We Cut Wax – The Origin of Recorded Sound


Experience the history of great sound with the “We Cut Wax” video series
Sound that is a renaissance but at the same time – a revolution.
By Jacqueline Parker

When Lacquer Channel Mastering opened their doors over 40 years ago, they were on the leading edge with vinyl. Today, as vinyl has become more of a retro material, they are still on the leading edge as they bring it back into the present so artists can enjoy its pure, unaltered sound.

Technology has had its impact on the recording industry just like any other. Long ago, vinyl was the material of choice for great sound. As the industry changed and recording advanced, mastering was added to the process by the 60’s, sound became louder and mastering became a creative industry. From there, CD’s were introduced which literally almost killed vinyl at a time when vinyl was becoming big with indie artists. At that time, Lacquer Channel Mastering made the decision to stop working with vinyl. It was too cost prohibitive and it appeared it was on its way out.

30 years later, Noah Mintz has decided it’s time to revisit vinyl which is no small feat given it’s also been about 30 years since any new vinyl recording equipment has even been manufactured. “I met with a former competitor who still had a lathe,” said Mintz. “We agreed that if he could get it up and running, we’d display it in our studio,” he says. So the two former competitors teamed and are now the owners of the last operating lathe in Canada.

Audio unplugged
We Cut Wax is a new video series that demonstrates this process of making music.
“The audio you hear comes right from the room and it sounds exactly as it did during the recording. No mixing. No mastering,” says Mintz. The series is an answer to the question ‘Does audio quality matter anymore’ and the answer is obvious. “The process in creating the audio on the series is, in a way, more important than the product. The process is the product.”

Lacquer Channel Mastering has stripped the technology away from the recording and taken to back to the origin of sound. Recorded directly to acetate disc through one microphone in a room. There’s only one chance to do this as there are no overdubs, no redo’s, no digital no auto-tune and no stereo (glorious mono). “What you get is pure sound unlike you’ve ever heard before,” he says proudly. You may be hearing it digitally but the essence of the performance can’t be duplicated through digital or conventional analog recording.

‘We Cut Wax’ is our new video series that let you experience the history behind great sound. The series can be viewed at www.wecutwax.com


The problem with Landr (isn’t LANDR) PT.2

LANDR, if you don’t know, is an online mastering product by a company based in Montreal formally called MIXGENIUS. Unlike other preset mastering software, LANDR claims to use an artificial intelligence to master your mixes. Robot mastering if you will. While I think robots are cool I’m not sure I trust them with my carpet cleaning let alone my music. Hasn’t The Terminator taught us anything?

I’m a mastering engineer so obviously I’m going to fell threatened by automation rendering my craft redundant. My issue with LANDR is not about automating me out of a job however. My concern lies in my feeling that LANDR is missing the point of mastering. The human element is what makes mastering, mastering. It can’t be reduced to an algorithm. Part of my job is listening. Part is figuring out what doesn’t need to be done by a process of elimination. Part is actually making an adjustment. The remaining part is a je ne sais quoi. This is the part of mastering that can’t be explained or quantified. It can only be experienced, through practice and skill. If you’re a musician I’m quite sure you’ll understand this.

My objection to LANDR is not an anti-technology stance. At Lacquer Channel Mastering, we have a whole host of mastering grade no-compromise modern and vintage eqs, compressors and converters. We also have a plug-in and software library that numbers in the hundreds. We use the right tool for the job regardless of it being hardware or software, digital or analog.

Mastering is a skill and an art. It’s a third party, a real human objective ear. There is a metaphysical aspect to mastering. It’s more than just making it louder. A Mastering Engineer is someone who knows how to make your collection of songs an album. Mastering is not just adjusting the way your music sounds but also the way it feels. Mastering helps reveal the ‘soul’ of the recording. Bad mastering can wreck that feeling. Good mastering should be transparent to the listener.

Any audio engineer can make an album loud. It’s about how you get loudness. A good mastering engineer will know the best combination of eq, compression and limiting. Sometimes doing almost nothing is the best thing for the project. Can a robot decide that nothing is the best choice? Can ‘less is more’ be programmed?

LANDR’s developers imply that LANDR can learn. From the website: LANDR is smart and getting smarter. Its true beauty lies in its ability to learn. So the more mastering it does the better it gets? I don’t understand how this makes any sense. What is the control? What is it comparing it to? How does it quantify ‘better’? There is no gold standard of mastering other than well seasoned engineers. With one song and ten different mastering engineers you’ll have ten different masters. Unless there is a technical problem, who is to say which one is better other than the artist and producer? Human mastering engineers learn over time via experience. They know how to use their tools more intimately and they gain knowledge by doing revisions via client feedback. We learn to work more efficiently and proficiently. How does LANDR A.I. do this? How does it improve?

The Mastering Engineer’s job is not only to take your unmastered tracks and make them sound as best they can but it’s also to educate the listening public on how important sound quality is. The positive experience of listening to well recorded, mixed and mastered music is evidence unto itself that quality audio matters. My issue is not with LANDR. It’s not a tool. A tool is something that is only as good as it’s operator. LANDR is an automat. It takes the art and the craft out of our hands. Music is so much more than a song. It’s the microphones, the recording medium. It’s the instrumentation, the performance. It’s the feel and expression. It’s the operator and engineer. A recording is the sum of it’s parts. The fact that we are willing to accept automation to this degree is the problem. The fact that LANDR has received 10 million in funding, (source: crunchbase.com <http://crunchbase.com> ) more than most mastering studios can net in a lifetime of operation, is a real problem for me. Between LANDR, lossy encoding, loudness wars & low-bitrate streaming, its almost as if there is an actual industry wide conspiracy to propagate an anti-quality, anti-human stance on audio recording. In fact, if you submit your song to DMDS, the most popular radio distribution service, there is a button you can click to have your songs automatically LANDRized.

