downloads to be sold (etc), paying a little more for quality mastering amounts to not much extra cost per unit. One should try and budget for this at the beginning stages of the recording process, even though mastering is the final step!

Compression in Mastering (Part 3)

2011-07-11T08:30:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Part 3: 'Compression' of the new video-blog series in which Jonathan Wyner of M-WORKS Mastering will be discussing various aspects of the mastering process. Let us know your thoughts, questions and opinions! Stay tuned for a new video and post next week.

Part 3 – Compression

How much compression to use?

Mastering engineers generally don’t use a lot of compression. If any compression is applied during the mastering process, it is usually very subtle. Low ratios (1.2:1 to 2:1) with high thresholds that yield around 2-3 dBs of gain reduction – at most – is common.

Compression and audio fidelity.

In an absolute audiophile sense: compression never sounds good! When compressing one loses depth, gains noise and loses dynamic range, all of which make a recording sound worse. To learn to use compression effectively, one should focus on whether it makes the music sound better. One needs to be able to differentiate between the music and the recording.

The idea of using compression – usually – is to reduce the dynamic range so as to make the different elements in an arrangement sound more clearly to the listener.

Should the mix engineer send a compressed or uncompressed 2-Mix?

If you are a more experienced mix engineer and/or you feel like you’ve got the compression sounding just how you want it, then print the mix with the compression and send it to the mastering engineer (M.E). Every compressor behaves and reacts differently, and those characteristic nuances that you (the artist and/or mixing engineer) have learned to love in the mix may not be so easily replicated by the M.E.

However, if you’re nervous that your compressor is ‘misbehaving’ or you are unsure whether you are using too much compression, it is a good idea to send two versions of the mix. Send the M.E the uncompressed mix and the compressed mix so that the he has it for reference. This way, the M.E will be able to decide if he can improve the uncompressed mix or work with your compressed mix and take it a step further!

Hope you enjoyed this. Please let me know your thoughts, and what you may like to see in future here on the blog.

Equalisation in Mastering (Part 2)

2011-07-05T03:24:00.000-07:00

This is Part 2: 'Equalization' of the new video-blog series in which Jonathan Wyner of M-WORKS Mastering will be discussing various aspects of the mastering process. Let us know your thoughts, questions and opinions! Next week, compression.

Part 2: Equalization

Why were equalizers created?

Equalizers were invented to compensate for deficiencies in recording mediums (for example, to increase intelligibility over phone-lines). This idea of a corrective equalizer is very much at play in mastering.

An example is if a mixing engineer is perhaps mixing in an overly dull environment. In this case, he will produce overly bright mixes (to compensate). It is then the mastering engineer’s job to try and figure out the inverse EQ to get the mixes sounding more like the mix engineer thought they sounded.

To Cut? Or to Boost?

I think mastering engineers in general find themselves cutting more than boosting.

Listen for areas that sound cloudy, or that contain unpleasant harmonic content and don’t contain much of the fundamental frequency of the instrument. These areas can be gently and carefully carved out.

Older-style equalizers tend to have narrow-bandwidth cuts and broader-bandwidth boosts. This tends to sound better and is a safe, general rule to follow when EQ’ing.

Are there common areas you (the Mastering Engineer) find yourself working on?

There are no set-rules. However, if you find yourself doing the same thing for each master you work on – you may be compensating for a deficiency in your room/listening environment. So try be aware of this.

There are a few common areas that one can focus on, though:

· Usually some clearing out (cutting) can be done in the low-midrange (focus on the relationship with the bass and the vocal, or try to reveal the bass more clearly for example).

· Low-frequency information also tends to be a common area that requires attention at mastering (focus on the relationship between the kick drum and the bass, for example).

· Use small adjustments, and constantly check back with the original. The goal is simply to make the recording sound better! If you improve it, even slightly, then you are doing well!

Small EQ moves to make Big changes.

Most of the boosts and cuts that I am doing are no more than 0.5-1dB. The reasons for that are:

· You are working with a complex waveform that is a balanced recording. Thus, big changes are likely to alter the balance in a way that may not reflect the artist’s intention.

· An EQ filter sounds better – that is, it has less distortion and less ringing – if you use broad bandwidths (‘Q’s) and are making small moves (in dBs) with it.

So sometimes in mastering you will use up to 12 different EQ filters, but each one will be doing just a little bit. That is pretty typical of a mastering engineer’s use of an equalizer.

Join us next week for Compression!

Common Mistakes Mixing Engineers Make - From The Mastering Engineer's Perspective

2011-06-30T12:13:00.001-07:00

Starting out it's worth making a general comment: I've often heard discussions where someone suggests that they have 'psyched out' a way to be sure that their mixes come back right after going through mastering, whether for vinyl, cassette or digital.

"Add more reverb, it'll come back drier"
"Keep it dark, it'll come back warmer"
"Don't compress at all, leave all compression to mastering"

Now in reality that sort of thing almost never gets you what you want. You can't possibly anticipate exactly what will happen downstream....in fact if you supply a 'dark' mix the mastering engineer might assume you actually WANT it dark. And that's exactly the point. Get your mixes sounding as close as you can to perfect to the best of your ability. Then the mastering engineer has something to work with!

That doesn't mean make it loud, or to over compress or under compress or do anything that might be construed as mastering. Leave mastering to the M.E.....but do a good job mixing.

If you want the mastering engineers perspective beforehand, hire her or him for an hour to listen and give you feedback. If you make a good mix it makes for a better end result. If you can build into your mindset that you MIGHT need to adjust your mixes slightly, you should. Sometimes time, money, patience or skill argue against, but if you can do it....

Here, then, is a list of some typical foibles:

Mixes too loud: in case you didn’t know, leave 2-6 dB of headroom in your mixes. If you have been listening with a limiter on, turn it off and send the unlimited versions to the M.E..
Send the limited versions for reference so the ME knows what you have been listening to
Kick and bass out of proportion: The most common problem encountered in mixing rooms is inaccurate low end. Where music includes drums this often means the kick is too loud or quiet with respect to the bass (or vice versa). A room mode (that basically means the room exaggerates a narrow band of frequencies) can easily make a kick drumsound like it’s fundamental is loud causing the mix engineer to turn it down. A null ( a dip in frequency) can you might crank it up. Slight imbalances can be fixed in mastering, gross one’s need a remix. Cheapest cure....get a GOOD pair of headphones and learn what the bass sounds like. Don’t rely on headphones for your mix, but use them for a reality check
One thing dark and another thing bright: This is a really tough one. Let’s say the drums are bright and the vocal dull. Using m/s techniques and others the ME can fix small imbalances, but usually you have to prioritize one instrument over another and go for ‘fixing’ that one in mastering. Time for a remix!
Too much reverb....easier to add a little than take it away. No one has invented the de-verb!
Cutting beginnings and ending too closely: So often the first note or the reverb tail gets cut off. Leave them alone. The mastering engineer can often get rid of undesirable noise and edit the begin and end lickety split!
Phasing problems: It used to be you HAD to check mixes in mono to be sure they would pass muster for vinyl. Digital audio doesn’t care about phase, but you SHOULD. Too much out of phase information (experience helps you learn how much is too much) creates problems if you want a loud record, if you play music on the radio, and it will cause your mp3’s to sound pretty bad (quite important considering today's listening norms)! Always check your mixes in mono and make sure no important instruments disappear.
Not providing the album sequence: Assuming there are more than 3 or 4 tracks on your album, you should always provide a running order to the ME. You can always change it later, but an ME will pay attention to the relationship between the end of one song running into another in case someone listens through your whole record in sequence.

Well that’s a short list for now....happy mixing!

The Mastering Mindset (Part 1)

2011-06-27T06:55:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the first in a new video-blog series where Jonathan Wyner of M-WORKS Mastering will be discussing various aspects of the mastering process. In this first introductory video, Jonathan discusses the overall thought-process involved, the goals, the mastering engineer's responsibilities, different music styles, and more. Next week, equalization (EQ).

