Mastering is Etherial, and that's not a bad thing

RedStone

Member
There's a reason professional musicians use different people for different stages of a release.

I've learned to laugh at self-mastering (though I still try because I am stubborn and want to learn so if this is you, don't stop). But I ultimately now leave it to the pros I trust for my new releases. The tools that really great mastering engineers use and the things they do to coax tone out of a mix make my head spin. And it's nothing I can do myself (even with AI). Once I got close, and it was an accident.

I think any conversation about mastering needs to be a conversation about a mix as a whole, and what can ruin a mix (it's endless ... But as you get better at it, there are things that will derail you if you aren't paying attention to your intuition about what sounds sweet).

The thing that will surely ruin your mix, and make self mastering impossible is bad monitoring, which includes poor speaker placement, poor room acoustics, sitting in the wrong place in a room, moving forward in your chair for too long if close monitoring, or never checking a mix on excellent headphones.

For example, I discovered that I was sitting in the middle of a 125hz node in my new mixing room. No wonder my mixes were messed up and ended up either too brittle or too boomy (as I attempted to guess at how to correct things as I tested on different speakers and headphones). I trusted my monitoring, and it would be decent if it was in a neutral space - but because I was sitting in the wrong spot in the room, it was not fine at all!

The better the mix is, the better and easier it will be to coax a passable master, even by a relative novice. Use of compression, EQ and limiting, polarity checks, and width adjustment are the fundamental tools of mastering, but there is SO much more.

Everything in music can be categorized as timing, volume and tone. Compression can change volume, timing AND tone. Buss compression that isn't parallel is like a loaded weapon. Be careful with it.

And limiting ... Throw an LA2A on a vocal track and dial up to more extreme settings in compression mode. It's more or less limiting. Not that I would use an LA2A as a final limiter, but I do use the SSL stereo compressor on a parallel buss to beef up many mixes.

If you can't hear a bad mix (which can range from poor timing, sharp or boomy reverb tails, spicy acoustic guitars, sizzly hats, splashy cymbals, bad mix placement, too powerful bass, subtle wrong notes and tuning issues, whether it's a snare fundamental or a bad vocal note), you'll really struggle to pull off mastering. But if you mixes are good, and just need to be sweetened and loudness maximized, then likely you might have a slight monitoring issue of some sort, or you might need to pass it off because you are too used to the sound of your song and can't find the objective stance you need to finalize it.

The other thing is to let go of the idea that you can use stock plugins to make something sound truly amazing. Ok, some people maybe can but I couldn't.

What you can do is use them to learn quite a lot. but truthfully, My world was transformed when I switched to better microphones ($600+) UAD hardware/plugins and brainworkx plugins. Just saying. I am the same person I was when using stock plugins a year ago. Everything has changed now, but it was a steep learning curve learning from industry professionals how to listen for tonal quality changes. The best mix engineers I think can sense slight changes, and can figure out the right mix of elements to pull off what they want to hear with polish.

The basic tricks for coaxing good sound (monitors aside) can be boiled to this:
- Record through the best gear you can afford. Focusrite 4i4 etc might be amazing for their class, but they aren't amazing in the world of interfaces. Their just fine, if that's what you want.
- you don't "need" to record at 192khz. 48khz is plenty for excellent depth and quality, and you'll be able to run many more tracks and FX. But hey if you have a room of apple Xtreme space computers or whatever, by all means go to 192khz. Personally, I think it's wasteful and the quality isn't noticably better than 48khzI. think it's because downsampling filters have gotten excellent. The old maudio FireWire 18/18 I remember had terrible downsampling filters so I HAD to record at 96khz to get good sound ... But that's not the case with the latest generation of even entry level Focusrite, UAD volt etc). 48khz is the sweet spot.
- Precision modelling of analog gear (like channel strips, tape machines) is fundamental
- Parallel processing
- FX bussing
- Group Busses (eg vocals, drums, acoustics, electric guitar, synths) for more global processing of EQ, compression etc.
- Mono checks (helps with checking panning - lower volume in mono can just mean something is panned too hard. It could also mean it's too quiet overall, so you need to switch back and forth to check.
- Automation (volume, FX parameters)
- Comping/takes and editing (for timing, tuning, blips and clicks, fades)

There's a reason some things stand the test of time (like LA2A, Pultecs, Ampeg SVT, SSL, Neve, and the waves stuff that at least used to get knocked in the home recording world).
I still do reach for stock things for specific tasks where I just need a bit of this or that, but I'm learning that when seriously hunting for tone, to look for things that will give me serious tone.

