My Mastering Perspective

Autist

New member
Writing out my thoughts helps me to get a clearer perspective on them, since I think visually and have a hard time accomplishing things without the aid of pictures, so I wanted to document my mastering perspective here, in the event that it may be helpful to some people. Of course, it may not be and some may find it totally useless.

There seems to be an endless debate here about whether, or not songs should be professionally mastered. And many, including me, have made protests that the pros do not readily provide tips, tricks, or techniques to help self-mastering enthusiats achieve their goals. I will address this issue first.

Every artist is different. Every song is different (though that can be argued depending on the genre). There is really no easy way out when it comes to mastering, as with mixing. The uniqueness of the artist and the material, in part, dictate the approach required to master a song. It is impossible without having never heard someone's material, to advise them on how to master it. ME's listen to the material they get and then make decisions on what each song needs before they apply anything to it. However, it isn't that simple. They also have to work with the artist, or producer to develop an understanding of what they hope the ME will accomplish with mastering. What kind of energy do they want the song to have, what emotions are they trying to impact? Are there any things in the songs that the artist, or engineer thinks may need some adjusting? It isn't as simple as saying "use a MB compressor to add -3 dB of gain between 30 and 100Hz." The song can be affected by not only what you dial into whatever tool you are using, but also the sound quality of the tool itself. Mastering engineers (pro, or not) consider things like, "will adding a little bit of pumping and breathing to this make it sound more interesting?" Of course the more experience you have with mastering, the quicker you are able to recognize what will work well on certain material.

A professional ME, a good one who with a good reputation, will have enough equipment to work with almost any scenario. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying to always send your material out.

I have struggled between mastering my current CD project myself, which is intended for commercial release, or to send it out. So I have to break down my options in a logical manner.

Do I want the best sound possible? Yes. Do I trust myself, my environment, my monitors, my cables, etc... to help me achieve that goal? I am not sure, which is almost the same as saying NO. I do trust some of my gear. My monitors do translate well, but, not perfectly. Also, I am limited to plug-ins for processing compression, EQ and reverbs and they certainly are not the best available, I simply can't afford that.

Mixing is very personal. Everyone has their own style. Mixes that sound perfect to one person may seem like they need work to another. Mastering is not a perfect art either. Not all ME's hear things the same. Not all have the same equipment in the same environment. Shopping for the right person to master your material can be like shopping for a car, which certainly is one aspect, aside from cost, that makes DIY mastering so appealing. So if I were to master my own material for this CD, how would I do it?

Well, for starters, I don't have many options, so I would have to decide on what tools I will use. That narrows my options down to 2 acceptible compressors, 2 acceptible EQs, 1 acceptible "loudness maximizer"/limiter and a few reverbs, if needed. All plug-ins and all inexpensive.

Next I would have to decide what order I want to put the songs in (mandatory no matter who masters it). This in itself might take several days of moving stuff around and listening to it over and over again. I have to decide about fades and the length of spaces between songs... more listening over and over again.

Next, not having the experience to simply know what would work best for each song, I have to experiment with tools and settings, over and over again until I find the best combination, perhaps even rendering several versions of each one in case I can't decide which sounds better.

I have to listen to them in the living room (easy, the home theatre can be controled from the studio), on the cheap stereo, both car stereos, my companion's computer, my mom's stereo, my mom's car stereo, small cassette players, the boombox and the walkman. If it doesn't sound acceptible on all of them, then I have to go back to the decision making process and try again. I have to do this for 9, or 10 songs before I can add my fades and then burn the CD, probably 1 month and a nervous breakdown later.

See, if someone asked me "how much compression should I use on the bass frequencies?" I would not know how to answer them, because there really isn't an answer. It all depends on the bass content, whether, or not it even needs any compression, what type of compression it needs, etc...

Now, with that out of the way, I have to explore the other option: the dreaded sending it out.

First I have to find the ME that can do a job with my material that I will like. So I have to shop around. Look at client lists, e-mail them, or have my rep call them and ask questions. Ask for samples, or even if they will master 30 seconds, or so of one of my songs to see how it turns out. Some offer this service for very low rates, others do not mention it, so we have to ask and then perhaps negotiate a cost to get a sample of my material, which is unique and hard to compare to most commercial stuff you hear.

Once we find an ME we like, we send the material with times and fade information and pages of details on each song and the vision I have for each one, as well as the project as the whole. We have to try to get the ME to understand the material and what it means so that he/she can do what he/she does best without having to second guess my goals. On every commercial CD I have, there is the name of an ME. Some of the mastering jobs on some of those CDs are terrible, especially the indie ones. GREAT! That saves me trouble because now I know who to avoid. However, chances are that the ME's on the CDs that are mastered well are too expensive (you sometimes pay for a name). So, I have to foind a suitable compromise.

