steps to mastering

  • Thread starter Thread starter stupidfatnugly
  • Start date Start date
Hey Glen, no problem.... I'm just giving you my perspective.

Cheers,
No problems here either, Chili; and I appreciate your perspective. I'm just still waiting for an answer to my question. I really would like to honestly know:

From where did that perspective develop? Where were you, what were you doing, or who were you talking to or reading from when the idea gelled in your head that this was what mastering was about and this was the strategy you wanted to follow? From who or where did you get the idea that mastering was so different from tracking or mixing in the respects you describe?

The more I have thought about this in the past few months, the more fascinated I have become with these questions and the lack of answers. This is not the first time I have asked them, either. But so far absolutely nobody has stepped up with any leads. Everybody "believes", or "has learned" or "read somewhere" or "has been taught", but so far there have been zero actual attributions about where those beliefs or teachings actually came from.

Doesn't that just tweak your curiosity and fascination at least a little bit?

G.
 
Ok, this is to all the profesionals in here, I would like to ask a question. What in the hell exactly is mastering then? I mean, ok tracking, makes sense, you record(track) the signal(s). Then mixing, yeah ok, that must mean get the right balance of instruments and stuff ok, so far so good. Mastering, well at the moment I get the sense this is eq,dynamics and poss. effects, get rid of crap bring up the good stuff generally using equipment the same price as your home only afforded by pros. However since this forum is called Home Recording, I guess people want to know (in this forum)what they can do, and please lets not refer to it as a botched job, but since we are in a home recording forum, obviously surrounded by home recording enthusiasts how can the home recordist master his/her own tracks? Am I right to answer the question in saying to home recording standards you can do all the stuff that you pros do? What is it then, or you guys just in here to pick up buisness? Now if that sounds cheeky I have had it with reading loads of posts from amatuar home recording fanatics like myself being ripped to bits (as I am quite shure this will be) asking perfectly logical and polite questions by smug pros who appear to be in here to gloat about there gear anfd put people of wanting to learn anytrhing about the 'magic art' of mastering? I would have just asked the question what are the essential elements of post mixing, how can you make a recording sound as professional as possible at home, oh actually there is no other way to ask it.....whit is mastering...how can one aquire the basics of such an art?
 
Hey Glen, my idea of what mastering is goes wayyyy back when I would read the liners from vinyl albums. :D But lately, I get my perception of what mastering is from the people who make a living at it.

Tom's interview:
http://lounge.sonicbids.com/264/

And his service description:
http://www.masteringhouse.com/CD-Mastering.html

And John really nails it in his explanation on his home page.
http://www.massivemastering.com/

This is where I get the idea that I can track and mix in my house, on my schedule and do it the way I want, then send it off to a professional mastering engineer who can make adjustments to the overall tonal qualities and assemble a cd from my collection of tunes.

I don't know what else you're looking for.... I do not believe there's any black magic involved. Just a superb listening environment and years of experience behind the ears. That's what I'm paying for.

Cheers,
 
I know that when I first joined these forums, a lot of people I talked to pretty much told me that mastering was a whole 'nother animal--that tracking and mixing are "easier" per se, than mastering. I guess I was always under that impression and therefore never sought out to learn and understand that process because I figured I would have to send it off to someone who "knew what they were doing". I'm kind of with mandrum on this one.
 
Ok, this is to all the profesionals in here, I would like to ask a question. What in the hell exactly is mastering then? I mean, ok tracking, makes sense, you record(track) the signal(s). Then mixing, yeah ok, that must mean get the right balance of instruments and stuff ok, so far so good. Mastering, well at the moment I get the sense this is eq,dynamics and poss. effects, get rid of crap bring up the good stuff generally using equipment the same price as your home only afforded by pros.
Mastering has always referred to the process of processing and packaging the final product properly for final publication and duplication.

Mastering started out actually being done in real-time, right in the studio control room, and consisted mostly of setting EQ and volume curves going into the direst-to-disc cutting gear so that a record master were made with grooves that did not cause the needle to jump out of the groove and that gave the best balance between fidelity and record length.

With the advent of tape, mastering moved off-line to dedicated mastering suites that did basically the same thing, but without the pressure of having to lathe a master in real time.

With the advent of the LP record, the duties also expanded to making sure there was some sense of sonic continuity from song to song, both in terms of timbre and perceived volume.