Anyway, I'm writing this to kill some time. Hope it's somewhat helpful.
 
Last edited:
Also, stop using cheap hardware and instruments. Get it right at the source and mixing becomes easier, as well as mastering 😉

Of course you can only do what you can afford. Here's my quick take:
UAD interfaces are some of the best on the market.

Mics
SE makes some amazing midrange mics for all sorts of applications that won't break the bank. They have juju.
Rhode NT1 ... They are probably the best in thier class. There are better classes and if you look, you can find used or sales.
Neuman TLM mics. They're amazing midrange all rounders . Period.
Sm58. Try an SE V7 then tell me how you feel about your 58. 58s are fine (and indestructible). But they aren't as amazing as you'd want to believe.

Instruments (guitars especially)
If an acoustic sounds great and plays well, you might have what you need. Acoustics are funny that way. I have a $300 Epiphone solid top acoustic that I have worked at improving. I like it's tone now almost as much as my expensive solid wood Larivee studio acoustic. It's not quite the same, but it's damn good and can punch well above it's price point for certain applications - kind of like the NT1.

Simple things can make a big difference in the world of acoustic guitars, and there's a diminishing return after that. The big ones are: body shape, Solid top is a minimum must, bone/tusq nut and saddle (and bridge pins - maybe), well chosen strings and pick thickness). Beyond that, it's slight differences. A cheaper solid top guitar can sound great with the right strings and replacing the nut and saddle with not plastic.

mic placement when recording is also huge for acoustic guitars (and I admit I do like my Rhode NT1 on an acoustic a couple feet away pointed at the 12th fret. It sounds really pleasing ... almost whispy).

But look, a $300 Epiphone J35 isn't going to sound as good as a Gibson songwriter, even with some upgrades. They are totally different classes of instrument. When I choose an acoustic guitar, I start by playing the expensive ones then find a cheaper option that gets me close enough in tone that I struggle to tell the difference. Sometimes I start with cheaper, find one I like, then see how it compares to a model twice or three times the price.

If an electric guitar is cheap and plays well, then make sure to put quality pickups and electronics in it. The reality is the electronics are a huge factor in getting a quality tone out of an electric guitar. Or, save up and buy something that already has high quality components.

Amps
This is a hard one. It's so dependant on style and there are so many options. But most amps are copying one of these: fender twin/bassman/tweed, marshall jcm, and maybe orange rockerverb and Mesa Boogie heads) They are each mainstays for a good reason. They sound fantastic!

Cabs - not going to touch this. Mine are all modelled. If you have a head/cab type of guitar amp, you're in the realm of high quality already.

Pedals
Not all pedals are created equal.
I don't use many pedals as my guitar rig for recording is precision modelled vst-based.
What I do know is that Helix is capable of getting really close to authentically real sounding when it comes to their amp and FX models. Amplitude is very capable as well.
One of the keys to building good guitar tone is to pay attention to 2-5khz. It's tempting to pump it up here. Don't do it unless you like or want cheese grater guitar tones.

Looks like I had a lot of time to kill tonight 🤣
 
Last edited:
... And all of that is a discussion on mastering because every decision you make from conception of a song to finishing a mix has a material effect on the decisions and compromises that will need to be made at the final steps of commercial readiness.

The degree to which your source material and mix are problematic is the degree to which a mastering engineer WON'T be able to coax out incredible tone from your mix. They'll coax out the best tone possible ... But the limit on what's possible lies within the balance, timing, and tuning of your mix.
 
Your pretty wordy to make your point - Mastering is just bringing out the best of what's given to the Engineer - there is no making a silk purse out of Sows ear.
 
That wisdom isn't as self evident as I had been led to believe in my years reading forums.

Oh wait. more words haha ... Gain stage to line level in the recording process and everything will sound as good as it can based on mic choice, placement and instrument. For the kids, That's 0VU or an average of -18 to -15 dbfs. Go louder as a creative choice, like if you want a smeared or less punchy sound.

Nooo more words. Also monitor at lower volumes. It saves your ears. But do checks at higher volumes to see what happens when your mix pushes air. Also helpful is to make sure you aren't falling into the trap of something being louder, and that tricks you into thinking it sounds better. Gain matching can save you from that pitfall. Don't forget, EQ boosts make things louder, and that can trick you.

The wisdom here is: focus on finding the right balance in your mix.
 
Last edited:
There's a reason professional musicians use different people for different stages of a release.