Quality of audio is important to the enjoyment of music. We’re already inundated with lossy encoding formats like MP3 that literally remove frequencies from the audio spectrum and leave us with hollow sound. At the very least, the engineering itself should retain the human element. The more steps we take towards lifeless robotic engineering – even as a novelty, is the closer we get to taking the very thing out of music that lets us appreciate it best.

The problem with LANDR PT.1


from August Canadian Musician:
Written by Michael Raine

Noah Mintz is considered one of Canada’s top mastering engineers, having put the finishing touches on albums by Arkells, Broken Social Scene, Death From Above 1979 and Rheostatics, just to name a few. When he saw an early press release about LANDR he dismissed it as “ludicrous’ but decided to test out the free version as he began to hear about it more and more. When it comes to his views of LANDR, he doesn’t pull any punches.

“First you’re trying to turn art into an algorithm, which is literally impossible. It just can’t be done. You can’t have a computer do mastering any more than you can have a computer create art” says Mintz. “They can claim whatever they want, but as a 17-year veteran of mastering, much of what I do is in what I don’t do. It’s not the gain that I use or the EQ or compression I use; It’s how I use it or why.” Because, Mintz says, mastering is all about maintaining or enhancing the listening experience and artistic intent, not necessarily the technical quality, he sometimes makes no changes to a mix and it’ll take him eight hours to come to that conclusion.

“I don’t understand how an algorithm can listen to a file. It can analyze it, but it can’t listen to it. It doesn’t understand how a set of harmonics or played frequencies touch a human being, right? So it can’t make those decisions that are important towards a quality listening experience, which is really what all mastering is about.”

Taking on the notion that LANDR is “good in a pinch” he says “We have enough things out there that are contributing to the degradation of sound quality and I don’t necessarily think we another.”

Mintz does note that his opinions don’t stem from a place of competitiveness.”There is probably a very small percentage of releases out there that actually use professional mastering, so LANDR is not really competing with us; it’s competing with smaller grade mastering or recording studio mastering and those guys can do a better job than LANDR can do,” says Mintz. He also takes exception to the notion of machine learning. As he says, “mastering 1 million tracks makes no difference to a robot unless there is a control in place telling LANDR what it’s doing wrong and what to do differently next time.”

“I am the first person to adopt technology; I love technology of all sorts, and if I really felt what engineers do could be quantified or imported into an algorithm I wouldn’t have a problem with it.” Mintz says in conclusion. “You can look at the RMS of the song, raise that level, and maybe that is good in a pinch, if that is what LANDR does but anyone can do that who has recorded an album”

Analog is (often) not Analog and Digital is (always) not Digital

There are basically two types of audio signal. Digital and Analog. Analog can exist as purely Analog, meaning at no point does it have to come in contact with anything digital. Digital, on the other hand, has to go to analog to be heard by human ears as we have not yet invented the direct neural audio-computer interface. When we talk about the quality of digital audio it will always be dependant on the quality of the analog output.


Even the highest resolution audio is meaningless if you’re listening to it on laptop speakers. Generally, the better the analog final output the better the quality (though this might have diminishing returns but that’s an argument for the audiophile community). I’m far from being an audiophile. I love listening to music in my mastering studio on $25,000 speakers, at home on my $150 1975 dynacos and both on my $300 B&W and $20 Apple headphones.


Analog music these days pretty much solely exists as vinyl records. Tape is still used professionally though perhaps less so every year due to tape and maintenance costs. Some indie rockers are still putting out cassette tapes but good luck finding a used machine that plays it at the right and frankly I never thought cassette tapes sounded that good.


Vinyl is not only enjoying a resurgence but sales actually seem to be climbing. It’s still a drop in the bucket of CD and digital sales but almost every popular band puts out a record these days. I wonder if you’d be surprised to know that very few records produced these days have much to do with analog at all. In fact, many records are just vinyl copies of the CD. Any of the problems associated with the reproduction of CD audio would be transferred to vinyl. 

Many records offer no sonic advantage other than cosmetic over the CD version. This of course is subjective but the playback of a record might just be nicer by nature but it’s essentially just a vinyl copy of the CD. In this case, instead of your digital converters and speakers being the analog delivery source, the record and player is. There are some exceptions. For example, the last Foo Fighters album was made completely analog. It was mixed down to tape and then the tape was used in the vinyl mastering. They even took it one step further and the MP3s included with the vinyl version are actually made from a recording the record. I suspect the reason for that was more to the fact that many Foo Fighters fans don’t have records players and they still wanted to sell records to them.

Other than some niche recordings the days of actual analog records are pretty much over. But, all is not lost. There is something I and other mastering engineers are doing that artists can request.

recordMastering is usually done at 24bits. Sample-rates vary but few mastering engineers master at a bit-rate lower than 24. Technically, if 24-bit digital masters were provided for lacquering (the process of actually cutting the record master) the record could potentially sound better than the CD. The quality of the record could be even more improved by higher sample-rate and elimination of peak-limiting (which allows digital to be louder than analog) which is counter productive to records mastering anyway. Many vinyl records are already being mastered this way but we have no way of knowing which ones. This information isn’t provided as part of the marketing. I’m not sure if anyone would care if it was. Audio quality is not a commodity, it’s unfortunately not a selling point.


There are so many factors which play a part in the audio quality of a digital recording. Digital audio playback is only as good as it’s weakest link in the chain. If you have an amazing system but are playing back an MP3 that system won’t have the ability to work at it’s peak performance. In the same respect, if you have a high-resolution audio file and playing it back through $5 headphones that you bought on the street, it won’t matter what kind of audio file you are playing, it’s always going to sound terrible. [side-note, I once bought a pair of these thinking ‘how bad can they really be’ and I was actually surprised how impossibly unlistenable they were despite having no expectations of quality].

