Is mastering truly necessary these days?

rob aylestone said:
Now we don’t have absolute requirements for the medium, for example, vinyl pressings, what exactly would a proper, professional mastering engineer do? Change what you have done? They alter your dynamics, they alter the spectral content and they change the level. If your recording is supposed to be say EDM, or metal, or some other very defined ‘club’ your music fits, membership wise, then they can fix faults. If there are no faults, they’re changing your mix, to their preference. I can understand that some music is poorly put together and needs an expert to repair. Some people produce music and put it on here for us to listen to, and their sound is consistant, and nice. They’re happy with it. They made good choices. Sometimes, not choices I would have made, but it is their choices that make it ‘them’. What benefit would paying a 3rd party bring? Something different? They might hate it.

For most people who now self release, would a mastered product result in more streams or downloads? If yours was sh*t originally, yes, for certain. For good stuff, I suspect not at all.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't consider it 'changing a mix'; I consider it balancing song to song to create cohesion and consistency while retaining the dynamics of each song on it's own. Transparency or complimenting the given mix as it stands is always the goal of great MEs. It's a service/process/person you seek out. Having an experienced listener with specialized listening equipment (both audible and visual) take your final mix the last inch of the mile so to speak, is always and very much worth the investment.
 
So making up for your shortcomings? I see that. If it’s just levelling a pile of tracks to make them part of one ‘collection’ that’s hardly requiring excellent gear and acoustics? I’ve no issue at all with passing your work on to have it fixed, but if they’re changing your artistic decisions on the components because they‘re needed to make a mic conform to a genre’s rulebook, you got it wrong. I’ve never liked other finishing or tweaking my work. If I make a decision because that’s how I want it, how does that resolve itself when you say, I don’t like it?
 
rob aylestone said:
So making up for your shortcomings? I see that. If it’s just levelling a pile of tracks to make them part of one ‘collection’ that’s hardly requiring excellent gear and acoustics? I’ve no issue at all with passing your work on to have it fixed, but if they’re changing your artistic decisions on the components because they‘re needed to make a mic conform to a genre’s rulebook, you got it wrong. I’ve never liked other finishing or tweaking my work. If I make a decision because that’s how I want it, how does that resolve itself when you say, I don’t like it?
Click to expand...

I hear this. I understand your point, though it seems to come from a misinformed understanding of the mastering process or perhaps a distorted view. I suppose you can't understand the benefits unless you have been through it before. Achieving the last 5-10% is no small thing. Great MEs are skilled in the art of audio balance.

Professional engineers, studios, labels, etc, aren't required to send their mixes to get mastered; it's an easy choice for practical reasons. It allows the general public/listener to hear their mix in the same way it was mixed on all public platforms.

I am not interested in changing your mind but perhaps offer some clarity.
A 'mix' is not a finished piece, and a collection of songs is not an album.

If it’s just levelling a pile of tracks to make them part of one ‘collection’ that’s hardly requiring excellent gear and acoustics?
Click to expand...
Balancing isn't leveling - it is processing every sonic element of the stereo mix to create cohesion. It is mastering the full audio spectrum, song by song. Optimizing playback levels for all systems and formats (including vinyl) is essential. The acoustics and gear are essential. It is a 'post-production' service. It wasn't achieved 'during' production. Mix engineers and studios have different environments meant for tracking and mixing. I have a few friends who are capable of doing both, but never on the same mix and not with the same equipment.

A lot of nonprofessionals, hobbyists, or semi-professionals fall in love with their mix as-is. It was developed and mixed in their environment; they feel it, they love it, and for them, it is 100% fine. That may be where it stays for them. That is legit. But it is a poor misconception to think it will transmit or convey properly next to mastered audio on any platform. In real-time it is going to sound like what it is: unmastered audio. (this includes self-audio 'mastering' programs)

When I spent months on a record, I would want it transmitted and conveyed to others the way I heard it when I mixed it, or even better.

As they say - YMMV 8-)

EDIT I'll look for some pre and post mastered audio from past sessions to attach soon.
 
Last edited:
I mentioned this in a previous post but didn't provide a link. The problem that I see with mastering these days is exactly this situation. The mastering engineers idea of what sounds better could be nothing like what you as the artist wants or envisions. I would feel terrible if I paid good money to have someone destroy my song.



 
Last edited:
TalismanRich said:
I mentioned this in a previous post but didn't provide a link. The problem that I see with mastering these days is exactly this situation. The mastering engineers idea of what sounds better could be nothing like what you as the artist wants or envisions. I would feel terrible if I paid good money to have someone destroy my song.



Click to expand...