Off and on during this time there have been bouts of what we now call the Loudness Wars, in which it had become temporarily fashionable for marketing to ask mastering to push the perceived volume in a misguided belief that it would increase track sales. We are experiencing the worst of those many waves now.

But nowhere in any of those steps in the evolution of mastering has the idea of doing what should have already been done in mixing been part of the job description. "Getting rid of the crap and bringing up the good stuff" is supposed to be what mixing is all about.

Sure, occasionally it has to be done in mastering to some degree, sometimes there's problems in tracking or mixing that because of reasons varying from personality conflicts to budget problems to looming deadlines - in other words, the exact same kind of problems any worker or manager has to deal with in any job in any field - where the mastering folks have to pick up the slack. But it has never been intended to be the way things are planned or supposed to be done.

When I was growing up in this racket, the big call amongst the newbs was "fix it in the mix", the idea being that one could skate on the tracking because all the new multitrack tape technology and outboard hardware (hardware compressors and EQs were the 70's version of todays plugins, marketed to fix everything that never needed fixing before they came along) meant that they could get the tracking right by editing alone. It doesn't (and didn't) take long to figure out that was baloney. Now, that's just been pushed down step; fix it in the mastering seems to be the rule of the day. Now we don't even need to fix the tracking in the mix, or even mix. Just slam it all together and let the mastering engineer try and turn back time and get it all correct again.

By the time your kids get old enough to try this out for themselves, it'll be, "fuck fixing it; why bother? Let the end user fix it himself if he wants". We're heading in that direction already with the idea of letting the end user make their own remixes.
However since this forum is called Home Recording, I guess people want to know (in this forum)what they can do, and please lets not refer to it as a botched job, but since we are in a home recording forum, obviously surrounded by home recording enthusiasts how can the home recordist master his/her own tracks?
How can they record their own tracks? What is the single-post answer to that question? What is the single-post answer to "How can they mix their own tracks?"

I don't know how to rightly answer your question, and it makes it ten times as hard when nobody actually agrees on what "mastering" really means. I think Massive Master's answer covered the traditional bullet points pretty well, but in today's climate I'd still have to ask further questions. "Mastering" for what? Mastering multiple songs for a CD package? Mastering for compressed MP3 optimized for meSpace? Mastering to polish the mix or mastering to squash it? They all have different definitions, different goals and different techniques.
Am I right to answer the question in saying to home recording standards you can do all the stuff that you pros do?
Anybody can do what the pros do if they do it well. But it takes hard work and it takes a lot of practice. That is equally true for every phase of the process; tracking, mixing and mastering. And once once chops have been developed, they can then figure out if the hardware is holding them back or not (psst: my home project studio is one of the smaller, cheaper ones on this board, with a total of about $5,000 worth of mostly obsolete gear.)
What is it then, or you guys just in here to pick up buisness? Now if that sounds cheeky I have had it with reading loads of posts from amatuar home recording fanatics like myself being ripped to bits (as I am quite shure this will be) asking perfectly logical and polite questions by smug pros who appear to be in here to gloat about there gear anfd put people of wanting to learn anything about the 'magic art' of mastering? I would have just asked the question what are the essential elements of post mixing, how can you make a recording sound as professional as possible at home
I have had enough of posts by home recordists claiming to be in it just for a hobby in one sentence and then saying they actually wanted to make money with their music in the other, and then using "home recording" as a flag in one sentence and then asking how to make their recording sound as professional as possible in the other, and when told that it's not as simple as they wish it to be get all pissed off at the messenger.

I have NEVER been one to hide behind or emphasize gear (I am NOT a gear slut), have never intentionally been "smug" about anything here, and have never solicited for or made a single penny off of my residence here. As far as my reason for being here, I have already answered that in a previous post in this thread.

There is only one answer to the question of how to make a pro-sounding recording yourself: do it the way the pros do it. It's that simple, and that complicated. There are no shortcuts or gear purchases or procedural recipes that will change that fact. You want a pro-quality result, do a pro-quality job. You want to hide behind "home recording" or "hobby" as an excuse, then stop expecting to wind up with pro-quality results.

