Pete Lyman and the MBC
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2024
- Infrasonic Mastering's Pete Lyman (Chris Stapleton, Jason Isbell, Brandi Carlile) talks mastering, the sound of Rupert Neve, and his role in the origins of the brand new MBC Dual Path A-D Converter & Limiter.
More on the MBC:
rupertneve.com/products/maste...
More on Infrasonic:
www.infrasonicsound.com
Wonderful! I’ll have it sitting in my rack next to my MBP and the 5059 Satellite. What a gorgeous trio 🧡🧡🧡
i am about to purchase the very same trio for summing and mastering ...may the force be with us
Pete, the idea is the heart ♥️ of the project. You were in it day to day so who better than you to have the idea's to go forward ! Rupert know's this !
Just purchased the MBC. Replaced my Lavry Gold. Incredible unit!
What kind of material do you mostly work on? The Gold is known for a particular thing it does - was that your starting point as well coming into the MBC? Still using it?
Would love to know how different the improvements on the limiter are from the MBP version.
I think I will be adding one of these to my mastering chain soon to see how it goes with the Maselec MPL2 and Bettermaker mastering limiter.
I think you need to put the silk on both channels to give the option of combining the red and blue
A quick question.... if you already had DA AD converter unit such as Horus ....other Masstering
equipment ,,,,,.etc... where would the MBC fit?
The best part of using Pete for mastering is he refuses to wear a hair net for his beard so you always wind up with souvenirs in the lacquer.
Some of the best-sounding souvenirs WE'VE ever heard.
Hello, what's the name of the first song at the beginning of the film?Thank you for your help.😊
nice
I always wanted a box designed by Rupert as an addition to my Mastering console, well I think this is it 👌is it already released ?
Thanks for your interest, it is shipping this week!
Can this be used for mixing?
Can the mbp be used for mixing also?
Absolutely. Mastering, printing mixes, or even after a mic pre for tracking / overdubs into your DAW - it's great for all purposes.
Why don't Rupert Neve design a 2 channel audio interface combining 2 Preamps,
ADC(same from MBC), solid windows drivers , DAC, best sounding headphone amps, all in one device ?
I agree, use the pres and converters and transformers from the RMP-D8. But make it two or four channels.
This box looks super rad, but I think I will keep my Burl B2 and get an MBP
zero-crossing detection for buttons? you said no pops or clicks yeah?
Burl B2 Bomber ADC ?
That’s my jam!!!!
Love my burl gear
The HEDD sitting there right at knee level is always interesting given at this level there are primarly just 2-3 names doing AD's that probably handle 50% (?) of things that are charting. And I see the comments here all about Lavry Gold's - what would be nice in a video for a thing like an MBC is to 1) consider the program material and 2) this is not kiddie time at these levels and you all could do more to really make it more relevant and not think it is bad marketing to product mention others or indicate even what the "designers" were going up against (to some degree) and also what went into the box given most of us chat on the very topic at a pretty deep level around what Dan has been doing for decades or Dave has literally rewritten the book on around clocking... this video: "Yea, its a got a um really good clock..." 🙄 ~ I come at this owning both AD's from those two guys. Looking at this to consider what it actually does well, uniquely, opinionatedly, etc. to make a buying decision. This video only marginally helps.
idk how to feel
Blessed.
This is not about Rupert Neve but a general comment. See this here is the whole problem...sound engineers are driven by their (very human) desire to do something. When in fact they should be doing nothing. Don't spoil the wholesomeness and integrity of the music by fiddling with it. You can never improve on the original. You can make it sound better "technically" but it becomes inferior musically. Get that? And BTW, change your titles from sound engineers or recording engineers to music keepers. You are merely recording to keep. There is nothing you need to engineer. You should aim to de-engineer. Second, insist that only audiophiles become music keepers. The rest don't qualify. Period. The engineer's goals are technical and cerebral while the goal of music is joy and happiness. That's a wide dichotomy right there. There are plenty of sound engineer nerds that have been butchering music for decades. With good intentions... thinking they are "improving" the sound and it now sounds "better". It's like trying to improve on a Picasso print by adding more contrast. It doesn't work. You aren't better than Picasso and you aren't musically better than the musician. So don't even try. Stop butchering music. Please!
If you want to release a bunch of impossible to listen to music, go right ahead.
@@charlesanderson1855 I can see why my comment was misconstrued. I edited it. Thanks for your comment, Charles. My point is not about "bad" recordings but a general comment on recording music. And how engineers destroy its beauty and musicality. It starts from the moment they think they are recording sound when, in fact, they are recording music. Sound is frequency, amplitude, channels, etc. while music is art. But they're stuck on sound so they try to "improve" on what musicians made. If they realized it was art, they wouldn't even try to improve it. And instead treat it with reverence.