Part 1: The Mastering Mindset

What is mastering?

· It is the last creative step, and the first step in distribution.

· It’s the last chance to catch any mistakes. When it leaves mastering, there cannot be any flaws in the master.

· It needs to function well in all common formats: mp3s, CDs etc.

· Getting it ready for distribution in these formats is key.

What are the responsibilities of the mastering engineer?

· In the case of a whole album, to take all the disparate pieces and unify them sonically (level and tone-wise).

· Pacing between the tracks should reflect the mood of the songs and allow each one to breathe or run-on to each other, depending on the desired effect.

· Enhance the sound – create a more open sound, a deeper sound, a fuller sound or a warmer sound etc – in a way that benefits the sound of the record.

· Sometimes you can enhance the dynamic range by turning up some sections and turning down other sections, reduce the dynamic range to create a louder master.

· Thus, the mastering engineer has some creative input. However, there is only so much that he can do in mastering, so that the mastering engineer relies on the mixing engineer to do a good job and to get the mix as close as possible to the desired sound.

What mastering isn’t...

· Mastering is not about making everything bright and loud!

· In this overcrowded and noisy world, the temptation to create a louder and brighter mix in hope of drawing attention is strong. However, such recordings tend to be hard to listen to for a sustained period of time, so that people may be reluctant (consciously or subconsciously) to come back and listen to them again and again.

Knowing what the artist wants…

· It’s important to know what the artist wants, so that you don’t land up going in a different direction.

· Have a discussion with the artist. You are more likely to keep him happy and achieve his vision. Sometimes, indeed, you learn from doing something you may not have considered before.

· At the end of the day, it’s art. And there are no recipes for what it ‘has’ to sound like. Always try to support the song’s meaning and artist’s vision.

Different styles of music...

· There will always be similarities – there is such a thing as ‘too much bass’ or ‘too much treble’ regardless of the style.

· However, different styles of music will require a different approach. For example, you want the low-end to lead in reggae, you want a wide stereo-image with depth (hearing into the reverb tails) and aggression through guitars with metal, a wide and true dynamic range with a classical recording...

· So, it is important to be informed about different styles of music and what each style wants.

What are the prerequisites for mastering at a high level?

A great monitoring system.

· Relatively neutral – no part of the spectrum is exaggerated)

· It’s phase accurate – the sound arriving from each speaker is arriving at the listener at the same time)

· Low distortion – so that nothing is being introduced by the monitoring system that is not in the recording. It also allows for longer listening periods without much fatigue.

A room that can support the monitoring system

· A quiet environment – so that you can ensure what you are hearing is directly from the speakers, and not ambient sound pollution.

· Size – the room needs to be large enough to allow the low-frequency information to be heard properly, for the waves to propagate.

What if I’m mastering at home?

· Get a good pair of headphones, with good low-frequency response.

· Listen to a lot of recordings you know and like, and become accustomed to the way that those sound in your listening environment(s).

· Have multiple monitoring environments so that you can get different points of reference (computer speakers, headphones, studio monitors, car speakers etc).

· Different speaker-systems will exaggerate different parts of the sound differently – so at least you’re not hearing a single distorting of the sound.

Hope you enjoyed. See you next week, we'll be covering equalization (EQ)!

What's happening to music?

2011-05-27T17:19:00.000-07:00

Clearly we are at a crossroads. This is not meant to be a diatribe, but rather a description of what I've noticed. I look forward to your comments, observations and contrasting points of view!

Looking back on this last 7 year period in 20-30 years I think we'll call this a time of GREAT CHANGE in music.

- technology is changing in remarkable ways. Live performances and recordings can be transmitted by anyone to millions (of they're interested) simultaneously in real time or FASTER! Now your music doesn't break. Cassettes died hideous deaths on auto dashboards. Records destroyed in basement floods, or simply wore out. Now, put your mp3 in the cloud and there it be. The fidelity of our modern recording systems is just staggering. I know some yearn for vinyl and tape, but in terms of capturing and reproducing information faithfully in many channels, with no loss in copying, etc....and then there's mp3. I'll write (again) more about the highs and lows it brings us, but it has been an enabler of some of the explosive changes we are seeing.

- performance practice is changing in that more an more electronics and 'hybrid' instruments are coming into view. The 'Masters', whether classical, jazz, and even pop, are becoming less iconic in our culture and our new icons spin through our attention span with remarkable speed. The number of people studying the old performances (save some who are copying).

- listening habits are changing. Just as in the 1950's, the single is becoming king and queen. The long form is less attractive is so many different media. I hear so many people complaining about having to buy a WHOLE record from an artist. All they want is the 'hit'. This means they won't have the experience of growing to love the rest of the record....the 'other' tunes that grow on you. Imagine if you had listened to Bobby McFerrin and all your heard was 'Don't Worry, Be Happy'. That might present a skewed idea of who he is and what he does. Case in point, I went to a Ladyd Gaga concert a couple years back and was astonished when she sat down at the piano, solo, and dove into some rollicking cabaret tunes. I had not idea. It caused me to think differently about her.

- buying habits are changing. Music has always been treated a bit like jewelry for some. Listening in the car, at the beach, for some it is an assertion of lifestyle and style....and it's there for the taking. The new ideas that folks are trying on - You make more money giving stuff away (Trent Reznor http://www.nin.com/)
- Make your fans patrons (Kickstarter, etc http://www.kickstarter.com/)
- We have the power so if you can't beat them, join them (just TRY and fight they say), (www.Last.fm)
- The only way to make money with music is to license it. Not a new idea but it has become something of a holy grail for many.

While I see a lot of creativity in the ideas, and some successes dotting the countryside, I am convinced we really have no idea what will emerge from this time.

The Grammy's and Mr. Stoute

2011-02-20T14:48:00.000-08:00

In the NYTimes, long time music entrepreneur, Steve Stoute, slung some hash the way of the Grammy's and NARAS in a paid ad/letter he took out in the magazine. As I read his rant I became increasingly uncomfortable with much of what he was saying. Not because I think it was entirely without merit in some of the arguments and, yes I believe things could be made much better, BUT, in the end, it seemed he was complaining that his horse didn't win. You can read the post yourself here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-stoute/steve-stoute-grammys_b_825377.html#postComment

Our Dear Mr. Stoute is ignoring some essential facts:

- The awards are voted on by NARAS members, not decided in a back room with the exception of lifetime achievement awards and such. There is no conspiracy. Otherwise ow to explain Esperaza Spalding, Arcade Fire and Alison Krause/Robert Plant a few years ago?

- Secondly, the categories in the Grammy's and the Latin Grammy's have changed to reflect the changing culture. It ain't perfect but it's not so broken as he suggests.

No I don't agree with the final tally, ad if left up to me, the nominations round would come out different in many cases. But I am not a committee of one.

I would respectfully suggest that Mr Stoute wouldn't turn down an award if it were offered to someone he deemed worthy.....but he's no committee of one either.

The promise of a 'better' mp3

2011-02-15T17:38:00.000-08:00

Whilst consumers revel in the freedom of consuming music in the mp3 form, the format is considered something of a blight when it crosses into the world of professional audio production. This is due in part to the phenomenon that some DIY home producers think it a good idea to actually produce mp3 as the final 'master' rather than using a full resolution format and then deriving the lossy version....and it's also due to the fact that making mp3's is something of a 'dumb' process.

Well Sonnox has announced a tool to make it easier to inspect and adjust the encoding process so that it can be optimized (read made less bad). Read more about it here:

http://blog.mixonline.com/mixblog/2011/02/10/meet-the-sonnox-game-changer/

Performance Mixing (?) vs Arranging

2011-02-10T05:41:00.000-08:00

A friend posted a video on his FB profile today of Daniel Lanois talking about the recording of a song called Bladesteel. One of the subjects that arose what how Lanois thought of the console as something of an instrument to be 'played'.