And when the "home recordist" wants to know how to master their stuff, it's not only fair, but it's entirely necessary to make sure that both sides of the conversation have an understanding and agreement of just what they mean by "mastering". And it is equally fair and understandable when they are of the common misunderstanding that mastering is the right answer to poor tracking and mixing to get them to pro level, to do them the favor of correcting them, and asking them just where that misinformation came from.

G.
 
I know that when I first joined these forums, a lot of people I talked to pretty much told me that mastering was a whole 'nother animal--that tracking and mixing are "easier" per se, than mastering.
Did any of these folks actually know how to track or mix or master? That's not a smug question; I ask it because in my few years here I have never heard someone who actually does this stuff as more than just a toe dip in the pool explain it that way. There are dozens of fine folk here who actually know this stuff (and are not necessarily "pros" in the traditional sense), every one of which, to a person, will tell you every time that proper tracks and proper mixing require just as mush skill, talent and practice as proper mastering, and that the real secret is that the sooner in the process one get things right, the better the results will be.

I have, OTOH, never once in three-and-a-half years and 7,000 posts here - not to mention thirty years in the field itself - heard anyone who actually knew what they were talking about characterize it the way you have quoted above.

G.
 
)I have had enough of posts by home recordists claiming to be in it just for a hobby in one sentence and then saying they actually wanted to make money with their music in the other, and then using "home recording" as a flag in one sentence and then asking how to make their recording sound as professional as possible in the other, and when told that it's not as simple as they wish it to be get all pissed off at the messenger.

I certainly hope that wasn't pointed at me. If so, you've got a very narrow view. What's wrong with a hobbyist trying to make money with his songs?? Is there something wrong with a person coming to "HOMERECORDING.COM" to learn how to do a better job at recording his tunes in his home?? That's what this forum is all about.

If you've had enough of the home recordist claiming to be in it just for a hobby... and then asking how to make their recording more professional... then you're at the wrong website.

Do you mean to tell me I can't put out a quality cd because I recorded it in my house?? I know at least three people on this site who put out professional sounding cd's as a hobby. Rami, DavidK and Tim Lawler. I know David and Tim made money from their home recorded CD because I bought theirs. I'm pretty sure Rami made money too. None of those guys are professional recording engineers.

Even if you weren't specifically referring to me, you're statement fits my scenario. There's no need to attack me.

Cheers,
 
I certainly hope that wasn't pointed at me. If so, you've got a very narrow view. What's wrong with a hobbyist trying to make money with his songs?? Is there something wrong with a person coming to "HOMERECORDING.COM" to learn how to do a better job at recording his tunes in his home?? That's what this forum is all about.

If you've had enough of the home recordist claiming to be in it just for a hobby... and then asking how to make their recording more professional... then you're at the wrong website.

Do you mean to tell me I can't put out a quality cd because I recorded it in my house?? I know at least three people on this site who put out professional sounding cd's as a hobby. Rami, DavidK and Tim Lawler. I know David and Tim made money from their home recorded CD because I bought theirs. I'm pretty sure Rami made money too. None of those guys are professional recording engineers.

Even if you weren't specifically referring to me, you're statement fits my scenario. There's no need to attack me.

Cheers,
I think you completely missed hispoint. I took it to mean "you can't have it both ways".

Home recordist: How do I get my mix to sould like XYZ?

smug pro: Well, you have to do what XYZ did and use the same kind of equipment they did.

HR: But I'm just a home recordist, I don't have any of that stuff!

SP: OK, that's going to be a problem

HR: Why don't you just tell us the secret making professional mixes? Is it to protect your job?

SP: There really are no dark secrets, just good equipment and good technique.

HR: Bullshit! There is some little thing, some magic EQ setting that makes everything sound pro. You just don't want to tell anyone.

SP: OK, you got me. It's the BBE. Not the new ones, the ones from 1995. The millions of dollars worth of equipment in all those big studios is just a front to throw off all the home recordists. The secret to pro sounding recordings is a box that you can get on Ebay for less than $50.

HR: I knew it!
 
I certainly hope that wasn't pointed at me.
I already said that I didn't mean anything here to be personal, that I'm only responding to you and jn because you happen to be the ones representing what I have found to be a pervasive general misunderstanding amongst what seem to be a majority of newbs.

