Track: No Sanctuary Here
Artist: Chris Jones
Album: Roadhouses & Automobiles
Label: Stockfisch Records
You can hear a sample of the track from the Stockfisch website here.
Track: No Sanctuary Here
Artist: Chris Jones
Album: Roadhouses & Automobiles
Label: Stockfisch Records
You can hear a sample of the track from the Stockfisch website here.
Jan Sand says:
Yes, Chris Jones indispensable. But in what respect is this a favorite test track?
Best regards,
Jan Sand
geoff says:
Hi Jan,
I found this one on a Stockfish sampler disc back in the spring and I’ve been using it a lot since then. However, this is, more or less, my introduction to Chris Jones.
There are many things about this track that appeal to me. The first is the quality of the recording and the mix – Günther Pauler does a great job of both. The second is the performance. The third is the simplicity of the production – it’s not overdone (which, among other things, makes me REALLY hate the re-mixed version by Marian Herzog). Finally, the lyrics are brilliantly prescient, in my opinion. I love the message – and did, even before the recent events here in Europe…
A little more info about what’s great about the mix. One of the two rules of how to make a clean mix is simple to understand, but unfortunately, not easy to accomplish. It’s the same as you’ll sometimes hear from good jazz musicians – don’t cut someone else’s grass. In the case of performance, this means that you don’t try to cut into the foreground when someone else is doing a solo.
In the case of a mix, it’s basically the same: you should always try to allocate each instrument and voice to its own frequency band. Don’t put two instruments in the same frequency band at the same time. This is an old trick used by composers that wrote orchestral music for movie soundtracks – you’d never hear an oboe and dialogue at the same time, since oboe and voice have similar harmonic content.
If you *do* want to overlap for some reason, you can use spatial location instead of spectral content to separate instruments.
The mix in “No Sanctuary Here” does both of these. For example, when the backup vocals are singing their “Hummmmmm-Ah”, they are panned hard left and right, saying out of the way of both the bass and the lead vocals, since they occupy the same territory spectrally. When they’re not singing, the track is very mono-ish – but there’s no overlap.
Of course, there are lots of other details – but that’s enough for now – unless you want more info. :-)
Cheers
-geoff
Jamie Angus says:
Geoff,
I love this! Not only clean, and uncluttered, as you say there’s space for everything. But it exercises the full spectrum, with good vocal lows and nice transient highs as well as the critical midrange vocals. Coupled with the space I could see why this makes a good test, you have a chance at actually hearing subjective impairments.
Cheers
Jamie
Jan Sand says:
Hi Geoff,
What you say about frequencies is important and should be obvious to music makers. I think this relates to a problem I have with symphonic classical music: there is too much of everything at the same time. Thus, I prefer chamber music to symphonic. If I am too categoric, can you perhaps suggest any symphonic recording that is separated in frequencies and spatially?
All the best,
Jan
Bart De Bie says:
Hi Geoff,
I know that track and it’s a great song and also a great recording of it.
What i’m wondering is: you only talk about the quality of the recording process and the mixing process but i don’t hear you talk about the mastering process.
What do you think of the mastering of this song: is it good or bad and what you think they could have done differently to improve it?
Kind regards
Bart
geoff says:
Hi Jan,
This is a really good question – and you’ve caused me one unusually-late-night (I won’t say that I was up all night I did sleep…) thinking about it. I’m afraid that I don’t have an answer for you. But I am thinking about it – and I’ll get back to you with an answer…
I think that you might have shone a light on an interesting issue here that has something to do with orchestras, frequency-dependent RT60 times, and recording techniques… But that’s just a preliminary gut feeling…
Like I said: more info later…
Cheers
-geoff
geoff says:
Hi Bart,
I don’t know how I would unwrap the mastering portion of this recording from the tracking and mixing. Personally, if I had made that recording, I’d be really proud of it. Offhand, I can’t think of anything that I would change in a mastering process.
One thing to note here is that I only have a copy of that recording on a sampler disc from Stockfisch – I don’t have the Chris Jones album. So, there may be some mastering discussion with regards to the original album and overall matching of the different tracks on it. However, given the typical attention to detail that Stockfisch pays to their recordings I would not expect to hear anything strange…
Why do you ask? Do you have a comment about the mastering of that track (in isolation of the tracking and mixing)?
Cheers
-geoff
Bart says:
Hi Geoff,
I have no problem with the mastering of this track, it’s great.
What strikes me is that everybody who is into audio is always talking about the recording and the mix and never about the mastering.
I find this strange because the mastering process is very important because it determines the quality of the finished product.
Let me explain, the finished final mix is what the artist and producer intended.
Now in my opinion the mastering process should be a 1 on 1 conversion process.
What i mean by that is that in my opinion all that is required is to put the tracks in the right order and set the levels correctly, in that way the sound of the final mix is not altered.
However sometimes you see mastering engineers use things like eq and other adjustments with i find strange because then they are altering the original sound for no apparent reason.
For me the sound of the final mix should be 100% preserved in the mastering process in order to hear what the artist and producer heard when they finished it.
