Does a mastering engineer stamp their personality on a recorded work ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter grimtraveller
  • Start date Start date
grimtraveller

grimtraveller

If only for a moment.....
Is mastering simply a technical craft ? Does the mastering of a recorded work follow an already prescribed set of codes and direction ?
Or do the mastering engineer's personal take and biases play an important part ?
Two stories motivated my train of thought. One came from Geoff Emerick's autobiography where he states that he got into a heated exchange with one of EMI's in house MEs over his instructions to leave the Sergeant Pepper album EQ as it was with no changes but was kind of told "don't tell me what to do !". In explaining that he wanted it cut flat, Emerick makes mention of "MEs doing what they're trained to do ~ add EQ and compression".
The other story came from our own Steenamaroo a few weeks ago in which he explained that he wasn't thrilled with the job the ME made of a particular mix he'd done.
Is mastering more art than science or is the vice versa ?
 
It's both -- Used to be (arguably) more of a "science" -- There were physical limitations to cutting vinyl... Easy to screw things up and have needles skipping around all over.

Digital is --- more forgiving (?) in that regard. No doubt, discs still need to be properly formated and you need to look out for the max levels, avoid potential intersample crap, etc., etc., etc.

That all said -- There are certainly different personalities... Been involved in more than a few "studies" and "water testings" myself - some with rather shocking differences in approach.

The creation of the master itself is a technically precise process -- A disc (or DDP set) is either compliant or it's not compliant. But there are even different approaches to that -- For instance, there MUST be 150 frames of silence before the track 1 start marker. MUST BE - or the disc is not compliant. But the amount of silence AFTER the marker BEFORE the first purposeful oscillation can be anything. I know many ME's that have that first oscillation on the following frame and I couldn't possibly disagree more with that approach. Technically, it's in spec. Personally, I think it's insane.

And as far as the audio is concerned, it's totally open. When you're not worrying about the physical limitations, you're not worrying about those limitations on the audio. That said, I still generally take a "vinyl-like" approach personally. Not because I think "vinyl sounds better" but I think that the general approach is more conducive to better sounding recordings. Others don't. Some others don't even seem to understand the difference.
 
All audio engineering is a matter of reconciling technical and artistic requirements and limitations.

In mastering, even if you don't do any audio processing to the mixes, you still have things to decide that impact the artistic dimension of the final product, like how much space to leave between songs or between a track marker and the beginning of audio, whether two songs that run together should be distinguished with a track marker, an index marker or not at all etc. On a live album with crowd noise and performers talking between the actual songs do you put the track end markers up against the track start markers of the following song or do you put it at the end of the applause and have negative track time between the songs?
 
If something needs to be drastically changed this is best performed in the mix, this is usually best for the client and the mastering engineer. This is why I offer a free mix appraisal if required. In general it varies, some clients offer instruction to work in a specific way. As an example I just worked on a track where the client asked my to accentuate the 80's feel of the track. Sometimes the adjustments are very minimal and sometimes there is a fair amount of "heft" being thrown at a track.

So the answer is it depends on mix quality, confidence in the artist/label in their goals and shortcomings. A mastering engineer often has to delve a little deeper to know what the best approach is I find.

cheers
SafeandSound Mastering
Mastering plug ins are not mastering
 
Anyone reads Sound on Sound? A few years back, they did an experiment, basically to compare the results of the same mix being sent to different mastering engineers, including one "home-brew" master. In the level-matched, double-blind test that they set up, the participants sometimes actually preferred the home-brew mastering sound... So, yups, if a song is well-mixed to begin with, you probably won't be able to tell if it's been mastered. But if the mix is problematic, the ME would probably be able to salvage some of it.

Not to take anything away from great MEs, I think one of the most important conclusions from the experiment was that COMMUNICATION between the client and the ME is crucial. He will be able to bring the best out of the mix only if you properly communicate what you truly want the end product to sound like.
 
grimtraveller said:
Could you elaborate on the kind of processing that an ME might do on a mix ?
Click to expand...