LOL, and if anybody uses click-bait YouTube, attention-seeking, view grabber videos to make informed decisions about what a mastering engineer does or does not do or can and cannot do for you, you deserve the results you get!

If you don't have a trusted ME, you can certainly find someone you know who does.
 
Sorry - we'll just have to disagree - I totally understand that you may find one who can improve your mixes, without straying from what is in your head, but that video does show very clearly that it's a punt - and how can you be sure that you will like what they change.
Adjusting the levels of what you have mixed is I suppose re-balancing, but that also suggests that person doesn't like your version.
If the Mastering Engineers work on only pay if you like it, that works - but they don't. You have to give your product away.
I also totally appreciate the specific medium tweaks - vinyle mastering I would absolutely get somebody to do - but Youtube, Spotify and the other delivery methods will tweak it anyway - I don't doubt some mastering engineers would mix better than me, but I don't need them to do it for me. I am happy with my releases, and they're not all perfect - but I am perfectly happy with the levels they all specify - I can do that. I do, however like the sometimes odd EQ or the little bits that pop out when you listen carefully?
 
rob aylestone said:
Sorry - we'll just have to disagree - I totally understand that you may find one who can improve your mixes, without straying from what is in your head, but that video does show very clearly that it's a punt - and how can you be sure that you will like what they change.
Adjusting the levels of what you have mixed is I suppose re-balancing, but that also suggests that person doesn't like your version.
If the Mastering Engineers work on only pay if you like it, that works - but they don't. You have to give your product away.
I also totally appreciate the specific medium tweaks - vinyle mastering I would absolutely get somebody to do - but Youtube, Spotify and the other delivery methods will tweak it anyway - I don't doubt some mastering engineers would mix better than me, but I don't need them to do it for me. I am happy with my releases, and they're not all perfect - but I am perfectly happy with the levels they all specify - I can do that. I do, however like the sometimes odd EQ or the little bits that pop out when you listen carefully?
Click to expand...

No sorry needed, man - it's all good here.

The video is a shill for views; for me, that's the only thing it 'very clearly' shows. There are 100s like it on YT on various subjects for controversial views. It is not a video for those with experience. And it's not that a ME doesn't 'like' your version. They hear where it is out of balance. The last thing they 'want to do' is change it.

On a side, it is certainly not a mystery or surprise that uneducated and inexperienced services in pro audio are offered is it? It's always been present; it's at its worst now. Conversely, I am not influenced by a random person's opinion about a process that I value greatly. It is industry standard for a reason, and even one of my first low-budget $20K productions, producing an amateur artist, released 2 decades ago, was mastered by a frequent contributor to this site (John Scrip Massive Mastering). It wasn't a great match for the production, but that wasn't John's fault. He had to work with what he was given, and it was pretty rough, given our rushed working conditions. But he likely saved the album for the artist in some ways. I knew John through Gearslutz (the glory days) and appreciated his viewpoint on audio 20 years ago.

I have since worked with other MEs, all of whom I appreciated greatly what I took from the relationship. My last record was mastered by Jerry Tubb in Austin. He took a good record and made it great without changing the way it felt—true, organic, simple adjustments using analog and digital chains. It just put it where it needed to be. He will master the next this year. My point being that my experience has informed my beliefs about the value of mastering, nothing else.

But, as you said, Rob, you are happy with your mixes and believe they can't be improved enough to warrant the time and cost, except for perhaps some small tweaks for vinyl. I appreciate that and will repeat that it is 100% legit! 8-)

Edit: Here is a pic of the analog side of my two buss chain that I mix to. My Rupert Neve MPB< bettermaker mastering EQ, TKLizer, Tube Tech etc... etc... I don't master much, though I use Spectral Layers 10 and Wavelab Pro 11 for restorations and organizing audio. Ironically, the analog 2 buss chain is very much influenced by what I have experienced in mastering suites. I am running ATC SMC25s and Focal Trios through a Grace M905 and Lynx Hilo for tracking and a RME ADI-2 DAC for mixing.

All the best with your music!
 
Last edited:
50 years ago (yeah, I'm showing my age here) there were mastering engineers like Doug Sax, Tom Dowd, Joe Meek, Bill Putnam, Stan Ricker, Gene Thompson and George Peckham. These guys were tasked with making whatever the record's producer had on tape work on vinyl, which is where 90% of the music went. Many were audio engineers who built some of the actual equipment they used to massage the sound and make it fit. These guys would stand there with their lathes and cut the master disc for records. Their job wasn't to make the record sound "better" than the master tape. It was the producer's job to make the master tape sound the best.

