Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mastering (audio): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:24, 6 March 2007 editFang Aili (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users24,572 edits →Spam - Art Sayecki "artmastering": please assume good fair← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:11, 8 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,036 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(549 intermediate revisions by 81 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}}
{{WikiProject Professional sound production|class=Start}}
{{Calm}}
== 16 bit/44.1khz ==
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Professional sound production|importance=Top}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config |maxarchivesize = 100K |counter = 1 |algo = old(365d) |archive = Talk:Mastering (audio)/Archive %(counter)d }}
{{refidea|https://pitchfork.com/features/article/9894-the-dark-art-of-mastering-music/}}


{{old move|date=26 August 2024|destination=Mastering engineer|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1243121527#Requested move 26 August 2024}}
I think a little bit on the role of mastering in sample rate and bit reduction/dithering to CD quality would be good information in this article now that 24 bit recording is a big deal. Any thoughts? ] 23:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is critical to suggest that bouncing or recording mixes to as high a sample rate as possible and a minimum of 24 bit word size is critical for allowing mastering algorthyms the additional samples and bits for rounding and processing. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

There's legitimate doubt that high sample rates are as important. Some processing, such as compression or EQ, can benefit from a somewhat higher sample rate like 96K, but 'as high as possible', probably 192K, is very likely unnecessary. I've seen people saying 192K converters sounded worse than lower sample rates. Besides, among professional MEs you are more likely to find them using analog chains and certain popular converters like Lavry or Prism, particularly those who make a practice of driving the D/A converters hard to produce apparent loudness- in other words, distorting them. Also note that fancy methods of wordlength reduction are not invariably chosen by professionals- simple TPDF dither remains popular due to a percieved lack of coloration. -Chris Johnson <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

Especially EQ and filtering tend to misbehave when approaching the ]. This often happens gradually, which is why i think it <i>does</i> in fact make sense to go all the way up to 192 khz. Notice that this will only take the problem two octaves out of the hearable range. A typical example of the algorithm problem can be seen in the Sonic Timeworks equalizer, which actually reveals this issue on it's visualizer. I think the increased processing power in the future will raise the interest in having some headroom in the time domain. This will most likely be an important step in overcoming some of the differences between analog and digital sound processing in general.
<small>] 10:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)</small>

Well, I went ahead and wrote something. Feel free to hack it up in any way you see fit! ] 15:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

==Loudness War==
Any issues with merging ] into this article? It's not really it's own topic and is really a mastering issue. --] 22:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:It should be linked (and it is), but it's a big enough topic to have its own article. Merging is normally done when two articles contain the same information, not when one article is a subtopic of the other. ] 22:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree with the above posting. ] should be merged with ], however, it is not a ''dire'' issue. I do urge whoever has power to merge two articles to do so as soon as possible.--] 00:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

:Please keep seperate. ] is a bad enough issue that it deserves it's own article. That article needs some work, eg examples and a couple of helpful waveform images, not reducing to part of an article on a much larger issue. --] 02:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

:I agree with Spod, the ] is notable enough to deserve its own article by the same logic that ] and ] are seperate articles. -- ] 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:I agree with Dept of Alchemy and Spod too. Merging the rather large loudness war article into this article might confuse the reader more than benefit. Linking to an external article seems more appropriate. -- <small>] 10:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)</small>

In theory, were there no loudness war there would still be an Audio Mastering article. The topic can have much more to it than simple loudness, for instance the need to produce audio that translates to many types of playback systems pleasingly, and the practice of sequencing (in some cases) album tracks or producing suitable timing for the pauses between songs, not to mention inserting ISRC codes, which is not a form of watermarking but a method of putting a unique ID on a CD track which can be read by some playback equipment to help in assigning royalties for airplay. -Chris Johnson <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


==Bass punch, kick drum, bass drum, frequencies, waveform== ==Bass punch, kick drum, bass drum, frequencies, waveform==
Line 32: Line 14:
== The other loudness war is on FM radio! == == The other loudness war is on FM radio! ==


The other loudness war is happening in FM broadcasting. There are dedicated FM processors that would be of little use for CD production. See for example http://www.omniaaudio.com . The other loudness war is happening in FM broadcasting. There are dedicated FM processors that would be of little use for CD production. See for example http://www.omniaaudio.com. Therefore, I do not think that merging loudness war into audio mastering would be appropriate. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

Therefore, I do not think that merging loudness war into audio mastering would be appropriate. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


Jeffason's comments:

You gotta be kidding. Who created the movement to merge the two. They are totally different. PLEASE REMOVE THIS REQUEST TO MERGE THE TWO. It is blasphemy! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

==External links==
Please refer to ] before adding external links. I don't doubt that Artmastering and audioplexus are legitimate companies, but I'm sure there are 100s or 1000s of legitimate audio mastering companies and Misplaced Pages is not the place to list them all. Moreover, the links do not add useful information that cannot be covered in the article. I will give the article on MusicBizAcademy the benefit of the doubt - for now - but I think it is more helpful to use the information in MBA article to improve this Misplaced Pages article rather than merely linking to it. The MBA link could serve as a legitimate ''reference'' to facts in the Misplaced Pages article rather than just sitting there as a bare link. ] 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

