"mastering" questions....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reds Garage
  • Start date Start date
Do you guys think it will always be this way, or do you think in the future, maybe even now a little (with the single online pick your own tracks think), you'll be using most of the processes that are in Mastering for a single song, maybe it would be called something else ie: Finishing, finalizing...
The answer to that hinges upon just what one's definition of mastering/finishing/finalizing actually is, which is the subject we're all kind of dancing around here.

I think there's no question that the Internet has a great influence on this question for at least two reasons: the increase in release and download of singles via the internet, and the tailoring of mixes to work under the constraints of the MP3 format and various streaming formats. In this sense, if one were to take the broad definition of "mastering" - i.e. the preparation of a track or collection of tracks for printing to it's final distribution medium - then, yes, I think the mastering of individual tracks for Internet distribution will increase in the short- and mid-term.

I think this is just a fashion swing, however, not unlike the swing to the popularity of 45RPM singles was in the 60s (though for quite different reasons.) As ultra-wide bandwidth access to the Net becomes ubiquitious and/or standards develop for lossless compression, the need to master to the straightjackets of bandwidth will swing back to the purer standards of mastering for maximum sonic quality. Add to that the probability (IMHO) that the public will demand more than one song at a time from their favorite artists - at the same time the creative artists besting their competition by releasing two or three hits at a time instead of just one - and the idea of at least mini-albums and eventually albums will become popular agian. Plus the public will have the bandwidth to make full-album (with video, even?) downloads quite feasable.

Everything swings on a pendulum, and just like a pendulum the swing back is never quite the same as it was the first time. So while we are currently on the one hit download side of the swing, that won't last forever, and we'll just swing back to a future multi-track release popularization similar to, but not identical to, today's album releases.

What I also hope won't last forever, and what I see as a far bigger issue from the technical standpoint, is the idea that "mastering" is just the second half of mixing. Far too many home recordists, IMHO, just phone in the mixing and expect to actually fix it in mastering. That is NOT what mastering is supposed to be all about, regardless of whether the mix will wind up on a meSpace stream or on a Sony label SACD.

G.
 
Multiple mono is meant to be better as you are processing each wave seperately, I think it has something to do with getting better dithering.
I could be totally wrong but its something I found out through the Pro Tools courses.

Eck
Coming from a Digidesign point of view, (i.e. doing everything in PT and not being able to import stereo interleaved tracks) I'm sure it makes perfect sense.
If you venture to (gasp!) master someplace other than a protools environment, things are a little different.

Digi has some real marketing geniuses working over there.
 
Coming from a Digidesign point of view, (i.e. doing everything in PT and not being able to import stereo interleaved tracks) I'm sure it makes perfect sense.
If you venture to (gasp!) master someplace other than a protools environment, things are a little different.

Digi has some real marketing geniuses working over there.

Of course you can import stereo interleaved tracks into Pro Tools.
Not that I am backing the conglomerate up at all.
Im a proud Cubase user through and through, although I have done the PT 101 course. Pile of pish!

Eck
 
If I mixed out to stereo interleaved, then when I import it back into PT (my only option right now) it just splits the file again anyways which adds yet another step of 'processing' doesn't it?
This is what led me to believe that you couldn't import stereo tracks into PT. ( I seem to remember this being a thing about 10 years ago as well, I could be wrong)
 
This is what led me to believe that you couldn't import stereo tracks into PT. ( I seem to remember this being a thing about 10 years ago as well, I could be wrong)

It maybe was 10 years ago, but PT definetly can import stereo tracks.

Eck
 
PT imports a stereo interleaved wav file fine, it does however convert them back to mono files even though they appear to be stereo inside of Pro Tools.

I believe that this has to do more with the historical "baggage" of PT and that it might require a complete re-write to get around this issue, not that there's any inherent advantage in processing separately.

Anyways if you've been around long enough I think that you'll find every DAW and manufacturer has it's advantages and faults. You can look at this like the half full/empty glass, they are all good, or they all suck.
 
Back
Top