Recently I did a job in which I inserted Massenberg parametric eq, Waves C4 multiband compressor, Waves Renaissance Compressor and Oxford Inflator on some tracks, and I had the Massey L2007 on the master bus. Normally, once I've evened out the levels between tracks, I start with just the eq to literally equalize the tonal balance between each track and/or match them to reference tracks. Then I add processors to each track as needed.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
Recently I did a job in which I inserted Massenberg parametric eq, Waves C4 multiband compressor, Waves Renaissance Compressor and Oxford Inflator on some tracks, and I had the Massey L2007 on the master bus. Normally, once I've evened out the levels between tracks, I start with just the eq to literally equalize the tonal balance between each track and/or match them to reference tracks. Then I add processors to each track as needed.
Click to expand...
Does this drastically change the sound of the mix from the sound it had when it arrived ?
 
grimtraveller said:
Does this drastically change the sound of the mix from the sound it had when it arrived ?
Click to expand...

It's only a drastic difference if the mix needs that much help. Mixes done in less than ideal acoustic environments tend to have issues that I can hear and fix because of the better room and nice monitors I get to use (it's not my studio). Often there's stuff a bit off in the lows. Certainly I want to preserve the artist's intent as much as possible given technical constraints and market pressure (make it loud etc.).

But it's not necessarily a drastic change because I often do pretty subtle things with each plugin. I may end up doing no more than one cut with the eq, using one band of the multiband, just tapping it with the compressor and using just a hint of the Inflator. With an album or EP project one tune may have all that going to fit it in with others that don't have so much inserted.
 
Does this mean that the Oxford Inflator is a new era enhancer/exciter/psych acoustic manipulator that should, at least at this stage, not be sneered at?
I've had a track mastered by three different MEs (one is "amateur" but is very well respected) - I did it to learn the differences - cost me money but I did learn some stuff and have three excellent masters as a result. I'd heard work by all three prior to using them & prices were very reasonable.
One's approach was more informed by stem mastering and the others by stereo program mastering.
One had suggestions re levels within & with stems, one had suggestions re the actual mix & the other had suggestions about tweaks to the overall sound as well as some ideas that could be experimented with prior to a final master being decided upon.
All three sent drafts for approval and complied with requests for alterations etc.
All three sound quite different.
 
rayc said:
Does this mean that the Oxford Inflator is a new era enhancer/exciter/psych acoustic manipulator that should, at least at this stage, not be sneered at?
Click to expand...

If the user keeps his focus on making the track sound good and doesn't get drawn into making the effect obvious then pretty much any plugin is fair game. Any blame or credit for the results go on the user, not the tool.
 
Last edited:
Well put bouldersoundguy. I use what works for me & have slowly learnt that if it's aurally "visible" it's probably too much when apply reverb, delay, compression etc.
 
Does a mastering engineer stamp their personality on a recorded work ?
Click to expand...

i do my own mastering, as well as mastering for other projects...

and i definitely put my own sonic stamp on it.
i consider it part of the process.
it's a creative thing, why be timid about it?
 
GONZO-X said:
i do my own mastering, as well as mastering for other projects...

and i definitely put my own sonic stamp on it.
i consider it part of the process.
it's a creative thing, why be timid about it?
Click to expand...

Hi GONZO-X,

If you do your own mixing and mastering, why didn't you put your own sonic stamp on it during the mix? I always thought that it was meaningless to master a recording yourself, because if you'd had wanted it to sound a certain way, you could have mixed it that way to begin with. :)
 
godchuanz said:
Hi GONZO-X,

If you do your own mixing and mastering, why didn't you put your own sonic stamp on it during the mix? I always thought that it was meaningless to master a recording yourself, because if you'd had wanted it to sound a certain way, you could have mixed it that way to begin with. :)
Click to expand...


well, i did say this also:

as well as mastering for other projects...
Click to expand...

all of my mixes have my 'sonic stamp' on them...

and good mastering does not change the mix..

it only gets the translation right across the board (ideally)

honestly, i think a lot of folks have some strange ideas about what constitutes 'mastering'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top