Encoding is the first element in digital playback. I talked about this in my last post so I won’t go into too much detail. Basically you have these digital encoding formats: PCM, which is the linear recording of uncompressed audio in various bit and sample-rates and DSD, which is a high-resolution only niche format format developed by Sony and Phillips. PCM can also be converted into lossless (no loss of data) and lossy delivery (MP3, AAC) formats. You need a DAC (digital to analog converter) in order to hear the encoding so the quality of the encoding is always going to be dependant on the quality of the converter.

Conversion. In order to capture analog audio recording and listen to the digital audio one must employ the use of an analog-to-digital (ADC) and digital-to-analog (DAC) converter. These converters can range from sub-$1 components in consumer audio equipment up to $20,000+ for some audiophile specially products. In fact, one the brand of converters that I use is a company in the UK called dCS and they make a CD/Digital playback system that looks like this: Vivaldi DAC ($34,999), Vivaldi Transport ($39,999), Vivaldi Master Clock ($13,499), and the Vivaldi Upsampler ($19,999). That’s over $108,000 for what is basically an amped up CD player.


Without digital conversion there is no way we can manipulate or hear digital audio. For 
the most part, the better the converter the better it will sound. That doesn’t mean that cheap converters can’t sound good, some do but generally you’ll find decent converters in a recording studio and excellent converters in a mastering studio. One of the main features in Neil Young’s new Pono digital audio player is an upgraded DAC touted to be better than the iPod or iPhone’s converter.

Dither is something you may not know much about. It’s important in a discussion about digital audio because it’s used extensively in the mastering process. Most of the MP3 and CD audio you listen to that’s been produced in the last 20 years has been dithered from 24bit to 16bit. Dither, extremely simplified is adding some noise to the audio in order to avoid harsh sounds in going from a higher bit-rate to a lower bit-rate. It’s the difference between falling off a cliff and rolling down a hill. Both are no-doubt painful.

There is some debate in audio circles on wether dither needs to be used at all. I’ve listened to audio with and without dither and I tend to always prefer the dithered version but when choosing between dithers, that is the type of noise that’s used, it just becomes a whole lot of subjective opinions and no real evidence that one is better than the other. The funny thing about dither is that when you raise the level of it to where you can hear it, it sounds a lot like analog noise that you would find on a tape or vinyl record.

The best thing about dither is that you, the listener, don’t really have to think about it. Once it’s used in the mastering process (or not used) you can’t manipulate or change it.

Analog or Digital? With digital, the better the recording, mixing, mastering, encoding, playback system and analog components the better it’s going to sound. Terrible recordings won’t sound nice though good systems, great recordings won’t sound sweet with bad encoding and high-resolution encoding won’t sound any better with very cheap speakers or bad playback components. The same could be said for analog but there is something nice about listening to an old record though an old portable record player.  There is nothing nice about listening to an old CD through an antique CD player with bad speakers. There is not much value in the way of digital nostalgia.

The Tools I Use: Noah Mintz

noah copy

A mastering engineer can only be as good as his/her tools. The better the tools the better the sound. We’re very lucky to have some of the best mastering gear available at Lacquer Channel. A mix of state-of-the-art new and vintage from the mid-1970s when the studio first started.  All tweaked out and modded by tech-to-the-mastering-stars, Chris Muth. I think our mastering suites are some of the best sounding rooms in the world.

Equipment used in mastering has been typically been shrouded in secrecy. Here, I hope to unravel some of the mystery. I present to you a list of the gear I use in my mastering room with some explanation about why I use it and what modifications have been done.

Muth Audio Engineering Custom Bax EQ
Muth Bax EQ
This is a prototype of the Dangerous Music Bax EQ made by original designer of Sterling Sound, Chris Muth. This eq is like the bass and treble knobs on a 1970s stereo. Big, wide and fat.

Neve 2087 Mastering EQ
Neve 2087 Mastering EQ
This rare-as-it-gets Neve mastering EQ came from our custom Neve Mastering Console (click for a pic of that console circa 2004) that we had at Lacquer Channel from 1975 to 2005. It’s warm and punchy at the same time. MOD: Gain is .5db instead of 1.

Sontec Mes 430-B Mastering EQ
Sontec Mes 430-B Mastering EQ

The holy grail of mastering eqs. The Sontec Mastering EQ can be wide or surgical. It has a buttery sound unlike any other eq. This classic eq is so unique that it’s not ever been copied. MOD: Steve Firlotte of Inward Connections has installed his version of the John Hall amp cards replacing the stock Sontec HS-1000. Many Sontecs have this mod to even further improve the sound and lower the noise.

GML 9500 Mastering EQ
GML 9500 Mastering EQ
This very expensive eq was designed by George Massenburg to be the most transparent eq ever. It can be so surgical that you can almost boost just the kick drum from the mix. If the Sontec is butter, the GML is air.

This is a passive eq, like a Pultec, designed by German audio company SPL. Unlike the Pultec, this eq is made to be extremely transparent via 120 volt rails (most eqs are 24 or 48v).

Neumann Console EQ
Neumann Console EQ
Truth be told I hardly ever use this eq but it looks great in my console. When I do use it, I get that vintage Neumann German sound.

Kush Audio Clariphonic Parallel EQ
Kush Audio Clariphonic Parallel EQ kush

Kush Audio is a very innovative company. They make gear in a category of it’s own and unlike anything else. The Clariphonic is a high-frequency parallel eq. It creates a top-end sparkle for program material that conventional eqs can’t provide. MOD: The power circuit has been altered and the power switch disabled for lower noise.

Chandler Limited LTD-2 Mastering Compressor
Chandler Limited LTD-2
This mastering compressor is very Neve 2254 like. The original Neve is very dark but the Chandler LTD-2 is more open while still maintaining a colder sound than Neve is known for. MOD: I’ve added a hard by-pass to the circuitry so it’s completely out of the chain when it’s on bypass.  It also has the Sterling Sound Mastering Mod which is a matched pair with faster release times and 1dB stepped gain makeup.