Once I make a decision as to who will master it, I send the package to them. I wait. Perhaps we communicate with them further about certain things during the course of the mastering process. After the wait is over and I get the mastered CD back, I expect it to be fine, after all I have done my best and the ME has done his/her best, hopefully. I then listen to it everywhere (as described above). If something is wrong I tell them, if it is fine, we thank them.

So how would sending it out benefit me? Hmmm, cost, for one thing. Cost? You say... No way! You say. Just grab a free plug-in and go to work, it hasn't cost you a penny. Oh sure it has. That free plug-in may not be what I want for some things. The quality may not be as nice as what I desire. I may have to buy a better plug-in. How much better? You ask. $500.00 better, probably. So that one plug-in just cost as much as getting the whole CD mastered professionally and that is just ONE plug-in. So, instead of spending $1500.00 on plug-ins (even though I can use them over and over again), why not let someone else do it that has something better? Besides, time is money, usually and sending it out could save me a lot of time.

Now, if there were no plans to release this CD commercially and all I was going to do was upload MP3s to a web site, then I would use what I have now, not worry about sending it out and be done with it. If someone said "it needs better mastering," I would say "it's a free MP3, deal with it." But having recorded for many years and then experiencing the uncomfortable feeling that comes when I take my new accomplishment to mom's house expecting to hear what I heard in the studio, only to find out that the version I did on a 4-track sounded better on her (once very expensive) stereo, I am not sure I want to experience that with a CD that took months to track, mix and master.

Also, have I mentioned this is a commercial release? Of course I have. A record label is being formed exclusively to distribute my work. They do not want something that they cannot sell. So when it comes down to it, realistically, I trust myself to master my music if I am just playing around and having fun, but not as much when it comes to something so serious. This does not mean that I trust ME's either. In fact, I don't trust anyone, but that's another story. So the ME will have to earn my trust by showing me that he/she is the right person for the job before I commit to anything.

Caution does have to be applied when chosing an ME. Shoot, I could advertise as being an ME, but I know I don't qualify to be a professional one.

NOw, lately there have been posts about using obscure things like reverb in place of EQ. There is no logic here, because even if you could use a reverb for that purpose then it is still EQing. If I master the material myself then I will use whatever needs to be used to get the results I like, even if it means touching up the mix. Therefore, I will expect the ME to do whatever needs to be done to get the best results, whether it is adding, EQ, compression, reverb, or synthetic 30 weight motor oil. As long as the end result sounds good, then personally I don't care how they did it.

Small print:

Not edited for content. Typos, poor spelling, gramnmer, or inaccurate information are no fault of the author's and should be blamed soley on Microsoft, the maker of the keyboard used to type this.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for this!

Very well-reasoned post. I'm new to all of this (but not to music) and am looking to learn as much as I can early on to avoid wasting my time and energy as much as possible. You've given me a lot of information in a very compact space, not only about mastering, but about the mixing-mastering process as well.

Thanks a bunch!

Jeff
 
I am glad you found my ranting informative.

Sometimes I will spend an unbelievable amount of time on a mix, often getting it to where I like it and thinking, "what if I did this instead?" So I mix and mix and mix until I get chills down my spine and then I say "YES! Done!" Then the next day I listen again and think something like "this guitar lick needs to be a little louder and I am not so sure I like the delay here." It's a quest for perfection, however, there has to be point where you just have to move on to the next song. This is where mastering comes in to play, for me at least.

I may have what seems to be a super good mix that sounds excellent on my system, but it may sound different on other systems. Initially I would try to remix it to make it sound the same everywhere, but this proved to be futile. Now, if I can listen to the entire song (preferably more than once) in front of my mom on the entertainment center, or in the car without immediately cringing and lunging for the eject button, then I know I have a worthy mix and that some solid mastering will help smooth out any minor issues I may have with it. It is simply too much to remix over and over again, when each time there is something different that could have been, well, different.

When mixing it, is important that you know the system you are mixing on, how the mixes translate to other systems. I trust my system as far as translating the mix. I know that if it sounds good on my Event monitors, it will be acceptible on other systems as well. So I get the mix as good as I can and then stop. Because the other systems are not accurate, I can't really judge certain things by listening to the mix on them, which is why I think it would be very difficult for me to try to seriously master my own material. I am just not equiped for it and I could spend a month investing my best effort into such a task, only to find out that I need to have someone else do it - one month wasted. I would rather just do it right the first time and bypass all of the frustration.
 
Great post.

One thing that I would point out however is that you do not have to send material out and have blind faith that the mastered CD that comes back is exactly what you want. Doing this is where many seem to get burned.