== References ==

From ]:
:Additionally, in the entire article about Audio_Mastering, this is the only section that actually has some support in the press as well as publically accessible pictures and references. Everything else has been contributed by various members based on their opinion rather than on notable facts or evidence and is placed there without any supporting evidence or references. If we follow your reasoning, then the entire Audio Mastering section should be deleted as "not notable", which would be a terrible waste! R. Watts
This is a valid point. This article could use some references. ] 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it would be considered generally valid to provide some links to Bob Katz's 'Digido' site. Bob is a mastering engineer who has written a largely well-recieved book and has some decent online material which I believe would be generally considered acceptable. The danger here is from the number of MEs who would like to present themselves as innovators. I myself have stuff up on the web, but I don't think my content is anywhere near as mainstream and doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages as written. It is at airwindows.com and if I see stuff from there up here as if it is authoritative I'll edit it out myself, or at least pull it back to commonly accepted information without any inferences or propagandizing. -Chris Johnson <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

== Is this spam for vestman mastering? ==

I recently reverted . The editor claims this is spam for the vestman mastering method. I don't have the specialist knowledge to decide, so I raise the issue here. ] 12:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed. The technique is both less important than claimed, and normally known by a different term, 'stems'. There's some contentiousness over whether stems are desirable in mastering at all. The claim that the technique is necessary for extremely loud CD mastering is incorrect, as potential loudness is more a factor of limiting and clipping methods than compressing or limiting partial mixes. With stems you can have a harshly limited 'band' distinct from a vocal track at the expense of having the 'loud' content obviously quieter than digital full scale- arguably a poor trade-off. -Chris Johnson (I need to put some effort into developing this article, as I hang out with a community of mastering engineers on a music website who have criticised this article before but don't fix it) <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

This method is sometimes used, it is just not so common. It is mentioned in Bob Katz's book, "Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science". The book recommends it when the vocal levels are critical, so instead of submitting half a dozen mixes with slightly different vocal settings an instrumental stereo mix synced with a separate vocal mix are used. (There's also talk about how instead using a cheap reverb unit in mixing, the mastering engineer can apply a higher quality reverb at a later stage—this is obviously useful when applied only to the separate vocal mix as well.) However, I tend to think that while all this ''can'' be done by a mastering engineer, it is in fact not ''mastering'', but ''mixing'', and the mastering only starts when there is a two track stereo mix to work on. I've mastered dozens of records where I've had to add sounds—once I added a snare sample on top of a mix with a too soft snare drum that couldn't be redone! Editing—like cutting parts off a song and such—is a different story. ] 06:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does this page single out Bob Ludwig and give a bio of him? Seems out of place in this article.] 23:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


As someone who is in the trenches working with lots of aspiring musicians/producers, and asked to master mediocre mixes all the time, I need to stress that, great mixing is the foundation of that great master an engineer can render at the mastering stage. Period. End of the story.
If you are a mastering engineer who likes stems and the client wants that technique, then the more power to you. But going back to the subject of "loudness", I don't know what Mr. Katz said on his book, but, I know what I go through everyday of my life, and losing dynamic range over loudness is not justified.

Loudness can be achieved from the mixing stage first, not by peak limiting and compression of the main output, but by enhancing some of the main tonal characteristic of the record. It may require spending lots of hours on the mix, tweaking and fine tuning certain individual tracks with a parametric equalizer and even a multi-band compressor. So, in essence, is not very different from what us, (Mastering engineers) have to do for a record to sound great.

The mastering should should focus in optimizing all the recording frequency bands for the achievement of a maximum delivery potential (MDP). Edward Vinatea - ] 19:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an 'A' list mastering guy, but I'm afraid 'optimizing all the frequency bands' and 'maximum delivery potential', acronym or not, is marketing talk. Other places you might hear talk of 'optimizing the frequency bands' is among users of the software 'Har-Bal' which adjusts equalization blindly to match a recording's EQ to other recordings- without reference to whether the EQ is in fact useful. This stuff is not considered serious... one reason for that is, mastering (like mixing) requires the conveying of musical ideas through sound. It is entirely possible, and not uncommon, for the most musically effective combination of 'frequencies' to not be the same as the widest-range, most technically correct combination of 'frequencies'. For instance, bass frequencies can go down to below 20 hz on a CD, but a great deal of program content is well served by restricting the bass frequencies to those that propel the song at its apparent tempo- leaning on lower frequency stuff can make things feel slower.

Mixing is very different from what (us, mastering engineers ;) ) do, because it's more art and less craft than mastering is, and especially in a context of a later mastering phase, mixing has a much wider range of what is permissible. Mixers routinely throw in effects processing, reverb, echo etc. It is considered most unprofessional for mastering engineers to be adding any of these things. The most common actions for a mastering guy to take are to make things louder, brighter, or more upfront. That's for pop- specialty mastering like for classical music might well be more concerned with keeping the recording from seeming too upfront, or with maintaining unbroken 'room tone' between tracks rather than fading to digital black.

But I digress :)

As for Bob Ludwig, he's among the very top 'name' mastering engineers, everything about his long talented career is true. Doesn't mean he has to get a bio, though. Two other noted MEs are Ted Jensen (known for getting very well balanced and loud yet dynamic results at Sterling) and Vlado Meller (known for pushing the limits of possible loudness with 'Californication' by the RHCP, and also getting very well balanced results).

I don't tend to write entries in the Misplaced Pages. I'm more background. I could bring five other mastering engineers with far better industry credits than I have, all of whom would confirm: treat Edward Vinatea's additions to the page with healthy skepticism. There really is no need for entries on MDP (Maximum Delivery Potential), and you would be surprised how few working MEs talk of optimizing frequency bands. Among other things, if you do mastering right the sound is pretty seamless and you don't HEAR things in 'frequency bands', you just hear musical events... -Chris Johnson ] 06:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris, Thanks for the debate, however you left out an important part of the definition: "determined by the style of music". This means that a frequency curve would be more ideal to apply (Or, shape if you will) on a particular style of music and as long as the elements of such mix is similar to the tried and tested successful recordings that preceded and created a sound quality benchmark.