If the sound is changed during the mastering process then we are not hearing the sound we are supposed to be hearing leaving us clueless about the artist and producers intentions.
Sometimes it can also happen that the mastering engineer is using better equipment than the recording engineer, on the other hand, sometimes the equipment of the recording engineer is better than that of the mastering engineer leading to a change in sound.
Furthermore you also have the record company’s who want their releases to be loud because of the ongoing loudness war.
A perfect example is the cd from nirvana called nevermind.
Compare the original 1991 master with the 2015 master, talk about a change in sound because of the dynamic range compression, loudness and brick wall limiting!!
So all in all it is not easy to judge the sound of an album if you don’t know how well it is preserved between the final mix and the playback on your stereo.
Kind regards
Bart
Millemissen says:
My thoughts about it:
I certainly agree that the mastering process should be part of, what the artist, the engeneers and the producers accept as the final product. And that – for people with a decent playback setup – all we need is, what I usually call ‘gentle mastering’ (i.e. s little as possible) in a quality, that is near the final mix.
However the reality is different. Mostly different masters are needed for different products – think of the mastering for a vinyl release or for a ‘mastered for iTunes’ release. Ofter (this is rather new) they are making different masters for a standart release (16/44.1) and a highres release (e.g. 24/96)….
The power of the record companies is big and most artists don’t get involved in these decisions (including dynamic range compression). Often they don’t really care….unfortunately – they focus on ‘other things’.
Imo every artist – if he regardes himself primarily as an artist – should make these decisions part of his record contract.
To me it is important, that I – as a listener – can listen to a (well-played, of course) skilfull recorded, mixed and mastered piece of music.
This is far more important, that the ‘delievery container’/the format of the final product….except for – of course – anything below a 256/320 lossy file.
Millemissen says:
What I forgot above:
Most people don’t realise how important their playback gear, their listening room and their listening skills are.
No need to ask for a ‘well done (all inclusive) recording’, if your setup and your room is not fit for it.
In that case – maybe – ever a recording, that has been ‘a bit more heavy mastered’ would bring the listener more joy.
geoff says:
Hi Bart,
You’re confusing things a little I think.
The point of mastering is not to make a 1:1 transfer (ignoring gain) of the mix. A good mastering engineer is like the person who polishes the paint on a car. Anything a good mastering engineer would do would not be done for “no apparent reason”. The thing you’re assuming is that the sound you get in a recording studio control room is a reliable representation of the mix – but it’s not. As some simple example: the mixing console itself has a huge influence on the sound at the listening position – which is why a mastering console is so small. This is only one example, but the point is that you need the mastering engineer to clean things up. OF course there are bad mastering engineers, but you can’t throw mastering itself out the window just because someone does a bad job of it.
The debate surrounding the re-mastering of old recordings and the intentional loss of dynamic range (ubiquitously known as the “loudness war”) is a completely separate topic that should not be mixed up (pun intended) with a discussion of the job of a mastering engineer.
Cheers
-geoff
Jan Sand says:
A comment not realated to this fine record, but to mastering: Tried to relax to Trio Zimmerman playing Beethoven on “HiFi recording” the other day, waiting for my wife to come home by car. On several occasions I heard the rumble of the car coming home, but there was no car when I looked out. Then I realized that the rumble was on the recording! Actually, I have heard low frequency rumble on classical recordings on several occassions when playing at high volume. It think it should be basic practice to prefilter rumble on live recordings. All the best,
Jan
geoff says:
Hi Jan,
This is quite likely the result of your loudspeakers at home having a lower low-frequency range than the loudspeakers that were used for recording and mastering. You can hear something that the engineers couldn’t. This has happened to me – on my first recording. However, in that case, it was vibrations from a tapping foot, mechanically transmitted up through the vocal mic stand into the ribbon mics I was using. The result is a low-frequency thumping that we could not hear in the studio or the mastering studio – but I can hear it on large loudspeakers when I listen to the CD.
I felt bad about this until I found exactly the same problem on Eric Clapton’s “Unplugged” album – misery loves company.
On another occasion, I was the recording and mastering engineer for a pipe organ CD done in Montreal. I guarantee that you’ll hear traffic noise in that one – but this was unavoidable. Although we recorded late at night to reduce the problem of noise in the church, sometimes, we had to make a choice between the good take or the quiet one… Unless it was a Harley Davidson outside, the good take almost always won over the quiet one. :-)
This is a good example of a case where it’s not better to have better loudspeakers. In a perfect world, you should hear what the mastering engineer heard – but that would mean changing to a different room and different loudspeakers for almost every recording (Unless you duplicate Bob Ludwig’s room and loudspeakers. That would then cover about half of your collection…).
Cheers
-geoff
geoff says:
Hi Jan,
I’ve spent the morning listening to some good orchestra recordings that made me think of your question.
Beethoven, Symphony No. 9
Cleveland Orchestra & Chorus
Cond. Christoph von Dohnanyi
Telarc CD80120
Showcase
Minnesota Orchestra
Cond. Eiji Oue
Reference Recordings RR-907CD
Cheers
-geoff
Jan Sand says:
Thanks! Will have a look (or listen). All the best, Jan