Monday, August 17, 2026
Audio Engineer here:
So you bring in a band to a recording studio. You mic them up, then record them. Each part (basically) is on its own track, whether its recorded on tape or digitally. When you set volume levels to each track, stereo panning, effects, etc.....that's mixing. So this multi-track "mix" becomes a stereo track.
But before you send it out to sell on the market, it has to go through the mastering process. This process has changed over time, but basically its to make sure that every song on the album has the same general sound. Because you mix each individual song seperate from each other, you might find that one song has more bass than another, or one is drier sounding, etc. The mastering engineer makes adjustments at this level so the songs on the album sound cohesive. They also make adjustments based on the medium they will be sold on (for example, vinyl has certain restrictions so they have to EQ adjustments to make sure the needle doesn't jump).
Then the product is sold.
A remaster, which is still the most common, is still taking that original mix, but just doing a new master on it. Tastes change, technology improves, and more importantly, formats change. Early CD releases of older 60s/70s songs just used the original masters meant for vinyl, and so sounded thin and generally not good. All the remasters done in the 90's was to get all those old albums to sound good on CD's. And as technology improved over the years, remastering allows modern engineers to get the original mix to sound as good as possible (I am not getting into the Loudness Wars here).
A remix is going back to that original multi-track recording that the band themselves recorded, and doing a completely new mix. New volume adjustments, new stereo panning, new effects like reverb and EQ, etc., and then doing a master of that, and then a release of that.
A remaster is essentially the original product with some sonic differences. A remix is the same recording but actually changes how the song itself sounds.
Sunday, August 09, 2026
Friday, August 07, 2026
Shellac
* Best for antique furniture and historic restorations; warm, traditional finishes, sealing knots or odors
* Pros: historically accurate for many antiques, dries fast, easy to repair or refresh
* Cons: sensitive to water, alcohol, and heat, not the best choice for heavily used tabletops
Furniture Wax
* Best for decorative/low-traffic furniture
* Pros: has a beautiful soft sheen, easy to apply and refresh, gives a silky texture to furniture
* Cons: offers minimal protection, requires occasional reapplication, not recommended for high-traffic pieces (kitchen or dining tables).
Hard Oil - a blend of wax, resins, and oils
Examples: Rubio Monocoat, Osmo, Fiddes Hard Wax Oil, BIOFA
* Best for wood furniture where you want a natural, matte look
* Pros: Enhances the natural beauty of the wood, easy to spot repair, natural feel
* Cons: has to be applied over raw wood, expense
Oil-Based Polyurethane
* Best for dining tables, desks, and other high-wear furniture
* Pros: extremely durable, excellent moisture resistance, deepens wood color, long-lasting
* Cons: Slow drying, harder to repair—often requires refinishing the entire surface, can yellow over time
Water-Based Polyurethane
* Low to medium traffic furniture where you want to preserve the natural color, interior furniture and cabinets
* Pros: crystal clear finish, fast drying, doesn’t yellow as much over time
* Cons: can raise the wood grain on the first coat, spot repairs can be difficult
Each has its own strengths, weaknesses, and best uses. There isn’t one “best” finish—just the best one for the project you’re working on.
Save this so you have a quick reference the next time you’re finishing a project!
Sunday, August 02, 2026
Saturday, August 01, 2026
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)