Manley Tube Vari-Mu Mastering Compressor
Manley Vari-Mu Mastering Compressor
With 4 tubes per side, the Manely Vari-mu is one fat, fuzzy and warm monster. On top of that, it’s extremely musical and clean. I’ve been using this since my first year of mastering 17 years ago. MOD: I’ve had a high-pass side-chain filter added so those big bass drops don’t make the compressor pump. Chris also did a “Calbi Mod” to it but I’ll admit I have no idea what that means.

ADT TM222 Mastering Compressor
ADT Mastering Compressor

This is a parallel compressor built by German boutique audio company ADT. It can make audio very loud without pumping. It has more controls than a space shuttle.MOD: All the numbers have been reduced. For example the ratio goes from 0:0 to 4:1 instead of 20:1.

Maselec MPL-2 Peak & High Frequency Limiter
Maselec MPL-2 Peak & High Frequency Limiter

This device is both a peak limiter (like an analog L2) and a high-frequency de-esser (like the Neumann Acceleration Limiter on our the record lathe). You find this (and other Maselec devices) in the best mastering studios. De-esser plug-ins can’t sound like this.

Weiss DS-1 MKIII Digital Mastering Compressor and De-esser
Weiss DS-1 MKIII Digital Mastering Compressor and De-esser

Daniel Weiss has been making digital processors since before plug-ins existed. When people ask what’s the difference between the DS-1 and plug-ins I usually joke that the DS-1 costs more than all the plug-ins combined. No software sounds like this. It makes audio sound louder, punchier, bigger and more stereo.

Dolby 740 Spectral Processor
Dolby 740 Spectral Processor

The Dolby 740 is a very interesting processor. It was/is a secret weapon of Chief Engineer George Graves so when I rebuilt the studio a number of years ago, it had to be a part of the new arsenal. The 740 takes low-level sonic material (-40 to -60 db) and allows you to sonically manipulate it to bring it forward. Sound complicated? It took me a few years to really figure this thing out.

Crookwood Mastering Console
Crookwood Mastering Console
The Crookwood is the digital brain to my mastering and monitoring system. The flexibility and transparency of the system is unparalleled.

Dangerous Mastering Console
Dangerous Mastering Console
The Dangerous provides no-compromise analog routing. It’s also great for gain staging with input gain and and output gain pots. MOD: I’ve wired it in conjunction with my Crookwood to allow all my eqs to operate in M/S (mid-side) mode and be individually put in or taken out of the circuitry.

dCS 905 AD / 954 DA Converter
dCS 905 AD

dCS is known for $25,000 CD players (and people actually buy them). These converters run all the way up to 384khz and have a sound stage so big and dynamic that just running mixes through them improves the sound. I use them with the dCS 992 Master Clock which outputs 4 different sample-rates at the same time.

Burl Audio B2 Bomber A/D Converter
Burl Audio B2 Bomber A/D Converter

As my alternate A/D converter, the Burl B2 Bomber is like no other. Instead of transparency, Burl goes for vibe. Input transformers allow you to slam the input to get distortion and clipping. This can sound surprisingly dynamic and musical.

Magix Sequoia DAW
Magix Sequoia has become the de-facto standard DAW in mastering. I’ve been using it since version 5 and it’s at version 12 now.

Ampex ATR 102

Kranis Custom Designed Mastering Speakers
Steve Kranis is a Toronto speaker designer. A few years ago he came into the studio and took some measurements. Some many months later he delivered us a very large and heavy set of speakers custom built for the studio. These sound big and neutral. They translate to everything from hi-fi to laptop speakers.

Bryston 4B / 7B Power Amplifiers
Bryston Amplification out of Pickering Ontario is the workhorse of audio amplifiers. In use both at studios and audiophile systems. They weigh a billion pounds and come with a 25 year warranty. I’ve got 1200watts of power to drive my speakers without distortion.

Ampex ATR 102 Tape Machine
This is THE tape machine. Fully serviced by Michael Spitz (RIP) and equipped with JRF glass heads. We’ve got both the 1/2″ and 1/4″ headstocks. If you record to tape, we can play it back. We also have a Studer A80 program/preview machine with  1/2″ and 1/4″ headstocks but it lives in our lathe room now so we can do all analog vinyl mastering.

George Graves, Master of Masters

george31As spoken by George, written by Darryl Webster

One afternoon as a kid growing up in Southern California, my school took us to see the orchestra. We were seated in the balcony and I was fortunate enough to be in the front row. I quickly found myself so engrossed in the music, I was literally hanging over the balcony. Had it not been for the protective glass, I surely would have fallen to the level below. It was like an awakening. At that moment I knew my life would be one of music.

In the mid 1960′s I found myself working as a mastering engineer with RCA records. It was a good gig, but their philosophy regarding mastering was very ‘A to B’, more mechanical than artistic. I left RCA for one of the first independent mastering studios of its kind, DCT recorders run by Hank Waring. In those days, if you were an independent, you needed to come up with your own sound. Whether it be EQ, extra limiting, whatever, you had to experiment and find your edge over someone else’s cutting. Hank ‘s thing was he could cut it louder than anyone else.


I liked loud, but there is loud, and then there is clean. When The Mastering Lab came along making recordings which were both loud and clean, people quickly started running over to them.

One Summer’s night after work I walked over to The Mastering Lab and knocked on the door. A heavily bearded man by the name of Doug Sax opened up, complete with the single longest hanging-ash I’d ever seen on a cigarette. We began talking, and eventually I asked him if it was possible to get a job there. He said “maybe.”

So every day after work I went over to the mastering lab and hung out. I would be there about three hours a day, just hanging around. After about four to six weeks of this Doug finally said; “I’ll tell you what. I’m gonna play you something and you tell me what you would do.”

