Talk:Audio mastering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Professional sound production WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the technology, equipment, companies and professions related to professional sound production. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 16 bit/44.1khz 2 Loudness War 3 Bass punch, kick drum, bass drum, frequencies, waveform 4 The other loudness war is on FM radio! 5 External links 6 References 7 Is this spam for vestman mastering? 8 Music mastering Merge 8.1 helpme 8.2 Spam 9 More Verification 10 "Artmastering" 10.1 Restored the section about "artmastering" 10.2 Questions about the "artmastering" inclusion 11 Spam alert - user Evinatea aka Edward Vinatea 12 Discussion about references and sources 13 Spam or Burning Books 14 Inclusion of book by Bobby Owsinski as a reference for this article 15 Another sock-puppetry accusation by this user 16 A call to resolve the issues at the "Audio mastering" page 17 Jrod2 = Evinatea = Edward Vinatea = illiterate Louis and company 18 Lack of references for 4 years

[edit] 16 bit/44.1khz

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? Gamiar 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pbr (talk • contribs) .

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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.136.232.46 (talk • contribs) .

Especially EQ and filtering tend to misbehave when approaching the nyquist frequency. This often happens gradually, which is why i think it does 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. JoaCHIP 10:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Loudness War

Any issues with merging Loudness war into this article? It's not really it's own topic and is really a mastering issue. --Jgritz 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. Mirror Vax 22:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the above posting. Loudness war should be merged with audio mastering, however, it is not a dire issue. I do urge whoever has power to merge two articles to do so as soon as possible.--68.194.238.91 00:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please keep seperate. Loudness war 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. --Spod mandel 02:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Spod, the loudness war is notable enough to deserve its own article by the same logic that car and car accidents are seperate articles. -- Dept of Alchemy 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. -- JoaCHIP 10:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.136.232.46 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Bass punch, kick drum, bass drum, frequencies, waveform

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

[edit] 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) .

[edit] External links

Please refer to Wikipedia:External links 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article rather than merely linking to it. The MBA link could serve as a legitimate reference to facts in the Wikipedia article rather than just sitting there as a bare link. Han-Kwang 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_Mastering:

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. Han-Kwang 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 Wikipedia 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.136.232.46 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Is this spam for vestman mastering?

I recently reverted this edit. 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. Mr Stephen 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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.136.232.46 (talk • contribs) .

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. Erkki10000 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.Oxfordia 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 - Evinatea 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 Wikipedia. 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 207.136.232.164 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.Evinatea 07:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music mastering Merge

The article Music mastering 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. --Davidkazuhiro 04:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 WikiProject Professional sound production 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. Evinatea 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 WP:N and WP:V? Xiner (talk, email) 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) Evinatea 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 {{helpme}} tag should be used on your user talk page only. Xiner (talk, email) 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.Evinatea 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 207.136.232.164 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Evinatea 08:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.230.46 (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

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 Wikipedia) 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evinatea using IP 162.83.204.63 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 Wikipedia wants a search for mastering. That could close the debate. Evinatea 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.Evinatea 02:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] More Verification

This user (No name) said: "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.. Evinatea 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 Wikipedia 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 207.136.232.164 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.Evinatea 07:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Artmastering"

[edit] 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. --Mike Sorensen 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.230.46 (talk • contribs). 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. --Mike Sorensen 11:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Evinatea 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. --Mike Sorensen 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about the "artmastering" inclusion

Hello Mike, you wrote: "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."

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

"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."

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. Evinatea 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.--Mike Sorensen 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mike Sorensen you wrote: "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.

"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!

"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.

"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.

"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.Evinatea 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.Evinatea 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".--Biggy P 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.Evinatea 02:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam alert - user Evinatea aka Edward Vinatea

[edit] Discussion about references and sources

Hopefully now, we will get some peace and quiet here so we can discuss a few issues in an organized manner.

I'd like to open a discussion about sources that we would consider as acceptable references for this article.

For example: I just picked up this book Mastering Engineers Handbook. The info in this book is partially obsolete but there are still a few good things in it. It really isn't a handbook, as the title says, but rather a collection of interviews with mastering engineers where the author asks a question and then he cites the answers from different engineers.

Some people raised objections against including links that may somehow lead to mastering engineers. I have a different point of view on this, assuming of course that certain level of scientific objectivity, accuracy and decency is maintained.

