Is mastering truly necessary these days?

[Jack1492]

No
Mastering is the final EQ - Compression. Tape or other media of course you can skip mastering I'm not there yet.

 

[Maya Clars]

Is mastering an arcane/obsolete process for vinyl now used as a grift?

Mastering in analog times was "taking the tapes and preparing them to be cut into a vinyl or cassette, etc." So I think it was more about translation to the sources from which people could listen to the music. And when digital world has come, mastering transformed into different philosophy. Right now, I often hear that mastering is for making a song louder. I really don't like the concept of just making it louder. I think If you're working alone and handling all the parts of the music creation yourself, you can decide whatever - if you don't see the purpose of something, just don't do it, listen to your ears. I don't see a problem in solving some issues directly at the mixing stage if you have the whole project under your hands. But if you're working with many people, everyone would have an opinion, so at every stage they'd add something what they thing is correct.

 

[TalismanRich]

That's been my opinion for a long time. Mastering for vinyl records meant making sure that square peg fit the round hole. Moving a digital wave file at 16/44.1 to a CD doesn't need any translation. If you're making commercial CDs, there's information and registration that needs to be done, but in terms of sound, it's a straightforward copy.

In the past, there were few people who had the means and ability to produce high quality source material and if you were in a commercial studio, you most likely had an engineer and maybe a producer to help guide things. Having second opinions isn't a bad idea, I've done mixes for others, sent them to the artist, and he gave me comments.. add this, bring this up, adjust the vocals, etc. After 5 or 6 mixes, you get to a point that they say "Yeah, that's it". Loudness is right, balance is right, mix is right.

Why would you need someone to go in and compress, re-eq and make it conform to someone else's idea of what it should sound like and meet some maximum loudness spec? Not everything needs to be -5 LUFS with a dynamic range of 15dB!

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Even a CD needs songs sequenced, and levels and tone matched. An album can be recorded in one studio with one engineer but still have variations between songs. Heck, even a single headed for streaming may need its level adjusted to a spec and its file format changed for specific sites.

 

[TalismanRich]

Mastering in the 1970s wasn’t a creative stage. It was a transfer process. The goal wasn’t to make the record louder than everyone else. It was to make sure it cut cleanly onto vinyl.

A good engineer and producer should be doing exactly those things, in consult with the artist. The mastering engineer shouldn't be sequencing the songs to his liking! Any artist who is putting together a release should be listening to test burns before sending it out to be pressed. We're talking about 15 minutes to load it up into CD burning software, and rip off copies for every member of a group. If it doesn't meet their approval, adjust and burn another. CDRs cost less than cassettes cost me 40 years ago! The third track sounds too loud and harsh... adjust it and listen to another cut while you're driving home. Or put the MP3s on your IPad, listen to them.

Can you imagine if you decided that you didn't like the sequencing of the Moody Blue Days of Future Passed and changed them during the mastering phase? "I needed to swap those two tracks to fit the side length" You would have been canned on the first pass.

50 years ago, you had to be aware of the limitations of a record.. side length, bass level and centering, dynamic range, etc. I remember when Telarc put out the 1812 Overture with the cannon shot. Some system would actually jump (but that was the point.. you needed a good turntable to reproduce it). I've bought remastered CDs (commercial) that the remastering engineer put 2 seconds of silence between tracks that were supposed to run continuously to the next without a break. COMPLETELY ruined who know how many CDs that were produced. I sent CDs to companies that had hum from bad grounds, ticks and pops from transfers from records, speed changes and wow/flutter. It makes me wonder if some of these people even listen to the work they are doing.

I've heard several comparisons where someone sent a final mix to a half dozen "mastering services", and some of there were complete butcher jobs. UNLISTENABLE! In most cases, I would have preferred the original mix to any of the "fixed" versions. Squashed, bright and brash, boomy.

Doug Sax, Bob Ludwig, Bernie Grundman and the like earned their reputations by knowing how to get records to hold as much of the original information as possible, not to make it sound like they wanted.

I'm sure there are good mastering engineers today, but where you might have had a dozen or so really good ones back then (many were tied to record labels), today you can find hundreds with some purchased mastering software and minimal expertise. It can become paint by numbers! LUFS -14. EQ - POP/Rock Max level -0.5dBFS. Run the files through the computer and you've got a consistent master!