As we listened I said; “I would take 2 db off at 40 hertz and put 2db on at 15k.” Doug got out his book, looked up and said “that’s exactly what I did.” (I should probably mention, that song was ‘Won’t get fooled again’ by The Who). This was the thing about The Mastering Lab that made it so fun. Their clientele. It was so high-end. Glyn Johns would fly in from England just to master. George Harrison hung around and played piano in the Bud Wyatt room while his album was mastered. It was a truly amazing time.

Meanwhile up in Toronto, Jack Richardson was starting his own mastering facility named J.A.M.F. With an invitation north and the promise of a Bud Wyatt built room, I decided to move my wife and two young children to Canada in the (season?) of 1974.


After a good start in Canada, the work eventually dried up and I found myself working at Carling O’Keefe brewery in the refrigerator, stacking kegs for eight hours a day and loosing weight. It was an out-of-the-blue phone call from Paul Gross at Phase One that changed things for good. Their disc cutter was in the hospital and Paul asked if I could help them out. At Phase One I was grinding out 16 to 18 sides a day, I was really flying. The studio manager eventually remarked; “I’ve never seen so many lacquers go out of this place at one time.”

Paul Gross’s mastering room eventually moved to North York and became Lacquer Channel. I went in for three months and have been there ever since.

When you know what you’re doing you don’t have to guess. To me great mastering sounds original, clean, and natural. A little bit like the orchestra.

Audio Quality Matters

My name is Noah Mintz and I’m a mastering engineer.

A few years ago my two kids, who were 12 and 14, said to me something that I’m very used to hearing. “Dad we’re bored.” I usually respond with “that’s not my problem find something to do” but this time I did some actual parenting and made a suggestion to them I said “why don’t you listen to some music” they looked at me puzzled as if I should continue. They said “and…” “And nothing” I said. They said, “Listen to music and do what?” I laughed. I said, “nothing else, just listen to music”. They continued with the puzzled look like I was out of my mind. Then something clicked. I think they got it. They then proceeded to grab the laptop, loaded up youtube and started watching music videos while listening through laptop speakers. Ugh, who’s kids are these? I closed the laptop. “No”, I said. “Not on youtube. On a record or iTunes or on your iPod or on CD”. Again the puzzled look. “What are we going to do with our eyes?” “Nothing! You don’t need them” I waited for the ‘I get it’ look but it didn’t come. These kids had no idea how to listen to music as a thing… the only thing.

When I was a kid,


and believe it or not, despite my boyish looks, I was a kid in the 70s, we used to anticipate the release of a new album. Sometimes we’d line up at the record store to wait it’s opening. Once we purchased the record we’d usually head home to listen to it. Other than study the liner notes and the album artwork, we didn’t do much else but listen to that one album. Usually 4 or 5 times over on the first listen. Our exposure to music was limited to the living room, bedroom, the car, concerts, bars and street corners. We didn’t have access to mass libraries of music other than our parents collections, and at that, only the most privileged kids had parents with any taste in music.

Though it’s trite to say, that was a different time. Up until the 80s portable music was a transistor radio, certainly not many people got any sonic auditory enjoyment from that (though the experience was fun). Today, we listen to more music than ever before in history. Music has become a literal soundtrack to every minute of our lives.

I was watching a talk recently and someone in the audience asked if we could embark on an embargo on involuntary music. He suggested that music is everywhere, in the mall, the workplace, home, elevator and the bathroom. We are rarely in silence. He asked “What is wrong with silence”. If we have music all the time does it have any value? In the same respect, does audio quality have any value?

Listening to music is like working a muscle. You need to isolate it and actively work it. The idea of active ears and passive mind. The more you work this muscle the more you’ll enjoy music. The more you enjoy music the better your life will be. Almost everything in this modern life conspires against the enjoyment of music but I’ll get to this point in a bit. Let me tell you a little bit about mastering.


What is a mastering engineer? A recording engineer is hired to commit the instruments to multiple tracks and capture a performance. A mixing engineer takes the multi-tracks and blends them so each track combined together becomes a song. I used to think that mastering was taking all the individual songs and making them into an album. To treat and process the mixed music or ‘program material’ as we call it, with EQs and compressors to change it’s frequency and dynamic relation respectively and respectfully. To shape the music so it all fits together into a sonic template. While this is all true, I’ve come to realize after over 15 years of mastering that this is only a very small part of my job.

Recording and Mixing engineers have a really tough job. It’s extremely time consuming and difficult to do it and more so to do it well. Its long hours and often low pay. These engineers are constantly turning knobs, pushing buttons, moving faders, tweaking the sound till each instrument sound right and fits into it’s perspective sonic space. I’m here to confess to you that a mastering engineers job is actually very easy. It’s doesn’t take very long and we bill a lot of money for it. Sure, we have very expensive equipment and painstakingly accurate tuned rooms, but essentially the mastering engineer only has one job and it’s not difficult to do at all. A mastering engineer is paid to listen. Out of a 6 hour job, I spend about 5 hours listening and only about 1 actually physically doing anything. That’s not to say there isn’t a lot of skill in my listening. For the most part I’m listing for something or rather I’m listening to decide what to do with that 1 hour of actual sonic manipulation. The more years I have under my mastering belt the more skilled I get at listening. Four years ago that 5 out of 6 may have been 6 out of 8 and in four years it might be 4 out of 5.

The fact that I spend an enormous amount of time in my job just listening it got me thinking about listening to music in general. How much does listening have to do with appreciation of music. How are we listening to music? Are we really listening to music at all? When was the last time you put on an album and did nothing else but listen to it? I don’t mean sit down and surf on your laptop, eat a meal or have sex, I mean just sit or lie there on the couch and do nothing but listen to an album. A music project you worked on doesn’t count.