Obviously, you need to use precision instrumentation like frequency spectrum analyzers to achieve what I am talking about. But, the point is frequency alignment and optimization which you confuse with something else.

If you were to analyze with an analyzer, every record that was considered a great musical achievement, say in rock music, you will start to see a pattern or frequency curve that is very peculiar to that specific style of music. I am telling you because I've seen it (Using the same spectrum analyzer with the same settings) in thousands of records time after time.

Certain elements might vary for example, the size of the bass drum, or how up-front the tom-toms were mixed. But if you are an experienced mastering guy, you simply leave it alone or you may opt in for a multi-band compressor with mild settings to control excessive transients.

As you approach my understanding of maximum delivery potential, you will have to agree that if a mix came out containing excessive vocal sibilance which may even arise out of the mastering engineer's need to increase the high frequencies for mix clarity, that you would be better off by knowing the exact frequency that is creating the sibilance (To filter it out). So, the result is a track with good clarity and no excessive sibilance that might upset the listening experience.
Unguided filtering (No analyzer) may hinder good frequencies or remove a perfectly fine group of frequencies.

Maximum delivery potential is not a marketing tool. It's more like a relative measurement based on past benchmarks. Everybody knows that the louder the master, the less its dynamic range, therefore MDP is the loudest you can get with a minimum or an acceptable compromise of the music's dynamic range. Period.

Controlling transients on all the frequencies of all bands it's the secret of mastering excellence. That's what the word optimization strives to achieve. Another day I will explain to you why "harmonic balance" is relevant.

I agree on one point with you and it falls in the definition of music mastering (Mine). you don't want to make a classical record as loud as a metal one. So, once again, by knowing the frequency curves (with the omission of those casual or intermittent transients that occur on a record due to its musical accents or emphasis, special effects and orchestra hits, you can pretty much predict what frequencies within the wide spectrum or frequency bands need "alignment", so it's not about just boosting all frequency bands to the top of headroom.

Let me know if you understood all these concepts and/or ask me questions on the areas you are not clear yet.] 07:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

== ] Merge ==

The article ] was brought to my attention, and I put tags suggesting it be merged into this article, because it doesn't seem to be suggesting anything different. I've never heard the term before, and think of mastering music as a skill instead of audio mastering when I think of it. If the term isn't widely accepted, perhaps the article should be just deleted instead of merged. That's where I need other editors' opinions and some sources on the matter. --] 04:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

===helpme===
First, the page was deleted on February 4th for by user 71.108.230.46. His argument : Spam.
I move to request blocking this IP address (71.108.230.46), since the topic was still open at the time of his action and he unilaterally made decision to delete this page.

Second, the proper term in the industry is "Music mastering". It's more widely applied, so either the page "Audio mastering" should be renamed and expanded with my definition or the page I created be undeleted.

Third, I joined The ] with the intention to contribute, edit, and expand as well as help with the to-do list, but so far, all I get so far is resistance to my contributions. This discourages experts like me to spend anytime doing this type of work for nothing. ] 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:Audio is a more general term than music, so I'm not sure it'd be merged that way. Have you read ] and ]? ] (], ]) 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, however, the term "Music" over "Audio" is more accurate. Let me elaborate, If I was to describe the art of creating and shaping sound, the proper term would be "Sound design". If I used the term "Audio design" although not incorrect, is too general in terms of description, to the specific works of "sound designers" and not "audio designers", which could also sound, or be perceived as "audio engineers". Thus, the use of "Music mastering" is more specific to the works of mastering engineers.

I will also like to add that the bulk of the mastering is applied to music in general for the purposes of CD/DVD manufacturing, radio promotion, and digital distribution (Like IPods) ] 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:It seems to me you can master more than music, so "audio mastering" is better. Please also note that the {{tl|helpme}} tag should be used on your user talk page only. ] (], ]) 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If so, what needs mastering besides music material? Example: All Hollywood music come to the Studios with pre-mastered soundtracks, because a Video editor is not qualified for that task.
Furthermore, can you master live sound? No, not live or while is being performed. So, the main program and application is recorded music.] 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the 'Music Mastering' page doesn't contain anything that needs to be rolled into the Audio Mastering page. You will find that some of the language used by Edward, if you Google search on the phrases, returns only other pages written by Edward. I consider this a fairly serious objection to rolling in the content. Deleting the 'Music Mastering' page would not be unreasonable, under the circumstances. -Chris Johnson ] 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

<b>Chris Johnson wrote: "if you Google search on the phrases, returns only other pages written by Edward"

If you are referring to my theory of maximum delivery potential, that's not on debate. An I don't
think you should mislead and misguide the direction of this debate with cynical insinuations.

When it's all said and done Chris, whether is music or audio mastering, the present contents of the page describing audio mastering will be revised and all the links promoting other businesses and web sites removed. This is not a threat, it's a promise. There is a fundamental conflict of interest and a double standard going on that page way too long. That should put to rest any theory that my intention is to spam. ] 08:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

==Spam==

The bogus "music mastering" article was created by user Evinatea on March 1st, after he unsuccessfully tried to spam the main audio mastering page the previous night, as an attenpt to continue spamming wikipedia.

Please review the history page to verify this, but he has repeatedly linked to his own mastering website, often with two seperate links in the external links section, under the guise of providing helpful 'louder is not better' or 'analog vs digital' articles. I promptly deleted those, thank you.

Worse yet, he inserted a quote from himself (as some sort of Mastering Authority) into the summary at the top of the page!!!

<<<Mastering (Music) is "the skillful art of aligning frequencies to a dynamic shape and a harmonic balance, determined by the style of music, in order to obtain a maximum delivery potential". Edward Vinatea / Chief Mastering Engineer / xxxMasteringblahblah.com>>>

C'mon, that's pretty shameless, in addition to being meaningless drivel.

