How's this mastering job?

  • Thread starter Thread starter leaningpine
  • Start date Start date
leaningpine said:
What do you guys think of this mastering job? Just curious to see if anyone's hearing what I'm hearing......

http://plunder.com/03deead8b2
Click to expand...


You will get more responses in the MP3 Clinic...where people usually put up songs for critiquing.

But in a nutshell...in order for anyone to comment on just the mastering effort, you need the unmastered version to compare it to, :) otherwise there is no way to tell what was accomplished by the mastering and what was strictly the product of just the mixing stage.

Overall though...for the high-energy “stadium rock” style of song that it is...I think your drums should be more up front & punchier, and also, they sound somewhat dry compared to the other elements which have more amibience. They don't have the same vibe, IMO.
 
I'm always freaked out about putting reverb on drums, the snare has a little but you can hardly hear it because of that fear. I've always liked drier mixes I guess.

I guess I could post a before and after but it wasn't the mix I was talking about, I meant the overall sound quality, The sound quality of the mastering job isn't far from the sound of the original, just a little brighter and leveled out a little from the compression used, it's also limited but not flat topped.

I wanted it to sound similar to the sound of the first Boston album and the Who's "Who are you" CD(The remastered version), I played a song from each CD side to side along with mine and they sound similar to my ears, I was wondering what someone elses ears would think about the sound of the song.
 
Yeah...a lot of people don't like to add reverb to drums...but if you recorded a drum kit it a large space, there would be reverberation, it wouldn't be dry.

I keep the kick fairly dry, though on my OH mics, I like to add some to create the right room sound, and I like to put a nice amount on the snare...depending on the song.

I just thought your "stadium rock" style tune wouldn't really be very dry...if it was played in a stadium. :)
 
I might play around with it and put some reverb on the o/h's. I recorded them in my garage with treatment on the walls so it's pretty dead in there. Thanks for the feedback.
 
I doubt you'd have the bass quite so in your face in the intro normally.
After the intro the guitars are a bit mushy - no real clarity or separation/EQ diff in them.
The solo'd bass just sounds wrong to me.
Yeah - rev on the kit!
 
OK, once again, it seems like people are discussing mxing, not mastering.
 
leaningpine said:
I might play around with it and put some reverb on the o/h's. I recorded them in my garage with treatment on the walls so it's pretty dead in there. Thanks for the feedback.
Click to expand...

ok what the hell that is mixing not mastering, and second this belongs in mp3 clinic.
 
I don't want to know how it's mixed..... It sounds good on my system and translates well on other systems, I want to know about how the mastering of the song sounds, it sounds OK to my ears but lacking a little something. I didn't start this thread as a "hows the mix sound" thread, I started it as a "hows the mastering job sound"...... I'm not trying to be rude, and thanks for the opinions on the mix but I want to know how it sounds sonically, to other peoples ears and on their systems.......
 
leaningpine said:
I don't want to know how it's mixed..... It sounds good on my system and translates well on other systems, I want to know about how the mastering of the song sounds, it sounds OK to my ears but lacking a little something. I didn't start this thread as a "hows the mix sound" thread, I started it as a "hows the mastering job sound"...... I'm not trying to be rude, and thanks for the opinions on the mix but I want to know how it sounds sonically, to other peoples ears and on their systems.......
Click to expand...

The only thing that people can judge a recording on is, in fact, how it 'sounds sonically', and what they hear are an assortment of things, such as a need for punchier drums, mushy guitars, in-your-face bass and so on.

Without 'before' and 'after' mastering examples of the recording, they can't judge the results of the mastering process itself. Once the mastering has been done, all you get to hear is the totality of the sound, irrespective of what modifications have been done and where they've been made.

Asking the question is like asking "how well did I polish my car?" Who can tell, without knowing how dusty the car was to start with, or whether it even needed polishing?

Interestingly, you note that you "don't want to know how it's mixed", but say that "I might play around with it and put some reverb on the o/h's", which, to my way of thinking, is a concern about mixing.
 
in order for anyone to comment on just the mastering effort, you need the unmastered version to compare it to, otherwise there is no way to tell what was accomplished by the mastering and what was strictly the product of just the mixing stage.
Click to expand...

