Mastering: The Lie

[Aled_King]

because most engineers are just unwilling to unleash the secrets of how they obtain their mix

Stop hiding your secrets from us!!! lol

 

[gecko zzed]

What I still don't understand though......how can you master a whole set of songs together? How do you know that each song needs the same kind of compression and EQ....mine always need different treatments. But maybe this would be too deep to answer here

The statement "master a whole set of songs together" has different interpretations. On the one hand, it can be used to describe a process that you apply globally over a whole suite of songs. However, I don't think that's what it is intended to mean. Instead, I think it refers to treating any particular song with reference to all other songs in the suite, which, as you rightly note, demand different treatments.

It is possible, though, that a set of songs will present a common problem. For example, they may have been mixed in such a way that a particular frequncy is spikey in all of them, and applying the same EQ modification to all will address this.

But the other aspect is to make sure that the songs 'make sense' in relation to each other. For example, you might have, say, an acoustic, gentle song following a very heavily produced, full-on song. It would sound odd if the gentle acoustic song was louder than the big number. That can sometimes happen in the mix down, and the mastering can address this.

When I have to do this sort of work, I load up the whole CD's worth of tracks, then play bits of each, flicking from one song to the other rapidly to see whether they sound consistent with each other, in dynamics as well as frequency representation. I will eventually settle on one that I decide will be the bench mark, then test all others against this, applying the individual and most likely different modifications required until the tracks sit comfortably with each other.

In the end, I imagine the collection to be a concert, and try and get that same sort of logical consistency that you would get at a concert.

 

[joeym]

The statement "master a whole set of songs together" has different interpretations. On the one hand, it can be used to describe a process that you apply globally over a whole suite of songs. However, I don't think that's what it is intended to mean. Instead, I think it refers to treating any particular song with reference to all other songs in the suite, which, as you rightly note, demand different treatments.

It is possible, though, that a set of songs will present a common problem. For example, they may have been mixed in such a way that a particular frequncy is spikey in all of them, and applying the same EQ modification to all will address this.

But the other aspect is to make sure that the songs 'make sense' in relation to each other. For example, you might have, say, an acoustic, gentle song following a very heavily produced, full-on song. It would sound odd if the gentle acoustic song was louder than the big number. That can sometimes happen in the mix down, and the mastering can address this.

When I have to do this sort of work, I load up the whole CD's worth of tracks, then play bits of each, flicking from one song to the other rapidly to see whether they sound consistent with each other, in dynamics as well as frequency representation. I will eventually settle on one that I decide will be the bench mark, then test all others against this, applying the individual and most likely different modifications required until the tracks sit comfortably with each other.

In the end, I imagine the collection to be a concert, and try and get that same sort of logical consistency that you would get at a concert.

Great explanation, thanx!

Joe

 

[MCI2424]

By reading this forum I think a lot of ppl who have never dealt in the commercial music industry will begin to think that mastering is some crock or fluke of nature only obtainable by the engineering Gods in the 1million dollar studio heaven. It's just not true.

And I also hear a lot of ppl mastering ONE song. Not that its impossible, but does it really make sense? Why master ONE song. Mastering is a process that is supposed to be applied over a BODY of work (at least that is how I was taught). I mean, what else could you possibly be mastering against if not an entire body of work. If not, then a good mix is probably all you really need, no? (Just being a jerk to inspire some of the "pro's" around here to jump in)

A lot of guys on this site say it...You may not even NEED a mastering engineer. This is a specialized field usually used by major labels or indies with tons of releases who just don't have the time to master themselves..So it becomes a cookie cutter production line way of getting albums done. Select producer and songwriter - pre production - tracking - mixing - mastering..all done at different locations by different ppl. But if you are good enough to mix your stuff, you are good enough to apply some enhancements to ur song after a great mix is achieved!

If you look on the net, the magic of mastering seems hard to find..That is because most engineers are just unwilling to unleash the secrets of how they obtain their mix..For a number of reasons...1) Helps keep them sounding "unique" if there was ever such a thing 2) some don't even know how they do it...REason being..every song calls for soemthing else..Sure there are probably some loose guidelines they follow..but anyone wit any length of time behind the boards knows...the critical ear, identifyin the issue, and knowing how to solve it is the real science behind mixing and mastering..

So that everyone is clear, here are the most common things done in mastering. In almost every mastering session, the following actions are performed:

* Optimizing average and peak volume levels for proper relative loudness
* Signal processing - compression & EQ
* Arranging tracks in final sequence
* Timing of the space between tracks
* Establish a sonic "field" for all tracks
* Place track markers at head of all tracks
* Remove unwanted noise like clicks, pops, hiss
* Clean-up start and ending of each track (including fades)
* Insert Master Track Log – the PQ codes required for replication

The true advantage of getting a good mastering engineer IS greatly outweighed by that of doing it yourself. To get a fresh set of ears on a project is an invaluable way to get your recording from how its sounding in ur head, to how the world will actually accept it. What I mean by this is...these guys have ears that have been trained for mastering. They know their gear, they know how the mix will translate, and they know all the red book, PQ coding mysteries that the common man just doesn't have to deal with.

That being said and done..Mastering doesn't fix a bad mix. It just makes a bad mix sound better..and an excellent mix sound deity like. So..if you are indeed doing that home demo...and you are on a budget...mastering might not be what you need..what you need is to determine what bracket you are trying to compete in and how you will afford it. If you are doing a demo, it doesn't have to sound like the best recording on the charts..because its a flippin DEMO!!!!! its to attract attention of a label that will pay you to commercially record!

But I do suggest taking a turn at mastering by investigating the processes above. At the very least you will learn something by making your mix better of worst

Ive hear masters done on the best monitors and gear, and the worst..the only determining factor in the quality was the person behind the board. Experience in this field is everything. Critical listening is the most expensive gear you have..Everything everyone else says is pure shit..take it or leave it, but that is the "secret" behind mastering from an impartial point of view

Good gear is important to critical listening. You can't fix what you can't hear period. I don't care if you are George Massenberg (who BTW invented good gear BECAUSE he couldn't hear what he needed to hear).

 

[deejaytrixx]

Most of the replies (except the post jackers) are correct.

I refer to the method as "secrets" to be facetious because most ppl new to mixing (I was there once) seem to think that there is some proven formula for obtaining a mix or a master comparable to what they hear on their favorite CD. But we all know its just not that simple..everybody does something different..cause no two ppl really hear or think the same..Its just part of our psycho acoustic make up to mix things differently.

The overall point was to lay out MOST of the things that do happen at the mastering process..because it seems that is what is being lost in translation when people ask. (But of course we had to have some "pro's" offer absolutely nothing of substance as usual)

Quite interestingly enough though, i do think "mastering" has taken on a brand new definition. I'm obviously not as old or as experienced as some of the engineers on this site (some claim to be in business longer than I've been alive) but when I was learning about these things, mastering wasn't something applied to one song..I mean...what do you reference it against..What are you trying to make it "fit" with. The final mix down of the song to me was part of the mixing job. But i guess at that point where the song has been mixed and you correct the levels, EQ and further compress things over an entire song is what is now referred to as "mastering". Semantics...and this is the point of contention I see on this site ALL the time. This is probably my most favorite quote about mastering that I feels captures the essense..and he's a regular here: "Because mastering isn't about making recordings "loud" -- It's about assembling a collection of mixes into a cohesive and compliant production master. " - Massive Mastering

Either way, like I said..I hope the info was useful to someone who didn't quite understand the first shit about mastering. Lord knows Im still learning everyday about the process...and one things for sure..you can't take anyone's word for it..its something you have to hear yourself.

 

[deejaytrixx]

Good gear is important to critical listening. You can't fix what you can't hear period. I don't care if you are George Massenberg (who BTW invented good gear BECAUSE he couldn't hear what he needed to hear).

unless of course you are blessed enough to have a bunch of shitty gear that can generally spot all of your horrible frequencies or many reference points in or close to your studio

Point is, its not always the gear..If I put a monkey in front of $10k monitors with the best hardware, amps wires in the most acoustically perfect room..it wouldn't make him a better mastering engineer..but put an experienced guy who knows WHAT he is listening for and what he wants to hear on shitty cans, and his results will probably be MUCH better..

The other point of the statement is...how the hell do you teach that? Who can teach you what to listen for. You can't always say, that spike in the 2khz is bad..what if its actually working in the song? Experience and knowing your genre goes a lot further in my stupid ass opinion than good gear

(Please don't take my tone for sacrasm or reproach, Im from Brooklyn, this is how we talk)

 

[deejaytrixx]

The way it works is this:

Someone has a bad experience with someone of whom they expected more. They post this experience and detail their dissatisfaction, and are echoed by comments from others who have experienced similar, and so we get a great flaming thread happening, which makes for fascinating reading.

Some typical targets in this forum are drummers who can't drum to a click, bands that are ill-prepared for studion work, live sound engineers who don't know thier job, and here, expensive mastering engineers who wreck what they are given.

These all exist, just as there are shonky mechanics, crooked lawyers and dodgy builders. But it is too easy to generalise, and we should remember that most people are in a chosen profession because they have an aptitude for it and a professional interest in doing well by their clients. They are not custodians of arcane lore that lesser mortals must not possess, they simply have the training and experience that enables them to do what they do well.

PREACH MAN PREACH!! well said