As far as spam goes, he's still pretty tame compared to Vestman, who completely edited the mastering page to imply that HE HIMSELF! invented modern mastering and that his "separations" method is the only valid method, complete with links to his mastering website both in the external links section AND in the body of the article! Hilarious!!! I promptly deleted that, thank you.
"
Davidkazuhiro and Xiner are quite right, there is absolutely NO need for a "music mastering" page.

And let's use a little common sense here. Either ALL mastering engineers/shops get a link at the bottom of the mastering page, and it turns into some sort of mastering house directory, OR...

Nobody does, and it continues being an article on mastering. Period.

::Edit:: You've GOT to be kidding me! I've been going through vinatea's contribs and I found he created an article on: Maximum Delivery Potential. Invented, developed, and (presumably) perfected by:

Edward Vinatea. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 00:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


I have initially made mistakes which I have quickly corrected like signing my name. I thought (Prior to becoming a member and learning more about the rules and regulations that govern Misplaced Pages) that one had to sign their authorship in order to be accountable and challenged. Then, I learned that was illegal.

Yes, I had 2 articles I deemed as important to those listed on "External Links" in "Audio mastering". I had been waiting for an answer by a sysop (Fang Aili) to let me know if this was permissible just like the one on the "Audio mastering" page. Judge by my latest actions, I am still learning this system. ] 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I agree with this statement "...and it continues being an article on mastering. Period." That means out with all that technical and unchallenged text and out with the external links. One more thing, let's ask an administrator what particular term is used most every time a user at Misplaced Pages wants a search for mastering. That could close the debate. ] 01:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This user utilized the word "Bogus" which synonyms point at fraudulent, pseudo, fake, and phony. Well, my definition is accurate and relevant. If I had to describe what I and my peers do for a living, that would be the description. If you don't understand it, ask me. Challenge this knowledge and keep in mind while you do it that you are debating a member of the Recording Academy. I am sure you are one as well, since you seem to know so much about mastering and therefore have done it commercially, therefore, accepted as a voting member of the Academy as well.] 02:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:People, let's keep this civil. I do think Music mastering should not get its own page. Period. ] (], ]) 03:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Xiner, I believe I asked an honest question: "what needs mastering besides music material?" ] 04:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


==More Verification==

This user (No name) said:
<b>"As far as spam goes, he's still pretty tame compared to Vestman, who completely edited the mastering page to imply that HE HIMSELF! invented modern mastering and that his "separations" method is the only valid method, complete with links to his mastering website both in the external links section AND in the body of the article! Hilarious!!!"</>

I have not read the so called article Mr. Vestman wrote. However, His theories on "mastering by separations" arise out of the need to address the problems or mixing issues, most amateur engineers and even project studios have when rendering a production mix.

The need to include this topic on the "music" or "audio" mastering page, maybe too early for inclusion until the vast majority of mastering engineers, either adopt or realize its practical use.
I can see the use of these techniques as more and more amateur engineers and recording hobbyists increase with the march of time, and computer technology evolves with cheaper prices.
Would this technique be widely applied on professional mixes coming from major studios? Probably not, since there is no need for it at a pro-level (Correcting mix issues, that is).

In any case, there should be more respect to established audio engineers such as Mr. Vestman, he certainly has the credentials to voice an opinion and not be condemned as "Spammer", too quickly and without further investigation. These practices must stop.. ] 05:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Vestman spammed the page. This is not worthy of respect, particularly, and he's not the first person to work with stems either. No further investigation is necessary. A nice technique to determine if a phrasing or subject is Misplaced Pages ready, or spamming, is to Google search on some of the phrasing to find out if it's actually commonly accepted language.

As with Vestman and you yourself- if there are colorful, empty phrases which lead Google directly to other articles by the person helpfully contributing the phrases, or indeed to their professional website (as with Vestman), it's spamming. Find other people who are talking the same talk, and then it might be more like an encyclopedia entry. -Chris Johnson ] 06:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


==More Verification==
I move to temporarily block this user (207.136.232.164)until he refrains from using here say, and frivolous accusations.
Chris Johnson, I just left a long explanation for you regarding Maximum delivery potential in music mastering. You are only demonstrating that you trust nobody and pretty much have become irrational.] 07:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

==Restored the section about "artmastering"==
This section has been previously removed on 29th Aug 2006 after a big battle. The main reasons were "lack of references" and "lack of notability". There is a pretty big article/interview that recently appeared on the Music Industry Newswire website, and talks about "artmastering" among other subjects related to audio mastering. Looks like Google News also included this article in news section (search for "audio mastering" in Google News) At this point I feel that there is enough merit to include this subject. Of course any comments are welcome. --] 09:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:I consider it spam, along the lines of vestman's 'seperations mastering' and venetio's 'maximum something-or-other' process. What am I, spam police? I give up, lol. {{unsigned|71.108.230.46}} 11:22, 5 March 2007 {UTC}

::I don't think this can be compared to Vestman's spam. I agree with you that Vestman practices are rather questionable, he was exposed to use names of other mastering engineers as HTML keywords on his website :-). The article that I'm citing in the references for "armastering" appeared on rather well respected Music Website. After reading through it a couple of times I find the whole approach rather intriguing and I think it should be at least mentioned here. --] 11:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

<b>I propose this section to be removed in 24 hours from the audio mastering page as it doesn't represent a new trend or a new approach in mastering but rather, suggests a style in service derived from all known mastering techniques. ] 18:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


I agree with you Evinatea that this is a new style in service. '''But no matter how it was derived, it is in fact a new approach to mastering, as "audio mastering" is really all about rendering a service''' whether to the recording artists or to producers. So that is why I think we should keep it. --] 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


==Questions about the "artmastering" inclusion==
Hello Mike, you wrote:
<b>"As in traditional mastering, artmastering tries to achieve the best sonic quality of the material as defined by the artistic sense of human beings rather then by some rigid technical specifications such as frequency-response or signal-to-noise-ratio."</b>

Can you elaborate further on this statement? It's too vague. Also ask yourself, why is this technique fundamentally different from the current ones?


