Listening to one of your mixes MASTERED.

  • Thread starter Thread starter inmyheartx
  • Start date Start date
I

inmyheartx

New member
I've never had anything i've recorded mastered by a professionaly matering engineer. I am REALLY curious to see how something that i've recorded would sound mastered. Now, is there anyway to post a song and get like a 30 second clip of it mastered, just so I can see what it's like? Any responses are greatly appreciated, thank you. =)

Take care,
Adam.
 
It largely depends on the mastering engineer and how much he is willing to squash the shit out of the mix to make it sound competitive and "radio-like".

More often than not, applying a lot of limiting and compression ends up burying drums and pushing guitars forward.

Less severe mastering might correct some phase issues and improve frequency balance. Again, if your monitoring is right, you should get those issues right the first time when mixing.

So, as far as I'm concerned, a GOOD mastering engineer is one that squashes the mixes and make them sound like the ones mastered by George Marino and Leon Zervos.
 
Massive Master said:
I - uh... disagree.
Click to expand...

Then I guess you don't love the guys at Sterling Sound. IMHO those are the absolute best. They get loud as shite (-8 dBRMS and louder) masters without squashing too much. Plus they use some kind of enhancer (a Godlike BBE) that cleans the mix and it gets very pleasing in the high-mids. And they tighten the bass really nicely.
 
I have all the respect in the world for the guys at Sterling. But I have *never* heard a mix that was "squashed" - even with "God-like" gear, that didn't sound worlds better UNsquashed. Never, not once, ever.

Mastering isn't about volume - although many would like to think it is. True, the final volume may be determined during mastering, and there's no doubt that I've crushed and continue to crush my fair share of records to keep the client happy.

But (A) Bone crushing volume shouldn't be the goal and (B) it is *always* damaging past the point where the mix naturally wants to sit. Once you compromise the sound of the mix in favor of sheer volume, you're destroying and degrading it, period. I don't care if it's Sterling, Digido, Euphonic, Gateway, Me... All other things being equal, no M.E. (or listener for that matter) I can think of actually prefers the audio quality of a crushed mix.

You can bet that whoever was behind the controls of those -8dBRMS projects (I've done several myself that came out quite good) would've rather put them out at -12dBRMS or even lower. But we have to compromise what WE think sounds "right" vs. what the client wants as far as volume is concerned all the time.
 
Massive Master said:
I have all the respect in the world for the guys at Sterling. But I have *never* heard a mix that was "squashed" - even with "God-like" gear, that didn't sound worlds better UNsquashed. Never, not once, ever.

Mastering isn't about volume - although many would like to think it is. True, the final volume may be determined during mastering, and there's no doubt that I've crushed and continue to crush my fair share of records to keep the client happy.

But (A) Bone crushing volume shouldn't be the goal and (B) it is *always* damaging past the point where the mix naturally wants to sit. Once you compromise the sound of the mix in favor of sheer volume, you're destroying and degrading it, period. I don't care if it's Sterling, Digido, Euphonic, Gateway, Me... All other things being equal, no M.E. (or listener for that matter) I can think of actually prefers the audio quality of a crushed mix.

You can bet that whoever was behind the controls of those -8dBRMS projects (I've done several myself that came out quite good) would've rather put them out at -12dBRMS or even lower. But we have to compromise what WE think sounds "right" vs. what the client wants as far as volume is concerned all the time.
Click to expand...

I gotta tell ya. I was doing some tempo tracks this weekend with a band that I'm recording. We were talking about mastrering the albumn, and I suggested Massive. We checked out the before and after samples, and we liked what we heard. The stereo image is huge, the articulation of the instruments and reverb is more delecate and full. It almost sounds like a new mix, but I know it is not. Looking forward to getting the next project mastered @ Massive.

Good mastering (should read mastering in general) is much more than making loud.
 
Massive Master said:
I have all the respect in the world for the guys at Sterling. But I have *never* heard a mix that was "squashed" - even with "God-like" gear, that didn't sound worlds better UNsquashed. Never, not once, ever.

Mastering isn't about volume - although many would like to think it is. True, the final volume may be determined during mastering, and there's no doubt that I've crushed and continue to crush my fair share of records to keep the client happy.

