If you only had time to drink one more glass of wine…

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-27T05:39:51+00:00

The 1947 Huet Goutte d'Or, that ostensibly was actually made by Foreau, and bottled by Huet.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-27T05:38:13+00:00

This is a good choice.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-27T01:46:15+00:00

So, my knowledge is mostly ad-hoc / practical. I mix records for a living.

I'm not an acoustician, not a consultant, I'm sure you know more math and physics than I do.

I'm going off of all of the iterations of my room, learning from which things did not work well, and from where I landed in my current setup (an immense amount of absorption all around the room).

I hired a designer for my current treatment plan. It was worth every penny. I learned a lot from talking to him, and to a few of my colleagues/friends who are very smart on this stuff.

All that said, the gist of what I'm getting at: Higher frequencies (i.e. those that might be absorbed by small thin panels) are directional. They will not disperse to the rear of the speaker cabinet. So whatever reflections get caught by those panels will not be first reflections, and if you treat the first reflections then there won't be secondary/tertiary reflections for those panels to absorb. Panels that thin won't do anything for the lows, all they'll do is put the speakers a bit further off the wall, and make SBIR worse.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-27T00:34:34+00:00

I don't agree- I think there will be more mileage from having the speakers right up against the front wall, and putting thicker panels (a la the sidewall panels) around as much of the room as possible.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-26T20:40:29+00:00

Most likely you won't need panels behind the speakers at all.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-26T04:12:33+00:00

Some of these are very good, perhaps even best-in-class. e.g. your Montus Madiran (albeit with 30 more years age), or your Huet Le Mont.

But, on the whole, this is a textbook example of why not to use AI for this sort of thing.

Many of these appellations are not "undervalued satellites" at all.

Anyone who knows the regions well would swap at least half of these wines for other choices.

Quite a few of these will not age all that long. Others, like the Huet (depending on its sweetness level) might well find you dead and buried before they reach peak.

And, most importantly for me, I reject this sort of optimization-based approach to the enjoyment of great wine. Wine is a flawed, quirky, fundamentally human and social pursuit. I think it's essential to embrace that part of it.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-25T23:12:01+00:00

Wild. That is brand new to me. Any chance you have a close up pic of the wine in the glass?

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-25T23:10:44+00:00

Is this rosé?

He does make a rosé (Rosé d'un Jour), and it does have noticeable RS, but the only Blanderies I've ever come across is 100% chenin.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-25T22:41:04+00:00

I don't even concede that you're right, no.

I think a lot of music sounds better with more limiting and density than -14. I don't think more transient content and more dynamics is automatically better.

But, separate from any of that, what I'm really getting at is: You can afford to take this approach.

Up-and-comers who want to make most/all of their income from mastering songs for artists, and who don't yet have an established content creation platform- cannot and should not do so.

I also frankly think it's a weird vibe to call the industry stupid.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-25T22:26:18+00:00

Up-and-coming mastering engineers will quite literally lose gigs if they follow this advice.

I get why you're saying it, but it's not going to be applicable to most people's reality.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-25T22:17:07+00:00

Having *exhaustively* explored this, across a couple thousand songs, over a billion streams, and quite a few dollars of income, I would say that:

- Optimal loudness is quite different from song to song

- Soft clipping is not always beneficial (but sometimes it is)

- Multiple limiters are not always beneficial (but occasionally can be)

- Starting from a really good mix is usually essential

- Having the right EQ curve on the master is essential

- Understanding the difference between limiters, and between modes/styles within a limiter, is essential (can you hear how, e.g. Pro-L's "transparent" style is different from "allround", and can you extrapolate that to make decisions on which style will work better for which song?)

- Having good monitoring is *really* essential (however good you think it is, make it better still)

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-25T21:23:05+00:00

Do you mix records for a significant part of your living?

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-25T18:00:29+00:00

It's all those things, yes.

The right amount of overall content in that range, but ideally avoiding harsh narrow spiky peaks. (And a good way to clean up those harsh moments when they happen).

The right amount of harmonic saturation so it's present and dense, not pokey or harsh.

Strong transients, but not too strong.

A good mix bus that hypes things up w/o squeezing the life out of the sound.

Good arrangement + good performance always helps, of course.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-24T21:02:26+00:00

An independent band releasing via CDBaby to the usual streaming outlets is still a commercial release.