<b>"During artmastering, an engineer has wider latitude and may either stay within the traditional boundaries of the mastering art or step beyond them according to the artist's wishes."</b>

Describe briefly why the "artmastering engineer" may enjoy a wider freedom of choice as opposed to from a known traditional procedure or any current mastering technique.

And please, do not put links that give direct reference to other mastering engineers or studio labs. ] 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


: Thank you for your comment Evinatea. Let me try to answer it.
::You asked: ''Can you elaborate further on this statement?,... why is this technique fundamentally different from the current ones?''
:I'm an artist myself, and I had a few of my classical performances mastered by different studios and what I noticed was that every mastering engineer that I worked with tried to make the sound better from the technical point of view. Not one of them ever asked me what was the concept behind the piece or what emotional impact I would like to achieve. And that is why this approach cought my attention. If the mastering of my tunes was approached from the artistic point of view then I'm sure the chioces that we have made would have been different. For exmple, one of my tunes had a very thick and muddy bass, and the mastering engineer immediately tightened it up and gave it more punch, as that is exactly what one would do to get acoustic clarity, but the sloppy bass was there on purpose to create an emotional effect of haeviness. The acoustic quality was last thing on my mind, I was looking for emotional effect. So if the main approach to mastering my tunes was from the point of view of artistic-impact, rather then acoustic audio quality, then this would have never happened and the mastering outcome would have been much closer to what I was looking for. I'm sure other artists had simillar experiences. So even if artmastering is just a new approach to service as you suggest then I think it should be noted.


::You also asked: ''Describe briefly why the "artmastering engineer" may enjoy a wider freedom of choice as opposed to from a known traditional procedure or any current mastering technique.''

:The mental frame of mind is the key here. If a mastering engineer approaches the mastering with improving audio quality in mind, he or she will immediately reject certain options, such as for example adding distortions to get certain emotional effect, as they are in contrary to what is being taught in sound engineering schools. If you ever attend a class or seminar about mastering you will never hear a word about it because the mainstream approach is always about making the things sound better from the technical point of view and not from the artistic point of view. And maybe distortions are exactly what the song calls for.

:As far as the link is concerned, even though it contains direct references to other mastering engineers, which is something that I'm not too crazy about, it also contains information that explains the whole process and that is why it was included. I guess every link on the net, pertaining to mastering, will lead to some mastering engineer in one or another way, as the entire science of mastering is rather very new. That is why I feel compelled to re-include this link as it is the reference to a section about artmastering that explains the process.--] 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mike Sorensen you wrote: <b>"Not one of them ever asked me what was the concept behind the piece or what emotional impact I would like to achieve."

This explanation sounds to me, is based on personal experience and you can't use such experience to generalize the mastering procedure. It sounds also, that you were using a cheap online facility, which take your orders and care less about artistic sensibility. Nevertheless, we are sorry a you had such a bad mastering engineer. Please, tell us his name so maybe another artist on your same situation won't fall on that trap.

<b>"or exmple, one of my tunes had a very thick and muddy bass, and the mastering engineer immediately tightened it up and gave it more punch....but the sloppy bass was there on purpose to create an emotional effect of haeviness."

Mike, couldn't this mean mastering guy give you a revision of the master with your feedback? Was he denying a refund? Or, did he answered with: "It's too late, I already did it and it's over!

<b>"So even if artmastering is just a new approach to service as you suggest then I think it should be noted."

Sorry, Mike I also learned the hard way that a section content must be a NPOV.

"<B>The mental frame of mind is the key here. If a mastering engineer approaches the mastering with improving audio quality in mind, he or she will immediately reject certain options, such as for example adding distortions to get certain emotional effect"

Mike, this is conjecture and it's not based on real world class mastering sessions.

"<b>If you ever attend a class or seminar about mastering you will never hear a word about it because the mainstream approach is always about making the things sound better from the technical point of view and not from the artistic point of view."

Mike, if you like to sound like a sloppy, muffled low leveled , distorted demo, the more power to you. But you can't use a personal unhappy experience with mastering guy as the basis for your submission. Second what you are suggesting is that every mastering engineer and lab out there, take your money and run. Any good mastering engineer will listen and speedily take notes of the desires and needs of the artist(s) and create and pleasant work atmosphere, since the process maybe tedious sometimes and at the end of the day, it's the same, every mastering person strives to make it sound as good as possible in every playback system with the client's delight.

I don't believe this is worth considering for inclusion, but I'll leave up to the members of the Project.] 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not undelete again the external link to an article which promotes other mastering engineers and businesses. Thank you.] 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


'''Strong KEEP on artmastering. And Evinatea should refrain from attacking the messenger. Mike's experiences with other studios are his business and he doesn't need to provide you with any names as this is not the place for it anyway.''' He can also state his opinion and can think whatever he wants on the subject.