First off you can attend sessions. The issue with attended sessions though is that you are probably not familiar with the room and monitors of the mastering studio so that can perceptions off. It's a good idea in this case to bring in some reference CDs that you are very familiar with for comparison, or to burn a test CD and listen in your car (if you have a reasonable car stereo) to compare. The advantage is that you have instant feedback and can communicate with the ME, as well as possibly learn a few things.

The other option is sending material out. I wouldn't personally send material out unless you can get an agreement to demo at least one song. For some MEs you may be charged for the service, but it's better than paying for the entire CD if you don't like it. Others make this service free by a downloadable mp3 or a section of the song as a wav file. The advantage here is that you can burn a CD and listen on various systems before committing as you would in the attended session. Also you have more engineers to choose from than if you had to select one locally.
 
Thanks Masteringhouse and I agree.

I know for sure that where I live that I probably won't find anyone I will want to master my material. Also, sitting in on the session will not be an option for me (even locally), which is why I would try to communicate with the ME to help them understand what it is I am trying to achieve by having the material mastered.

I would never have blind faith in anyone mastering my material. Every ME has a different perspective, different gear and different ears. I would not even expect 2 ME's to get the same sound out of my material. One might think it's a little heavy in the midrange, another might think the mids sound perfect.

I have heard pro-mastered indie CDs that the band thought were fabulous, but to me the music sounded as shrill as a whistle. I think that the artist, or producer has to know what sound they are looking for and then communicate that to the ME accurately and sensibly for the best results. Simply saying that you want it loud is rediculous. Personally, I would provide some kind of commercial samples and perhaps RMS numbers that represented the target level I was looking for. I wouldn't assume that just because I told an engineer that I want it to be around the level of a certain CD that he/she would actually know how loud that CD actually is.
 
Autist,

It looks like you do a good job of thinking things through and expoloring your options. But I'd be careful not to get too wrapped up in it all. Don't let "analysis paralysis" take over. :D

No matter what you wind up doing, there is always going to be an element of risk involved, at least to some extent. In the end, it should boil down to who's work sounds good to you. Like going to the supermarket ... you can get a good feel for whether or not the produce is fresh by looking at it, smelling it, etc. Heck, I could give you a much longer-winded essay / novel than you just wrote ... and I could entitle it: "The art of selecting frozen pizza," but in the end, it's all about trying the pizza and deciding which one I like better, and then buying it.

What you send the ME to work with is still the most crucial thing. If you just go with someone who's not a complete moron, then the best you can hope for is that you'll get a finished product that sounds a little better and translates well accross different systems. And the worse-case scenario, he at least doesn't screw up your work and make it any worse. If you consider yourself a musician, then you should be able to evaluate pretty quickly which category someone falls in to ... simply based on samples of their work.

If you're expecting an ME to radically alter your finished product, then it's probably time to examine how to get things closer to how you want them at the tracking and mixing stage. You can't expect a shoe-shine boy to radically affect the look and style of your shoes ... but if he's consciencous, then you should walk away with something shinier and more polished than when you initially sat down.
 
chessrock said:
Autist,

It looks like you do a good job of thinking things through and expoloring your options. But I'd be careful not to get too wrapped up in it all. Don't let "analysis paralysis" take over. :D

No matter what you wind up doing, there is always going to be an element of risk involved, at least to some extent. In the end, it should boil down to who's work sounds good to you. Like going to the supermarket ... you can get a good feel for whether or not the produce is fresh by looking at it, smelling it, etc. Heck, I could give you a much longer-winded essay / novel than you just wrote ... and I could entitle it: "The art of selecting frozen pizza," but in the end, it's all about trying the pizza and deciding which one I like better, and then buying it.

What you send the ME to work with is still the most crucial thing. If you just go with someone who's not a complete moron, then the best you can hope for is that you'll get a finished product that sounds a little better and translates well accross different systems. And the worse-case scenario, he at least doesn't screw up your work and make it any worse. If you consider yourself a musician, then you should be able to evaluate pretty quickly which category someone falls in to ... simply based on samples of their work.


True and thanks. I do tend to get caught in "analysis paralysis" (great term by the way). I have less than a week before I can seriously start mixing this CD, so I am trying to tackle other aspects of the release now (the artwork is done), as well as just taking a break. As I said before, I will get it sounding as good as I can, that's all I can do. I know that if I am pleased with the final mixes and am comfortable with an ME, that I should be pleased with the mastered product as well.
 
This has been quite useful to read through. I'm going to engineer my band's album, but I'm too afraid to mix it, so I'm going to have a professional do it. Probably someone local that we know who does mixing in a studio. I'm 'told' that she's a ME also, but I'm not sure of which and I'm not certain I want the person who mixes it to master it also.

Frankly, I'm really considering some of the ME's on this board. But I'm still really afraid!
 
Alexbt said:
This has been quite useful to read through. I'm going to engineer my band's album, but I'm too afraid to mix it, so I'm going to have a professional do it. Probably someone local that we know who does mixing in a studio. I'm 'told' that she's a ME also, but I'm not sure of which and I'm not certain I want the person who mixes it to master it also.