I’ve been calling myself a mastering engineer since 1996. Really those first few years would have been more accurately called a ‘mastering engineer’ with finger quotes, given the method and tools that I used. The years between 1996 and 1999 were probably some of the most interesting times in digital mastering. We saw the introduction of some of the most important and influential tools in digital mastering during that time. The TC finalizer and it’s multi-band compression function. The Waves L1 introduced the masses to digital peak limiting and lay the foundation for the future loudness wars. Plugs-ins were introduced. First as premier non-real time versions. I remember mastering an album with a plug-in called the Ionizer which featured 512 bands of dynamic EQ and only being able to preview 1 minute of audio. All that the remaining 32 megs of RAM in my Power Computing mac clone would support. Then, when Real-time VST and Direct-X plugs became available, that was a game changer. All-of-a-sudden, practically overnight, a whole crop of engineers bought or downloaded a Waves plug-in bundle and started calling themselves mastering engineers. It was the start of home-mastering. Up until that point it was pretty much impossible to do mastering at home. It’s also where mastering went in a wrong direction.

While not a bad thing in theory, the new portability of mastering aided to further disambiguating the meaning of mastering. I will contend to say that only a dedicated mastering engineer, working out of a real mastering studio has any business doing mastering… but this is getting ahead of myself here and despite being a pure-bred mastering engineer this article is not about mastering per-se. Its about sound. How and why we listen to music and the importance of well produced, recorded, mixed, mastered and format of audio.

I’d like to make an analogy. Let’s say you went to a supermarket and bought two apples. Both apples picked at the same time, one from an organic farm and the other from a GMO-pesticide-laden-faceless-1%-corporation factory farm. If you ate both of those apples, I would think that they would probably taste more-or-less the same. You’d probably get the same short term enjoyment out of both of them.


If you didn’t know which one was which you’d probably not be able to guess. I’ve tried to tell the difference between organic and non-organic apples and really, I honestly don’t think they taste any different given age and other factors like ripeness being the same. But there is more to food than taste. Food is fuel. The better the fuel the better the body runs. I believe that if you eat more organic food, absent of pesticides and additives our bodies will know the difference. Over time it’s healthier for us and we’ll be happier for it. We’ll lead more joy filled lives. The more organic apples you eat, the more your body will crave them. Perhaps, and I’m just guessing here, the more non-organic-pesticide-laden apples you eat the more your body will crave a Twinkie.

Know where I’m going with this? Music that is poorly recorded, mixed and mastered, then jacked up to impossible levels adding a whack of audible and inaudible distortion and then further destroyed by lossy data compression such as MP3 encoding is the same as that non-organic-GMO-pesticide-laden-faceless-1%-corporation-factory-farmed apple. You might not notice the difference but I’m thinking your body will.

Sometime in the 80s, Rupert Neve, the famed audio console designer said, somewhat joking of PCM 16-bit 44.1khz CD quality audio, that it may be responsible for some of today’s delinquent youth problems. This was due to the way the CD

Player handled frequencies above 20khz which is the upper limit of CD Audio. If that’s the case, could you imagine what prolonged listening to MP3 audio would do, which is far more frequency manipulated than any 80s CD player? MP3 might be responsible for creating a new breed of serial killers!killer

I’m not saying this is the case and I don’t actually have any proof that it is… for now it’s just a feeling. A hunch that MP3s might actually harm us if not make us hate music. Frankly, given the amount of time I spend listening critically to music, I’d like to think my hunches are as good as anyones educated guesses.

I have this thought about ‘active ears and passive mind’. It’s born from an experience in mastering. Up until I became a mastering engineer I was a vivacious listener of music. Music was my life. But something funny happened after a few years of mastering. I stopped casually listening to music. In the car I’d listen to talk radio or books on CD. At home I’d listen to nothing. Music became associated with work. I discovered after a period of time that I was going into work mastering albums but I never actually listened to them. When I’d hear them outside of the mastering studio, like on the radio, at a bar or store, I wasn’t familiar with the music. The mastering I did on them was good but I never took any time to enjoy the music. To listen to it without thinking about frequencies and what I was going to do with to it. Once I realized this, I tried something different. As soon as I started my session, I listened to the album from beginning to end. I didn’t think about it, I didn’t analyze it. I turned off my monitor and meters, sat back and just listened. I turned off the part of my mind that was working.

With this new found philosophy I went home and tried to do the same thing. I found it quite difficult. To just sit there and listen to an album with no purpose. For no reason other than to listen it was almost impossible. Why was I thinking this way?

I had to retrain myself to listen to music. At least a couple times a week I’d put on a record and do nothing but listen to it. After a short period of time I really enjoyed doing this. However, I could do this only with a vinyl record or a CD. If I listened to MP3s I found myself getting restless. It sounded the same but didn’t make me feel the same. I was curious about this.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the better the quality of the source of the music the more you’ll enjoy it. Both consciously and unconsciously. Access to inexpensive high-end equipment in the recording and home listening department is unprecedented. We’ve never had it better in that regard. Yet we allow our music to be delivered to us in a highly compressed format. Robbed of many of the frequencies that make for whole music. (think about the whole food thing here). This is not an audiophile argument I’m trying to make. It’s not so much about the ears as it is about the body.

Another issue is that we often listen to music at home from laptop speakers, TVs, small i-pod speakers and phones. I’m not saying you need a $100,000 system to listen to music but at least a proper set of speakers would up the enjoyment. We think nothing about dropping cash on the latest HDTV set yet we’re content with MP3 formats and terrible speakers. Add to that, sub-par mastering cheap mastering (had to get that shot in there), no wonder we’re all starting to care less about the quality of music.

I contend that if you give people music as low-quality audio they will then give it no value. Why not steal it if it’s worth nothing? Maybe, in some small way, higher quality audio can save the music industry?

Encoding, specifically lossy encoding , I believe is one of the most important issues contributing to the destruction of audio quality. Here is an explanation about the difference between lossy and lossless and PCM encoding.