On another hand you are not getting the concept of artistic expression and artistic mastering. Your comments serve no constructive purpose. I'm a rap producer and I had a very simillar experiences with mastering engineers. They don't think in terms of artistic expression because schools don't teach that. Sometimes I want my songs to blow the speakers and screem, cracle, distort and explode and that's my call as an artist and if this sounds like a muddy demo then lets be it as long as I got my point across as an artist. And I don't want my vision to be smoothed over by a mastering studio and made it nice and transparent like "easy jazz".--] 02:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello BiggyP and welcome to the debate. Show me first where I am "attacking" Mike Sorensen.
Second, the concept of "artistic expression" and/or "artistic mastering" is not new by any stretch of the imagination. It is indeed practiced in most reputable mastering studios where usually artists and producers pay with an hourly rate.

Third, if a mastering engineer is unilaterally deciding how the sound of the music will translate from the master, against the client's input and advise, well, this engineer may have ego issues and that's not relevant to the audio mastering page.

Fourth, It's not up to me to include this article or theory anyway, and although I do believe that customer satisfaction is important, so is taking in consideration the advise of the person in charge of doing the mastering process, so that the record can meet industry standards. Now that's not a concept to difficult for you to understand, right? Well, it certainly does not merit a section of its own.] 02:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

==Spam alert - user Evinatea aka Edward Vinatea==
Evinatea is an guy who runs an obscure mastering studio called "Music Mastering O..." with no track record and no major credits on his account. He has been previously spamming this page with links to promote his own website. Other users raised this alert previously, but this time I suggest to ban him from this page. He has a single purpose account designed to manipulate Audio Mastering article. His input is self-serving. Since nobody wants to give him any recognition or include his page here, he persistently removes all valid references that could be attributed to other mastering experts in this field that actually have something to contribute. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 11:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->



Hello, Have you been reading all the conversations? I am a new member. And, I am a reputable mastering engineer. You don't know me at all. I have 23 years of engineering experience but, I won't disclose to you my clientele. Sorry! I am not dignifying your accusations.

However, thank you very much for your concerns. It's healthy sometimes to be skeptical. But, when it's all said and done my crime fighting friend, the audio mastering page will be relevant, free of spammers and free of pointing to commercial business sites.

So, please give me the benefit of the doubt until I achieve that.

Right now, there is a guy or two using pseudo names, desperately trying to re-insert spam links to the mastering page. That's the issue right now.

Thanks very for your concern. Have a nice day. 12:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


<b>Furthermore, You wrote: "he persistently removes all valid references that could be attributed to other mastering experts in this field that actually have something to contribute"<b/>

On the contrary, there is no need to mention mastering guys at all. Since the art of mastering and its techniques have been past from engineer to engineer and for the most part, it has evolved with technology.

otherwise, there would be too many people making claims. Sure, we all have our theories and techniques, including myself. But I won't try to make it a relevant term at Misplaced Pages. But the definition and conciseness of the page, is what's important here. Not singling out anybody in particular.]

== Spam - Art Sayecki "artmastering" ==

Evinatea, thank you for removing the spam "muzicbiz gman mastering" link! It's been at the bottom of the page for a while, and when I first checked it out it seemed legit, since it included quotes and contact information from some well-respected ME's. It appeared to be an article on mastering in general. After you deleted the link, I checked it out again, and what did I find?

Art Sayecki (the same guy trying to spam "artmastering") at the top of the page, and quoted about 20 times in the body of the article!!!

(which, after the initial name-dropping section, give or take a paragraph or two, completely drops the pretense and devolves into a study of Sayecki's Mastering Prowess!!!)

(Btw, I'm guessing the rest of the quotes, where Emily Lazar, Bob Ludwig, Marcussen, Grundman, Calbi, etc and who knows who else all appear to agree with Sayecki's masterful insights, were all just ripped from random articles, and no actual interviews were conducted, right?)

(and reposted without permission, I'm assuming)


Ok, now THAT'S pretty shameless!!!


:Jeffason's comments:
Icing on the cake:
:You gotta be kidding. Who created the movement to merge the two. They are totally different. PLEASE REMOVE THIS REQUEST TO MERGE THE TWO. It is blasphemy! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


== headroom ==
We get to the bottom of the article to find a list of "the mastering houses that came up most often when talking to artists and others in the industry about quality mastering engineers and great sonics."


Top of the list? ], one of the sources says:
{{Blockquote |text=This .wav file peaks at 0db but is fine because there are no distorted flat spots in the wave. The high hats are hitting at 0db and everything else drops down, leaving good dynamic range. I can work with this.}}
So I don't think my edits qualify neither as POV, or as original research. ] (]) 19:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


:The specific statement is cited to ], and is a reasonable representation of the issue. Of course, headroom is more complex than what Katz asserts, as . Zero dBFS can indeed be workable if the waveform just barely kisses the ceiling, and at the same time, −10 dBFS does not guarantee a distortion-free recording—it could be the case that someone distorted and clipped the signal in the recording process, then gained it down in a later step.
Art Sayecki.
:We should either tell the reader more detail, or trim the numbers away and just say that headroom is essential. ] (]) 22:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
::I don't think the current text is a good representation of the situation, I definitely think a better explanation is needed, for example there's no mentioning of 16 or 24 bits audio, and while a -3, -10dBFS headroom is a usual recommendation, it does not paint the whole picture. Feel free to propose a paragraph, as you are not happy with the changes I made. ] (]) 00:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
:The paragraph is documenting recommended levels. Katz suggests 3-10. John Rogers claims 3-6 is the norm. I trust Katz and also lets go with the superset. It is unlikely a 0 dBFS signal will be undistorted. You may be thinking of 0 ]. Or maybe you and this source don't understand how ] works. ~] (]) 15:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
:::The 0dBFS could come from a DAW that was configured to normalize its output, the digital signal will not be distorted, but there's a high chance the signal will get distorted once it's converted to an analog signal. ] (]) 17:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
::::And thus the recommendations for providing mastering engineers with a recording with more headroom. ~] (]) 14:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
], I think mentioning 24-bits is a pretty important qualification, mixing to 16-bits and leaving 10dBFS of headroom leaves you with pretty much 14bits of data, which is... bad. ] (]) 19:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
:14 bits is 84 dB of dynamic range which is the difference between the threshold of hearing and hearing damage. Nothing clearly bad about this. Mastering engineers fight the tendency for levels to be pushed in mixing. It is a misconception that lower levels will somehow sound bad when aligned properly by the mastering engineer. ~] (]) 22:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
::That sounds like original research, I think Katz is pretty clear here: "In 24-bit recording you can make a perfectly good mix that peaks between -3 and -10 dBFS with no loss of quality" and "Always mix to 24 bit files". ] (]) 00:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
:::I had a look at what Katz says in ''Mastering Audio'' (Chapter 16) and he gives an example of an acceptable 16-bit recording at -3 dBFS. His -10 dBFS example appears to be for a 24-bit recording. So we're both right depending on which end of the range we're talking about. ~] (]) 14:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