The field of audio mastering is roughly 60 years old. I don't know of any nationally accredited universities that offer BS degree in mastering and therefore there are no scholars on the subject other then the people who are actually doing it.

I'm against allowing mastering engineers spamming this page with their own promos and rants but if there is a good book or an article out there, then I have no problem with including it as a source, even if it eventually leads to some studio, under condition that:

• said book or article appears in a respectable publication or website
• is written by a journalist or author with a verifiable track record,
• is NOT written by a mastering engineer to promote his/her point of view or opinion.
• is NOT a review of some "great mastering job" done for a record(s) release

(Please feel free to suggest additional constraints in your comments) --Mike Sorensen 09:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The book that I cited, references 10 names in the industry and offers different points of view on the subject. I would consider it as a decent source for this article but I would like to hear your opinions. (Since, by counseling [1] of Omegatron, user Evinatea is advised not to post on this page, I'm entering a BIG VETO on his behalf so we all know that he disagrees. All other contrarian points of view are very welcome as long as they are signed by their respective authors. --Mike Sorensen 08:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is also a book by BobKatz. He is a mastering engineer who conveys some of his own opinions in his book but the book is very solid and the amount of factual information overwhelmingly outweighs any personal opinions of his. I would suggest his book as another potential source to Audio Mastering article. This brings another potential constraints to the list above.

• is written by a mastering engineer but contains factual, objective and verifiable information which overwhelmingly outweighs any personal opinions of the author--Mike Sorensen 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam or Burning Books

I'm writing this with hesitation as a few days ago I was attacked after reincluding this article Mastering Your Music which was deleted on March 5th [2] by this user Evinatea and attacked as spam by this user 71.108.230.46.

I just found out that this article, is on the list of recommended readings at Eastern Washington University at the Department of Engineering and Design.Here is the link to the article on their server MasteringReading. It is being used to teach course "Tech 275 Digital Sound". In all this blind haste we just burned a book here...which was perhaps one of the best reference on Audio mastering that we ever had.

Please comment on reincluding it in References section.--Mike Sorensen 21:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: I'm proposing this article MasteringReading at ewu.edu for inclusion in references section for Audio mastering.--Mike Sorensen 19:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Mike! I was the one who labeled the original article link and subsequent entry on artmastering as spam. Btw, I apologize for being so aggressive, but it was right around the time the mastering page was getting hit by spam almost daily. WIth all due respect, I would humbly request that both the gman/mastering link and artmastering entry remain off the mastering page. While the gman/mastering article does include a few good general-purpose bits of info, it suffers from major flaws that, unfortunately, render it spam, by which I specifically mean promotional material for Art Sayecki's mastering business. My main concern is the disproportionate coverage given to Art Sayecki and his mastering business in the body of the article. Sayecki is quoted a total of 10 times in the body of the text, while the other mastering engineers are quoted only once or twice. (also note the photo of Sayecki at the top of the page) I find this problematic for two reasons. First, the way the article is structured (Sayecki agreeing with noted mastering engineers / noted mastering engineers agreeing with Sayecki) it gives the impression that Sayecki is an authority on mastering, or at the very least is as notable as the other mastering engineers quoted. This is more than implied in the links section of the article itself, which reads, "[t]he following is by no means a comprehensive list. These are simply the mastering houses that came up most often when talking to artists and others in the industry about quality mastering engineers and great sonics". The first listing is Sayecki's, and followed by such noted "name" engineers as Bob Ludwig, Bernie Grundman, Brian "Big Bass" Gardner, Stephen Marcussen, etc. As such, the article at times almost reads like a commercial for Sayecki's mastering services. This is understandable, as the article was written by Scott G, a client of Sayecki's. However, I find it unacceptable. Second, I have reservations as to whether the other engineers/musicians quoted in the article were actually interviewed by the author for the purposes of the article itself, and not just had quotes lifted from interviews in magazines, websites, etc without permission. If this is the case, then permission must be given, and the sources of the quotes should have been listed in the article (for example, "Larry Crane, quoted from interview in TapeOp #15, February 2001". Lastly, the 'artmastering' section that was added to the mastering page also seemed too much like promotional material, or marketing for Sayecki. I do not mean this to be an attack on Sayecki, as I'm sure he is a fine and capable ME. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.51.147 • contribs .