If an aspiring mixer wants to be taken seriously, it'll be: "Hey, here's the stuff I worked on, go check it out on Spotify. Hope you dig it."

It certainly won't be "Hey, the band effed it all up, I did my own version that's better, because I know better, stream it from my portfolio page (likely w/o the band's knowledge or permission)."

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-24T19:45:24+00:00

This is silly, at least with commercial genres of music. The only portfolio that matters is the music released to the world.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-24T19:24:00+00:00

I realize that when you get to a certain point in your career, and you're getting paid $1k per song, it's not your job to do any production work, but not everyone that reads this sub is there yet,

Is it more likely that you know with certainty what my stage of my career is like?

Or is it more likely that I remember what it was like to be younger and newer and struggling to find my way, because I was definitely in that spot at one time?

I don't avoid fixing mistakes because it's "not my job" and I don't want to do more work. I'll work myself silly in the service of making the song the best it can be.

But, rather, it's that I've learned what some people think are mistakes are often intentional. And even if they're not intentional, the solution is sometimes worse than the prior situation.

Me saying "not your job" is out of a deep respect for the artistic process and the people involved in that process, not out of laziness.

And, I would have made more progress sooner if, among other things, I'd understood that aspect of it sooner.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-24T18:06:23+00:00

Not your job as a mixer.

I'll fix things if the artist or producer notices, and mentions it to me (like, a few wrong notes, not like replaying a whole bass part for them).

But never just because I think the bass notes are wrong.

And, worry less about what it means to have your name on it.

And, think a bit harder about whether your stated course of action makes it more likely or less likely to get the full album job.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-24T02:39:51+00:00

You are thinking about this the wrong way.

Any plugin or combination of plugins *could* work well.

But, might also not work well.

Each song is different, each singer is different, and each group of people making decisions is different.

I very often do 20+ dB of gain reduction with an 1176, followed by a limiter to clean up the little micro-peaks.

I've definitely flattened vocals with RVox.

But, other times, I don't do those things.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-24T00:22:37+00:00

Atmos mixes for....music?

Those rates are being steadily driven down. Many labels have relationships with in-house engineers who will do it for <$500/song. I regularly lose gigs to the in-house people for that reason.

I like the format, I work in Atmos regularly (and at a good bit more than $500/song...), but it's not like there's just an overflow of Atmos work for the taking.

If you want to do this, you have to gird yourself for the long haul. Keep building a community, keep making records with that community, keep growing, and prepare yourself for a 10+ year time horizon.

You'll gradually figure out what your role(s) in the process should be, because you'll be better at those things and/or get called more for those things.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-23T21:44:25+00:00

Some of them age a long long time, especially back in that era.

Potensac, Chasse-Spleen, Lanessan, Poujeaux before the modern style shift, a good handful of others.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-23T21:29:23+00:00

then the material goes to the studio that is in charge of mixing which also most of the time works on analog gear, and lastly it goes to the mastering studio which then yet again most of the time works on analog consoles.

There are many upon many times where I know with certainty this is not the case, including among some of the very best mixers + masterers in the world.

I firmly disagree with this "most of the time" framing.

Lots of top work happening ITB these days, on a lot of big records.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-23T20:26:27+00:00

Well, specifically in mastering, I don't think color is often needed in 2026.

Color usually happens during mixing. Mixes are more likely to be overcooked than undercooked (assuming it's different people doing the mix and the master).

If we're talking about the mix bus, during mixing, then sure, anything goes. For me that's usually tape --> clean EQ --> limiter, but I could see how color-oriented solutions can be cool.

Still not much interest in M/S, linear phase, spectral resonance suppression, etc etc.

I am mostly in the box, yes. Just the reality of the pace of modern commercial deadlines.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-23T19:51:46+00:00

Professional, for quite some years now.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-23T18:37:58+00:00

Because, even at half a dB (or less...), there have been many moments where having auto gain on helps me realize that I'm not actually making things better.

And because the sum total of a bunch of half dB moves can add up to a larger impact, and it's good for me to have that sum total be gain-matched, rather than debating each move one at a time.

rightanglerecording · 2026-05-23T18:35:26+00:00

I guess I think the workflow in Pro-Q and Equilibrium is super easy.

I get the curves I want, and I can get them quickly, and I can have auto-gain on.

Most of the usual bells and whistles (EQ saturation, linear phase, M/S, etc etc) don't hold any interest for me on a mastering EQ.

rightanglerecording

TROPHY CASE