I know that many will think that what I am saying sounds awfully harsh. I guess I'm just not as good as a should be at sugarcoating the truth when the truth is hard to swallow.
What's wrong with a hobbyist trying to make money with his songs??
Absolutely nothing. But you do realize that if you're trying to make money with your stuff, that it is by it's very definition no longer a hobby, right? And if I do have a narrow opinion (maybe I do, I'm not sure), that opinion is that if one wants to make money doing something that they should try to do it right, take their time, research the field and the competition and all that, and realize just what it takes. This is true regardless of whether we're talking about recording music or any other field from architecture to zoology.

I just find it extremely interesting that if someone who is not a carpenter, but wants to build a deck by themselves doesn't just go out and buy a bunch of wood and nails and start slapping stuff together, and then call on Norm Abrams to fix it for them when it comes out looking like a pile of wood and nails, or that someone who has never run a business or cooked a meal for 80 people in their lives never goes out and just buys a restaurant, and then calls Gordon Ramsey to bail them out only after they are $200,000 in debt with no customers (oh wait, that second one happens twice every Thursday night on Kitchen Nightmares :D). Instead, they seem to understand that building a struture or running a restaruant requires study, detailed plans, techniques and skills, and sweat equity to do it right.

Yet there is the pervasive attitude that anyone who knows nothing about audio engineering can go out and spend a couple of thousand dollars on some entry-level gear, ask a question or two from some strangers on an Internet forum, and turn out a CD that sounds like it's been done by seasoned pros with big budgets, and if they fall short, all they have to do is give it to a mastering engineer to make everything all better again. And then they take it personally and get pissed when the real pros (or even someone much lower like me) tells them that this line of endeavor is no different than the rest; to do it right is just not that easy.

It just doesn't make any sense to me, and that's a totally honest reaction on my part. I feel I am justified to ask the simple question of just where this belief actually comes from, and why everyone seems to think - or is it that they just want to believe? - that this is any different from any other profession.
Is there something wrong with a person coming to "HOMERECORDING.COM" to learn how to do a better job at recording his tunes in his home?? That's what this forum is all about.
Yes it is what this forum is all about, and no one has done more here in the past few years to help the newb than I have (hell, I have been blamed and almost chased off this place more than once by others who complained that I was being TOO helpful to the newbs.) I have built an entire website - at my own cost and in my own free time - dedicated specifically an solely to helping folks like you. So let's drop this pretense of my being smug, or snobbish, or unhelpful, or any of that crap, shall we?

Farview reads me right; the thrust of what I am saying is that one cannot have their cake and eat it too. The thing is, Chili, people don't come on here and ask how they can sound better - well, OK, some do; but the majority come on here and ask how they can make their mixes sound professional. They want to throw their recordings into the middle of a playlist of their favorite platinum-selling MP3s and not be able to tell the difference. When someone comes along as says something like, "well, if you want to sound like a pro, you have to work like a pro", the almost immediate response from 99% of them is, "hey, this is only home recording, give me a break."

The only way to response to that is to ask, OK which is it? Are you a hobbyist just making a home recording, or are you a musical entrepreneur trying to make a professional recording yourself? Because the two are NOT the same thing and require entirely different attitudes, styles and skill levels.
If you've had enough of the home recordist claiming to be in it just for a hobby... and then asking how to make their recording more professional... then you're at the wrong website.
And if you're tired of folks with the experience and knowledge giving you answers you don't want to hear, then you should stop asking questions.
Do you mean to tell me I can't put out a quality cd because I recorded it in my house??
No, I never said that, and I never even came close to saying that. What I'm saying is that one needs the skills, the knowledge and the technique to do it, and that none of those come from buying a trunk full of gear, but only come after lots of preparation, practice and hard work.
I know at least three people on this site who put out professional sounding cd's as a hobby. Rami, DavidK and Tim Lawler. I know David and Tim made money from their home recorded CD because I bought theirs. I'm pretty sure Rami made money too. None of those guys are professional recording engineers.
I'm familiar with all three of these folks, and with their work and with their contributions to this forum. I have the greatest respect for all three of them. I don't know if you could call David K a "hobbyist" now that he has actually signed with Sony/BMI (if I remember correctly), but he was still unsigned when I got here, and what he had done with his stuff is absolutely incredible. I remember when he first asked me to give one of his tracks a listen and he told me that it was thre result of mixing together some 104 or so hand-cranked tracks, I was floored. He did a spectacular job.