You have some valid points and we will talk about them. However, I have to say that you should have addressed them this way in the first place rather then vandalizing pages and attacking people involved, but your apology is noted. Now, let me make a summary of your points so we can have an overview for our discussion.

Questions:

1. 10 quotations of Art Sayecki.
2. Why picture of Art Sayecki
3. Others are agreeing with quotes by Art Sayecki, and perhaps they shouldn't because he may not be as notable.
4. Were the people in the article really interviewed
5. Why is Artmastering listed as first in the "links" section and the rest is below.
6. Why section on Artmastering was added in the same time as the link to the article was restored

Answers:

1. In the entire article, including links, I counted 106 names of artists, engineers and producers, while Sayecki is mentioned only 10 times. I see no bias here. Just the opposite, other names and points of view overwhelmingly outnumber Sayecki's by 10 times.
2. This version of article doesn't have any pictures in it [3]
3. Search engines return hundreds of entries on Art Sayecki so he is notable and known. I see no reason why others would disagree with him, particularly if the statements that he makes are correct. He also agrees with others so it is a reciprocal discussion.
4. I doubt that journalist like G-man, with hundreds of article in his portfolio, would write anything without interviewing his subjects, but bear with me and we will find out more. The article was published on 7 websites since Jan. 2004 (according to Google) If people in the article were misrepresented because they were not interviewed then they would have surely reacted by now, but that's not the case.
5. This version of the article doesn't have any studio links in it. However the links in the original section have been arranged in alphabetical order and thats why Artmastering is first as it starts with "A". Bob Ludwig is below because he is under "G" for "Gateway Mastering", Grundman and Gardener are also under "G" for "Grundman mastering", and so on.
6. I'm the person who re-included Artmastering section, as I found information to support it. I always do a basic research on my edits and in the process of researching Artmastering I found the other article which I consider as comprehensive so I reincluded it after I noticed that someone deleted it without any explanation. I also submitted the subject for discussion [4].