Thank you.. no!

 

[Slouching Raymond]

Of course, for vinyl records, the quality of the recording gets worse towards the centre, because the vinyl inches per second decreases.

 

[TalismanRich]

Something else about vinyl records, especially from the days of tape. A single lacquer in a 3 step process (father, mother, stamper) can give you anywhere from 15 to 100 stampers, depending on the plant. Some places will push out more, but quality is reduced as each step is repeated. From the stampers, you will get anywhere from 500 to 1000 records. At that point, if you need more records, you'll need to cut a new lacquer and start over. Some plants will push to 2000 but often the stamper will degrade or even crack before then.

Hopefully the original mastering engineer left copious notes so that the process is repeated accurately, but this isn't always the case. That's why some albums that sounded great when you first bought them, didn't sound nearly as good if you bought a replacement copy a few years later. The 1235th pressed record of a remastered disc from the 12th stamper probably won't sound the same as the 53rd pressed disc from original master on the first stamper.

Things should be a bit better if the original pressing information is stored as a digital file, ready to be played straight into the lathe with the RIAA curves, compression and EQ adjustments already baked in.

A digital CD master should be 100% reproducible. It's all digital data, stored and ready to be retrieved exactly. Glass masters are saved for a short time, but stampers might be saved for years before recycling the metal. If both are reused, you can simply use the original data to create a new glass master.

The difference between the two processes is a bit like making photocopies of photocopies until they become unreadable and need to be retyped vs telling a printer to print 1000 copies today and then print 1000 copies next month.

If you've got 30 minutes to spend, Mary Spendor recently went to the Disc Makers in NJ to see how CDs are actually made from start to finish.

 

[pj11]

Mastering for me without paying for it is getting the most out of my tracks to where I can hear everything individually in the mix with a decent punch and decent volume.

 

[jamesperrett]

Something else about vinyl records, especially from the days of tape. A single lacquer in a 3 step process (father, mother, stamper) can give you anywhere from 15 to 100 stampers, depending on the plant. Some places will push out more, but quality is reduced as each step is repeated. From the stampers, you will get anywhere from 500 to 1000 records. At that point, if you need more records, you'll need to cut a new lacquer and start over. Some plants will push to 2000 but often the stamper will degrade or even crack before then.

Hopefully the original mastering engineer left copious notes so that the process is repeated accurately, but this isn't always the case. That's why some albums that sounded great when you first bought them, didn't sound nearly as good if you bought a replacement copy a few years later. The 1235th pressed record of a remastered disc from the 12th stamper probably won't sound the same as the 53rd pressed disc from original master on the first stamper.

There were a couple of ways of getting around this. Many mastering studios would produce a production master tape with strict instructions in big writing on the tape box that it was fully processed and should be cut flat. While the original lacquer may have been cut from the mix tape, all the subsequent releases would have come from this production master tape. I've transferred quite a few of these.

On the other hand, EMI would have a sheet of cutting instructions with Eq and compression settings to be used for each song. Presumably all the EMI cutting rooms around the world would have used the same gear so this would have worked provided all the cutting was done in house. EMI tapes also come with a usage log and it is interesting to see that some of them have travelled all over the world. One that I encountered had been used 37 times including a couple of times for CDs.

 

[jamesperrett]

Can you imagine if you decided that you didn't like the sequencing of the Moody Blue Days of Future Passed and changed them during the mastering phase? "I needed to swap those two tracks to fit the side length" You would have been canned on the first pass.

Tracks were certainly re-ordered to fit on 8 track cartridges back in that era. Sometimes tracks faded out half way through and then faded back in again after the track change. I'm also fairly sure that some cassette releases had tracks swapped between sides to make the side lengths more even.

 

[TalismanRich]

All my 8 tracks had the same order as the record. I had a whole box of them (still have a few). But they did do the fade out/fade in as the track swapped. It sucked, but how else could you listen to your tunes in the car? But the order was maintained. If the album was 41 minutes, they used a 41 min loop, and sometimes the track swap was 30 seconds into start of a 4 minute song, sometimes near the end. I don't think I EVER had an 8 track that moved the songs to "fit" a 10 minute side. Most likely the songs wouldn't have fit unless you used a longer tape and had some dead air. They didn't want that!

