Monitoring makes the mastering difference?

[RhythmRmixd]

Another quick thing about mastering, when a mastering house is working on an album for a client, is it usually one ME doing the work, or do several ME's work together in the same room, gathering opinions from one another? And, as I always understood it, one point of mastering is trying to get a consistent sound (and level) across all the songs in the album. Is this usually done by using the same equipment on each song in the mix? (While varying the settings on the equipment from song to song of course.)

 

[ryanlikestorock]

A poorly framed photograph still has a frame on it. An album that has been mixed poorly is still mixing the sounds together. A stereo mix that has went through some kind of processing by someone who believed they were mastering the album "has been mastered", but it doesn't mean that the album is going to sound any better than if it was just left alone.

If you recorded it, you probably can't master it. I thought I could beat the odds, but I'm still not sure if I did. I honestly just can't hear it properly. I explain this to my record clients by relating to being in a class taught by your parent. The person at the front of the room is always going to be your parent before they can be your teacher and vice versa. Like mixing for 10 hours straight, you start to hear funny/incorrectly.

That being said, I do some mastering in my bedroom - a square room with some carpet on the walls to take some of the "zing" out of the obvious high-end reflections. I'm using a few thousand bucks in software and some M-Audio monitors and I'm well aware that it's never going to be the best mastering studio in the country. BUT, it is good enough to give me a demo reel that got me a job a the best mastering studio in the country.

 

[chessrock]

I do some mastering in my bedroom - a square room with some carpet on the walls to take some of the "zing" out of the obvious high-end reflections. I'm using a few thousand bucks in software and some M-Audio monitors and I'm well aware that it's never going to be the best mastering studio in the country. BUT, it is good enough to give me a demo reel that got me a job a the best mastering studio in the country.

Yea, I'd say that, based on the pictures, it's probably a step up from your bedroom.

 

[kats]

BUT, it is good enough to give me a demo reel that got me a job a the best mastering studio in the country.

Love it!!!!!

And just for that I wanna fly my guys out there in fall and burn the midnight oil with you! Slot me in

 

[7string]

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?

If you are practicing to better your Mastering skills or you want to become a ME then go ahead and practice! If the final product will be for public consumption, send it out to an ME. IMHO...