Frankly, I'm really considering some of the ME's on this board. But I'm still really afraid!

I would suggest at least trying to mix it before you out source, just to see what happens. The worst that can happen (providing you do not delete tracks, etc... MAKE BACKUPS) is that you find out you need someone else to do it. By at least not trying to do it yourself you could be missing out on a lot of fun and learning.

I don't think I have ever seen a commercial CD that was mastered by the same person/people that mixed it.
 
Autist, I don't know how the pros do it, this works for me - I get feedback from the pool I've distributed to. I Consider all feedback, then put a bell curve over the results (chop off the extreme bad and extreme good comments) and take that somewhat seriously. If I'm doing it for myself then I have to like it, of course. If I've put the music out on a forum then I usually get nice feedback there also (not saying the song, mix & mastering is nice but getting good feedback about it).

But I'm a DIY kinda guy - it's taken me many years to get this far in my engineering, if I needed something distributed to special parties for a career move then I'd start reading the labels of some of my favorite CD's and send stuff out to someone whose mastering I like.
 
just a warning, every small studio near me offers "mastering"

what they really mean is "we have an L2, an EQ, and want of your money"

in my all be it limited experance, if you cant afford to shell out a minimum of
500$ for mastering, you might as well do it yourselfe.
 
I think this sums it up:


Autist said:
Small print:

Not edited for content. Typos, poor spelling, gramnmer, or inaccurate information are no fault of the author's and should be blamed soley on Microsoft, the maker of the keyboard used to type this.


if you can't even take responsibility for your own typos, I wouldn't want to be your ME.
 
giraffe said:
just a warning, every small studio near me offers "mastering"

what they really mean is "we have an L2, an EQ, and want of your money"
I offer mastering at my studio.... but it's important to note that I outsource it, it's not done in-house!
 
HapiCmpur said:
Why's that, Bear?

It's because he has a recording/mix facility, not a mastering facility. A mastering facility has a specialized set of tools and a mastering engineer to put the final "gloss" on when Bear's finished with the mixes.
 
gtrman_66 said:
It's because he has a recording/mix facility, not a mastering facility. A mastering facility has a specialized set of tools and a mastering engineer to put the final "gloss" on when Bear's finished with the mixes.
Is that pretty common in the industry? I was under the impression that most pro recording studios offer tracking, mixing, and mastering services. Whether they're good at all three is another story, of course, but I still figured they'd have the equipment and offer the service. Not true?

Or is it the kind of thing that varies with the money clients are willing to pay out? In other words, do your more "run-of-the mill" studios tend to offer one-stop shopping while the high-end studios tend to specialize?
 
HapiCmpur said:
Is that pretty common in the industry? I was under the impression that most pro recording studios offer tracking, mixing, and mastering services. Whether they're good at all three is another story, of course, but I still figured they'd have the equipment and offer the service. Not true?


Some of the big big studios may have a mastering facility on site. But don't kid yourself, actual mastering is not something that should generally be done in the same control room on the same monitors etc. as the album was mixed on. A mastering room is something completely different. There are a lot of guys out there offering "mastering" services out of their studios that IMO should be running a disclaimer about what they are actually offering

HapiCmpur said:
Or is it the kind of thing that varies with the money clients are willing to pay out? In other words, do your more "run-of-the mill" studios tend to offer one-stop shopping while the high-end studios tend to specialize?

I'll give you an example. Last year, I did two projects here in my modest little ADAT equipped hovel. The first one was for a church group, kind of a folk/bluegrass oriented little group that wanted a total of 200 copies, about half to hand out to church members and the other half to sell at the church bazaar or whatever. Did I "master" this one? You bet I did. The scope of the project, the budget and quality expectations of the client dictated that it was fine for me to do so. It wasn't intended for any major commercial market or airplay etc. , so I felt comfortable doing it. It actually came out sounding ok.

The second project was different. It was recording a rock band comprised of some of my best friends in the world wanting to make a serious attempt at making a record. As it turns out, we sent it out to mix and off to another facility to master. Now I would have been OK with mixing it myself, but there was no way in hell I was going to reccomend anything other than having it mastered by a pro, ecpecially with the money they were going to lay down for 1000 manufactured shrink wrapped copies. BTW, the album just won the Urban Tulsa Weekly's Absoulte Best of Tulsa Award for "Best Indie/Locally Produced Album".
 
gtrman_66 said:
BTW, the album just won the Urban Tulsa Weekly's Absoulte Best of Tulsa Award for "Best Indie/Locally Produced Album".
Excellent! Congratulations to you and to the band. And thanks for your thorough response to my question. Your examples cleared it up for me.
 
Back
Top