There might have been a few oddball instances where it was done, but it would be a rarity. Bootleg 8 tracks would be the most likely instances, not major record releases.

My cousin had an 8 track recorder. When he dubbed a record, he didn't bother with fade out/in. Just let track switch and live with the glitch!

I didn't buy many prerecorded cassettes. Hendrix Rainbow Bridge, Rory Gallagher Irish Tour 74 and a few others. I would just buy C90 cassettes and dub my records to one side, and sometimes if I had enough time, I might add another song from another album, but I'm not mastering anything.

In any case, with a CD, there's no "fitting" to be done. You have 74 minutes maximum. You don't need to worry about dead air if you only have 43 minutes. It stops on it's own. It doesn't matter if it's a 3 minute single on the disc, or 1 hour symphony. You don't have to worry about overblown bass not tracking, or getting increased noise from the inner grooves. Maximum level set is maintained from 0 to 100%.

 

[DM60]

All my 8 tracks had the same order as the record. I had a whole box of them (still have a few). But they did do the fade out/fade in as the track swapped. It sucked, but how else could you listen to your tunes in the car? But the order was maintained. If the album was 41 minutes, they used a 41 min loop, and sometimes the track swap was 30 seconds into start of a 4 minute song, sometimes near the end. I don't think I EVER had an 8 track that moved the songs to "fit" a 10 minute side. Most likely the songs wouldn't have fit unless you used a longer tape and had some dead air. They didn't want that!

There might have been a few oddball instances where it was done, but it would be a rarity. Bootleg 8 tracks would be the most likely instances, not major record releases.

My cousin had an 8 track recorder. When he dubbed a record, he didn't bother with fade out/in. Just let track switch and live with the glitch!

I didn't buy many prerecorded cassettes. Hendrix Rainbow Bridge, Rory Gallagher Irish Tour 74 and a few others. I would just buy C90 cassettes and dub my records to one side, and sometimes if I had enough time, I might add another song from another album, but I'm not mastering anything.

In any case, with a CD, there's no "fitting" to be done. You have 74 minutes maximum. You don't need to worry about dead air if you only have 43 minutes. It stops on it's own. It doesn't matter if it's a 3 minute single on the disc, or 1 hour symphony. You don't have to worry about overblown bass not tracking, or getting increased noise from the inner grooves. Maximum level set is maintained from 0 to 100%.

Eagles Greatest Hits, first one, on 8 track had a really bad fade between tracks. I think if I remember it was Take It Easy, right hat the guitar solo. After that, when I could, I bought the album, recorded the cassette or made a mix tape. Mix tapes took a long time, but always had the best music

 

[Tru]

I'm half way through a course on mastering and have realized a few things:

1. If the mix is balanced amazingly, the stereo image is good, no phase issues, and everything is where it should be, then mastering is the stamp of approval and loudness management based on Ulta linear monitoring and the ears of the ME who has developed the skill of being able to perceive small changes in pitch, harmonic distortion, and tonal balance.

2. For every other scenario, mastering is absolutely essential as a process of adjusting tonal balance, dynamics and loudness.

3. Ai mastering isn't mastering unless it's done by a mastering engineer who can hear exactly what the song needs so that it can translate as exceptionally well as the original mix will allow to all playback systems. 9/10 times a decent M.E will be able to blow even current AI out of the water.

4. Mastering on the same playback system you mix on will keep you blind to problems in the mix. A second set of skilled ears whose playback system is tuned for mastering is essential for competitive sounding releases.

5. Get things right at the source and everything will sound better throughout the entire creation process, including in mastering. A good me can bring out the qualities needed.