== Merge ==
Followed by some no-names way down the list... Ludwig, Grundman, Big Bass, Lazar, Marcussen.
{{dtop|result=There is consensus to merge, though consensus as to what the final title should be should be ascertained via ] ] 18:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)}}
We have articles on ]s and the field of mastering, but the same page for ] and ]. The scopes of these articles are nigh identical, and there is little to gain by keeping them separate. This article is a lot better so most of the content will be from here, but to match ] the title for a merged page should be ] ] 00:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


:Pinging @]@]@] from previous AfD discussion ] 00:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Wow.
::{{small|meant @]}} ] 01:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:Sounds good. ] (]) 08:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' merge. ] (]) 10:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' merge. ] (]) 13:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' merge. I do think there is currently an unncessary contentfork, but I think we should look at separating out the profession (history, awards, rising role in music culture) from the activity (technology, transition from analogue). <span style="color:#ef5224">]</span> (]) 22:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::@] I disagree that everything worth including couldn't fit on to one article. There are some professions that definitely should have separate articles from their fields (e.g. ]/]) but imo "mastering engineer" is too specialized to be one of them. The field is barely a century old, and it's more heavily linked to the available technology it rechquires than most. A combined article's "history" will have much more to say about advances in gear than advances in pay-scale. ] 17:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems like I am in the minority here so I am happy to bend to consensus if it remains, but I think the activity is a much more comprehensive article topic than the profession. To put it in a word, I think the action is ''prior'' to the profession. If discussing the history of mastering, there was a time when mastering was not a sufficiently developed or broad activity so as to be its own job. In that frame, mastering engineers are a subset of the big blob of mastering (the activity) in thingspace. I can't imagine a world where a job is notable but the activity you do in the job is not. <span style="color:#ef5224">]</span> (]) 21:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' merge, too similar a scope to justify separate articles. ] (]) 20:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' merge, '''but''' into mastering, not mastering engineer. I don't see why we have to match audio engineer. Mastering is a specific process, unlike audio engineering, which is refers to a set of processes that only make sense together when in the context of the profession. I agree with ] that ''mastering'' is really the notable topic here, not ''mastering engineer''. ]<sup>]]</sup> 04:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
::@] I can live with this, as I care more that we don't have redundant articles than which article title is chosen. Perhaps, as a compromise, a merge can be preformed first, and then a ] debate started over the best title? ] 16:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
::I would be happy with this and would not contest it <span style="color:#ef5224">]</span> (]) 16:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Requested move 26 August 2024 ==
'''This unsigned entry is supected to be made by ] who is a suspected sock puppeteer of this IP--] 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)'''


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''


The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 02:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I honestly didn't do it!] 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
----


] → {{no redirect|Mastering engineer}} – Basically a procedural RM I promised to hold after the ] above, and promptly forgot about. I hold no strong feelings one way or the other
I would never say this statement " "Followed by some no-names way down the list... Ludwig, Grundman, Big Bass, Lazar, Marcussen."


Pinging original participants; {{u|BrigadierG}} {{u|NicolausPrime}} {{u|Slatersteven}} {{u|Popcornfud}} {{u|InDimensional}} {{u|BappleBusiness}} ] 01:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
The point is again, there must be no more references to other mastering engineers and sites, known or unknown on the mastering page. ] 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I agree this current title should be retained. I would support moving it to ] as the primary topic though. ] should be moved to ]. ] (]) 03:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The article is about the concept, not the occupation. ] ] 04:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)


:'''Oppose''' as proposed, would support merging the other way around or merging both articles to ] as proposed above. <span style="color:#ef5224">]</span> (]) 09:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
:I can see this is getting a little out of hand. To all parties involved: Please remember to ], and avoid violating the ]. And please, maintain ] above all else. Thank you, ] <sup>]</sup> 15:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
::@] the merger already happened ] 12:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''': The concept, not the occupation, is clearly the primary topic. ]<sup>]]</sup> 03:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - Article leads with {{tq|Mastering, a form of audio post production, is the process...}} A ] case could be made for ] → ] but that's a different proposal. ~] (]) 16:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

Latest revision as of 09:11, 8 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mastering (audio) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconProfessional sound production Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
On 26 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Mastering engineer. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Bass punch, kick drum, bass drum, frequencies, waveform

Add pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.238.233.138 (talk • contribs) .

The other loudness war is on FM radio!

The other loudness war is happening in FM broadcasting. There are dedicated FM processors that would be of little use for CD production. See for example http://www.omniaaudio.com. Therefore, I do not think that merging loudness war into audio mastering would be appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.238.233.138 (talk • contribs) .


