MannequinRaces wrote:All the above info posted in this thread (I haven't read the other thread) is only one side of the coin of mastering. What is accurate already is the volume leveling of the tracks so they all sound equal in volume relative when played back to back to each other. Other aspects are EQ (to get the tracks sounding the same frequency wise), Dynamic Range (which can be lumped in with volume leveling but will make it so all your tracks don't have wildly displaced dynamic ranges), also another one is the song sequence or order of the tracks and getting all the fade ins and outs of the tracks to get along with each other nicely.
A well mixed album will need no mastering done at all so it's perfectly possible you don't need to pay anybody to master your songs for you. What a mastering engineer is good for is another set of ears that will hear things that you might not have.
The above quote that mastering should take no longer than 20mins is somebody using iZotope's Ozone (don't get me wrong it's fabulous software) just using the presets and that's it. If everybody could do a bang-up mastering job on their own in 20 minutes mastering engineers wouldn't exist.
Also remember mastering is done on a stereo file. Mixing is done on multiple stereo files and mono files to make a single 'master' stereo file of the song.
At the end of the day use your ears, if you play your album/songs on multiple playback systems (car stereo, iPod, cell phone, home stereo system, also check the mix in mono) and the mix holds up and there's no glaring frequency or dynamic range issues pass on mastering, if you hear problems go back and try and fix them in the mix, rinse and repeat.
This.
Mastering is not such a complicated process and is not necessary on every single track. Still, it requires knowledge and experience to make a proper mastering job. One can raise as well as destroy the quality of a set of tracks through mastering.
The4455 wrote:No problem, that is what mastering is. When my band finished recording our album the engineer played all of the songs at once (ten songs) and compared the overall volumes of them together so that the volume of any given track was the same as the other. So two or three songs were made a bit louder to match the rest or something. The amount of decibels is so marginal in the end that unless you totally screwed up the recordings you'll be fine.
Basically you need to be able to listen to all of the songs at once and be able to pick each one out. Provided songs with quiet(er) parts etc just have to be.
I'm sorry man, but you're seriously diminishing what mastering is. Its much more than just making every track equal volume. I'm not even going to sit here and claim that I know all the voodoo behind it, but you're only addressing a small part of what it does.
I'll go on to say that mastering is absolutely fucking CRUCIAL and invaluable if you're releasing a professional end product. There's a reason mastering engineers get paid the scale that they do... because they have a skill set that is different than mixing/recording. Yes, some mix engineers also master, but it's rare. That says a lot to me. Having a 2nd or 3rd set of objective ears on your mixes is a good thing. I've never once regretted mastering. I've made the engineer go back and make revisions, but always stoked with the end product. A good mastering engineer will only heavily fuck with your mixes if (a) you ask the too, or (b) they need to because there are problems in your mix. Send a mastering engineer a really good mix, and they're much happier than if you send them some shitty sonics to fix.
AxAxSxS wrote:I'm gonna just go ahead and quote you cause I think you're on point. Just in case folks dont feel like clicking to another thread. Sometimes some compression can be a good thing but generally this-
The4455 wrote:For sure. Mastering is a term that has a few meanings. Many of people think that mastering is when you take your recorded tracks and change them with eq, filters, editing etc. which is wrong, that is mixing. Mastering is when you, and this will sound odd, listen to all of your songs at once to see if they are all equal volume on the album as not have one really loudly recorded song and then a really quietly recorded song so the volume of teh song as a whole form song to song is equal and that the volume of your recorded tracks or songs are the standard (or close) for loudness. Also putting overall effects on the track as a whole, which I recommend against, but it happens a lot in remastering of old music.
A lot of the time what happens is that during a mastering session the artist or producer will have the sound engineer make their tracks louder and then put a compressor/expander on them, to I don't even know what. Which takes away from the dynamics in the song and the overall tonality of the song. I try not to listen to remastered versions of anything, because this is usually what happens. Although if it's been remastered from analog to digital for obvious formatting reasons, you can't download vinyl to your computer, then you have to. But that mastering is necessary, the way vinyl is mixed mastered and produced is very different form the way digital audio is.
In remastering a lot of tracks are carelessly mastered for digital consumption. From old master tapes and vinyl to digital for iTunes and such the tape and vinyl are converted to digital and put into a music editing software (like pro-tools) and is then mixed about until the producer (and perhaps the artist) is pleased. At the end of said mastering session most always the track is increased in volume to match today standard of commercial music. Which like I said really does ruin the music.
The main points would be:
1. Mastering is not mixing, know teh difference
2. Mastering is very simple and should take less than twenty minutes tops, but is often over compensated for
3. Remastered music is often not a good representation of the original, although there are exceptions for some in which the original recordings had a very low production value. Two examples would be Led zeppelin two and Raw Power by Iggy Pop and the Stooges
I hope this answers your question of "What is mastering?" feel free to ask whatever you like and I'll answer it to the best of my abilities.
Side note: When I was in the studio mastering my band's album It was a very interesting experience to listen to ten songs at once, i highly recommend doing it at least once.
really great read and was very informative for me. its a nice mix of general mastering and what each component achieves w/ tips on how ot use their ozone plugins.
really great read and was very informative for me. its a nice mix of general mastering and what each component achieves w/ tips on how ot use their ozone plugins.
but its mostly just about mastering in general.