PCM is audio encoded in a linear fashion with no loss of information. CD audio is an example of this. Engineers use DAWs (Digital Audio Workstations) to record with audio in PCM. PCM can be either 16 or 24 (or 32b float) bit-rates and 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96 (or sometimes 192) khz sample-rates. Generally, given decent engineering, the higher the bit and sample rate, the higher the fidelity. Does 24bit 96khz sound better than 16bit 44.1? An entire lecture can be dedicated to arguing this but I would say, to my ears, yes. Sometimes it’s not just an audible thing but also a whole body feel thing. I just know it’s better. I feel more relaxed, less-stressed and I get more enjoyment out of higher resolution audio.

Lossless encoded audio is encoded from the PCM and only the data removed is what can be replaced in full with no loss of signal quality. To me this sounds as good as PCM. Lossless file size is about half the size of PCM. Examples of PCM are FLAC and Apple Lossless Encoding.

Lossy encoded audio is also usually encoded from the PCM. MP3 and AAC (iTunes) are the two most popular formats.  The basic principle behind lossless encoding is a process called perceptual encoding which relies on the auditory observation that the dominant frequencies mask sub-dominant frequencies so those quieter frequencies are removed from the data stream therefore making the file size smaller. maskierung

I think lossy encoded audio just doesn’t sound right. There is something wrong with it and I can’t empirically tell you why. I’ve done a number of experiments and I’d love to give you a scientific reason why it doesn’t sound right but I can’t. It’s just missing something. There is no way you can take a file from 40 megs, reduce it to 5 and still retain it’s presence, the soul of the recording. Lossy encoding audio is soul-less.

PCM Digital copies are all the same. No matter how many times you copy it, the same information will be there. This is the purity of digital. With lossy encoding there is probably more variation in digital then there is in analog. Of course, every hi-fi system has different playback frequency response and sound different. That’s been the same since the dawn of recorded time but you could be pretty sure that the source LP and CD that you were playing had virtually identical frequency output from the master and it’s copies. MP3s and lossy encoding changes that game. Every encoder sounds different. It represents the audio differently even before it’s output. The artist has no control over this. We’ve gone so far from quality that we’ve accepted in the past.

We can look at countless graphs and do blind listening tests but how do we qualify what the brain hears and how audio quality makes us feel?

There are steps, albeit small ones that the industry is taking to at least start to have better quality audio delivery. One of these is mastered for iTunes [read my blog post on MFiT here]. For the most part, mastered for iTunes is a set of guidelines. Some rules of mastering that will lead to less distorted recordings and encodings. They even include a tool that will tell you if your pre-encoded master is clipping at all. Apple also include a tool that will let you audition exactly what the audio will sound like after it’s available on iTunes. The same encoder as the iTunes encoding factory is available to the artist and engineer. They also allow the artist to submit a 96khz 24bit master and the encoding is done in a two step process. One for sample-rate conversion and another for lossy encoding. Of course this all depends on proper recording, mixing and mastering but that’s a whole other discussion.

In the mean-time, until high-res audio is readily available try this; Put on the high-res, vinyl record or CD version of an album and listen to it from beginning to end. Then, put on the same digital mp3 version. (Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours is a great album for this). Forget how it sounds, how do you feel after each listen? How is your relaxed state, your mood and your stress. How much more or less do you like the album? Do you wan to listen to it again? Try it multiple times and in different states of mind.  Please let me know if you can. Try to loose your preconceptions and bias’s. If the MP3 feels just as good as the CD version I’d love to hear about that.

The Howie Weinberg Mastering App

Howie Weinberg Mastering App

One might think, that I might think, that an iPhone mastering app is a total contradiction of everything I stand for as a mastering engineer.  You might also think that the fact, that it’s released by one of the most respected engineers in the business might make me say that he’s a complete sell-out to the profession and art? If so, you might be right but I paid the $2.99 and downloaded the Howie Weinberg Mastering App and put it through its paces so you don’t have to.

First off, the sell. It’s apparently very ‘ultimate’. Can’t get better than ultimate.

Upon opening the app, the first page just has instructions. Actually, it’s four pages of instructions. Like you’re going to read them? I didn’t and then I couldn’t figure out how to upload a song to the app and stop the Crystal Method song that was pre-loaded from playing.

After some fiddling I figured out if you went back to the beginning instructions and then went forward again, there is a download screen. You can download from dropbox or from your iTunes library.

I put a 24bit/96khz unmastered file into my dropbox and downloaded it into the app. To my surprise, it supports the high bit and sample rate file. Kudos!

Next, it asks you what genre of music the file is. They are divided into; Acoustic, Electronic, Hip-hop, Pop, Rock and Spoken Word. I was a bit surprised about Spoken Word. After 16 years of mastering I’ve never been asked to master spoken word but I’ll tell you if Art Garfunkel Malcom Galdwell ever asks me to master up one of his audio books, colour me excited.

Frankly, I feel that more thought could have been put into the categories. If it were my app I think I would have done it this way: Laugh Tracks, Music For Robots, Polka, Kanye West, Autotune, Lambs Saying “Yeah”. I believe this would be a lot more relevant and more appropriate for this app.


Howie’s Choice                                                                                               Noah’s Choice

Once you choose your genre you are taken to the setting pages. This is where the mastering magic happens.

The settings are separated into four EQ pages; Bass/Low (or Bottom/Thump for Electronic, Pop and Acoustic), Midrange/Presence, Grit/Push, and Air/Ultra-highs – and one compressor page. This all makes sense to me except Grit/Push. Having never used those words for mastering before I can only wonder why 3k-10k is considered gritty or pushy. I’m going to let your imagination run wild on that one.

