Magic Fairy Dust....

It's a single track recording.
I can't hear or conceive of the need to master it as it stands nor what mastering would do that couldn't be done in the "mix".
As they stand the unmastered track sounds more real & whilst raw - rather better.
The "mastered" sounds quieter and lacks bottom end.
Post a mix and a master of a mix.
"Mastering" this single thing doesn't show how mastering could/would make a mix hang together, make sense of the competing layers of address muddiness etc that tend to develop across a set of tracks in a mix.
 
It's a single track recording.
I can't hear or conceive of the need to master it nor what mastering would do that couldn't be done in the "mix".
As they stand the unmastered track sounds more real & whilst raw - rather better.
The "mastered" sounds quieter and lacks bottom end.
Post a mix and a master of a mix.
"Mastering" this single thing doesn't show how mastering could/would make a mix hang together, make sense of the competing layers of address muddiness etc that tend to develop across a set of tracks in a mix.

Ray, he's just trolling.
 
Yep, 'mastered' version is dull-sounding and heavy on the bass. In addition (nothing to do with the recording) you should learn how to play a Bminor so that that annoying open low E string isn't heard.
 
That's not mastered or mastering. You're just throwing tons of processing at a single yuck-sounding track. But you knew that already because I'm pretty sure it's been explained to you numerous times during all of the other one-track-minded troll attempts on this very topic.

First off, that guitar sounds bad. Secondly, play better. And thirdly, mic it better and you won't need so much crap on it.
 
Okay, normally I try not to get into these sorts of things. But this time ----

The "raw" version sounds quite nice. In the "really nothing to complain about" category. Of course it's not easy to judge how it would fit into the context of a full instrumental mix, but it's reasonably full, warm, non-exaggerated image, spectrally natural, non-distracting (etc., etc., etc.).

The other version is awful by comparison. It's not even "well, I would've..." awful. It's "I can't even imagine why you'd take an otherwise perfectly fine sounding source and then do *that* to it" awful. Scooped, scraped, hollow, brittle, constrained - It hurts my ears even at low volume.

So yes - I vote "troll."
 
There are many much better qualified to speak on the matter (look up....) but isn't mastering preparation for a medium and a context?

If you're genuinely interested in mastering, work on a set of recordings which are going to be packaged together.
I expect there's be so much more to learn in doing that.
 
I've said the same thing to the OP on several occasions every time I heard his original VS his mastered version.

Every time...the original sound decent, and could have stood as-is in a mix for the most part.
The "mastered" versions...were all just awful....so much so...that I've wondered and questioned what the heck the OP was hearing...or did he even know what to listen for, because he seemed to always think the mastered version sounded great, and so much better than his original.

I just don't get it...there's got to be some monitoring/listening issue going on.

Also...I can't for the life me understand why anyone would "master" a single track, single instrument...???

Like WTF??? :D

Yeah...Magic Fairy Dust. :p
 
Back
Top