As far as point 4. is concerned, perhaps the best way to find out is by asking the author G-man. His contact info is in the article. I will send him a brief email and if he replies then I will post it here.--Mike Sorensen 22:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Search engines return thousands of results on many mastering sites and articles. The point is not whether the ME in question has enough search results to support notability, but whether the other MEs have actually agreed with his views. To establish that, you would need to provide links to those ME's websites, "popular" music or engineering magazine interviews, articles and/or editorials, mentioning that they indeed agree with Sayecki's views on mastering. These quotes, naturally, need to come from different interviewers and not from just one. There is really no relevance on how many interviews this G-Man has conducted in the past and neither is Sayecki's perceived "fame by association". The point is, a statement from this interview's writer at MusicBizAcademy, would just not constitute a good enough proof of notability as this could also be perceived as not coming from a NPV . Finally, the external link to that article creates a problem with Wikipedia guidelines ( See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided) and should be avoided as recommended.Jrod2 01:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments, just like comments of 71.109.51.147 question the writer's professional integrity and honesty. This is considered a personal attack by wikipedia standards and a particularly aggressive one, as the person that you are attacking is not part to this conversation and can't defend himself. Not even mentioning that you have no proof to support any of your claims but only your conjecture. Additionally the manner in which you are doing it makes me question your motives as to objecting to inclusion of this article. If your interests were purely encyclopedic and motivated by civil discourse, then the appropriate course of action would have been to email the author and ask him those questions before making unsupported public accusation. But that's just my opinion. I also see no point in debating someones professional honesty unless a party to this article comes forth and states publically that he/she was misrepresented. So please stop unless you are such a party. And just as I told 71.109.51.147 I will contact the writer with questions, since neither one of you dared to do that. As far as the external links are concerned inclusion of this article would meet every standard of wikipedia guidelines on resources and references, assuming that we get a consensus on the inclusion.--Mike Sorensen 10:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mike, I am so sorry you thought I was attacking you. And no, I was not putting into question the writer's professional integrity and honesty. I was putting into question whether the opinion of one interviewer was good enough reference. And now that you made me take a closer look at other comments, If the writer (Scott G) is also the ME's (Sayecki) client, then there is a conflict of interest that you can't deny and is noted at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. I have read the no personal attacks guideline you included on your comment. See personal attack.Sorry, but according to the rules, you have taken "no personal attack" out of context. It clearly says: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Since Scott G is not the contributor but you are, then no personal attacks have ever been made. In other words, in order for you to say that I am making a personal attack against you, then you would have to be the writer of said article at MusicBizAcademy. I am only requesting for more interviews quoting those MEs agreeing with Sayecki's views. Is that asking for too much? It would help establish this ME's notability without further questions. That said, more interviews and quotes from all the MEs involved in the article, written by other reputable publications, will also merit the inclusion of said article on the audio mastering page reference links section without further questions. Your statements in the past apparently defend Sayecki and favor very much the content of said article. Are you yourself Sayecki's client?. Jrod2 18:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a brief lesson for you on morality: "...Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles.." You implied that no interviews were conducted and now you are implying that I'm Sayecki's client. This is again a personal attack. So I'm telling you again to STOP. Now the other issue. No Scott-G was not a client of Artmastering when he wrote and published this articles. Check the dates and credits on his albums and read the info on this very page before commenting. While writing this article he learned about concept of "artmastering" and subsequently when he was releasing his next album he decided to have it mastered with the process of artmastering, this took place after the article was already written and published. After he became a client, he fully disclosed this fact in his subsequent articles. This is what an honest journalist does !. And "no" I never defended Sayecki or Scott-G before (other then in this discussion), but when I see people twisting wikipedia policy to justify personal attacks on anybody I will take an action. BTW, the information on Scott-G and dates of his album releases is available online, other info is right here on this very page [5]. Feel free to read. --Mike Sorensen 22:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition on morality at Wikipedia cited by you, can not be applied to this situation because Scott G is not the contributor, you are. Nevertheless, no one is putting into question his integrity. On the other hand, if your are accusing me of personal attack against you because I asked you whether you are Sayecki's client or not, that was an honest question and it doesn't constitute a personal attack since at Wikipedia nobody is impervious from another editor's scrutiny and it is actually welcome and it should be expected. Again, you have taken "no personal attacks" out of context. It clearly says: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Let me put it to you in terms that you will understand; the content is the audio mastering page and you like the other editors, are a contributor. In any case, this isn't about Scott G's article. Just like those editors who asked more references and you are citing hereby [6], it's about getting more interviews and references that quote those MEs agreeing with Sayecki's view. That's all. So, please refrain from using the word "personal attack" in the future. Jrod2 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me satisfy your "totally non attacking" curiosity. I'm not a client of Sayecki. Maybe in the future, as I think that his concept of "artmastering" is great. And if I ever become his client, I will tell you about it, just like Scott-G did.--Mike Sorensen 01:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. I am glad you addressed the question. Now please do not quote me as "personal attacking" Scott G. the G-Man because I found out that on the 4th of Sunday, March 2007, he did write another article at Music Industry Newswire web site about Sayecki (http://musicindustrynewswire.com/2007/03/04/min160_220600), where he did not mention the fact that he was Sayecki's client, presumably because it would constitute a conflict of interest. It is however at Wikipedia. Second, I an not satisfied that on his own admission, Scott G is the owner of G-Man Marketing, where he consults on advertising, marketing, positioning, branding and sonic branding . Now, as for your proposed inclusion of the artmastering section on the 5th of March of this year (Talk:Audio_mastering#.22Artmastering.22), we have something at Wikipedia called "Attribution".(Wikipedia:Attribution) It says: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." That said, your proposed artmastering article does not fall within these parameters either. Sorry. Jrod2 13:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The way you know that someone lost an argument is when they start personally attacking editors and not the subject. From where I stand Jrod2, your comments on Scott-G are sleazy, just like your cheap attack on Mike by implying that he is a client, (readWikipedia:Assume good faith),...but hey, I'm just commenting on your comments and not on you, I'm sure you are a sweet guy just like 71.108.230.46. :And in your last comment you are attacking Mike again by saying that he included article on Artmastering even though he knew that Scott-G disclosed about being a client of Artmastering. Dude, can you read ??? When an author discloses his association, it is done exactly to avoid conflict of interest, and Mike submitted it for discussion so people can examine the subject and decide (dede, read, read, read! [7]). And unless you can show that Scott-G was doing something wrong, you are attacking him again as a journalist. The Wikipedia policy is one thing but human decency is another and your comments violate both. But hey..., I'm just commenting on your comments and not on you. --Biggy P 18:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

biggy I don't see why you thimk jroad2 is sleazy, all he saying is G-Man made interviews after becoming a client of the mastering guy himself but he did'nt make that public. If i read that artcle at musicnewswire.com i would thought G-man was neutral but he is full of caca for not saying he is a client too. G-man made it sound in that article like he didn't know Sayeki mastering personally ,why should we belive anything said on that article. The whole thing stinks and is spam!!! and stop calling good users like jroad2 bad because he is making good questions and i understand that G-man is not the contributor so he can be checked by anybody and is not personal attack is just checking to see he is legit. Luis—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.224.3.55 • contribs .