And Rami and Tim have both done solid, high-quality work as well, and are IMHO valued contributors to this forum. They may not be "professionals" in the classic sense, but they are professionals in their work ethic and the way they have approached their tasks. The reason they sound so good is because they do things right and they do things well and because early on they actually listened to folks who went down the path before them, even if what they said was not what they would have always liked to hear.
Even if you weren't specifically referring to me, you're statement fits my scenario. There's no need to attack me.
Chili, lighten up my friend, there was no attack, there is no attack, and there will not be an attack. I legitimately did not understand your way of looking at it, and found to to be representative of a million other perfectly fine people who I have no personal beef with either. Am I supposed to keep quiet and not ask questions and describe why I'm asking the questions simply because I'm afraid I might hurt someone's feelings? I explained a couple of times that I did not wish anyone to take it personally, I don't know hat else I should do; if my word is not enough for you, then there's nothing more I can do about that.

You do know that it does me absolutely no good to take this stance, right? All it does is get you and jn and mandrum and others of similar feelings pissed at me and make me far more enemies than it does friends. Yet here I am. Not because I'm a masochist, not because I'm self-destructive, not because I like picking fights or arguing. But because I feel it's a subject worth looking at a bit closer, and am willing (unlike so many others, apparently) to burn some political and social capital to do so. Is that a bad thing?

G.
 
Last edited:
I think you completely missed hispoint. I took it to mean "you can't have it both ways".

Home recordist: How do I get my mix to sould like XYZ?

smug pro: Well, you have to do what XYZ did and use the same kind of equipment they did.

HR: But I'm just a home recordist, I don't have any of that stuff!

SP: OK, that's going to be a problem

HR: Why don't you just tell us the secret making professional mixes? Is it to protect your job?

SP: There really are no dark secrets, just good equipment and good technique.

HR: Bullshit! There is some little thing, some magic EQ setting that makes everything sound pro. You just don't want to tell anyone.

SP: OK, you got me. It's the BBE. Not the new ones, the ones from 1995. The millions of dollars worth of equipment in all those big studios is just a front to throw off all the home recordists. The secret to pro sounding recordings is a box that you can get on Ebay for less than $50.

HR: I knew it!
I think you have it in a nutshell.

In the 20th century, the technology just wasn't there for home recordists. There was always the "if only" piece of gear to blame or the secret techniques of the professionals. Access to knowledge of how to use the gear was limited - you had to buy magazines and try to get time with more experienced recordists.

In the 21st century these impediments no longer exist. You can go to your local music store and buy gear that although it isn't the same quality as high-end pro stuff, it is nevertheless good enough to record, mix, and master to a quality that is good enough to release commercially. Not only that, but with the Internet now almost ubiquitous the access to the knowledge of how to use the gear properly has never been greater.

The problem is that just as learning to play an instrument to the point where you can shock and awe on stage takes years of study and practice, learning to record, mix, and master to the point where you can shock and awe on CD/WAV/mp3 also takes years of study and practice.

You're absolutely right Farview, there is no magic piece of gear or "secret". It is all down to learning and practising good technique and the art of sound recording. The closest thing to there being a secret to great recordings is simply to have it sounding great at the moment of pressing Record.
 
The problem is that just as learning to play an instrument to the point where you can shock and awe on stage takes years of study and practice, learning to record, mix, and master to the point where you can shock and awe on CD/WAV/mp3 also takes years of study and practice.

You're absolutely right Farview, there is no magic piece of gear or "secret". It is all down to learning and practising good technique and the art of sound recording. The closest thing to there being a secret to great recordings is simply to have it sounding great at the moment of pressing Record.

That is freakin' dead on, sir.
One of the better posts I have seen in some time!
T
 
How can they record their own tracks?.......I don't know how to rightly answer your question, and it makes it ten times as hard when nobody actually agrees on what "mastering" really means

Hi Glen, I already have bucket loads of respect for you, from your answers to my post on my A7 speakers. Yeah, I was not asking about the mastering proccess because I can't mix or track. I was asking about the mastering process because I wanted to know if anyone or a number of people in here could agree a set of things that mastering was, I was only putting down guesses/stuff I have heard from others in this very forum. You have answered it all to a point anyway so that's cool.