This is the sort of discussion where some definitions should be agreed to first. From what I understand, on I believe, Redstone's list, #2 is mastering as a short explanation. I have a 2488 neo that I started a thread on , but on that unit, a SIAB, mastering is definitely important. I don't know squat about recording. Still deep in the Fake it til...ya know.cso the first songs I did , I skipped it. I thought the recording were OK for demo and practice etc. The first song I mastered showed me the difference. That might only apply to a situation like mine though

 

[TalismanRich]

The problem I see is that the term "mastering" has been changed. As stated earlier, mastering until the digital age was a transfer process. You were converting a recording in one form to another that had distinctly different set of restrictions. It required skill to do those transfers and maintain as much info from the original to the new format (primarily vinyl).

Today the mastering engineer is supposed to equalize the volumes of various tracks, make them fit prescribed loudness values which usually mean compressing and amplifying the track. In this age of internet / AI everything, I can buy five current mastering systems (Maybe Ozone, Lander, Acon, Wavelab and Adobe) set up a web page and advertise that I will master your tracks for $25/ song. You can send the file to Abbey Road for $130 each. Send it to Mastering.com and you can have 5 different people do your track.

Send it to 10 different people and you'll get 10 completely different songs back. I've heard some real abominations. It's like cooking. Give 10 people a bag of groceries, a kitchen and a spice rack and you'll get 10 different meals. Your chili might have beans and spaghetti, mine might be all meat, another is more like chicken stew. This one is mild or wimpy, mine has ghost peppers for real kick. Maybe I like olives and anchovy pizza. You want the meat lovers.

The definition of what mastering should be has been mutilated in my opinion. It can be a "make it sound the way I like" or make it fit the numbers. It can be homogenize everything to sound the same. What I don't hear anymore is "this is a faithful representation of the original artist's work".

At least when you run through the mastering section of your 2488, you make the decision as to whether it's an improvement or not. Its not some dude in Salt Rock, WV with a computer, and internet connection and a pair of Cerwin Vega stereo speakers he bought in 1988 at Dixie HiFi calling the shot.

 

[PorterhouseMusic]

^^^ well said.

 

[Tru]

The problem I see is that the term "mastering" has been changed. As stated earlier, mastering until the digital age was a transfer process. You were converting a recording in one form to another that had distinctly different set of restrictions. It required skill to do those transfers and maintain as much info from the original to the new format (primarily vinyl).

Today the mastering engineer is supposed to equalize the volumes of various tracks, make them fit prescribed loudness values which usually mean compressing and amplifying the track. In this age of internet / AI everything, I can buy five current mastering systems (Maybe Ozone, Lander, Acon, Wavelab and Adobe) set up a web page and advertise that I will master your tracks for $25/ song. You can send the file to Abbey Road for $130 each. Send it to Mastering.com and you can have 5 different people do your track.

Send it to 10 different people and you'll get 10 completely different songs back. I've heard some real abominations. It's like cooking. Give 10 people a bag of groceries, a kitchen and a spice rack and you'll get 10 different meals. Your chili might have beans and spaghetti, mine might be all meat, another is more like chicken stew. This one is mild or wimpy, mine has ghost peppers for real kick. Maybe I like olives and anchovy pizza. You want the meat lovers.

The definition of what mastering should be has been mutilated in my opinion. It can be a "make it sound the way I like" or make it fit the numbers. It can be homogenize everything to sound the same. What I don't hear anymore is "this is a faithful representation of the original artist's work".

At least when you run through the mastering section of your 2488, you make the decision as to whether it's an improvement or not. Its not some dude in Salt Rock, WV with a computer, and internet connection and a pair of Cerwin Vega stereo speakers he bought in 1988 at Dixie HiFi calling the shot.

I agree. even on the 2488, it is mostly comp. but by the time it gets there, if it isn't what I want already, it never will be. I mean, yes, I can change some of the way a song sounds, just as said about sending a to be mastered by 5 different people . .... but to me , that is nothing different than recording clean so I can play with the effects later. I almost never want a big flanger sound on a song but it is fun to play with. I am new but it seams to me that I am doing "mastering " as I record, then light compression to glue it all together at the end. Also, I think someone said something about putting out a full cd vs. singles. I am going to put out a full cd, so I stopped mastering until I have all the songs recorded. Just for continuity of sound .

 

[TalismanRich]

Ah, yes. The famous "glue". It's the hot word in the mastering world. This compressor "glues" the sound together. Tape "glues" things.

I guess mastering is a sticky business.