I've learned to laugh at self-mastering (though I still try because I am stubborn and want to learn so if this is you, don't stop). But I ultimately now leave it to the pros I trust for my new releases. The tools that really great mastering engineers use and the things they do to coax tone out of a mix make my head spin. And it's nothing I can do myself (even with AI). Once I got close, and it was an accident.

I think any conversation about mastering needs to be a conversation about a mix as a whole, and what can ruin a mix (it's endless ... But as you get better at it, there are things that will derail you if you aren't paying attention to your intuition about what sounds sweet).

The thing that will surely ruin your mix, and make self mastering impossible is bad monitoring, which includes poor speaker placement, poor room acoustics, sitting in the wrong place in a room, moving forward in your chair for too long if close monitoring, or never checking a mix on excellent headphones.

For example, I discovered that I was sitting in the middle of a 125hz node in my new mixing room. No wonder my mixes were messed up and ended up either too brittle or too boomy (as I attempted to guess at how to correct things as I tested on different speakers and headphones). I trusted my monitoring, and it would be decent if it was in a neutral space - but because I was sitting in the wrong spot in the room, it was not fine at all!

The better the mix is, the better and easier it will be to coax a passable master, even by a relative novice. Use of compression, EQ and limiting, polarity checks, and width adjustment are the fundamental tools of mastering, but there is SO much more.

Everything in music can be categorized as timing, volume and tone. Compression can change volume, timing AND tone. Buss compression that isn't parallel is like a loaded weapon. Be careful with it.

And limiting ... Throw an LA2A on a vocal track and dial up to more extreme settings in compression mode. It's more or less limiting. Not that I would use an LA2A as a final limiter, but I do use the SSL stereo compressor on a parallel buss to beef up many mixes.

If you can't hear a bad mix (which can range from poor timing, sharp or boomy reverb tails, spicy acoustic guitars, sizzly hats, splashy cymbals, bad mix placement, too powerful bass, subtle wrong notes and tuning issues, whether it's a snare fundamental or a bad vocal note), you'll really struggle to pull off mastering. But if you mixes are good, and just need to be sweetened and loudness maximized, then likely you might have a slight monitoring issue of some sort, or you might need to pass it off because you are too used to the sound of your song and can't find the objective stance you need to finalize it.

The other thing is to let go of the idea that you can use stock plugins to make something sound truly amazing. Ok, some people maybe can but I couldn't.

What you can do is use them to learn quite a lot. but truthfully, My world was transformed when I switched to better microphones ($600+) UAD hardware/plugins and brainworkx plugins. Just saying. I am the same person I was when using stock plugins a year ago. Everything has changed now, but it was a steep learning curve learning from industry professionals how to listen for tonal quality changes. The best mix engineers I think can sense slight changes, and can figure out the right mix of elements to pull off what they want to hear with polish.

The basic tricks for coaxing good sound (monitors aside) can be boiled to this:
- Record through the best gear you can afford. Focusrite 4i4 etc might be amazing for their class, but they aren't amazing in the world of interfaces. Their just fine, if that's what you want.
- you don't "need" to record at 192khz. 48khz is plenty for excellent depth and quality, and you'll be able to run many more tracks and FX. But hey if you have a room of apple Xtreme space computers or whatever, by all means go to 192khz. Personally, I think it's wasteful and the quality isn't noticably better than 48khzI. think it's because downsampling filters have gotten excellent. The old maudio FireWire 18/18 I remember had terrible downsampling filters so I HAD to record at 96khz to get good sound ... But that's not the case with the latest generation of even entry level Focusrite, UAD volt etc). 48khz is the sweet spot.
- Precision modelling of analog gear (like channel strips, tape machines) is fundamental
- Parallel processing
- FX bussing
- Group Busses (eg vocals, drums, acoustics, electric guitar, synths) for more global processing of EQ, compression etc.
- Mono checks (helps with checking panning - lower volume in mono can just mean something is panned too hard. It could also mean it's too quiet overall, so you need to switch back and forth to check.
- Automation (volume, FX parameters)
- Comping/takes and editing (for timing, tuning, blips and clicks, fades)

There's a reason some things stand the test of time (like LA2A, Pultecs, Ampeg SVT, SSL, Neve, and the waves stuff that at least used to get knocked in the home recording world).
I still do reach for stock things for specific tasks where I just need a bit of this or that, but I'm learning that when seriously hunting for tone, to look for things that will give me serious tone.

Anyway, I'm writing this to kill some time. Hope it's somewhat helpful.
thank you for this excellent post
 
Back
Top