But (A) Bone crushing volume shouldn't be the goal and (B) it is *always* damaging past the point where the mix naturally wants to sit. Once you compromise the sound of the mix in favor of sheer volume, you're destroying and degrading it, period. I don't care if it's Sterling, Digido, Euphonic, Gateway, Me... All other things being equal, no M.E. (or listener for that matter) I can think of actually prefers the audio quality of a crushed mix.

You can bet that whoever was behind the controls of those -8dBRMS projects (I've done several myself that came out quite good) would've rather put them out at -12dBRMS or even lower. But we have to compromise what WE think sounds "right" vs. what the client wants as far as volume is concerned all the time.
Click to expand...

Of course, the master would sound better at -12 dBRMS, but why would I pay you to do that ? I can get my mix to -12dBRMS easy in my bedroom! FACT is that this level is NOT competitive enough in the business and can keep me from getting a label to sign me.

What I CAN'T get in my bedroom is those really loud volume levels (-6 dBRMS) without hearing too much clipping. THIS is why I would pay you (or any other ME).

So for me, Mastering is ALL about levels! I don't need no stinking phase correction issues, EQ enhancements, etc...do you really think that Chris Lord-Alge needs Sterling guys to make those adjustments? I think not. All they have to do is make the damn thing competitive.

Same applies to me. A mix should sound right at the mixing stage. One SHOULD NEVER need to pay someone else to do a job he should have done right at the tracking/mixing process.

After all that talk...yeah...really...those mastering guys should only be paid for getting levels really high, since the mix SHOULD be right from the bottom to top.
 
The Dewd i now see the reason you have all of those red points.



I still love you though.
 
pingu said:
The Dewd i now see the reason you have all of those red points.



I still love you though.
Click to expand...
I just don't get why being competitve is BAD on these boards here? Life is about being competitive and so are music levels. The louder the better, since you have more possibilities facing the labels.

Of course, a less squashed mix is better, but who cares of you don't get signed because of that ?
 
TheDewd said:
After all that talk...yeah...really...those mastering guys should only be paid for getting levels really high, since the mix SHOULD be right from the bottom to top.
Click to expand...

If a mix engineer can get everything right but volume, why not volume? It is no more difficult than any of the other factors mentioned.
 
mshilarious said:
If a mix engineer can get everything right but volume, why not volume? It is no more difficult than any of the other factors mentioned.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. Otherwise, there would not be mastering engineers at all.
Tom and Chris Lord-Alge would master their mixes themselves and not give them to Sterling sound if they could get it loud and clear right away.

Loudness is an ART of itself. It's really hard to get very loud and maintain some sonic integrity.
 
Massive Master said:
I have all the respect in the world for the guys at Sterling. But I have *never* heard a mix that was "squashed" - even with "God-like" gear, that didn't sound worlds better UNsquashed. Never, not once, ever.

Mastering isn't about volume - although many would like to think it is. True, the final volume may be determined during mastering, and there's no doubt that I've crushed and continue to crush my fair share of records to keep the client happy.

But (A) Bone crushing volume shouldn't be the goal and (B) it is *always* damaging past the point where the mix naturally wants to sit. Once you compromise the sound of the mix in favor of sheer volume, you're destroying and degrading it, period. I don't care if it's Sterling, Digido, Euphonic, Gateway, Me... All other things being equal, no M.E. (or listener for that matter) I can think of actually prefers the audio quality of a crushed mix.

You can bet that whoever was behind the controls of those -8dBRMS projects (I've done several myself that came out quite good) would've rather put them out at -12dBRMS or even lower. But we have to compromise what WE think sounds "right" vs. what the client wants as far as volume is concerned all the time.
Click to expand...
Very well said!!!
 
TheDewd said:
I just don't get why being competitve is BAD on these boards here? Life is about being competitive and so are music levels. The louder the better, since you have more possibilities facing the labels.

Of course, a less squashed mix is better, but who cares of you don't get signed because of that ?
Click to expand...
People loose what music is supposed to be about, emotions,feeling,content of thought etc, not how loud it is. Trouble is dance club/hip hop music has made it so for some a song HAD to be thundering in the chest for kids in a club to enjoy it. They get off more on the pulse of the music than the before mentioned.....at least thats what I think!
 