Without 'before' and 'after' mastering examples of the recording, they can't judge the results of the mastering process itself.
Click to expand...

I agree. The mix would need to be posted as well.
 
Interestingly, you note that you "don't want to know how it's mixed", but say that "I might play around with it and put some reverb on the o/h's", which, to my way of thinking, is a concern about mixing.[/QUOTE]

I didn't ask in the first place, I was just responding to an idea, Christ....

You can usually tell without listening to the mixdown if something is mastered well, you can hear what frequencies are over or under accentuated or over compression or limiting, at least I can. I just wanted to know what other people thought.....

The mixdown is available here:

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=1043848&songID=8820959
 
leaningpine said:
You can usually tell without listening to the mixdown if something is mastered well, you can hear what frequencies are over or under accentuated or over compression or limiting, at least I can. I just wanted to know what other people thought.....
Click to expand...

Maybe it sounds like everyone is nitpicking...but not really. :)

See...when you ask "how's this mastering job?"...it really does require that we hear the "before mastering" in order to comment on the "mastering job".
If you just asked, "how does it sound?"....then that's a different question.
 
leaningpine said:
You can usually tell without listening to the mixdown if something is mastered well, you can hear what frequencies are over or under accentuated or over compression or limiting, at least I can. I just wanted to know what other people thought.....
]
Click to expand...

You can usually tell if something is mixed well, you can hear what frequencies are over or under accentuated or over compression or limiting, at least I can.
 
I like the unmastered version better. The bass seems to blend more.
 
RAMI said:
No you can't.
Click to expand...

sure you can. If the end result is good, who cares what was done mastering?.. shoot, that mastering could have been just the fade. If the end result is good, you could assume the mastering was good too.

If there are issues, THEN,you might get confused if it was in mixing or not.

IOW, if I look at a car (as alluded above), I can tell if it was polished good. I don't need to see a dirty car first. I look at the finshed result.

end of that opinion...I'd say the finish was so so... I think there are mix problems that can't be taken care of in mastering, and I say that because I can tell. So, I'd say the mastering was so so... because it didn't perform a miracle :D
 
mixmkr said:
sure you can. If the end result is good, who cares what was done mastering?.. shoot, that mastering could have been just the fade. If the end result is good, you could assume the mastering was good too.
Click to expand...

I agree that if the final product is good, then the mastering, whatever it may or may not have involved, is good.

But that wasn't the point of what I was responding to.

Like you said, if the end result is good, who cares what was done. And, on a good sounding finished product, one wouldn't be able to tell what was or wasn't done, and what was a result of mic placement, mixing, etc.

It's one thing to claim you can hear a BAD mastering job. It's another thing to claim you can hear what was done on a good mastering job. That's what I meant by "No you can't".
 
mixmkr said:
sure you can. If the end result is good, who cares what was done mastering?.. shoot, that mastering could have been just the fade. If the end result is good, you could assume the mastering was good too.

If there are issues, THEN,you might get confused if it was in mixing or not.

IOW, if I look at a car (as alluded above), I can tell if it was polished good. I don't need to see a dirty car first. I look at the finshed result.

end of that opinion...I'd say the finish was so so... I think there are mix problems that can't be taken care of in mastering, and I say that because I can tell. So, I'd say the mastering was so so... because it didn't perform a miracle :D
Click to expand...

If the car is bright and shiney, how much of it was due to the work done in the showroom, and how much was due to the polish the guy gave it when he got it home? You would not be able to tell.

If the car looks dull (because it's old, beat-up and faded) and someone were to ask "what do you think of the polish job?" you would still not be able to tell what difference the polishing job had done. Slightly less dull, perhaps?

Miroslav is spot on with this observation:
miroslav said:
See...when you ask "how's this mastering job?"...it really does require that we hear the "before mastering" in order to comment on the "mastering job".
If you just asked, "how does it sound?"....then that's a different question.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is a semantic difference. But I'm sure you would have received a range of useful observations had you posted it in the MP3 clinic and asked "how does this sound?"

Some of the responses would relate to the composition of the mix (e.g. too much bass, or whatever), while others would touch on things that could be (or were done) in the mastering stage (such as "the track sounds a bit dull" or whatever).

However, just by listening, it is not possible to determine what was done in the mixing and what was done in the mastering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top