When Brian Wilson handed over the tapes for Pet Sounds, he expected the record to sound as close as possible to that tape. If he played the record and it was compressed and EQd to pump up the sound you can bet Brian would have shoved that master up the ME's butt!

Today there are a thousand "mastering engineers" ready to make your debut track fit the mold of a hundred other songs on Spotify and Youtube. Anyone with Izotrope OZONE can be a mastering engineer. Dump the track into the software, tweek the knobs until you hit a LUFS target and the visual spectral display looks even and PRESTO. It's mastered. Or maybe you actually listen and think the vocal is too loud, so hit the compressor to even things out. Or boost the snare and give it snap. Sorry, but that's not the ME's choice. That's the artist/producer's job.

Maybe that's the answer.... we need producers to make the music right in the first place, working with the artist. With the current digital realm, a finished track could easily be dumped to CD or a streamable track with virtually NO loss in quality. The producer should be the guiding light, helping the artist create the best sounding song possible. The the ME wouldn't need to "fix" anything.
 
Until now I've never "mastered" any of my own projects (having someone else do it is out of the question for budget reasons). I'm a huge supporter of making music the old way, with studios etc. -- and I've done that a couple times (on the client's money lol) -- and generally despise the concept that anyone can make "music" in their bedroom (along with the resulting trash that gets Top 40 status and TikTok Radio airplay). Ironically enough, "bedroom musician" is my current situation, but I'm not using a beatpad and 25-key keyboard. Everything is "real" until I need a Rhodes, B3, bass, or occasionally drums, part.

But I digress.

What I'm getting at is, if there's one thing that's overrated in the music chain nowadays, it's mastering. I've never "mastered" a mix after it was done being mixed, I just put clippers, stereo imagers, compressors, EQ, etc, on the mix bus. Make it sound right, and normalize the end result to -1 db or something like that. I hardly look at LUFS etc, but it turns out quite satisfactorily on all the consumer systems I try :thumbs up:
 
Rich, producers, labels, and engineers communicate with and seek MEs suggestions all the time to determine if the mix will work. It is common and expected and been industry practice for decades. Records are re-mixed or even mixed by a different engineer in some cases. Here is a great sit-down with Bob Ludwig. His work with Nirvana and Steve Albini is a great example of that. But obviously, his discography speaks for itself.

 
rob aylestone said:
If somebody improves your mix, it wasn't good enough in the first place.
Click to expand...

That's the point.

It wasn't good enough.

DM60 said:
I am not sure how one could argue against that logic.
Click to expand...

It can't be argued with. Circular logic and circular reasoning won't allow for argument. The conclusion is the premise. Valid arguments cannot be established because the premise assumes the truth of what is supposed to be proven. It's a fail-safe.
 
DM60 said:
I am not sure how one could argue against that logic
Click to expand...
It can easily be argued with.
58andCounting said:
It can't be argued with
Click to expand...
It can. Easily.
rob aylestone said:
If somebody improves your mix, it wasn't good enough in the first place
Click to expand...
I disagree with that for one very simple reason.
Subjectivity.
The simple fact of the matter is that if you gave every one of us that mixes here the same set of tracks, we would all come up with a different mix. And our opinions on the mixes would vary, but they'd all be subjective. Because unless a mix is really utter rubbish and virtually unlistenable, our thoughts on them are purely according to our tastes. Some like fluff and padding, some like raw.
It has long been notable to me just how many major artists over the last 60 or so years were not happy with their works, songs and albums that sold thousands and millions and have "stood the test of time" and that zillions of people have loved and still continue to do so.
Just because someone can "improve" a song or a mix, does not mean it was not good enough in the first place. That's such a nebulous concept. It's a bit like saying that if your wife/girlfriend cut off all her hair and started wearing Goth make-up and you thought she was stunning, that she hadn't been "pretty enough for you before." Do remixes and remasters mean the original jobs "weren't good enough in the first place" ?

I've been following this debate and every post I read, I think to myself, "What are these guys arguing about ?"
 
Interesting conversation - and of course (as someone who does quite a bit of mastering) I'd disagree with much of what has been said in the last few posts. Mastering in the old days was exactly as Serendipity Records says, you were adjusting the producer's idea of what the mix should sound like to what could be physically cut on a record or recorded onto cassette or 8 track. In addition, the vinyl version had to sound good on the radio - and AM radio (at least in the UK) was where most pop music ended up until Radio 1 moved to FM in the 1980s. I've had quite a few old post- mastering production masters here and they often sound worse to my ears than the producer's mixes. The reason that they sound worse is that the frequency extremes have been removed and the frequency balance has been adjusted so that they work on AM radio as well as on the typical cheap record player that most people used.

