I have fun mastering all day

Q: Tell us about a project you worked on you are especially proud of and why. What was your role?

A: I coordinated a project, and did hands on work, digitizing an archive with more than 12 thousand songs on 78 and 45 RPM records, spanning from 1902 to 1950s. The archive is now available to the public at https://acervos.ims.com.br/portals/#/search, as part of a larger collection. Choosing the right needle, the right weight, for each record depending on how deep the groove was, and what part of the groove mas most preserved, was a delight. Unforgettable music history lesson!

Q: What was your career path? How long have you been doing this?

A: I started as a synthesizer programmer in 1986, took a "break" at the New England conservatory, in Boston, then worked recording and mixing in NYC in 1992-95. Back in Rio de Janeiro, I specialized in mastering but never fully abandoned recording and mixing. Since 2005 I have my own studio, Batmastersom.

Q: Analog or digital and why?

A: When I began to breath studio life back in 1986 everything was analog. The first digital gear sounded like crap. Digital took a very long time to catch up. I mastered for many years with all analog equipment, Sontec, Avalon, Fairman, Manley... The digital stuff just didn't hold up. Until it did. One of the studios I worked in also imported equipment, so testing and comparing was part of the fun. Nothing like hands on to choose what you work with. At some point digital gear got into the mix, I would say "For this job this toy actually works!". Forward a few years and I saw myself giving the same snobbish look I did to the digital stuff: "No depth or detail arrhg!", this time to the analog gear: "Pretty, but where's the definition of my low end? Where's my stereo? What happened to that reverb decay?". Choosing what processors for each job was always part of the process (pun intended), and still is. It used to be that this involved a patchbay, or swapping cables (I would also choose what cables to use depending on the job. I know, I know, I'm not exactly normal...). More and more I would end up choosing a combination with more digital and less analog. This happened gradually throughout many years. For a long time I would try the analog gear again and again only to settle with "ok, it didn't sound good in this job...". I couldn't admit I actually preferred the sound I got out of the digital processors. At some point I just gave up the analog. - That said, the difference from one processor to another has a lot more to it that just being digital or analog. Whether digital or analog, hardware or software, each processor has it's tone, it's texture and it's limitations, there's no such thing as "fully transparent". When mastering, I upsample all material to 192KHz 64 bit files and use an external clock. It took a long time for SRC to sound good enough to justify this, but today it does. /// [Don't try this at home! ;-) Most SRCs still sucks and choosing the right SRC for the job is part of the deal!] /// This allows all my processing to be done at top resolution. Then comes the same testing of what processors are best for each job. Since quality and transparency are critical in mastering, I end up with a much smaller pallet of plugins than the one I use when mixing. Just as in the old days, not all processors pass the test. Some just lose too much of the original detail, or introduce some unwanted texture.

Q: Tell us about your studio setup.

A: The main star is the sound of the room. The care given to the acoustics and monitors are key in making sure what I do sounds good in other places too. I work in the box, using an Antelope clock and almost all my work at 192KHz & 64bits floating point. Of course you don't gain anything by upsampling, but I certainly gain from having all the processing done at the highest resolution possible. The choice of plugins changes a lot according to the project. I'm constantly trying new tools, their textures interests me a lot more than any special features. Often two theoretically very similar plugins deliver very different results both in quality and in texture.

Q: What's your typical work process?

A: The first thing is listening to the raw track and imagining where it wants to go. Of course this also involves listening to the client and trying to capture what sound he/she is aiming for. References are welcome. Falling in love with the music and the artist's vision for it is THE key for everything. - I prefer to alternate between songs or projects, with frequent breaks, than to stick for too many hours on the same song. Coming back with fresh ears is a lot more revealing and efficient. - At some point the music tells you it's happy. At that point it's time to show it to the client and wait for more input. More often than not I just get an ok, but sometimes the clients comments allow us to go to new more beautiful places.

Q: Which artist would you like to work with and why?

A: I've had the privilege of working for many of my heroes! Often it's an artist you didn't know who brings the most fresh and inspired music. I love having clients form all over the world, with different backgrounds and musical styles!

Q: What do you bring to a song?

A: The song brings everything. It takes me for a walk and hopefully it sounds more itself when I'm done.

Q: What advice do you have for a customer looking to hire a provider like you?

A: Listen to what they've done, make sure you like what you hear. Exchange a few words, make sure communication is fluid, that there's availability and common purpose.

Q: Describe the most common type of work you do for your clients.

A: I have clients form all over the world, this diversity is a challenge I love. I guess this has to do with the fact that traditional Brazilian music, that of course is still an important part of my work, has a very broad range of influences and textures, from acoustic ensembles to some pretty heavy and/or groovy sounds.