I'm sorry "Luis" but looks like you can't read either. Just like Jrod2 you are pointing out the last part of a 4-part interview instead going to the first part Music Industry Newswire Interview Part 1 where the author gives a full disclosure. Trust me, reading does wonders.--Biggy P 20:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Luis, You know how to read but you are dealing with a guy who is a self opinionated, megallomaniac and sock puppeteer of the worst kind. He is staff at MusicBusinessNewswire.com. as well as the Musicbizacademy and a whole other bunch of no-one-gives-a-dam websites, He is a control freak and could have logged onto that article at MBN, add that "full disclosure" disclaimer and then come back as "Biggy" to insult you.Hottrax 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is the whole thing stinks rotten and we are not going to put up with these puppet accounts the "G-man" or Sayecki has created. It's the same pattern, everytime someone brings up some good points as to why the artmastering or the Sayecki studio article should not be included on the mastering page Mike Sorensen accuses them of personal attacks and the user Biggy P shows up on cue and like "magic", to defend Sorensen's position. It's all bullcrap! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hottrax (talk • contribs) 22:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

This talk page is for Audio mastering and not for rants, personal attacks or puppetry accusation. So unless you can bring a rational argument on the subject then please refrain from posting here.--Biggy P 22:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

BIGGY P shut yo hole up you make personal attacks first you called the guy jroad2 sleazy and you called me like iliterate you hipocrate cabron!!! Luis—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.224.3.55 • contribs .

Dear "Luis", in one short sentence you made two spelling errors, "iliterate" and "hipocrate". This is a great tribute to literacy.--Biggy P 02:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of book by Bobby Owsinski as a reference for this article

Since we are debating references I'm also proposing inclusion of the book by Bobby Owsinski Mastering Engineers Handbookas a resource for this article. I just finished reading it and I think it is a solid resource. Maybe a little outdated but the fundamental information in the book is good. Again, I remind everyone that the book cites quotes from 10 different mastering engineers which some may find objectionable. The names cited in the book are different then those cited in the article Mastering Your Music, with the exception of Schreyer (correct me if I'm wrong). The names in the book are: Sax, Calbi, Meadows, Olhsson, Collins, Schreyer, Ludwig, Grundman, Cheppa, Katz. Between those two sources we would have a very wide representation of opinions on the subject. BTW the book also contains more quotes from some engineers and less from some others (those darn writers just can't count :-)). And "no", I didn't count who said what how many times, as it really doesn't matter as long as the statements contained in the book are informative, correct and educational. Check your library, I found one in a library after I bought it.
Comments please.--Mike Sorensen 20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to step on any toes here, so please be gentle with me. I have a question about this resource. How would this be included in the references, as a text statement about the book and the author, something like: "Mastering Engineer's Handbook - by Bobby Owsinski", or as a link to amazon.com ? The book is ok so I personally don't have a problem either way, though pointing to amazon may feel a little like a sales pitch for the book. I guess the same may apply to the article above. If the resource was pointing to the university server then I would be probably willing to go with that as that version of the article at ewu.edu doesn't have any links or pictures but just the information.--SciFrutto 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that a simple text description like the one you are suggesting is just fine. Though including an internet link is not unusual when indicating references. As far as the article is concerned, I'm talking about the article at ewu.edu but I just made a clarification above so there is no confusion.--Mike Sorensen 20:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another sock-puppetry accusation by this user

Mike Sorensen I've been reading for the last couple of days and following everything that has been said here at the talk page including musicmasteringonline.com Evinatea's accusations against you at User:Evinatea/Sockpuppetry I find it preposterous that you are now accusing Jrod2 of sock-puppetry as well (User:Jrod2) only because he seems to disagree with you and is giving you a few lessons in the use of Wikipedia articles. You can not treat editors, especially new ones like this. I think this user Mike Sorensen should be banned from Wikipedia 'cause he is very disruptive, malicious and I really find his intentions and persistence in promoting this Art Sayecki mastering lab in California suspicious because only sock-pupeteers accuse others of the same.Skylark01 16:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is for Audio mastering and not for rants or puppetry accusation. Stick to the subject please.--Biggy P 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A call to resolve the issues at the "Audio mastering" page

All editors at Wikipedia,

It appears that an editor, calling himself Mike Sorensen, in March 2007 placed on the Wikipedia "Audio mastering" page, a section called "Artmastering", complete with a supporting external link (See: [8]).