There is no such thing as capturing the exact sound that is produced in the room and, in general, if you just record something and then do nothing to it at all, it sounds terrible. Engineers must figure out how to capture the spirit of the sound, but also how to make the sound fit with other sounds in the mix, which requires significant manipulation of levels, dynamics, and EQ. They must also make it sound cohesive. This is not really about that person putting their own spin on things, but most often, is about actually fixing technical problems so the artist can sound like they want to. Sure, different people have their own preferred equipment and methods of doing things, which imparts their personality to some degree, but Engineers are also part of the artistic process. So what is it they are keepers of?Their own decisions on how to capture something and not have it sound like garbage? Making records is generally a collaboration. The engineer's job is to make the artist sound as good as possible. That doesn't mean as accurate as possible in most cases.
@@christopherventer6391 One: The very best recordings took place in the simplest of settings with just a couple of microphones and not much else. Even with something as complex as an orchestra you only need a few more. Here are 5 Jorgenson microphones (C700S, two C722S, two C617), and although they still did a bit of "engineering", the music goes to the cutting lathe (a Neumann VMS 80). Hear the beauty and integrity of this yourself at
ua-cam.com/video/Yph5KdMBUag/v-deo.html
*It sounds so good that even at $220 the vinyl is sold out.* While their recording process may not be as pure as I'd like it to be, it does show how wonderful music can sound once we aim to de-engineer and keep everything original and whole.
Two: > "if you just record something and then do nothing to it at all, it sounds terrible" - well, then there is something wrong with the way you are recording the music. If a jazz band sounds great live (with microphones, mixer, amplifiers, speakers) but your recording sounds terrible, then you are doing something wrong. Other than levels you should do nothing. No dynamic compression (unless you are going to vinyl and the decibels do go beyond the format...which you will know in the rehersal...and even this is a compulsion born out of a limitation and not your choice). Try not to change anything. No EQ! Yes, users with cheap sound equipment will have trouble with the lowest and highest frequencies. Well, they bought cheap equipment so they are not expecting pristine sound anyway. Don't EQ it and spoil it for everyone else. No digital mastering and re-mastering. Master to analog tape. Remember, you are here to record art and it's your job to keep yourself out of it. You are not the art. Anything you do will only corrupt it in some way or the other.
Recently sales of vinyl beat CD sales for the first time in decades. CDs are rapidly becoming obsolete, but still, high sales of vinyl show people prefer musical beauty over engineering specs.
@@mehtasid Well of course setting up a few mics to capture a whole orchestra sounds good. The instruments in the orchestra have been carefully designed over hundreds of years to work perfectly together and they operate essentially as one unit. These are also in one large cohesive space and sound perfect live in the environment with the direction of the conductor etc. That is completely dissimilar to probably 90% of music production, which is done on electric instruments and often in isolation. It's not about the quality of the equipment used at all. Personally I use quite high quality equipment and so do most all professional engineers. However, for example, a vocal is a very dynamic performance, for example. If you do no compression at all, parts of it will be inaudible under instruments that are naturally less dynamic (such as guitars or bass or synthesizers) and words will get buried.
Similarly, an electric guitar amp and a bass amp produce quite a few frequencies that overlap and create muddiness in the mix. If you listen to pretty much any classic recording, you will hear probably what sounds like a somewhat thin sounding guitar in isolation, but which melds perfectly with the bass when in the mix. If you didn't eq them at all, you'd have a muddy mix in most every case because in the room the performers very often set their eq on their amp so that it feels and sounds good to them, but then when you capture it, to reproduce the feel in the room, you very often need to do a little bit of cleanup or else 150hz or 350 hz for example will build up and ruin your mix. Often bass guitars are also too dynamic and have a low E string that is way louder than the others and certain notes will resonate more than others depending on the amp and environment, etc. This, too, usually requires some compression to make it so you don't get a "one note bass" effect. Synthesizers, too, often have a very full frequency range that they produce and need a bit of reigning in to get them to sit in a mix without overtaking it a bit. And then, since these instruments are quite loud and need to be recorded somewhat in isolation, or some of them are going directly into a console, you also need to do something by the end to make sure everything feels together. This is not done to add flair or ruin the music, but to make the artists sound how they feel in the room or otherwise achieve their artistic vision while taking care of the technical challenges to doing so.
Now if you're talking strictly about acoustic music, the challenge is a bit less daunting, but not as straightforward as you might want to think it is. Our ears filter out a lot of stuff in experiencing music in the moment. If the bass is too loud in a room because of resonance, for example, your brain will compensate for the acoustics of the room and you will eventually not really hear the room so much. However, in a recording, you are being transported to a room you are not in. So, things need to be balanced properly so they are clearly audible.
Do you record and mix music? Because it kind of sounds like you don't.