Re: [Jamin] Progress?

Hi,

Daniel James <daniel@64studio.com>:
> 
> What ties the two together is that both techniques require
> the use of a measurement microphone at the monitoring position

Right. IIRC, Katz even suggests to use a realtime analyzer for
calibration and to trim the power of a midband (1 kHz?). This tool
might come handy for the other calibration as well. ;-)

> Also, it doesn't make much sense to me to set a monitor
> reference level if room frequency response varies so much.

Well I disagree here. To me, a fixed monitor gain makes sense even if
you are mixing on a boom box in a garage. ;-) It gives you a clear
feedback when you are mastering too hot and gently pushes you to
produce a more dynamic master with reasonable average level, and IMHO a
bad frequency response does not change that effect too much.

> You might end with a bunch of recordings that all have the
> same average level, but with the frequency 
> balance all over the place.

Well. That might as well be the case if you are mastering in the
perfect flat monitoring environment. Nothing saves you from checking
your master on a variety of real-world "monitors" and possibly to
mistreat the frequency balance for the sake of a better translation. ;-)

> So I think it's possible to create a recording, mix
> and master that is technically correct, but completely 
> wrong on a subjective or emotional level.

Yep, 100% agree. And the opposite is true as well, you can have a bad
recording which sounds just perfect just due to the feeling it has.
The German artist Groenemeyer released a demo version of a song on his
last CD (clearly labeled "demo") which had an incredible feeling.
Later they did a radio edit with some pop-ification, but it didn't
sound half as good. 

Regards,
	Florian

P.S. 18 days to go till I remind the developers of the RMS meters and
meter colors again. ;o)


_______________________________________________
Jamin-devel mailing list
Jamin-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamin-devel