
Gizzmo0815
New member
Glen and I have issue with this one from time to time, I agree and disagree.
The better part of mastering is deciding when one should cross the line and make a mix sound "different". A mixing environment is not always setup optimally for critical listening and there could be quite a few changes with frequency balance and focus on particular parts of the mix, etc. that cross over into mixing territory. Likewise one could say that there are areas of mixing that crossover into mastering territory particularly when a mix has been overcompressed or otherwise crushed.
A mastering engineer should have quite a bit of music under their belt in a variety of styles and have both the experience and taste to know when to leave things alone, when to politely ask if a remix is possible with suggestions on what to improve, and if the former is not the case how to best improve the mixes given in order to make them translate best. It definitely means do no harm, but sometimes one can do harm by not doing anything.
Or maybe I'm misinterpreting the above. If so, where is the Google translator for SSG to MH?
I think therein lies the rub. Even a lot of the mastering engineers sometimes disagree on what their role is in the process. Which only confuses people who REALLY don't know anything about it. Which is what I think Glen is responding to.
The use of the term "mastering" is very often used to describe processes that actually change the audio from what the mixer did. Which is, I think, what Glen is getting at, because he sees that as mixing.
However from what Masteringhouse just said, it seems that he might consider mastering to be a little more broad than that. Perhaps changes are made only when necessary, but changes CAN be made but still it's a rather different interpretation of the term.
I kind of like the concept that a mastering engineer should go by the doctor's creed "First, do no harm". It makes sense to me because the artist and mix engineer obviously had a vision and what right would the mastering engineer have to change that? BUT! If he can make it better by mixing a little bit, and the artist doesn't have a problem with that. Well cool!
---
The really big problem is when you start talking about this thing called a "home studio" where Joe Blow wants to be able to do all of the above. What Joe Blow doesn't realize is that unless he's got some kind of UNBELIEVABLE natural talent. He's just not going to understand the process to the depth necessary to be able to make it sound as good as the guy who's been doing this for years.
Also if all of the people who have home studios think about how they work on their music. I think that they'd realize how difficult it would be to truly take a song that you've just tracked yourself, and then mixed yourself and go "Ok...now I'm going to master this song, and I'm going to try and keep the mix and artist's goal in mind." The desire to start mixing again would be almost overwhelming...I think most people would fail at it (split personalities might be a benefit here, however).
One of the HUGE benefits of mastering, I suppose, is that you've got a completely new set of eyes on your stuff. And they don't have the same kind of attachment that you do to the material. They can truly take your mix and judge it without any kind of emotional response.
Joe Blow needs an education...and 9 times out of 10 these days he's going to go to a place like homerecording.com to find out what to do.
Hopefully the people there don't turn him off by telling him how bad his stuff sounds over and over again. Hopefully they'll do what Glen just did and outline some really good ways to fix things and improve.
---
Masteringhouse is right I think. To be a mastering engineer you have to be a mixing engineer first, it's where you'd gain the know-how to be able to take a glance at a song and understand what WAS done, and what CAN BE DONE in order to finalize it (or in some cases maybe even make it a little more perfect).
I still think, though, that "Change 'Gon come" with the home recording wave that's upon the world. I think one possibility is that "mastering" as it's generally defined today may start to go away with the sunset of the compact disc. One big thing with digital audio files these days is that people can load their entire collection onto a player (like and iPod) and then turn on a setting which automatically adjusts all of the tracks for volume (look up a program called MP3Gain, or check out this article). How do you master an album to a media that changes the sound of the audio once it's loaded on the player? The loudness war could be rendered obsolete because of this. If people no longer have to worry about the volume knob because their audio player does it for them? WOW!!
If you REALLY don't know anything about it, then you shouldn't be saying that you do (something which didn't really happen here). I think we've established that there are people (even in this thread) that really don't know what mastering is, and they're probably really just mixing. But I think they've learned something about it...I know I have.
But if you ARE trying to learn, there's no harm in trying to do your best at it (just don't ask for money until there's someone out there that thinks you're worth it, which is what people fear Fala might be doing).