What do all mastered tracks have in common???

[crunkthanamug]

Is there some sort of "frequency analyzer" plugin or something that can show the frequency response of a "mastered" song as compared to a non-mastered one??? Basically, what im asking is does mastering give all songs common sonic characteristics (standard level of bass, highs, etc. -- something to derive a formula out of...), OR is the mastering approach on more of a song by song basis (tweak it til it sounds the way you want)??? I think its the latter, but i could really use some input from the Pros.

 

[Robert D]

Is there some sort of "frequency analyzer" plugin or something that can show the frequency response of a "mastered" song as compared to a non-mastered one??? Basically, what im asking is does mastering give all songs common sonic characteristics (standard level of bass, highs, etc. -- something to derive a formula out of...), OR is the mastering approach on more of a song by song basis (tweak it til it sounds the way you want)??? I think its the latter, but i could really use some input from the Pros.

There have been several FFT based plugins in the last couple of years that have attempted to do just what you're describing, analyzing the spectral content of a reference file, and then imparting the same spectral spread onto a target mix. Unfortunately, it's of very limited use (in my experience). It's probably like trying to wear someone else's dentures. Sometimes it kind of fits, but not really, most times it's not even close to right.

-RD

 

[Richard Monroe]

Sorry, the only thing that all "mastered" tracks have in common is that somebody claims it was "mastered". Don't get me wrong here. I think mastering is a critical part of the production process, but- one- the world is full of posturing incompetents who claim to be mastering engineers, and do not have the gear, the facilities, the ears, or most of all, the expertise, to do it. And secondly- multiple mastering engineers will take the same mix and treat it quite differently, including ones that really do know what they are doing. Third, many mixing and mastering engineers differ on what parts of the process each should be doing, so you will often find things the mixing engineer did that the mastering engineer would have liked to do- differently. To my ear, though, the key feature of a well mastered piece of music is that each of the parts sits in its own frequency space, as unecessary frequencies have been shelved, so each part can stand out without being loud.. A good master will always sound at least OK in mono, and of course, it will be in red book format. Is there an analyzer you can subject an object to that will tell you if it is art?-Richie

 

[masteringhouse]

It's probably like trying to wear someone else's dentures. Sometimes it kind of fits, but not really, most times it's not even close to right.

-RD

Nice analogy!

There really isn't a "one curve fits all". Sometimes comparing your frequency curve to another mastered track with the same instrumentation, style, etc. can point out frequencies that might be "bloated" but those differences should sound pretty obvious anyway.

Use your ears, not your eyes.

 

[FALKEN]

Sometimes comparing your frequency curve to another mastered track with the same instrumentation, style, etc. can point out frequencies that might be "bloated" but those differences should sound pretty obvious anyway.

Use your ears, not your eyes.

wow. I have to agree with both points here. except that the differences should sound obvious anyway. because what I think you mean (correct me if I am wrong) is that the "problems" should sound obvious anyway (without hearing a comparable song). From my own home record experience, after working with a mix for a number of hours, the "obvious" tends to go towards "oblivous", and sometimes will never be "obvious". But I would probably hear the same mistakes instantly in someone else's song. I guess what I mean to say is that my ears seem to go numb to these sorts of problems. the mix takes a long time and once I finally get to the last bits of stuff I can't really hear what I'm doing anymore. It sucks. Comparing to another track is definitely helpful. I still totally agree with you.

anywayz, why would anyone want a magic button that makes their mix exactly like another one??? Whats the point??

 

[crunkthanamug]

anywayz, why would anyone want a magic button that makes their mix exactly like another one??? Whats the point??

When those "obvious" problems do turn into a blurr it might be useful to have something to compare the sound to. Like if you used the same curve from another track on your song you might some of the problems were corrected... then use that as a reference point. Thats really what i had in mind, and i agree an all-out "one size fits all" tool is a bit unrealistic.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Oh, goodie, we have a harmonic convergance of tired topics. Not only is it time for the monthly "train your ears" vs. "who needs trained ears when you can engineer by eye as well" argument that comes up every time someone mentions using an RTA to engineer by response curve, but we can argue the same old "mix and master by recipe" myth at the same time.

Train your ears and a spectrum analysis is unnecessary and you'll be better equipped to tackle other problems, 99% of which cannot be addressed by a preset recipe. Y'all know that's where I'm at.

Time for the usual suspects to chime in now and take the other side and say that one does not need to train their ears if they have a spectrum analyzer and processor presets to do the engineering work for them...

G.