Back in the day when the analog-console-dinosaurs roamed the earth, automation of levels in a mix was not something easily accomplished, and certainly not without a cost associated with the facility. Even when you COULD automate, the reliability of some of the automation systems was questionable. Further, while we might automate levels, but not eq parameters or compression ratios.....so each mix involved a certain 'performance' aspect, and each mix might be a little different from the previous.

Performing a mix could be an adrenaline filled event, both exhilarating, and sometimes frustrating....but in any case, the results varied from one pass to the next. (this is most certainly true when mixing live shows, but that's another story)

So what does it mean to perform a mix? The mix engineer's job is to realize the vision of the composer/arranger. Is there a 'right answer' to the way a piece of music is balanced? Assuredly not. Are there wrong answers, in other words, is it possible to create an imbalance that would argue against the musical vision intrinsic to a composition? In most cases, yes.

The question then becomes, does the variation in the balance from one mix pass to the next potentially add anything to the listeners experience of the mix?

IT seems it certainly would if the listener had the chance to hear many different version of a mix. That would stimulate different feelings and impression of the music. It certainly changes the mix engineers experience of making the mix.

What do you think? Is the priority given to trying to get as close as possible to the arranger's vision in which case the ability to repeat the same result over and over takes precedence, or is there something to be gained by have at least SOME unpredictability in the result?

Musicians helping musicians: benefit this Friday!!!!!

2011-01-20T13:29:00.000-08:00

One thing that holds true in our system of capitalism in the US is that musicians are something of an underclass. In fact, all artists are. We are viewed as 'self employed' largely, and often as dispensible and a luxury afforded to an affluent society only when the budget allows. In other countries the artist has a much more elevated status in standing and in terms of income and benefits. There is not commonly such a thing as unemployment insurance for artists, nor salaried positions except in rare instances. So when musicians are in need it is often other musicians that see the plight and step up to do something about it.

Witness Hurricane Katrina. There are many musicians who live on the edge in the Gulf Coast region and many of them would have been swallowed up without Musicares (part of NARAS, the Grammy people)....a music industry funded relief fund for musicians that distributed MILLIONS of dollars to musicians in need.

With that as the backdrop an event arises an event Friday to assist one of our finest and very own Boston area musicians. Drummer John Sands (for some strange (or obvious) reason given the nickname Huggy Bear) suffered a massive heart attack last fall. It is a miracle he is with us at all, but he managed to pull through. His recovery has been slow slow slow and he was in the ICU in critical condition for weeks. Needless to say the bills have mounted. Cue the musicians....

John is someone who possesses what could be called a HUGE groove....a deep pocket...a....oh well, you get the idea. This Friday at the Paradise in Boston, a benefit concert given by some of those who have benefited from the association with MR Sands Pocket (and his hugs) including Aimee Mann, Lori McKenna, Ron Sexsmith and the Jess Tardy Band will help send love to John, and in doing so we'll help out a musician friend in need. More info at www.teamhuggy.com

Support your local musician. If you don't who will?

Post NAMM

2011-01-17T10:38:00.000-08:00

I feel as if I should be coming away from the NAMM convention with some sort of ground breaking news, or fresh insights, but while I did have a sense of an invigorated and optimistic music making community, nothing seemed like it was a sign of a coming revolution.

The demos I did together with iZotope were great fun and I really enjoy partnering with them, They are innovative, forward thinking and committed to building quality tools for the modern music makers...

In my last post I mentioned the Roland chip, and I certainly see steps in the direction of real-time interactivity in the new music making tools being developed. It's appearing via physical interfaces and i the software and firmware embedded in the devices. There were no new 'mix-engineer-body-suits-and 3D-surround-glasses' however. Maybe next year.

I feel compelled to buy the new Dangerous 'Liaison' when it arrives. I feel compelled to since it incorporates features that I have been wanting for some time. How can you say no when someone gives you something you asked for?

I will also buy the itrumpet app for apple mobile products when it arrives in a couple of days. I really enjoyed the developer and his work.

OTherwise I bring back a renewed sense of optimism, a slight hint of a tan, and connections, some renewed, some new.....

Report from NAMM

2011-01-14T23:31:00.000-08:00

Survived day 1....well, really better than survived. The show is busy busy busy and there is a general sense of busy-ness and business taking place.

There is a LOT of innovation put on display here. Some of it leveraging existing technologies including software emulations of chaotic (read analog) signal processing, some of it new. Witness the continued evolution of instrument controllers, for instance ROland has a new VLSI chip that puts a layer of software in between a hardware controller and a virtual instrument that creates more 'authentic' performance by taking the input from a controller and adding instructions that are characteristic of the (virtual) instrument being played.

THere are guitars with sound holes at the top of the resonating chamber rather than the center, mini church organs, a 'black box' single rack space 24 channel recorder daisy chainable for up to 96 channels and much more.

The DAW continues to proliferate AND mature. Peak showed a prototype multichannel version designed with stem mixing and surround in mind. iZotope unveiled a new product developed with artist BT that makes the creation of the 'stutter' edit, characteristic of BT's work, easy for users to implement in their own work.....

While there was a lot of 'stuff' all round, I think the pervasive idea I notice on the floor in conversation and in products is collaboration. Using ProTools 9 as a prime example where users of the mainstay of audio production can now choose their hardware interface freely....so inevitably, MANY more companies are using ProTools compatibility in the messaging, front and center....and there is a lot of collaboration being discussed around business development, artistic projects and generally people coming together under the banner of music making that in other times might have chosen to work in isolation.

There were several Asian companies offering a HUGE variety of recording gear branded with names such as 'Just Right Sound' whose booths were empty. In one case there was a sign that read 'US distribution sought'. It's hard to know if these companies are selling high quality gear or not, but I suspect we'll see a greater influx of such products in the near future. It's very much in keeping with what I witness when I go to the music market in Seoul.

The Audio Mastering talk I gave in the 'H.O.T. Zone' was a blast. I had about 150 people in the room and for an hour we managed to overcome the horrible convention acoustics and had an interesting and dare I say meaningful conversation all about audio mastering. It was more fun that I dared imagine it would be.

On to the iZotope booth tomorrow to see if I can make anything out of a talk in the middle of the convention floor....

Next stop is NAMM!

2011-01-10T17:50:00.000-08:00

As I write I am preparing to go to the NAMM convention in Anaheim, CA. My main activity while there will be to deliver a talk about 'audio mastering'. It's funny to say but even though it's a fairly small sub-specialty in audio production, the topic seems overly broad to me and so I will seek to put the talk into the context of what's happening now with regard to production styles, formats, distribution and other current topics. At the same time there seem to be 'truths' that never really change, they just migrate and so I'll talk about them too.

As much as anything I look forward to taking the temperature of the music making community. It seems the professional audio community, semi-pros, and the amateurs/consumers all converge on NAMM. The AES (Audio Engineering Society) convention has consolidated as the truly 'pro' studios have diminished in #, but music creation and consumption continues to grow as music production tools make there way into the hands of many in the form of laptops, small solid state memory recorders, etc.

I look forward to what I'll see, and what I'll learn. I'll keep you posted.

Tape to the rescue?

2011-01-06T05:21:00.000-08:00

In the course of mastering a record, the obvious first step is to listen to the record, and listen to the client talk about the record in order to decide what, if anything, needs to be done to change it.

The 'what' in that sentence can include many things:

- adjusting relative volume
- adjusting absolute volume overall
- deploying dsp based processing (eq, compression, reverb, etc)
- deploying analog processing including solid state and tube based amplifiers

and then there's the more obscure tool such as running the audio through an analog tape record/play pass. This particular technique is something that has a reputation for being something like the 'Holy Grail' of audio in some circles. You'll see it played out in the marketing literature of modern audio systems that include tape simulations. Something like "that vintage tape sound" or "that professional sound you get from tape" will appear that seeks to glorify the process and imbue it with a sense of desirability such that 'if you do this you will undoubtedly elevate and improve your recording'.

It's hard to imagine resisting such a tool. Just turn it on and something good happens? Bartender make mine a double!