I am going to be reading this all night. Thanks for the post!
mr. sound boy king wrote:
Organic apples are not normal, they are special, like analog, whereas normal apples, like digital, taste sterile and lack warmth.
Based on this definition, from the link Dr. Sherman posted: The goal of this step is to take a good mix (usually in the form of a stereo file) and put the final touches on it. This can involve adjusting levels and general “sweetening” of the mix. Think of it as the difference between a goodsounding mix and a professional-sounding master. This process can, when necessary, involve adding things such as broad equalization, compression, limiting, etc. This process is often actually referred to as “premastering” in the world of LP and CD replication, but we’re going to refer to it as mastering for simplicity.
Personally "sweetening" the entire track, as one stereo file, isn't something that should have to be done if the track has been mixed properly/to our liking.
The way I have head the word thrown around, and talked about is as if Mastering is the most important thing for a recording to have done. I'm tired of hearing about it, to make adjustments to the virtually final product as a whole is, in my mind, pointless. If you want the snare to "pop" more you should have done that while mixing.
Having others listen to your almost-final product is important and I'm not discounting that part of it. Just the amount of stress that is being put on it here.
It's like this:
You go to record with your setup, your sound, it's perfect the way you have it. The recording Engineer shouldn't have to work magic to make it sound good if you've already spent a ton of time and money to get the sound you want all he has to do is keep your sound preserved as it passes through the mic/pre's/interface onto the computer or in some cases to tape.
A mastering engineer shouldn't have to work to make the track sound great if the engineer who mixed it made it sound great. A recording engineer shouldn't have to work to make your guitar sound great if you already have a great sounding set up.
A recording engineer can still royally screw up your sound. Their job is all about mic placement and mic choice for everything recored live (instruments, vocalists, etc.). Just because you walk in the room with a guitar in tune, a great sounding amp, and good chops doesn't mean the recording engineer sits back and takes a smoke break. Anybody involved can still mess up something that starts out sounding good.
At the end of the day even if a mix sounds great when it's delivered to a mastering engineer, a good mastering engineer can make it sound outstanding. You're right that if a snare isn't popping before mastering it should have been done while mixing or even rerecorded entirely.
The4455 wrote:Personally "sweetening" the entire track, as one stereo file, isn't something that should have to be done if the track has been mixed properly/to our liking.
I can stress enough how the post above is a rather good description of what mastering can do to a record.
You don't seem to realize that working on a master is not the same process as doing so working on individual track and therefore won't achieve the same result. Mastering is a complimentary process to mixing. It isn't about fixing a mix. One isn't done in place of the other. If I send my mixes through a compressor, a pair of EQ and stuff isn't because I don't know how to mix properly. It's the only way to achieve the desired result. Maybe a quick listen to the stuff linked in my sig can convince you
Try a simple exercise. Open a drum plug in in your daw, and route the kick, snare and hi hat to an individual track. Play a simple bass line on a bass, or synth or whatever. Open a compressor on each track, set them all to an arbitrary setting. Now, disable these four individual compressors, route the four tracks to a bus, and open the very same compressor on the very same arbitrary setting. Don't you hear a difference ?
The4455 wrote:Personally "sweetening" the entire track, as one stereo file, isn't something that should have to be done if the track has been mixed properly/to our liking.
I can stress enough how the post above is a rather good description of what mastering can do to a record.
You don't seem to realize that working on a master is not the same process as doing so working on individual track and therefore won't achieve the same result. Mastering is a complimentary process to mixing. It isn't about fixing a mix. One isn't done in place of the other. If I send my mixes through a compressor, a pair of EQ and stuff isn't because I don't know how to mix properly. It's the only way to achieve the desired result. Maybe a quick listen to the stuff linked in my sig can convince you
Try a simple exercise. Open a drum plug in in your daw, and route the kick, snare and hi hat to an individual track. Play a simple bass line on a bass, or synth or whatever. Open a compressor on each track, set them all to an arbitrary setting. Now, disable these four individual compressors, route the four tracks to a bus, and open the very same compressor on the very same arbitrary setting. Don't you hear a difference ?
If your mastering engineer is trying to "fix" your mix, you might have a bad mix.
If your mastering engineer takes 20 minutes to master an album's worth of music, you might have a bad mastering engineer.
If all your mastering engineer does is adjust the levels of each song to match each other, you might have a bad mastering engineer. That is not what mastering is.
I have to say that I disagree strongly with what The4455 is saying about the role of mastering. I'm not going to try to change any minds, but I'd advise anyone and everyone to get both ends of the story before they decide what's right for them. If you care about your recording, I encourage you to educate yourself as much as you can about why this field of audio engineering exists, and what it is doing for you.
friendship wrote:If your mastering engineer is trying to "fix" your mix, you might have a bad mix.
If your mastering engineer takes 20 minutes to master an album's worth of music, you might have a bad mastering engineer.
If all your mastering engineer does is adjust the levels of each song to match each other, you might have a bad mastering engineer. That is not what mastering is.
I have to say that I disagree strongly with what The4455 is saying about the role of mastering. I'm not going to try to change any minds, but I'd advise anyone and everyone to get both ends of the story before they decide what's right for them. If you care about your recording, I encourage you to educate yourself as much as you can about why this field of audio engineering exists, and what it is doing for you.
