Monitoring makes the mastering difference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chewie
  • Start date Start date
Chewie

Chewie

New member
Based on what has been said around here and some of my assumptions. Is it possible that it can be said that: “Using plugins and the like, the bottleneck in mastering at home is the monitoring of material, in terms of actual monitors used, space you are in and the interconnections between them. While not getting professional results, by having the proper monitoring equipment and space regular homestudios can master at least mediocre results.”

Comments?
 
I don't believe you can master without the proper monitors or a treated room. Sure you can get a good mix, but I highly doubt mastering in a normal room is going to happen.
 
I also don't think that "mediocre results" constitutes Mastering. A song is either mastered, or it isn't - if it isn't mastered properly, then it simply isn't mastered.

Brad Blackwood summed it up very well -
bblackwood said:
Mastering isn't processing - it's listening without prejudice, something that is impossible to do while you are mixing. You have to get away from it for a time to gain some objectivity. That's mastering. The processing that happens in mastering is a result of the objective listen.

Also, regardless of the engineer's talent, it's virtually impossible to accurately hear what's going on in a mix in the same room as the mix occured as all shortcomings of that room will remain masked. There's no cheap cure for this - even the best mixing rooms in the world would be a bad place to master if the mix was done there - so self mastering is usually going to be a compromise. I'm not saying don't do it, but understand that without a good room that's different from the one you mixed in you're not going to hear the inherent room problems.
Click to expand...
 
So then what I said is kinda sensible. Just that you need another environment than the one used to mix and it must be of the proper caliber.
What I’m really after is just that the main point why you guys are not in favour of mastering at home is more of an environment issue than an equipment and skill issue. (Or something like that.)
 
Critical listening skills, then environment and equipment ALL must be in place to get the job done PROPERLY. Whether it's in a house, home, or some other building is kind of irrelevant.

I'm not sure why you think that point is important? Before the question of gear even comes up, most DIY'ers will fail at mastering simply because they lack the objectivity to critque their own work -- that point alone makes the task virtually impossible for the home recordist.
 
Well I'm not sure why it is so important really. I just find it a bit odd that in the Mixing/Mastering section on the Homerecording forum the concenus is basically that home recordists can't master.
Why not just call it Mixing and have Mastering links posted.
I'm not saying that home recordists could do it better or even as good. But at least maybe you could say that home recordists can do a crap job instead of no job at all.
 
I think experience is quite important for MEs as well isn't it? And dare I say it natural talent and ability?

I'm sure many of us home recors will take our stereo mixes and apply a bit of processing to the whole thing and this is the amateur's equivalent of 'mastering'. Of course the better your monitoring environment, gear, experience etc then the better the results will be but as has been said a few times of late, mastering proper it aint. I don't actually think there are many people who are under any illusions with this. A few maybe but not many.

Most of us know and accept that there is a significant difference.

I'm quite pleased with how my recording skills are coming along but at the end of the day if I want a really good product for serious public consumption I'll go to the pros for all stages of production.
 
Chewie said:
I'm not saying that home recordists could do it better or even as good. But at least maybe you could say that home recordists can do a crap job instead of no job at all.
Click to expand...
But that's the thing - Mastering is the last step in quality control for a production... a crap job IS "no-job"........
 
A good way to think of it is that Mastering is, by definition, an outsourced job.

Can you insource or handle it in-house? Yes. But then it will no longer be an outsourced job. :D And therefore, won't qualify as "mastering," technically speaking.

That doesn't mean that you can't perform the functions that a mastering engineer might do. Absolutely, you can, and it's done all the time. There just needs to be a different name or term for it. :D

Kind of like the word collaboration. Can you collaborate with yourself? Technically, no. The definition of collaboration is involving another party in the process. Same thing with mastering, and that's where most of the confusion comes in. Another example is the phrase: Go F___ yourself. Can one truly f___ oneself in the literal sense? Knowing that, by definition, sex involves a partner?
 
Last edited:
chessrock said:
That doesn't mean that you can't perform the functions that a mastering engineer might do. Absolutely, you can, and it's done all the time. There just needs to be a different name or term for it. :D
Click to expand...

It seems 'turd polishing' has become a popular way to describe the process you speak of. :D
 
Kevin DeSchwazi said:
It seems 'turd polishing' has become a popular way to describe the process you speak of. :D
Click to expand...


Self-mutilation might also be fitting.
 
I suppose a better question to ask might be, given the fact that:

1) Home recordists usually are not going to have a sufficient mastering (listening) environment.
2) Lack the optimal gear designed for mastering purposes.
3) Don't use another trained ear to give an objective and second view on the project.

The question is, is attempting to master at home going to cause more harm than good to the final product? We know that mastering at home will not acheive results even close to the quality of work capable at a mastering studio, but if I attempt to master my own work (I trust my ears, even though my ears may be (I'm sure they are) in an inaccurate listening environment, and they are bias ears that mixed the project as well) is there a good chance I can make the final work better, even though it won't rise to its fullest potential like it could in a mastering studio?

I know its sounds like we're all making excuses to why we shouldn't need a professional mastering job, which is completely stupid, but at least for experimentation purposes at home, can it be done to a certain degree of success?
 
OK, so if a bad mastering job is a no-job, maybe I should get my money back?

Maybe it's the places I've been working with, but the two albums I've sent to be mastered I was quite unhappy with. Maybe I'm expecting too much, but I was expecting them to properly correct the low end issues my mixes typically have because of my mixing room (way too much low end in my mixes, which I have been trying to correct but still haven't mastered). On one CD the low end disappeared on the master and the end result was trebly and dry, not warm at all. The other CD (different ME) was still too bassy. That CD also had a prevalent shrill, high "s" type frequency that I had hoped they would take out. I really should have taken it out myself, but it was everywhere, and i figured the ME would do it and his EQ would be better than my crappy plugins.

I also expected tasteful compression, but too often I would find that either quiet parts were too quiet, or little breaks where only one instrument is playing and which needed to meld into the next section (ie. the instrument needs to stay quiet) would be brought way up by the compression and stick out like a swollen penis. :D In those cases I prefer the rough "masters" I did myself in which I applied my own overall compression and checked the song to make sure it actually sounded decent everywhere.

I'm fully ready to accept that part of the limitations here were my mixes, but then perhaps I should be doing the turd polishing myself where I can control all the variables, and do lots of different mixes until one is decent, rather than shipping my best mix off and trusting in some guy who doesn't seem to really listen to the music at all. Question mark.
 
RhythmRmixd said:
I know its sounds like we're all making excuses to why we shouldn't need a professional mastering
Click to expand...

How come we don’t say this same thing about recording? Just as in mastering we don’t have the ‘professional’ equipment of listening environment. Isn’t it the same thing with recording in general? I guess we shouldn’t record either?
But then what will the Mes do?
Oh!!! :eek:
 
RhythmRmixd said:
... but at least for experimentation purposes at home, can it be done to a certain degree of success?
Click to expand...


Of course it can.

It's just not an ideal situation, and the odds are against it turning out the way you might hope. And it really can't be called "mastering." I suppose you could call it "finishing" or something like that. :D

I mean, seriously ... what kinda' question is that? It's not like it's against the laws of physics or anything. If you do it, and you're happy with it, then go for it and move on with your life. It's kind of a pointless thing to fret over.
 
Well, finalizing, turd polishing, whatever it is, it can always be considered a learning experience. :D
 
OK I've decided, we shall call it "finishalization". :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top