OK, ok, so once we come to our senses it's worth thinking about what tape does to audio. The short of it, in a word, is it creates non-linearity. It changes things. OBviously it adds noise (hiss) that is generated at the record 'head'. A small bit of distortion is added as a result of the process. It also changes the dynamic range, especially in the peaks as the signal applied to tape increases in level. The peaks are restricted, 'rolled off' if you will, as the level gets hotter and hotter. The frequency response changes. Tape machines do not record perfectly 'flat' from 20 Hz to 20kHz. If you chart the frequency response of a tape machine you will notice slight deviations from 'flat' of about 1/2 dB in a great machine and more in a good machine. A particularly noteworthy area where non-linearity occurs is in the bass.

There's a phenomenon called the 'head-bump' which refers to a resonant frequency of the record head itself. It will add emphasis in the bass and interestingly, the emphasis will change with tape speed. At 30 inches per second, usually this head bump is around 50 HZ. At 15 ips it is around 25 (1/2. Below this resonant peak the tape machine will roll off bass very steeply, almost like a high pass filter.

So enough tech talk. Suffice it to say that the process changes the sound substantially. So, let's say you have a mix you are REALLY happy with. Do the changes I mentioned above sound appealing? I hardly think so. Creating a bump in the bass, adding noise (and thereby losing reverb and imaging) and losing transients are going to change your mix in a way that is hard to control. These changes are not a panacea.

However....if your mix is too bright and spiky, lacking in bass 'punch' and definition, already 'noisy' in a way that a little noise added won't be a problem....then maybe tape is the way to go.

That's what happened last week when I mastered a project. Tape saved the day, adding desirable tonal color and compression in one fell swoop in a way that I couldn't have achieved any other way....maybe the ads should read -

"Tape might be the perfect mastering solution when your mixes are not"......

PS - in case it's not obvious, the piece above is written in the context of mastering. When considering recording or mixing where you can adjust, react to and minimize the sonic impact of tape, the choices and decisions might be different.

The lines blur a little bit more

2010-12-27T17:28:00.000-08:00

The last 36 hours have been heavily influenced by the latest weather event in New England - a snowstorm. 18" of snow and 50 mile an hour winds don't represent anything close to a record in this part of the world, but it is enough to get most of us to stay in one place for 30 hours or so. The conditions seem to conspire against my strong predilection to procrastinate and while I did manage to play a few extra rounds of Angry Birds I found myself unusually productive and mixed a classical record I wasn't 'supposed' to have done until Thursday. Ah well, some things can't be helped.

However, I did manage to get some quality web-surfing in, and during that particularly vacuous period I stumbled onto another mind-bending audio application: The ddp checker for....the iphone!!!!!

For those that don't know, ddp filesets are the darling of the mastering community. They are easy to make, easy to verify, immune from the errors that can creep into CD audio, contain all the necessary metadata (if included by the user) for making a CD. They are a data representation of a CD audio project in computer data form. The problem has been that end users can't listen to them easily. until now....behold:

http://www.audiofile-engineering.com/backlinemobile/

This company sells a low cost disc authoring tool called Waveeditor and now they have released a ddp checker for the iphone and ipod touch.

Mind bending in that it is another intersection between the toolset of the true professionals and a platform designed for the rank consumer.

I might just have to try and send my next client their master via Verizon!@)(&^#$*^

The award time of year - Congratulations!

2010-12-23T05:55:00.000-08:00

I have been mulling over my Grammy ballot the last couple days thinking about where I might weigh in. The various awards competitions, from large to small, are opportunities for excitement and cynicism depending on your perspective. Needless to say, winning an award is all good, even if it only serves to encourage the artist-recipient.

In this vein I was pleased to receive news yesterday that one of our projects from 2010, "Silver Screen" by Hayley Griffiths, received the 'Album of The YEar' award from a UK organization that is heavily invested in the Classical Crossover idea. Hayley is a talented writer and soprano, an accomplished dancer-soloist from the "Lord of the Dance" touring company, who teamed up with Jared Hancock of Surefire Production to create an engaging, approachable mix of pop, celtic, and classical elements. Here's to their success thus far....and congratulations with affection and encouragement:

http://www.classcross.com/2010-awards/album-of-year.html

Remotely VIntage

2010-12-17T18:07:00.000-08:00

Well, here's one I didn't see coming. A service that offers to take your uploaded (mono) wav file and run it through any one of a number of vintage (and expensive) analog audio processors and then they sent it back to you! Each pass costs one euro, and you have to specify the setting you are after....a bit tricky when dealing with compressors, but this is such an interesting idea I am willing to suspend my disbelief until I see and hear it in action. I assume there's a length/size limit to the file, and if the service becomes popular enough I could only image in the queue waiting for the file to come back, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and see what unfolds. Let me know your impressions if you give it a whirl.

http://www.outboardanywhere.com/

40 years of music

2010-12-15T19:13:00.000-08:00

Not so very long ago I had the pleasure/honor/responsibility of mastering a compilation representing SOME of the best music released on the Rounder Records (www.Rounder.com) label. For those that don't know Rounder, the label has a VERY diverse catalogue including releases on various sub-labels (Philo/BullsEye/etc and many more). The original focus of the label and I dare say the legacy is one of finding and releasing some of the finest 'Americana', folk music and other 'native' American musics.

The boxed set is divided into 4 decades of music, 1970's, 80's, 90's, 00's with each disc containing about 15 songs from each decade. That's a relatively small sampling of all the music that Rounder released, much less the music released by all labels in the aggregate. Even so, it is absolutely remarkable in the way that each decade seems to have a noticeable difference in production style. The decade of the 70's has the widest variety, from the standpoint of style, tone, dynamic range. The 80's decade has some of the strangest sounding tracks. It seems that decade was one where sonic exploration was rampant while we were beginning to figure out how to work within the new digital container, THe 90's began to show signs of what we think of as current modern audio practice. Still quite dynamic, but gradually the transient detail is compromised in favor of low frequency 'warmth'. Lastly, in the ought's we see the rush to modern presentation, with a lot of limiting, slightly exaggerated bass and treble boost and less ambient information and depth. In other words, the last decades records are really loud!

It was an interesting chalenge to make these all live together, my focus being primarily to let each disc stand on it's own and not worry about level matching the 70's to the 00's, though I gave some consideration to the above.

It was a fascinating exercise and even more, a very interesting listening experience. One that keeps showing me new things each time I hear it.....

Thanks Yehudi: Role Models and Standards

2010-12-13T12:22:00.000-08:00

Some weeks ago I had occasion to hear a premiere of a piece composed by Yehudi Wyner. I was completely floored by the piece. The form, harmonic vocabulary, humor....there were moments that dazzled, evoked giggles, and brought tears, all while engaging my mind. He is a masterful composer, a man of letters, Pulitzer Prize winner and he possesses a devilish sense of humor. He also happens to be my uncle. I blush slightly when I write this. It is humbling to be able to see such artistic richness from up close, and makes me feel somehow unworthy....and yet.

I think it is because of my close encounters that I can begin to imagine and understand what is possible, and it gives me an idea of what beautiful and rich can mean. I am not sure I can imagine these heights in the vacuum of my own mind....and for that I am grateful. Grateful to Yehudi, and to all the artists, thinkers and practitioners who have shown me what's possible.

I think it's essential we look for those role models and pay attention when we find them. These are the people who can help us find our own high standards, our own true north if you will. Without them we might not shoot so high. We need not imitate them, but rather follow the example of their obvious pursuit of some ideal.

Thank you Yehudi!

Plug ins - in search of the usable compressor

2010-12-04T10:07:00.000-08:00

Many many plug ins in the sea, and many of them are useful. We have good plugin equalizers, limiters, dither engines.....but really good compressor plugin that will compete with hardware is an ongoing challenge. To date the Algorithmix Splitcom seems the best of the two channel linkable sort, and the Massenburg MDW is an excellent mono compressor.

The latest entry is a plugin compressor by Elysia (the Alpha)....can a $200 plugin hold it's own.? The hardware version is $10k! http://bit.ly/dpJ44Q

It certainly has all the flexibility you would ever desire including side chain filtering, linking/unlinking, wet/dry mix (read parallel compression) and more.