I was an amateur DJ in my younger days and one of the things that I noticed was that different pressings of the same song sounded different. This was down to the mastering. One example was with Motown records. I reckon that the US made Motown records sounded better than some of the UK versions made by EMI. Hearing what worked and what didn't as a DJ certainly informed my later activity as a recording engineer.

One thing that has possibly been lost over the years is the producer's involvement in the mastering. Nowadays people expect to send a file to the mastering engineer and receive something back with no further input. That doesn't really work with me - many of the people I work with have been over to the studio and we've had sessions where we bounce ideas off each other. If I'm doing an unattended session, especially with a new client, I would expect to have to do some revisions before the client is happy with the result. My initial approach is fairly conservative. I'll address any obvious problems and often adjust the eq to prevent any low midrange build up (one of the most common issues I find) and then add a limiter to shave off any excessive peaks. Some people are happy with that approach while others expect mastering to more radically change their music. In those cases I may push the limiter more aggressively or add more obvious effects.

While many people expect the same person to both mix and master a song, if I'm mixing something I'm much happier to send it to someone else for mastering. That way I can concentrate on balancing the parts and creating a vision of how the music should sound without having to worry too much about the final level or the final release format. Most of the mixes that I've done recently have gone to Nick Watson at Fluid Mastering who does a great job of translating them to a release format without changing them in an obvious way.

And, as I said in an earlier post in this thread, the people at BBC Introducing consider mastering to be an important part of the process. I can understand why, because a couple of nights ago I was listening to a Spotify playlist of local artists and just about all the songs had issues that could have been improved in mastering. I've been impressed with the quality of many local artist's recordings so I was somewhat surprised at how poor the playlist recordings were, but I guess that the BBC Introducing producers are sent recordings like these all the time so, from their point of view, mastering is essential in order to weed out all the problems that might hinder your songs getting airplay.
 
Hethaerto said:
Is mastering an arcane/obsolete process for vinyl now used as a grift?
Click to expand...
Mastering is another set of ears (very specialized ears) that have a looksy at the Mix and correct (if any) flaws you have -
whether that's nessasary too you is up to you - I like using a mastering house - gives me that extra layer of confidence
that every thing is right - Mastering for Vinyl is a specialized Sport and is definitely needed for the same reasons I stated
before - but if you don't think you need it why worry- just release your stuff.
 
My beef is more that there are a thousand people now advertising that they will "master your track". I'm guessing that less than 1% have the qualifications that you would get with a Bob Ludwig or a George Peckham. Just because I've got the latest AI powered mastering plug-in doesn't make me a mastering engineer any more than having a cookbook makes me a Michelin Star chef.

The Bob Ludwig video was good, but the majority of the time he was talking about cutting lacquers which is exactly what MEs did in the past. As I've said in the past, it's fitting a square peg in a round hole. You have to make compromises to get it done.

On another note, I really enjoyed when he was talking about doing an acetate for The Band that had lots of low end. He mentioned how he really had to work to get that on the acetate, but since Columbia was a union shop, they just took the mastering in house. Later, he asked the guys at Columbia if they had as much trouble cutting the master as he did. No, they just put an 80Hz high pass filter on it. No problem at all.

That's precisely why companies like MFSL were created. Take that master tape and take the time and effort to preserve as much of the original goodness as possible. The general public never knew the difference, but I remember the first time getting some MFSL records and they were worlds better than the normal record label releases. Better vinyl, quieter surfaces and more dynamics.
 
While listening to some old CDs today, I pulled this one out, and it's an excellent case of someone obviously not even listening to their work.

In the 80s, when CDs were first coming out, there was a frenzy of albums that were remastered for CD. I have several CDs that had obvious flaws. One was James Gang's first album, which I actually sent back to the company as an example of putting out lousy product. They redid the CD and sent me a new one that was cleaned up. I also have Iron Butterfly's Metamorphosis which has an obvious 60cycle hum in the middle of Butterfly Bleu which lasts for a some time during a particularly quiet section. That was also redone and the new version is fine.

The most glaring example of how bad things were was Steppenwolf's first album. Imagine paying $12 or $14 for a CD and hearing the tape ramp up to speed at the beginning of songs! I still have both the good and bad copies, the only way to tell the difference is to look at the identifier codes on the inter ring of the disk. The bad one has the MCA number and LAL 74, the other has much more information. Everything else, packaging, numbering and labeling is exactly the same. How such a transfer would have made it all the way through mastering, pressing and shipping to store shelves without anyone even noticing is beyond belief.

Here's the start of a couple of the songs. First the proper master, then the botched one.

View attachment Bad Remastering in the 80s.mp3

Fun days, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top