TheDewd said:
Loudness is an ART of itself. It's really hard to get very loud and maintain some sonic integrity.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's true. But if people hired me just to make their mixes "loud" I'd probably just quit. I get a lot of "job satisfaction" trying to take mixes a step up from where they were. Hell, I get a decent amount of satisfaction just from doing straight transfers. I don't get any from taking a perfectly good mix and ruining it with excessive volume.
 
Dewd continues to operate under the myth that loudness is needed to be competitive. That is just pure dreck perpetuated and believed by the bonehread producers and marketing reps, and has been shown in studies repeatedly over the last 50 years since the idea was first thought up *intrinsically not to be true*.

The fact is what started that whole loudness thing was back in the AM radio heydays; they went by the physics principle that the higher you pushed your modulation strength, the farther your broadcast signal could be heard and the more customers you could reach. This is why they started pushing the volume first on commercials; the more potential customers that could hear their commercials, the more customers they would have; at least that was the marketing theory that was built like a house of cards on the otherwise solid physical properties of AM transmission. It was later added to analog TV broadcasts and subsequent to that, picked up as an idea by the marketing arms of the record companies themselves.

While it is true that the Unwashed Masses do tend to perceive "louder" as "better" - I had sold more than my share of consumer EQs and high-efficiency loudspeakers on that principle alone way back when I was forced to sell products to put food on the table, before I got wise and atoned - this principle works only when the louder product is the exception to the rule.

When you have 9 commercials (or now, songs) pushing 90% modulation on the radio and the tenth one comes in at 105%, people will notice the louder one. However there are three problems with leaving it at that:

- the first is while they notice the louder one, unlike the comparison of components in a showroom, their reaction is usually pretty evenly split between positive and negative making the extra volume a washout in effectiveness.

- the second is that FM and digital satellite transmissions these days are compressed at the radio station in such a way as to minimize the difference in RMS between tracks anyway.

- the thrid, and possibly the most important, is that while the loudness thing may possibly have some positive results when it is the exception to the rule, the effect is not reverse symmetrical. When everybody boosts to goofy RMS levels, there is no advantage any longer since loudness is no longer a nail sticking up out of a board of quieter dynamics. Even more, when 9 songs come in squashed flat as a pancake, the tenth one with real dynamics and movement will now be the one exception which will sound fresh and clean and have the advantage both sonically and marketability-wise.

John had it right at the start that there are many MEs who have squashed material - and they even got gold or platinum sales out of the results - but they did it not because they knew it to be a good idea, but because they were forced to by their client, be they the artist or the producer or both. There is not a mastering or mixing engineer really (and I mean really) worth their chops who would do such a thing of their own volition. And you hear them say it - to a person - all the time in interviews and articles everyhwere in the trades. And what's more, those same tracks would have most like gone gold or platinum anyway, even if the weren't squashed for reasons having nothing to do with dynamics...reasons that range anywhere from the sublime (actual quality of content) to the ridiculous (record promotion politics or the tastes of the masses.)

For a wihile one was able to find some exceptions in the hip hop community where the standard recipe for production was purposely in your face, zero dymnamics, but as that genre matures and evolves, especially in the last year or two, one is starting to see a real trend towards more texturing and dynamics in even the most gangsta of hip hop productions.

And finally, the idea that MEs are only good for flattening dynamics and that tweaking and polishing in the other three dimensions of music mixes is "easier" than flattening dynamics is such a complete misunderstanding of what 21st century MEing takes and is all about that I'm not even sure where to begin. I think I'll just let the naiiveity of that position speak for itself.

G.
 
Last edited:
So, as far as I'm concerned, a GOOD mastering engineer is one that squashes the mixes and make them sound like the ones mastered by George Marino and Leon Zervos.
Click to expand...


Wow, there really isn't a bias in this statement. The world is an ocean bigger than the pond you're swimming in right now.



So either sterling has opted to forget about doing good business and suddenly adopted amature practices or your ear is a tad bit way off.
 
there was an article in mix mag. showing a wave for from an 80's hit compared to a recent hits wave form.HUGE difference! Present day "hit" wave for was almost solid,80's was greatly smaller. You could almost smell the dynamics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top