In my tests thus far I am fairly impressed. It seems to lack some of the edginess that comes with less than ideal detector design. I'll have a better idea after another week of use and abuse.

OK here we go, Moore's law in action again?

2010-11-27T18:41:00.000-08:00

Moore's law states that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits would doubled every year for the foreseeable future.

In subsequent years (since 1965), the pace slowed down a bit, but data density has doubled approximately every 18 months. Most experts, including Moore expect this to hold for at least another two decades.

So we probably want to hold on to out hats if not wallets as the next speed upgrades are inevitable. Could this be the next salvo:

http://techresearch.intel.com/ProjectDetails.aspx?Id=143

Lightpeak would be a new protocol for interconnecting devices that would allow blazingly fast data transfer. What do we get from it? Higher resolution, more tracks? Probably both and with it comes larger capacity on our storage devices.

We should probably be prepared to upgrade our hardware, interfaces, cup's and storage every few years or so. Painful, but true....I hope the landfills can take it!

What mic and why?

2010-11-20T09:29:00.000-08:00

In the course of my production work one of the issues that will invariably arise is in choosing microphones for the recording. I have had an opportunity to observe choices other engineers might make and to spec mic's myself.

There is a lot of 'mythology' and legend out there when talking about certain mics, some of it much deserved, but as with many things, just because a mic is 'legendary' doesn't mean it's good for everything. Take the Neumann U87 as an example. It is a fine fine microphone, and in certain cases (voice recording, recording sax) it can excel, but the architecture of the capsule imparts a midrange resonance that can color some voices or instruments in a most unpleasant way. IF someone says they do all their vocals through a U87 it's because they are not listening to the recording, but rather reading the press about the U87....or because they always record the same voice with the same mic and that works each time.

There are a few rules of thumb for choosing mics that bear keeping in mind:

- small diaphragm mics have a better transient response
- large diaphragm mics often sound more colored and 'warmer'
- directional microphones will color off axis pickup (room sound)
- directional microphones exhibit increase bass response as you get closer to the mic
- omni (all) direction mics will sound more open
- microphones that rely on a tube amplifier will sound colored and will have a higher noise floor

Not all rules apply all the time for all mics, and of course all of this goes out the window if the tensioning of the diaphragm is not sound. Age will also play a role. There are few microphones built more than 25 years ago that would sound good without re-tensioning and replacement of some of the parts within that become brittle....an original U67 probably needs help.

If I were stuck on a desert island (with electricity!)and could only have a few mics with me they would probably be:

- Sennheiser mkh-8040 - double dual (small) diaphragm condenser with a remarkably open and relaxed sound. Can easily be deployed as a stereo pickup. (on a budget? Oktava mk12)
- Microtech Gefell U92.1 - Large diaphragm condenser with tube amplifier stage. Sounds warm and open all at once. Fantastic on bass or soprano. (on a budget? Shure KSM 44 or 32)
- Shure SM 57 - classic small diaphragm dynamic mic that can handle hi SPL.
- Shure beta 92 - cause someone will show up on the island with a kick drum at some point, I know it!
- Neumann TLM 103 - for anything the above won't suit....(budget? Oktava of Shure will cover this too.)

There are many other options of course for all the above instances. Happy recording!

Nice things again

2010-11-15T12:50:00.000-08:00

Getting nice feedback from artists lies somewhere between PR and the reason we do this work in the first place. Mostly it just feels good to know an artist feels their vision is well served. So another chapter in our nice comments book, this time the feedback comes in the context of working on Jody Blackwell's new record. It's been years and she's long overdue. The record is recorded and produced with Brian Charles over at Zippah Studios in Brookline, MA....and I quote drummer Steve Chaggaris:

"I had the pleasure of listening to your reference CD of Jody Blackwell's forthcoming album, and it sounds fabulous. Great job (once again) on this! That record was a labor of love - and while i enjoyed drumming on her wonderful songs, I couldn't imagine at that early stage of tracking how fantastic the final mixes and master would sound.
I listened 3 ways: in my car, at home through really nice Sennheiser headphones, and on my home system (older NAD amp through PSB towers). It sounded well-balanced, even, smooth... full of "bloom" on all 3 systems!
Jody & I both have nothing but great things to say about you & your work. "

The latest production: "Welcome Home" by Matt Savage

2010-11-08T19:06:00.000-08:00

The review below gives a small taste of what is inside this record. It's been thrilling to watch this young artist grow....and grow....and grow. This record is very satisfying, accessible and in some ways a throwback to the hey day of Dave Brubeck. By and large hit is 100% live music making by musicians that were a pleasure to work with in one big room, Systems Two in Brooklyn, NY. Our job....just don't mess it up!

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=37943

It's a Man's, Man's, Man's Man's World?? (with apologies)

2010-11-04T11:42:00.000-07:00

Something I have wondered about and wondered at over the years are, why is it that the field of technical music and especially recording/mixing and mastering is so dominated by men? On the surface it really makes no sense at all. Women are purported to have better hearing than men on average, and on average girls mathematical and scientific acuity is at least a match for their male counterpoints and quite possibly surpass it.

I have had the privilege to work on records by one of the foremost women rock engineers, Trina Shoemaker, and Joanna Nickrenz in NYC is at the top of our field recording classical music in NYC. Darcy Proper is a stellar mastering engineer and chief at Galaxy Studios in Belgium. Closer to home Lisa Nigris runs the audio dep't at New England Conservatory, Susan Rogers and Leanne Ungar are fantastic, accomplished engineers, and colleagues of mine at Berklee College of Music. I routinely have 3-4 female students per semester teaching at the brick and mortar college and online,
but unscientifically I would say they represent 1-2 percent of the engineers I encounter. I would be remiss if I didn't metnion RObin Coxe-Yeldham who was a fantastic engineer and my first business partner. She passed away about 15 years ago.

(maybe a companion question is how come so many engineers are bachelors....for another day)

This question was posed to me just recently by a musician and so I decided to jot down the possible explanations, not really putting a stake in any one of them.

- Women are smarter than men and wouldn't get involved in a job involving long hours and no pay!
- Society dissuades girls early in their school careers from becoming involved in technical endeavors
- Who would want to hang around with a bunch of unshaven, smelly, beer drinking guys?

What do you think?

Analog everything

2010-11-02T20:14:00.000-07:00

This week I am working to archive and renew the theme Music to the PBS Show "Frontline' composed by Mason Daring. It's a stalwart PBS newsy long form show and the theme was recorded in the early 80's. All analog. I am hearing mono and stereo versions, 15 IPS (inches per second) some encoded with Dolby A. Mostly Ampex 456...and it held up REALLY well! All analog musicians too. French Horn, Oboe, Trumpet, Strings, Timpani.

IT remarkable how well the music holds up. The performance is really quite excellent, mixed originally by Glen Berger at Blue Jay in Carlisle, MA. The sound holds up really well also.

What a blast!

Bax by Dangerous vs Clariphonic by Kush

2010-10-24T17:11:00.000-07:00

Spent the afternoon comparing the Bax Eq with the Clariphonic. Both were very interesting, the application similar, but the differences quite pronounced.

Both are program eq. Both employ very broad filters to create general, euphonic effects. The Clariphonic was more versatile in offering MANY different shapes of presence filters and HF boost and a very smooth sound. The Bax offers filters, a straightforward UI, detents, low frequency contour, seemingly better headroom and transient response possibly due to less phase shift (read not parallel eq). Neither is better.

My take is the Clariphonic is a great tool for mix buss and the Bax for the mastering studio.

http://www.dangerousmusic.com/index2a.html

http://www.kushaudio.com/kush/clariphonic/index.html

The relevance of science

2010-10-17T13:06:00.000-07:00

Teaching mastering is one of the more interesting things I have taken on in the past few years at the physical campus at Berklee and I also authored a course for the online school. There are a number of things that make this challenging, particularly since any creative endeavor usually requires years of practice to 'get good' at it. Teaching the principals involved and some of the protocols is not so difficult it turns out.