Jeffason's comments:
You gotta be kidding. Who created the movement to merge the two. They are totally different. PLEASE REMOVE THIS REQUEST TO MERGE THE TWO. It is blasphemy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffason (talk • contribs) .

headroom

User:Kvng, one of the sources says:

This .wav file peaks at 0db but is fine because there are no distorted flat spots in the wave. The high hats are hitting at 0db and everything else drops down, leaving good dynamic range. I can work with this.

So I don't think my edits qualify neither as POV, or as original research. Uwsi (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The specific statement is cited to Bob Katz, and is a reasonable representation of the issue. Of course, headroom is more complex than what Katz asserts, as John Rogers explains. Zero dBFS can indeed be workable if the waveform just barely kisses the ceiling, and at the same time, −10 dBFS does not guarantee a distortion-free recording—it could be the case that someone distorted and clipped the signal in the recording process, then gained it down in a later step.
We should either tell the reader more detail, or trim the numbers away and just say that headroom is essential. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the current text is a good representation of the situation, I definitely think a better explanation is needed, for example there's no mentioning of 16 or 24 bits audio, and while a -3, -10dBFS headroom is a usual recommendation, it does not paint the whole picture. Feel free to propose a paragraph, as you are not happy with the changes I made. Uwsi (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The paragraph is documenting recommended levels. Katz suggests 3-10. John Rogers claims 3-6 is the norm. I trust Katz and also lets go with the superset. It is unlikely a 0 dBFS signal will be undistorted. You may be thinking of 0 dBTP. Or maybe you and this source don't understand how signal reconstruction works. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The 0dBFS could come from a DAW that was configured to normalize its output, the digital signal will not be distorted, but there's a high chance the signal will get distorted once it's converted to an analog signal. Uwsi (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
And thus the recommendations for providing mastering engineers with a recording with more headroom. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Kvng, I think mentioning 24-bits is a pretty important qualification, mixing to 16-bits and leaving 10dBFS of headroom leaves you with pretty much 14bits of data, which is... bad. Uwsi (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

14 bits is 84 dB of dynamic range which is the difference between the threshold of hearing and hearing damage. Nothing clearly bad about this. Mastering engineers fight the tendency for levels to be pushed in mixing. It is a misconception that lower levels will somehow sound bad when aligned properly by the mastering engineer. ~Kvng (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
That sounds like original research, I think Katz is pretty clear here: "In 24-bit recording you can make a perfectly good mix that peaks between -3 and -10 dBFS with no loss of quality" and "Always mix to 24 bit files". Uwsi (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I had a look at what Katz says in Mastering Audio (Chapter 16) and he gives an example of an acceptable 16-bit recording at -3 dBFS. His -10 dBFS example appears to be for a 24-bit recording. So we're both right depending on which end of the range we're talking about. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to merge, though consensus as to what the final title should be should be ascertained via WP:RM Mach61 18:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We have articles on Mastering engineers and the field of mastering, but the same page for Audio engineer and Audio engineering. The scopes of these articles are nigh identical, and there is little to gain by keeping them separate. This article is a lot better so most of the content will be from here, but to match audio engineer the title for a merged page should be mastering engineer Mach61 00:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @NicolausPrime@BrigaderG@Slatersteven from previous AfD discussion Mach61 00:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
meant @BrigadierG Mach61 01:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good. Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Support merge. Popcornfud (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Support merge. NicolausPrime (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose merge. I do think there is currently an unncessary contentfork, but I think we should look at separating out the profession (history, awards, rising role in music culture) from the activity (technology, transition from analogue). BrigadierG (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
@BrigadierG I disagree that everything worth including couldn't fit on to one article. There are some professions that definitely should have separate articles from their fields (e.g. Police/Police officer) but imo "mastering engineer" is too specialized to be one of them. The field is barely a century old, and it's more heavily linked to the available technology it rechquires than most. A combined article's "history" will have much more to say about advances in gear than advances in pay-scale. Mach61 17:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems like I am in the minority here so I am happy to bend to consensus if it remains, but I think the activity is a much more comprehensive article topic than the profession. To put it in a word, I think the action is prior to the profession. If discussing the history of mastering, there was a time when mastering was not a sufficiently developed or broad activity so as to be its own job. In that frame, mastering engineers are a subset of the big blob of mastering (the activity) in thingspace. I can't imagine a world where a job is notable but the activity you do in the job is not. BrigadierG (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Support merge, too similar a scope to justify separate articles. InDimensional (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Support merge, but into mastering, not mastering engineer. I don't see why we have to match audio engineer. Mastering is a specific process, unlike audio engineering, which is refers to a set of processes that only make sense together when in the context of the profession. I agree with BrigadierG that mastering is really the notable topic here, not mastering engineer. BappleBusiness 04:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@BappleBusiness I can live with this, as I care more that we don't have redundant articles than which article title is chosen. Perhaps, as a compromise, a merge can be preformed first, and then a WP:Requested move debate started over the best title? Mach61 16:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I would be happy with this and would not contest it BrigadierG (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 26 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Mastering (audio) → Mastering engineer – Basically a procedural RM I promised to hold after the merge discussion above, and promptly forgot about. I hold no strong feelings one way or the other

Pinging original participants; BrigadierG NicolausPrime Slatersteven Popcornfud InDimensional BappleBusiness Mach61 01:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as proposed, would support merging the other way around or merging both articles to mastering as proposed above. BrigadierG (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@BrigadierG the merger already happened Mach61 12:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: The concept, not the occupation, is clearly the primary topic. BappleBusiness 03:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - Article leads with Mastering, a form of audio post production, is the process... A WP:PRIMARYTOPIC case could be made for Mastering (audio) → Mastering but that's a different proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: