Mastering One Song? FACT OR FICTION

  • Thread starter Thread starter BLP
  • Start date Start date
B

BLP

New member
There are studios in my area that offer a


-record by hour price

- mix per track price

-master by track price


Here is my question.


As I read, mastering consist of getting a collection of songs ready for distribution. Evening out all the volumes, spacing, polishing up tracks.


So how does one offer to "mix and master" 1 track? Just one track?

The way I look at it, if they "mix and master" 1 track and you go see them 10 different times, you will have 10 "mix and mastered" tracks but how can one truly tell the future?

Wouldn't those same 10 tracks STILL need to be heard all at once as a whole?

Am I wrong or right?


So the question is, can a studio truly just "mix and master" one track, or just have a really good MIX and wait for all the songs to master??

Are these people coming to me with "mix and mastered" single tracks getting charged doubled basically on the mix per track master per track fee?
 
Singles. You "master" one song if you intend to sell it as a single. It's not mastered in the sense that it's going on an album. It gets mastered (made loud) as a single for download sale or radio or whatever.
 
(I at least hope they're not "mixing and mastering" on the same monitors in the same room with the same person...)
 
BLP said:
So the question is, can a studio truly just "mix and master" one track, or just have a really good MIX and wait for all the songs to master??
Click to expand...
Fact or fiction? BOTH. It's fact in that there are ten million clueless folks out there that live and believe the fiction.

One *can* mix and master a single track, but it's senseless. If you are only releasing a single and nothing else, then the only real reason mastering should be required is if the mix job sucked, and one needs to try and patch up or finish the bad mix job. Unfortunately, there's a million awful unfinished DIY mix jobs out there, and this has opened the door to a whole cottage industry of people ranging all the way from shysters to real pro mastering guys rushing in to support the bad mix sensibility by offering to "fix" them with mastering. Just learn how to mix or send your tracks to someone who can mix, and the need for "mastering" the single disappears.

And if you're making more than a single, then mastering the single in vitro without consideration of the whole album makes even less sense than mastering a single all by itself.

G.
 
I'm in the camp where mastering is getting your collection of tunes ready for distribution as an album. If you're only doing a single, then maybe it should be called Finalizing or Polishing. :rolleyes:

While there is some post-mix processing for singles (make it louder, like Greg said), arguing whether it's called "mastering" or not is just arguing semantics.

I agree with Massive's philosophy of using a separate room and monitoring chain, but that's not always available for us home recording types. However, we can burn it to a cd and try it in the car, boombox, MP3 player/earbuds, etc.., then go back and make adjustments. Maybe that can be considered "mastering" for a single.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Why assume that?

G.
Click to expand...

For me personally, I like to use the limiter in Ozone (don't shoot me), but I don't like to run it on the master bus of my DAW, so I use it in WL Essentials. Then I can burn it to cd and listen elsewhere.

I know it's not necessary, just my personal workflow.

cheers,
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Fact or fiction? BOTH. It's fact in that there are ten million clueless folks out there that live and believe the fiction.

One *can* mix and master a single track, but it's senseless. If you are only releasing a single and nothing else, then the only real reason mastering should be required is if the mix job sucked, and one needs to try and patch up or finish the bad mix job. Unfortunately, there's a million awful unfinished DIY mix jobs out there, and this has opened the door to a whole cottage industry of people ranging all the way from shysters to real pro mastering guys rushing in to support the bad mix sensibility by offering to "fix" them with mastering. Just learn how to mix or send your tracks to someone who can mix, and the need for "mastering" the single disappears.

And if you're making more than a single, then mastering the single in vitro without consideration of the whole album makes even less sense than mastering a single all by itself.

G.
Click to expand...


Thank You.

I tried to tell people who come to see me that they are paying a ridiculous amount of money for something that doesn't need to be done till the end of their FULL record.



They will go to this "well known" studio man and area and pay $40 per hour to record, then $55 for him to "mix" it and $55 for him to "master" it.

He tells them the mix will sound better if they get it "mastered" from him for another $55.


The artist that record there say, he can do that, because he went to "full sail" and is licensed.

I'm assuming school taught him how to outsmart people who are clueless?

I must admit, I was clueless for sometime.
 
I'm of the belief that although you wouldn't want to do it in the same room and with the same engineer that you can mix and master a single independent of a collection of songs that can later to be added to a collection of songs.

It's done all the time. Basically you would do two separate capture's.

One with limiting, src, and dither and one without but still has any of the other processing that remains at 24 bit and can be adjusted for final tweeking and continuity later.

One reason someone might want to get singles mastered before for the album is finished is to create a pre-release marketing campaign for an album, use as a demo to get gigs before an album is released, try to get airplay and investor interest before a full album is released. etc. etc.

You only get to make a first impression once. so it might as well be the best it can be.
 
Chili said:
I know it's not necessary, just my personal workflow.

cheers,
Click to expand...
Personal workflow is fine. And I'd be lying if I said I never did anything to the 2mix, I do it often.

I only asked "Why assume it", meaning literally, why do so many people fell the need to make the *assumption* that they'll need to do enough to the 2mix to call it mastering? It's like a trapeze artist putting out a net underneath them, not as a just-in-case safety measure, which makes sense, but because they assume that they're going to fall, which doesn't make sense, because when somebody assumes they are going to fall, they are far more likely to actually fall.

And - not disagreeing to argue, just to discuss - I think there is more than just semantics between "mastering" and "polishing". The difference between hewing and chiseling wood on one hand and sanding it smooth on the other is more than just semantic.

Much of which many define as "mastering" these days can be construed as meaning, "fixing what one did wrong or didn't do at all in the mix". This is more than just semantically different from either "polishing a good mix" or "prepping a mix or a collection of mixes for their final distribution media". Those last two definitions are legitimate uses for mastering.

The first one ("mix fixing") should be reserved for last ditch efforts, not assumed as standard operating procedure.

The mastering engineers here will disagree with me, but that's understandable on both sides, as they are mastering engineers and I am a mixing engineer/producer. So we are probably both biased our own ways ;).

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
The first one ("mix fixing") should be reserved for last ditch efforts, not assumed as standard operating procedure.
Click to expand...

In my mind there are seven basic steps in the music creativity process:

1. Idea.
2. Songwriting and Lyrics from that idea.
3. Performance of song and lyrics.
4. Recording that performance.
5. Mixing that recording.
6. Mastering that mix.
7. Duplication and distribution, of said master.

Since the process is essentially a sequential process, any "flaws" in the steps before a given step will impact the potential success of the current step and the steps afterwards. The "damage" of said "flaws" is cumulative.

I don't care who the mastering engineer is - if you hand that guy a truly terrible mix he can only do so much. Of course that applies to all the steps, not just mastering. As with most things in life, garbage in, garbage out, and I'm not talking about the subjective nature of "art" and only the technical aspect when I use the word "garbage".

I was taught that I as a recording engineer did my job *if* and *only if* all the mastering engineer has to do is arrange the songs, manage the silence between, and in a minor way tweak the EQ for a given output platform - meaning RIAA equalization for records, for example. If he has to do anything else, *I* fucked up.

I still believe that, though now that I'm long out of the biz, my drive for perfection is far more subdued. After all, my recordings generally don't go further than my ipod-knockoff :D
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I only asked "Why assume it", meaning literally, why do so many people feel [mod note: Fixed your typo-lol] the need to make the *assumption* that they'll need to do enough to the 2mix to call it mastering?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I don't call it mastering. Finalizing, Polishing... I know they are weak terms, but I feel that's all I'm doing. Don't know about many others, but I am of the perception that many people will do some kind of post-mix processing to a single.... whatever we want to call it.

Again, for me, this step is where I go to other systems, normally my car, and do some sanity checks and make adjustments. why don't I change the original mix?? I usually do, but once I finish within the DAW, I don't like to go back unless it is blaringly obvious that it's a mix problem.

And - not disagreeing to argue, just to discuss - I think there is more than just semantics between "mastering" and "polishing". The difference between hewing and chiseling wood on one hand and sanding it smooth on the other is more than just semantic.
Click to expand...

I think you're agreeing with me here.... :) Remember, I'm in the camp where mastering is only done on a collection of songs. On singles, nothing should really be done to the mix except possibly make it louder and small eq adjustments after listening on several different sound systems.

Much of which many define as "mastering" these days can be construed as meaning, "fixing what one did wrong or didn't do at all in the mix".
Click to expand...

Well, I know Tom V. has chimed in on this once or twice and said he considers it part of his job to bring out the best for his clients, including fixing the mix. I agree with you, Tom should never have to fix a mix, but that probably isn't a realistic ideal. I know he did wonders to my mixes.... unfortunately, the songwriting and performances probably weren't the best. ha ha ha.... :laughings: I am allowed to laugh at myself.

Cool man!!! :cool:
 
frederic said:
I was taught that I as a recording engineer did my job *if* and *only if* all the mastering engineer has to do is arrange the songs, manage the silence between, and in a minor way tweak the EQ for a given output platform - meaning RIAA equalization for records, for example. If he has to do anything else, *I* fucked up.
Click to expand...
Amen. I'll even allow for a bit more liberalization in the definition than that when necessary, often because the mixing engineer *does* fuck up, or runs out of budget or time. This is real life and we are all human, after all. But what you describe is the ideal that we should all at least shoot for, even if our aim is not always true.

My constant beef is how the definition - or at least the goal - has changed in the era of DIY recording. The emphasis has shifted now to to not only is it OK to fix the mix in the master *on purpose*, but it's expected - i.e. "that's the way it should be". Why? because so many DIY mixes are subpar and unfinisihed due to the lack of capability on the part of the average DIYer. So, instead of concentrating on getting them to make better mixes, the real mastering community has understandably jumped on this as a golden opportunity for their businesses, and the shyster community has jumped on this even more as a way of fleecing the DIYer for easy money.

I don't blame the real mastering guys for wanting to jump on the opportunity; all politics is local, after all. But the unintended consequence is the decline in actual producing/mixing skills overall. And as apparently one of a dying breed of engineers who prefers to mix/produce, it get's kind of frustrating watching the trend grow.
Chili said:
Don't know about many others, but I am of the perception that many people will do some kind of post-mix processing to a single.... whatever we want to call it.
Click to expand...
Yes, they will. But the degree and the intent is what is changing You polish, I polish, but the growing trend is not so much to polish but to mix after the fact.

It's not just semantics, and it's not just technology changing the times as many will claim; it's a degradation of the overall quality because of shortcutting in the process. I'm not blaming or accusing you, Chili; it's a large-scale trend.

And I'm just hopelessly tilting at windmills, I know. But it makes me feel temporarily better to do so every one in a while ;) My apologies :o.

G.
 
So all the i-Pods out there are filled with albums ???????


If I were to release a single ( translation ; give it away !!!) The I would'nt have allot of $$$ to have an expensive M.E. gloss it up . The times they are a changin, ( for quite awhile now , no ?? )

Wtf , If I find a mid-line guy ( who isn't at home using T-wrecks and Auraltones ) I might get it mastered so that it sounds good to my grandkids .
 
flatfinger said:
If I find a mid-line guy ( who isn't at home using T-wrecks and Auraltones ) I might get it mastered so that it sounds good to my grandkids .
Click to expand...
Or you could spend the same money on getting it mixed instead and have it sound even better to them. ;)

G.
 
frederic said:
I was taught that I as a recording engineer did my job *if* and *only if* all the mastering engineer has to do is arrange the songs, manage the silence between, and in a minor way tweak the EQ for a given output platform - meaning RIAA equalization for records, for example. If he has to do anything else, *I* fucked up.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I also consider mastering a process even the the best mixed songs can benefit from... if done right (yes I'm biased; )

The easiest way for me to explain it is say mixing is equal to washing a sport car... You can wash the car until it is perfectly clean, but when you wax it (master) it has that extra shine or sparkle. You can't wash and wax at the same time, but when done separately and right one process compliments the other no matter how well the previous was done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top