The on aspect of the subject that seems to consistently elude students is when it comes to teaching the underlying science, either as it relates to digital audio or to the equipment brought to bear in each task. Sometimes the understanding of even the most essential things like sample rate and bit depth seem so, well, dry and seemingly irrelevant. Yet in my mind that understanding that is one of the items that separates the mastering engineers from wannabees. Why? Because good audio hygiene, when practiced properly, will yield louder, clearer and arguably more compelling results, and to my mind you can't really keep your eyes on your audio hygiene without looking under the hood so you understand not only what you are doing but WHY you are doing it.

So I torture students with details about the what and the why. Sometimes I see the light bulbs go on. That's gratifying and so I persist....

Follow up: Checking a disc for 'quality' of lack thereof

2010-10-12T13:46:00.001-07:00

An obvious and good question: "How DO I check a disc?"

There are two different aspect to this, checking the audio to be sure that the data was transferred properly to the media, and that all the metadata is in place

and

checking the data retrieval from the media after writing.

The first needs to be done by listening and checking the navigation of the disc.

The latter needs to be done using a CD reader that has firmware hooks that allow software to monitor and report on the error detection and correction and the success thereof. The simplest solution is something like the Plextor suite of tools that work with some of the Plextor optical burners

There's style and then there's music and then there's what's inside

2010-10-05T00:31:00.000-07:00

This week I get to wear a hat that's a bit different from the one that I wear sitting in the mastering room. I am in Germany working to help Deborah prepare for a performance with L'Arpeggiata...a cross genre ensemble that brings together exquisite musicians from different countries, geographic and stylistic. I was sitting at breakfast talking with a Paraguayan harpist and we were talking about how musicians can become trapped in their 'genres'. It's not uncommon that when you spend alot of time practicing scales and the finer nuances of a particular style, you lose sight of the bigger picture which is really the music itself: the larger musical idea and expression however it is manifest.

DUring the conversation I was struck, once again, by how some musical concepts cut across musical styles. As a producer, recording, mixing or mastering engineer it is important to understand what is important to the style and preserve/enhance or feature those components. It's also surprising to notice that seemingly incompatible genres share attributes.
For instance, classical music relies heavily on the preservation of dynamic range. The difference between fortissimo and pianissimo, not just in the timbre but also in the sheer difference in the movement of air between the two is essential to make the music expressive and effective....and the same is true for hard rick. Without enough available dynamic range, the kick drum in a hard rock tune would not be able to have the impact it would need. Hyper compressed hard rock sounds flat and two dimensional. There may be no better example of this than ACDC's Back in Black. If you haven't heard the tune, go listen and see what I mean.
So whether we're talking about Vivaldi or Tool we need to know what's important in the music and how to showcase it....and we may be surprised to discover that in some cases, it's the same thing.

"...talent is overrated and... it’s really the hard work..."

2010-09-28T18:42:00.000-07:00

The subject of this post kind of says it all. It's less a statement than a question. It seems like another version of the nature vs nurture argument. I have SUCH mixed feelings about it, starting with the idea that being capable of hard work IS a talent, or a predisposition. I mean if you don't want to do something, or don't NEED to do it, why would you work hard to hone your skill or realize your ambition? I believe that hard work certainly is 99% of success. I also believe that repetition and a feedback loop that includes experimentation, observation, and self assessment is really what's required to improve.

So, do I believe talent is overrated? Only in the mind of the talented artist who has no appetite for the work and only wants to be discovered. Do I believe you can succeed simply by working hard? Probably, though I do think that an open mind and sensitivity to idea and aesthetic are also required. Is it possible to succeed without one or the other?

I think not. I suppose how one defines success....

Sometimes people say the nicest things...

2010-09-08T18:53:00.000-07:00

I think it's probably a truism that, if you do something long enough, repeatedly, over many years, you get pretty good at it and people notice. Sometimes they even say nice things about you. While it's really important to be acknowledged, and get positive reinforcement, it usually the kind of thing that most of us digest privately, quietly, in the comfort of our own studio/office/living room/whatever, unless we're in the midst of a full on PR campaign....but recently a slew of nice feedback has come our way, from all quarters of the globe.

So pardon me while I post one such notice. This one in particular because I appreciate the content, the sentiment and the metaphors. It is well crafted as a short story all its own, with some modesty, but not too much:

"The sound of my CD was greatly improved by Jonathan Wyner’s mastering
magic at M-works. Individual tracks have found their unique sonic
destinies, while sounding more related to each other as an album.
Aloof guitars achieved newfound warmth, and apprehensive drums
discovered unprecedented courage. Behind the board, Jonathan is facile
as a flying monkey—a true master of the tools of mastering technology,
and his extraordinary abilities to hear and imagine lead one to wonder
whether he is part bat."

—Jonathan Feist, Fantasy Monologue

What is Loud? (redux)

2010-09-04T12:37:00.000-07:00

“When I was a kid, I was filling balloons with oxy/accetaline mixtures and tying a firecracker fuse in the bottom of them and lighting them. I had one go off at point blank range as soon as I lit the fuse. That seemed pretty loud at the time. Of course, I’ve never been around anything really loud, just things that seemed loud at the time.” – anon internet

“Music is the space between the notes” – Claude Debussy

“We think the record sounds pretty good but really, we just want to be sure it’s loud.” – a renowned American String Quartet that shall remain nameless

What is Loud?

This question is at the heart of so much of our work. How to measure volume, either in an absolute sense or a relative one. How loud should you listen, how loud should the vocal be in a mix, how loud should you record a track or a mix?

The related question, What is TOO loud may in fact be more germane. If something is TOO loud than something else gets lost. In a live sound reinforcement context too loud might be described as a point when the level becomes painful….you lose your hearing.

When recording too loud is when unintended distortion takes place…you lose fidelity.

In the context of mixing, too loud might be when one sound obscures others…you lose the balance.

In mastering too loud might mean that you lose the space between the notes.

In the days of analog recording and the early days of digital there was a relationship between the nominal level of a recording (‘0 VU’ or +4dbm or –20 dbfs) and the peak level (‘+20 VU’ or +24 dbm or 0 dbfs). In fact when mixes were heavily compressed you might see that 20db dynamic range shrink to 16 or even 14 db, thought that was the extreme. So the loud part of a song would peak at a level at least 14 db hotter than the nominal level of the music. And the quiet sections of the music would reside lower than that. There were technical and aesthetic considerations that helped form this ‘equation’.

Now, with our all powerful dsp chips we can actually make recordings that have a nominal level of –8 or 9 dbfs or even LOUDER! Now, often the quiet sections of the music are living in the area that was previously reserved for the med-loud sections.
Have you ever compared two level matched version of a mix, one at a ‘mildly compressed volume and one at a highly compressed volume to see which is louder?

The reasons for this? It could be that technology has improved and we simply can make hotter records. It could be that we live in an culture riddled with attention deficit syndrome and the only way to get people’s attention is to yell all the time and hope to be heard. It could be that the typical MP3 playback system is poor and dynamics don’t translate well on the poor equipment playing over the sound of a subway train.

While it’s not likely we can change the louder world, whatever the reasons for this phenomenon, we need to understand what the implications are.

The answers to these questions emerge in the context of every project and they bear asking. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

What does it mean to music when the difference between loud and soft is disappearing?
What does it mean when the average signal level presented to a D/A converter is so hot?
What does it mean that the excursion of a peak of a drum hit is now only 3-6db hotter than the rms level?
What does it mean when clipping distortion is an acceptable practice in recording?
What does it mean when listeners are routinely subjected to high listening volumes and levels of distortion in the recording?
What does it mean when engineers, producers and fans accept a hotter level as ‘standard’?
What does it mean when the level of a recording is sustained at a high enough level that you never get to hear the low level detail/ambience/etc.

What does it mean when you never get to hear the space between the notes…………………………

Bobby McFerrin - what can you teach us?

