Should you master a song if you only plan to release it as a single?

I have to disagree.

And so do I.

At some stage you are going to have to recognise that you are not convincing anyone (and nor are they convincing you) and accept that people have different views. Endlessly pursuing the point is clearly not getting anywhere and it's time to put this one away.
 
Presenting opinion as fact is bad enough...but why do you keep injecting politics into this thread...?
 
I was hoping that in the reply, the person who banned him would explain why he was banned.

Was it just because he was so stubborn?

Just wondering what the boundaries are here. Thanks!

I think that when it's clear a person isn't here to participate in a positive way and it's no longer amusing they're likely to get banned. There probably isn't a hard and fast rule.
 
I think that when it's clear a person isn't here to participate in a positive way and it's no longer amusing they're likely to get banned. There probably isn't a hard and fast rule.

So you're suggesting the guy was banned, not just because he wasn't participating in a positive way...but because his negative participation was no longer amusing?

So then, if we're negative--but we stay amusing--we can stay? ;)
 
So you're suggesting the guy was banned, not just because he wasn't participating in a positive way...but because his negative participation was no longer amusing?

No, I'm suggesting he was banned because he wasn't participating in a positive way and he was no longer amusing.

So then, if we're negative--but we stay amusing--we can stay? ;)

Sure, why not? At least there's some entertainment value.
 
He was banned because he was trolling.

The ban came later rather than soonber because there is a morbid fascination in watching a trainwreck in action.
 
I think if you are releasing anything and want to sound professional, you should definitely get a mastering engineer to do it. It is very hard to get really good results from a home studio set up. Anyway... that's what I think :-)
 
Lets look at why we should master our work. "Audio mastering is applying effects to a full song mix (on the stereo/Main out bus), in efforts to replicate the sonic qualities of a well mastered industry standard commercial song".
A good mix shouldn't sound like a master. It's best to have around +6db of head room in your mix at the loudest part in the song for the mastering process to do it's job. Just cranking up on a mix-down is going to come close to an industry standard sound. If the purpose of this single was to allow everyone to hear it, I would want it mastered.

It's always best to have fresh ears on the recording when mastering. I will master your song for free.

AudioMastering
 
Last edited:
Lets look at why we should master our work. "Audio mastering is applying effects to a full song mix (on the stereo/Main out bus), in efforts to replicate the sonic qualities of a well mastered industry standard commercial song".
I don't exactly agree with that (and I've read it somewhere here before). But there you go.
A good mix shouldn't sound like a master.
Don't exactly agree with that either. The best sounding stuff that comes in here doesn't come out sounding very different. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to make it sound like I didn't do anything, but that's for another thread.
It's best to have around +6db of head room in your mix at the loudest part in the song for the mastering process to do it's job.
*Any* amount of *natural* headroom. Doesn't matter if it's 1dB, 3, 6, 10 or 20. I'll exclude tape from that of course.
Just cranking up on a mix-down is going to come close to an industry standard sound.
I'm wondering if you meant to say isn't - but either way, that depends on the mix. I work on mixes every day that have an "industry standard" (whatever the hell that means) sound.
If the purpose of this single was to allow everyone to hear it, I would want it mastered.
Agreed.
It's always best to have fresh ears on the recording when mastering.
Agreed again.
I will master your song for free.
Just an anecdote -- I put "free sample" on my website once as that was "the thing" at the time. Took it down in less than 24 hours and spent the next several days doing nothing but the 30-some tunes that were submitted in less than a day. Maybe it was just the times (this was probably in '99 or '00 or so when I was trying to get a good amount of stuff in because I was breaking in to a new set of speakers. But either way, that didn't last long. [/anecdote]

Anyway - I'll admit it. My name is John and I'm a mastering engineer. Have been for - geez, coming up on my 25 anniversary. I *do* think it's an important part of the recording process. I think it's a vital link between the production process and the replication (or in some cases, "direct distribution") process.

But if it's a "make or break" thing, or if someone's mixes aren't going to sound "industry standard" then it's time to start working on our mixes. Don't get me wrong here -- Sometimes it really *is* almost "magic" what can be done to a "meh..." sounding mix. Sometimes it *is* the make-or-break part of the process. Sometimes. But the majority of the time, it's half-dB adjustments here and half-dB tweaks there to bring a set of mixes to a common neighborhood - and then the creation of the (you can almost insert "industry standard" here) production master from which all further copies will be made.

But the goal is (it's always been) to "change" things as little as possible whenever possible. Even going as far as to "reverse engineer" with the engineer.

Just today -- I've spent the better part of the day going back and forth with a mix engineer. Freaking great sounding mix, sort of guitar-centric pop with a vocalist that reminds me of Kevin Heybourne from the first Angel Witch album. I was trying to not change the mix - at all. But - and this is the case frequently - the artist wants it at a "commercially competitive" level. So back to the mix engineer to bring down the verb on the overheads and compress the reverb return on the snare drum, pull out a little 3.5k on the main vocal, pull a whisker of top end off the main buss going into a buss compressor.

Yes, this is one of those examples of jumping through hoops to make it sound like I did absolutely nothing.

That said - Sure, after all that, the mix sounds essentially similar. "Bigger shoulders" (thank you, Mr. Neve) and just a bit "smoother" overall (thank you, guy who built my EQ who's name I can't remember). But if I walked into the room and someone asked "is this the before or after?" I wouldn't expect to be right 100% of the time.

Either way - It's like detailing a car. Is it important? Sure. Can you do it yourself? Yeah, but the pros will do it better and usually faster and they're not wasting their time experimenting. They see the car, they know what they're going to use and they have a pretty good idea of what it's going to look like when they're done. If they're detailing a Ferrari, it was a Ferrari when it came in. It's just a more bad-ass looking Ferrari when it comes out. If it's a Yugo when it comes in, hopefully it's as nice as a Yugo can be when it comes out. But it's still a Yugo.

And here's an interesting rub -- If you go to a place that says "Car Detailing - $150" with a worn-out Yugo vs. a shiny fresh Ferrari, they're very likely going to do far more work with somewhat less regard on the Yugo. They're going to do far *less* work, but with much more care and attention, on the Ferrari. The Yugo may undergo an amazing transformation. The Ferrari will look "really clean and stuff."

Again - I'm not trying to shoot myself in the foot here and say that audio mastering is senseless or unimportant. I've spent dozens of years and (too many tens of thousand$ to remember) to be the best "detailer" of audio that I can be. When you're trying to sell a car, you want it to look as good as it possibly can to the potential customer. When you want to sell a song, same thing. But just like cars, the inherent value is in the "materials" and craftsmanship, the design and performance. The value is in what went into it. The guy who detailed it just "optimized it" for presentation.
 
"Audio mastering is applying effects to a full song mix (on the stereo/Main out bus), in efforts to replicate the sonic qualities of a well mastered industry standard commercial song".

Broken down to it's basic message, this quote is essentially "mastering is mastering". :D

And, no, that's not mastering. The definition is actually quite simple. Mastering is preparing material for a destination medium. It's not the "what" that's complex and nuanced, it's the "how".
 
Back
Top