I loaded in my song. “Small Fires” by my old band Noah’s Arkweld. This song features Simon Wilcox on vocals and co-write. On each setting page there is a Howie Helps button. When you push it you get a little pop-up bubble on Howie’s face telling you different words of encouragement and then it does an EQ curve or compression setting for you. I don’t really know how it comes up with the results but I’m guessing Howie is not sitting in a cubicle waiting to audition the file and then giving suggestions.


I ran Howie’s recommended settings on the song. I mean, this is “what Howie would do” and he also “Thinks it will sound great” so, how can I go wrong? This guy has 40 years of experience. In fact, he actually mastered my band’s 2nd album in the 90s and did a great job.


The compressor page was a little more tricky. Howie only gave a starting point. He also mentions that a compressor is not always needed which might suggest some sort of integrity built into the app but in reality is probably there because they are expecting people to put in already loud-as-possible music and adding a compressor will just distort the hell out of it. So saying “It is often not needed” is the same as saying if it makes it sound worse, just take it off. I left it on. I don’t want to fuck with greatness here.

The last page is the “render” page. Here you can upload to soundcloud or send to email or text. The send to text doesn’t actually do anything. It just sends the people you text a message that you’re using the app and a link to download the app from the iTunes store.

Unless it’s a really short song, the email link doesn’t work either. Most email servers don’t accept a file over 25megs.

As a last resort I tried soundcloud. I kept getting the message “Ok, that went wrong”. So here I was with my mastered file and no way to get it off the phone.

Then, I was able to figure out that if you went back to the first screen where you picked the song to master, you could pick the song that’s already mastered and instead of clicking “Start Mastering” you could click an upload button and send it to dropbox. Whew.

How did it turn out? Could $2.99 rival $300 an hour? (Or whatever Howie is these days). Well… it sounds pretty much how you’d expect, unlistenable garbage but it could be worse.

Howie Weinberg is one of the best mastering engineers ever. The list of classic and amazing albums he’s mastered is almost endless.  From his days as the main guy at Masterdisk in NYC to now running his own studio in California, his career is aspiring and to be envied. This is why it boggles my mind that he would risk this reputation of excellence and release this app. If not for just the possibility of monetary gain what purpose does it provide? It’s not just innocuous it’s damaging and here’s why;

As technology progresses, the art of mastering will change. No doubt there will be more plug-ins, digital tools and even automated processes that will be used in the mastering process. I’m not holding on to old ways for the sake of tradition or stubbornness. We all know that an automated app cannot replace a real mastering engineer and I don’t think this Howie Weinberg Mastering app intends to do that.  My issue is of what this app represents. Which, to me is irresponsibility. Our job, as mastering engineers is not only to take your unmastered tracks and make them sound as best they can but it’s also to educate the listening public on how important sound quality is. The positive experience of listening to well recorded, mixed and mastered music is evidence unto itself that quality audio matters. The more steps we take towards lifeless robotic engineering – even as a novelty, is the closer we get to taking the very thing out of music that helps us appreciate it.

Noah Mintz.

Why Master In Canada

Many a Canadian producer will have musicians record in Canada, mix in Canada, but might suggest an album be mastered in the US. Why?

The world’s most celebrated mastering studios are in New York and southern California. You’ll find more credits from these few studios than all the other mastering studios combined. These studios also have top-tier gear specifically made and customized for mastering. The rooms have been designed by top acousticians and sound acoustically neutral. Their engineers have decades of experience.

So with all of that why wouldn’t your Canadian producer have you master outside of Canada? Because the producer doesn’t realize (or believe) we have all of this in Canada. Well we do, and in abundance from coast to coast.


We have celebrated engineers with multiple gold and platinum albums under their belts:
Lacquer Channel (Toronto)’s own George Graves has mastered some of the best and most-recognized albums ever made and is one of the most experienced engineers anywhere.

We have mastering suites that rival the best rooms in the world:
Joao Carvalho Mastering (Toronto) boasts one of the most beautifully designed rooms, reputed as “the most accurate listening environment known.”

You can get world class mastering on both coasts.
Archive Mastering (Halifax) and Suite Sound Labs and Zen Mastering (Vancouver) discographies feature some of the best Canada has to offer.

The gear used in Canada’s mastering studios is the best anywhere.
The AD/DA converters used at Lacquer Channel, – Lavry Gold, Prism, dCS, Burl and Forsell, – are the same that are used at Gateway Mastering (by Bob Ludwig) and New York City’s Sterling Sound. Greymarket Mastering (Montreal) has a custom-designed EQ by Barry Porter, one of the most reputable EQ designers. Silverbirch Mastering (Toronto) has an Ampex 1/2” tape machine with customized Class A Aira electronics.

Some of the coolest, best-selling, and highest profile Canadian artists of the past five years have been mastered in Canada:
Death from Above 1979 (Joao Carvalho), Handsome Furs (Harris Neumann), Joel Plaskett (J. La Pointe), Neko Case (Peter Moore), The Waking Eyes (Phil Demetro), RUSH (George Graves) and Broken Social Scene (Noah Mintz) have all had past recordings mastered here in their home country.

You can get a Vinyl Lacquer Master cut in Canada:
Lacquer Channel Mastering is the only place in Canada you can get a lacquer cut with our Neumann VMS-80 Lathe.

Overall, I can’t see any reason not to master. Kudos to all those Canadian producers (and labels, studios et al.) who encourage and build relationships with our many amazing, world-class Canadian mastering engineers and studios.

Here is a list of mastering studios in Canada: (Let me know if I’m missing any)

Lacquer Channel Mastering

Joao Carvalho Mastering
Silverbirch Mastering
Wreckhouse Mastering
Heading North Mastering
E Room Mastering
Metalworks Mastering
Archive Mastering
Grey Market Mastering
Trillium Sound Mastering
Karisma Sound
Sound Master Studios
Infinite Wave
Outta Town Sound
Suite Sound Labs (Vancouver)
Zen Mastering (Vancouver)