2010-09-03T16:36:00.000-07:00

Today I had the privilege to sit among my 'professorial' colleagues of Berklee College of Music and witness a happening (more than a performance or a lecture) conducted by Bobby McFerrin. He's an artist I have had the chance to see more than a few times, from the audience and from backstage. He's one of those artists that brings me to tears, not only due to the pathos, or artistry or technical bravado. The tears are those of recognition of a true artist.

Mr. McFerrin aspires, as much as possible to always fire on all cylinders. He never holds back. He never stops risking and he strives to bring his 'truth' to the room. This seems to be the case in conversation as much as when he's singing.

As all of us sat, astonished, mouths hanging open and with involuntary grins I slowly became aware of a rising discomfort within. It had to do with concern for my students. You see Bobby McFerrin gives us a glimpse into the whole artistic package. He is successful in the moment, he is successful commercially, artistically and he has put this work in. He's earned all the success, no doubt, but the world has room for only so many such figures. In the meantime, the rest of us toil in a much more mundane world, struggling to succeed, and in many cases success means simply surviving. I feel responsible to my students to give them a perspective on what the struggle might look like. What to do when they are not at the level of the most illustrious and successful. We don't all have the time to sit comfortably in the stream of extreme creativity and play to the extent that he does. So how then to live happily and continue to strive toward being realized as fully as Bobby McFerrin, even if we don't get to that 'level'?

Well the things is....If we didn't have Mr. McFerrin we would never even be asking the question/ We wouldn't know it's possible to do what he does. We wouldn't understand 'superlative' in the same way. He is a force of nature and we can learn by knowing he is in our world, and be seeing what IS possible. Who knows where that example might lead. Who knows how each person will interpret that lesson....but thank goodness for him, and for all our heroes and all the self-realized artists who are truly themselves. It is a gift to us that they are in our world, and I am grateful. Thank you Mr. McFerrin, and to all artists who strive to find their own voices....

Lossy is Lossy....what's lost?

2010-05-04T17:17:00.000-07:00

Today's music is consumed in many forms and in the majority of cases that form involves some kind of lossy codec. THe most common term used to describe this is 'mp3', even though the codec may be something related to mp3 (aac) or a distant cousin (ac3 for instance). Since it's in common use listeners are becoming familiar with the 'sound' of mp3. What's that?

In or to psyche that out it's important in simple terms to understand how a 'lossy codec' works:

Most audio is recorded/mixed/mastered using a system called PCM audio. PCM is a high fidelity system that can capture and reproduce audio faithfully and with minimal artifact. The problem with PCM is that the amount of data required to record 1 minute of stereo 'CD quality' of audio is fairly large (very roughly 10MB). That's not a lot of data by today's hard drive standards but if you are trying to download a song or stream audio in real time the data adds up fast. So enter mp3. A standard fidelity Itunes download reduces file size by about 90%! That's huge. How does it do it? It uses a psychoacoustic model that predicts what part of the sound the 'average listener' is less likely to miss....and throws it away. The audio that's discarded is very hi frequency, very low frequency and stereo ambient information (reverb etc). THat's stuff we don't hear so well. THe lower the mp3 bit rate the more of that goes away. It's really a very clever system and has allowed digital distribution to take hold.....but there's an insidious phenomenon here. In order for a recording to sound good in mp3 form you need to have some of that information in the recordingeven though we don't hear it so well. THat way, when the mp3 is rendered you are still left with audio of a 'reasonable' fidelity. However, if PCM recording begin to take on the 'aesthetic' of an mp3, the mp3 derived from the PCM file will be 'worse'....so the argument stands for the highest fidelity possible for a master recording. That way and audio derived from it for digital download or broadcast, will sound 'ok'.

I always encourage those who make music to listen to CD's or high resolution downloads so they know what good audio can sound like and don't accept lossy compression as the de facto standard. It's fine for the consumers, but not for the artists and producers.

What is Free?

2010-04-27T13:12:00.001-07:00

Establishment: " ____ gives Musicians an amazing opportunity to share their talents with the community. Just a chance to practice and get their name out is pay enough for many musicians that I know."

Musician: "Eating at _____ gives the cooks and owners an amazing opportunity to share their talents with the community. Just a chance to practice and get their name out is pay enough for many people I know who cook"

Thanks Jim M....

Warming all round

2010-03-22T05:29:00.001-07:00

Warming...

Pardon me for jumping outside the technical realm for a moment but honestly, I am shaken. Trite as it may sound, we live in trying times. The typical modern person is overburdened and as busy as angry bees. Our country is engaged in an intractable political and military conflict which will burden us for decades. We live with incredible uncertainty in the world of professional music (explain how you can justify year and years of practice on an instrument and a production budget of more than a few thousand dollars in the face of the current electronic-downloading-non-paying marketplace?)....and last....and most we have this little problem known as global warming.

It has always been difficult to justify careers and travails in the arts, in some eras more than others. There’s always been a portion of our culture that deems it indulgent, or irrelevant…not an ‘essential’ part of human life. Some think of art as the land of the bourgeoisie. I find those arguments are easily countered with assertions about the things that make life worth living....music is right on top of my list. But it is challenging to hold onto the importance of works of art given the ever increasing gravity of issues such as global warming. Recording technology and practice is related to our environmental crisis. It requires technology and not only that but it requires almost constant consumption of the newest technology in order for us to remain current in our studios.

So we need computers, cables, electricity and, yup, fossil fuels to do our work. Slowly the question formed in my mind, if one wanted to do production work in the most environmentally conscious way(s), what would you, COULD you do? Then here’s the beginning of my list, in no particular order or priority, efficiency, or importance: (these are musings, not imperatives, directives, orders, judgments....intended as food for thought)

1. Get involved in music with a conscience, about issues that are engaged in trying to effect some kind of social change....offer a discount to those recording ‘green’ music, whatever that might be. Acoustic music? Environmentally-topical?
2. Don’t use analog gear....especially not analog tape. That’s right, no tape, it’s backing is made of petroleum in part (guess the ‘warmth’ of analog isn’t as simple as it seems!?). Use digital amplifiers to power your speakers. When they play music amps use more current than anything else in your studio. Digital amps are vastly more efficient.
3. Use LCD screens. They are energy efficient to run.
4. Use the newest CPUS you can afford. They run cooler and generally consume less power.
5. Use flash/solid state memory and hard disks to move files around....using CDR’s and DVDR’s is ultimately going to add to the landfill problems...anyone know how long a CDR takes to bio-degrade? Anyway the plastic coating requires more petroleum.6. Here’s an easy one for most musicians….record at night or on weekends, that is, NOT during peak hours for enegery use. (“yeah babe, got stay out late….I am being green !@@#(*&#$.....I love it”)7. ________________________Fill in the blank.

I would love to hear your thoughts about what else we might do.And why do any of this? I don’t have any illusion that by using one fewer CDR I am going to make a dent in the climate change problem. But apart from the obvious answer that every little bit helps I think we have a larger responsibility. As artists and those that work with artists we are responsible, in part, for the imagination of our culture. Art is sometimes it’s conscience, and sometimes it’s art that inspire the cultures dreamers….and sometimes it’s the culture’s mirror. So if artists are not going to make some noise about these issues….if artists will not take a stand, who will?

I really don’t mean to be heavy handed in this, but I do take it seriously, and I struggle with the meaning of our collective work. Ultimately, hopefully, it’s toward something better for ourselves and those that come after us. Maybe ‘warming up’ your tracks won’t mean the same thing it does now…..

"We have the loudest record in our collection..."

2010-03-09T14:26:00.000-08:00

This comment was music to our ears, from Emmono Grizo, Greek rock band extraordinaire after we worked on their record. How is it the loudest? Cause they can turn it ALL the way up and it still sounds great. No distortion, no hyperlimiting....just ROCK!

Surround

2010-02-14T17:37:00.001-08:00

As I have been preparing to go to Seoul to talk about surround to the local audio community there my enthusiasm for the format has been renewed. From the consumer's standpoint it may be a tiny dot on the horizon, but for the artist it provides a pretty spectacular pallette of tools, colors and perspectives.