This article titled "Artmastering" which is related to audio mastering, was previously deleted for lack of support (See: [9]).

Originally, the article was posted as an external link by user "Voy7" in August 2006 (See:[10])

Around the same time, 2 more external links, one citing the same "Artmastering" studio, were apparently added by someone, presumably the owner himself, Art Sayecki. This was done anonymously with IP address 66.214.253.155 located in Burbank, California (Check IP) and (See: [11]and [12]).

Let's analyze this further:

66.214.253.155 (See IP) (Presumably Art Sayecki of "Artmastering") and

66.214.253.51 (See IP) (An unknown user who also supported "Artmastering" and attacked those who didn't agree (See: [13] and [14])

Location: Burbank, California.

According to most system administrators, there is a 95% chance or certainty, that these 2 IP addresses belong to the same user. Is this just a coincidence? It gets better. He plays with Wikipedia, erasing negative comments against Art Sayecki (See: [15]) and tries to erase his tracks from the system (See: [16]). Who could have an interest to do this?

The account Voy7 a/k/a "R.Watts" and the IP address with location in Burbank, were associated with accusations of sock puppetry (See:[17])

The "Artmastering" article and all external links were removed. Then, "Artmastering" was re-posted again by Mike Sorensen as indicated above in early March 2007 (See: [18]), only to be removed for the last time by a Sysop at Wikipedia (See: [19]).

All the aforesaid external links, direct to articles about "Artmastering", the owner Art Sayecki and his studio in Burbank, California.

The '"Artmastering" article, for the most part, is in the form of an interview with this mastering engineer, Art Sayecki, the creator of "Artmastering". It had a few brief quotations by well-known audio engineers agreeing with his views. (See: Mastering Your Music).

By his own admission, the interviewer of these "Artmastering" articles, who identifies himself as Scott G, "The G-Man", owns G-Man Marketing (See: [20]).

G-Man Marketing is in the business of consulting on advertising, marketing, positioning (Presumably for web/page rank), branding and sonic branding.

This "Artmastering" article, as a reference link at the mastering page, presented a problem for some users. As strongly indicated on the Wikipedia talk page and by the editors that deleted the "Artmastering" page (See: [21]). Some editors considered it a deliberate act of company promotion for the Art Sayecki mastering lab and studio.

I personally thought, that the "Artmastering" article did not meet the criteria for inclusion, since after researching the volume of interviews conducted by Scott G, "The G-Man", I found out that there were many more interviews with Art Sayecki (See: [22]), but no other mastering engineer was ever been interviewed by him (At least not found on the web).

The interviews, that I did find about "Artmastering", were apparently published by low to mid level of importance web sites of which Scott G, "The G-Man" is either a staff member or has an active affiliation (See: Click here).

In addition, Scott G, "The G-Man" is, by his own admission, Art Sayecki's client (See disclosure next to Sayecki's photo [23])

When I asked Mike Sorensen if he could provide more interviews, not by The G-Man, but by other known and reputable journalists, supporting Art Sayecki views on the subject of "Artmastering" (See [24]), he accused me of making a personal attack against him and Scott G, "The G-Man” (See: [25]).

He next accused me of being a "sock puppet account" of another user (See: [26]). This unknown user came in that day to apologize to Mike Sorensen for being rude to him in the past (See: [27]) and to respectfully request that article not be included on the mastering page again. (See: [28])

Believe me, I am not attacking anyone. I am only making inquiries to establish that the mastering engineer and his studio, Art Sayecki, has proven notability and not placed on the page for pure financial gain.

Although Mike Sorensen is sure that the work at this facility "is great" (See: [29]), my concern is that some people could get mislead by representations made on an informational page, but in effect being used for advertisement and self-promotion.

The long discussions and disruptive behavior of some users (See: [30]), one in particular that goes under the name "Biggy P", have made other users angry (See [31]).

