 |
The Sound of Science I recently
had a conversation with a lifelong musician who wanted to learn a few things
about mastering. During our discussion I emphasized the need for a
high-fidelity playback system in an acoustically balanced listening
environment. In essence, I said, the success of any mastering setup is
predicated on its ability to accurately reveal what's been recorded. From
there, the choice of processing tools and how the operator uses them is
subjective. To knowledgeable mastering engineers this is obvious. But to
novices, who may believe the key to mastering is hidden in some audio editor
or black box, it can be a revelation.
My point, though, was larger than acoustics vs. technology: It was that of
applying concepts from the scientific method to the craft of music
production. While music is an art form, much of it from the way
instruments resonate to how microphones convert sound into electrical
signals is rooted in science. And making great-sounding recordings
requires both a love for the art of music as well as an understanding and
respect for the technical forces behind it.
The dictionary defines the scientific method as "principles and procedures
for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and
formulation of a problem
." The key phrase here is systematic pursuit of
knowledge. For something to be considered scientific, it must be
systematically verifiable and repeatable when referenced to recognized
standards. This has become the base for how knowledge is established in the
science community. I believe similar standards are important for the
continuing advancement of music production.
In recording, there are already many examples of this theory at work.
Consider terms like Blumlein, Decca Tree, Jeklin Disc and ORTF. They're all
stereo microphone configurations whose mere names recall a visual and sonic
image to most audio engineers. All of these configurations are based on
known acoustic principles, recognized to deliver consistent and repeatable
results: a solid stereo image, believable depth and height representation
and good mono compatibility. It's why they've been accepted and used by the
recording community for decades.
In mixing, the design of tools such as equalizers, compressors and limiters
follow a similar course. In the case of equalizers, Q values and shelf
shapes offer established parameters to achieve a standardized result.
Compressors and limiters utilize attack and release time, ratio and
threshold to provide a reference point to work within. In short, universal
standards have been established that allow the user to attain consistent,
proven results. This doesn't discourage the discovery or use of new
techniques, it simply facilitates consistency.
In mastering, should the standards be any less systematic? Distortion and
coloration that affect the perception of a recording can be greatly
minimized (or completely removed) by utilizing the audiophile-grade
equipment: efficient speakers with flat frequency response,
high-headroom/low-distortion amplifiers, sonically transparent
interconnects/speaker cables and the highest resolution converters. Placing
these components in an acoustically balanced listening environment created
and optimized by a knowledgeable acoustician guarantees a stable audio
image, minimizing the sonic non-linearities that cloud both our judgment and
the decision-making process. Then, after the listening environment has been
optimized, the subjective aspect of mastering comes into play. Depending on
the style of music and artist's preference, the engineer decides how to
process the final mix.
One contrary opinion is something I have heard from people interested in,
but inexperienced to, mastering: "I don't need to go through all this effort
because I have a pair of speakers, typical of what most people listen to
music on, that I can use as a reality check." This rationale's flaw aside
from the limitations of consumer-grade speakers is that there is really no
such thing as a "typical" listening system. The myriad of boom boxes, car
stereos, computer speakers, home theatre setups and iPod-like creatures on
the market is endless. And they all color sound in different ways. Probably
the only commonality among them is the design compromises used to keep costs
down. Rather than offer an accurate point of reference, they only obscure
the decision making process by introducing one more variable. The result
from doing work in this manner is similar to what is achieved when randomly
placing a microphone in a recording session or blindly turning a knob when
mixing: possibly interesting, but not based on anything verifiably accurate
or repeatable. And while that method may work in recording or mixing where
randomness, spontaneity and subjectivity are all part of the creative
process mastering exists, ultimately, to optimize and verify the sonic
balance of a recording for consistent results in all playback environments.
The phrase, "If it sounds right, it is right" attributed to the enigmatic
recording mogul Joe Meek is a credo no one can argue. But don't infer it
to mean "Do whatever you like, with no regard for method." The concept of
sonic neutrality in mastering applies the same scientific concepts of
consistency and repeatability as in other well-established aspects of
successful music production. And by design it offers the most leeway for all
playback environments because, if done properly, decisions are made from the
most objective and verifiable position possible.
© 2005
Paul Abbott. An edited version of this article was published in the October
2005 issue of Sound on Sound magazine.. |
|