The sense of envelopment that we feel in the presence of a live musical performance is part of what makes it compelling, and surround offers that possibility. It is wide, and warm and intimate all at once....

I look forward to the day when it is easy enough for the consumer to use that we can really investigate the form....

Ornette at The Grammy's

2010-01-24T18:45:00.000-08:00

I know it's WAY off topic but I was reminded of the speech Ornette Coleman gave when I attended the Grammy's as a nominee a few years back. Here is the text of his remarks, remarkable as they are:

-------------------------

"OC: It is really very, very real to be here tonight, in relationship to life and death and I’m sure they both love each other.

I really don’t have any present thoughts about why I’m standing here other than trying to figure out something to say that could be useful to someone that believes.

One of the things I am experiencing is very important and that is: You don’t have to die to kill and you don’t have to kill to die. And above all, nothing exists that is not in the form of life because life is eternal with or without people so we are grateful for life to be here at this very moment.

For myself, I’d rather be human than to be dead. And I would also die to be human. So you can’t die, you can’t die to be neither one, regardless of what you say or think so that’s why I believe that music itself is eternal in relationship to sound, meaning, intelligence…all the things that have to have something to do with being alive because you were born and because someone else made it possible for you to be here, which we call our parents etc. etc.

For me, the most eternal thing is that I would like to live until I learn what it is and what it isn’t…that is, how do we kill death since it kills everything?

And it’s hard to realize that being in the human form is not as easy as wondering what is going to happen to you even if you do know what it is and it doesn’t depend on if you know what is going to happen to you.

No one can know anything that life creates since no one is life itself. And it’s obvious, at least I believe, it’s obvious the one reason why we as human beings get there and do things that seem to be valuable to us in relationship to intelligence… uh, what is it called…creativity and love and all the things that have to do with waking up every morning believing it’s going to be a better day today or tomorrow and yet at the same time death, life, sadness, anger, fear, all of those things are present at the same time as we are living and breathing.

It is really, really eternal, this that we are constantly being created as human beings to know that exists and it’s really, really unbelievable to know that nothing that’s alive can die unless it’s been killed. So what we should try to realize is to remove that part of what it is so that whatever we are, life is all there is and I thank you very much."

What is loud cont'd....

2010-01-13T05:27:00.000-08:00

“When I was a kid, I was filling balloons with oxy/accetaline mixtures and tying a firecracker fuse in the bottom of them and lighting them. I had one go off at point blank range as soon as I lit the fuse. That seemed pretty loud at the time. Of course, I've never been around anything really loud, just things that seemed loud at the time.” – anon internet

“Music is the space between the notes” - Claude Debussy

“We think the record sounds pretty good but really, we just want to be sure it’s loud.” – a renowned American String Quartet that shall remain nameless

What is Loud?

This question is at the heart of so much of our work. How to measure volume, either in an absolute sense or a relative one. How loud should you listen, how loud should the vocal be in a mix, how loud should you record a track or a mix?

The related question, What is TOO loud may in fact be more germane. If something is TOO loud than something else gets lost. In a live sound reinforcement context too loud might be described as a point when the level becomes painful….you lose your hearing.

When recording too loud is when unintended distortion takes place…you lose fidelity.

In the context of mixing, too loud might be when one sound obscures others…you lose the balance.

In mastering too loud might mean that you lose the space between the notes.

In the days of analog recording and the early days of digital there was a relationship between the nominal level of a recording (‘0 VU’ or +4dbm or –20 dbfs) and the peak level (‘+20 VU’ or +24 dbm or 0 dbfs). In fact when mixes were heavily compressed you might see that 20db dynamic range shrink to 16 or even 14 db, thought that was the extreme. So the loud part of a song would peak at a level at least 14 db hotter than the nominal level of the music. And the quiet sections of the music would reside lower than that. There were technical and aesthetic considerations that helped form this ‘equation’.

Now, with our all powerful dsp chips we can actually make recordings that have a nominal level of –8 or 9 dbfs or even LOUDER! Now, often the quiet sections of the music are living in the area that was previously reserved for the med-loud sections.
Have you ever compared two level matched version of a mix, one at a ‘mildly compressed volume and one at a highly compressed volume to see which is louder?

The reasons for this? It could be that technology has improved and we simply can make hotter records. It could be that we live in an culture riddled with attention deficit syndrome and the only way to get people’s attention is to yell all the time and hope to be heard. It could be that the typical MP3 playback system is poor and dynamics don’t translate well on the poor equipment playing over the sound of a subway train.

While it’s not likely we can change the louder world, whatever the reasons for this phenomenon, we need to understand what the implications are.

The answers to these questions emerge in the context of every project and they bear asking. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

What does it mean to music when the difference between loud and soft is disappearing?
What does it mean when the average signal level presented to a D/A converter is so hot?
What does it mean that the excursion of a peak of a drum hit is now only 3-6db hotter than the rms level?
What does it mean when clipping distortion is an acceptable practice in recording?
What does it mean when listeners are routinely subjected to high listening volumes and levels of distortion in the recording?
What does it mean when engineers, producers and fans accept a hotter level as ‘standard’?
What does it mean when the level of a recording is sustained at a high enough level that you never get to hear the low level detail/ambience/etc.

What does it mean when you never get to hear the space between the notes…………………………

What IS loud?

2010-01-11T18:52:00.000-08:00

Today's seminar with faculty at Berklee college was excellent. Lively discussions about what the value of dynamics is, where dynamic range comes from, and why records might sound loud....or why they might not. We also discussed whether records SHOULD be loud and more.

Original Thinking

2010-01-07T12:31:00.000-08:00

Original thinking....you see the challenge is:

I need to understand what it is that you are interested in. I can sit hear and write about technology trends or the cultural implications of the democratization of the music business or which kind of pantyhose works best as a pop filter but I don't have a hi degree of confidence that any of those topics are really going to speak to what you are all about....so write me, let me know who you are and I'll try to address some of the topics that are hottest for you.

The second part of the challenge is to write something original. I mean you may not need that but honestly the net is full or articles extolling the virtues of vintage mics or neat tips and tricks about using compressors. Does the world need one more? I guess you'll let me know.

My goal is to give you some real info about the real world when it comes to recording tech and practice.

So next month I'll dive back into some specifics but for now I would like to talk about what makes a really great recording great, assuming that's our common goal. So before arguing ad nauseum about whether POW-R or UV-22 dither sounds better I propose the following list of what it takes to make a great recording:

1 Great music
2 Great musicians/Great performance/ Great programming
3 Great instruments
4 Great recording acoustics
5 Great monitoring acoustics
6 Great monitor speakers
7 Mic placement
8 Mic type
9 Clean Signal path

And so on...

Notice that the equipment used to make a great recording DOESN'T EVEN MAKE THE TOP 5!!!

Of course you CAN overcome some of these issues, and some records have nary an acoustic sound on them but even so you can't violate ALL of the first 5 conditions I set up above and hope to come away with a recording that will inspire your audience to part with their hard earned money, or maybe even inspire them at all. We get so hung up on recording techniques and gear it is easy to lose sight of the main ingredients of our stew.

Ultimately, everything that appears in this column is designed to help you serve the goal of creating the best possible recording, for artistic and/or commercial purposes. So when you’re getting caught up in the minutia, step back, and take a moment to use wider view and as you’re sweating the .1 db boost at 20kHz, see whether the first 9 things on the list have been tended to…..drop a line, I’ll be listening.

Jonathan Wyner (www.m-works.com) has recorded, mixed and mastered more than 5000 records during the last 23 years, spanning every musical idiom (and some nonmusical idioms as well!). He is a professor at the Berklee College of Music in Boston. His credits range from the extremely well known (James Taylor, David Bowie, Aerosmith, Bruce Springsteen, Kiri Te Kanawa) to the idiosyncratic and independent artists/labels. A 2007 Grammy nominee, his most recent production began airing on PBS in March 2007.