Apparently, "Biggy P" provides support, by ridiculing (See: [32]) or harassing users who don't agree with Mike Sorensen (See: [33] and [34]). He has done this supporting roll in the past (See: [35]), and was presumed to be acting in connection with the account Voy7 a/k/a "R.Watts".

He also makes accusations of "sock puppetry" to anyone who questions Mike Sorensen views (See: [36]).

Certainly, you will agree that such thuggery, should not have a place on a Wikipedia talk page.

That said, it is not acceptable to link an article to a Wikipedia page that constitutes a conflict of interest, not by its contributor, Mike Sorensen, but by the author of the interview, "The G-Man", which at the very least, appears to be a biased promotion of a mastering engineer's studio facility.

My purpose in writing this is to bring this issue to a conclusion, so that Mike Sorensen's proposed inclusion gets adequate review, consideration, discussion and dismissal.

We need community and maybe Sysop intervention and WE NEED A FINAL RESOLUTION (This dispute started in the middle of 2006).

I sincerely hope that we can resolve this issues to the audio mastering page, so that we can all move on.

I greatly appreciate your time. Jrod2 20:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Whenever new users pop-up like mushrooms during a discussion like this it is a good indication of sock-puppetry. You are welcome to argue on the subject of audio mastering, as this page is dedicated to it, this is even encouraged, but that's the wrong place for attacks on others and conspiracy theories. Put it on your userpage or direct it to the right administrative page. Also without going into details your own preoccupation with this subject is at best questionable as you haven't made constructive edits thus far other opposing in this discussion. I doubt that your current approach based on spamming this page with rants, and accusations will advance your point of view.--Biggy P 18:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jrod2 = Evinatea = Edward Vinatea = illiterate Louis and company

I have been editing Wikipedia for over 3 years but on some occasions I have to use sock puppets like this one to take my point across, because I don’t want some persistent spammer to rant on my userpage for months to come. I'm addressing this to you Evinatea aka Jrod2. I’m not with Biggy B or Scott-G or Bernie Grundman or Bob Ludwig or whomever the heck else, but I’m fed up with your nonsense. So let me explain it to you in plain words. Nobody wants to read your rants. Maybe you didn’t notice yet, but nobody is replying to your posts and nobody is engaging in a discussion with you and nobody is taking any action. Editors avoid you like fire and admins hate spammers. Your nonsense will be ignored, no matter how many puppets you create. Content is judged on its merit. And there are plenty of objective editors here to make this judgement and we don’t need spammers to tell us what to do.

You have been told by Selket to calm down [37]
then by Omegatron to stop making personal attacks [38]
then by John_Cardinal that your edits are non-encyclopedic [39]
then again by Omegatron to stop and do something constructive [40] but you don't listen. Or maybe you really can't read.

Mike Sorensen's entries whether right or wrong will be judged on their merit. Now please, for the last time, stop and go away because we do not want to hear your nonsense. --Mr.Strong 10:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Also remove your irrelevant comments from this page, they are spam. Put them on your puppet's pages or I will delete them myself as they do not belong here and are disruptive. I’m addressing this to all the puppets Jrod2, Louis, Hottrax, Skylark01,96.224.3.55 and company. --Mr.Strong 10:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of references for 4 years

This article was created almost 4 years ago on June 29, 2003, and in all this time we were not able to cite reliable references. The main reason for this situation is that most books and texts on this subject are written by mastering engineers themselves, or point to some mastering lab. Therefore, whenever any reference is being cited someone deletes it because it doesn’t fit his/her interest or agenda and presumably advance business of a competing audio lab or engineer. We have heard irrational arguments that all mastering engineers should get a link here or nobody does, but I hope that common sense and a little bit of courage will prevail. Since every editor that tries to propose a source here, is being continuously attacked as having hidden agenda, then please take this fact under consideration when reading and analyzing proposed reference and distance yourself from shouting and accusation and focus on the subject. By no means I'm trying to indicate that the sources that I proposed, or any other for that matter, should be accepted for granted or taken as a standard here, just the opposite, they should be discussed, but they definitely should be examined with a calm mind before being dismissed. This is just an opening step in this discussion. Maybe in a few months :) we will be ready to have a vote on this subject and pick at least one reference for this article (most likely by a majority vote...). And on a personal note, if you don’t like any suggested sources, then propose a constructive alternative, then rationally discuss it and let others decide before going on a rampage.--Mike Sorensen 18:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)