I don't know if I will ever sell my own stuff, I just want to make it as good as I can so I can go 'I made that'. I also want to do this fairly cheaply. It was refreshing to hear that you don't own mega bucks worth of gear, thanks for sharing that, and no disrespect to anyone that does own loads a gear just a little jealousy, cos I can be a bit of a gear slut even if it is in my own little price range.

Two reasons for wanting to learn how to master myself then, to save money and because I want to learn to do it myself. So I just want to know what it is that would be the first point to actually learning how to do it. My recordings are improving bit by bit on all fronts and it's not that there is anything particularly lacking its just I want to know what you do after you have made the thing as polished as you can before you burn to disk, I believe I am right in saying this is where the mastering proccess takes place, so from this thread I have learned mastering is bunging stuff onto c.d. and making sure all the tracks are even consistant throughout an album, fade in and out to an artistically timed fashion. Am I right now, what have I missed?
 
I want to know what you do after you have made the thing as polished as you can before you burn to disk, I believe I am right in saying this is where the mastering proccess takes place, so from this thread I have learned mastering is bunging stuff onto c.d. and making sure all the tracks are even consistant throughout an album, fade in and out to an artistically timed fashion. Am I right now, what have I missed?
If I read you right, it sounds like you pretty much understand it on a conceptual level, though let's look at that first sentence in the above quote. It's here where much of the confusion comes in as to where mixing ends and mastering begins.

Mastering does indeed involve polishing the mixes to make them sound as good as they can. And it is here where much of the "mystique" comes in; applying that lat coat of polish to a mix is indeed an art. But this does NOT mean that mastering should be used to actually fix a mix or make a bad mix sound good. There is a whole magnitude of difference between polishing a quality mix and attempting to repair a sub-par mix.

I have for a long time now used the automobile analogy: mastering is the final detailing of an auto, including the multi-layered hand waxing until it has an auto-show finish, final pinstriping, etc. Such detailing makes a clean new BMW look so incredible, but it's not going to work anywhere near as well on a rusty, dented, faded twenty year old Ford Taurus. And while the mastering engineer can do things perhaps to help reduce or hide the flaws in the car (the mix), the best way to handle that it to take the car to a repair shop first and get the car in as good a condition as possible *before* taking it to the detailer. The audio analogy would be to go back and get the mix right first before putting it through mastering, and not to use mastering to try and fix the mix.

Where the problem comes in in amateur or hobby or rookie recording - I hate the term "home recording" because there are plenty of quality or pro-level recordists and gear and rooms installed in homes these days, whether it's in someone's home or on commercial property is irrelevant - is that folks actually don't know how to mix any better than they know how to master. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way, I'm just saying they have never done it before and have not had any training, so naturally they just simply don't know yet. But someone somewhere comes in and plants the idea in their head - either someone else who is misinformed, or even worse, a salesperson for "mastering software" - that it's all about the mastering and that mixing is actually easy, and we wind up here.

The irony here is: the less mastering a mix needs, the better mastering will actually make it sound. That may seem nonsensical on it's surface, but there are a lot of nonsensical things in this world that are entirely true nonetheless.

As for thr rest of it, yeah you pretty much have the details down, when it comes to mastering for CD or on-line album package. Also included would be things like C1/C2 error checking and listing (to make sure one has a quality, low-error rate pre-master along with a report of those errors that their sending to the duplicator), CDtext editing, PQ Code editing and listing (in/out timings for each of the tracks, required by most duplicators), ISRC code editing, etc.

Now, these days the CD is in decline and the direct-to-MP3 Internet release is becoming more common. In these cases one might include the optimization for, and conversion to MP3 as being another mastering route option, or perhaps even optimization for restrictive Internet streaming types. It's up to the individual mastering service as to whether they offer these newer options or not.

G.
 
This is exactly what I'm shooting for: Who is teaching that?

I beleive it's kinda self taught, it's just the natural progression of events in music production:

1: Tracking - 2: Mixing - 3: Mastering

Anyone who gets started in this game MUST start tracking first. Anyone can lay down a track or 2 with practically no $ or experience. They do it a few times and can start to figure out what they need to do with mic placements, gain/eq settings, etc. The newbie needs to get a few tracks together that they beleive are good enough to even try to mix.. Then they have to get a mix together, one they think sounds ok, before they can even attempt to try mastering.

This order of events naturally lends itself to the newbie gaining a lot more tracking experience than mixing experience, and a lot more mixing experience than mastering experience. So newbies are more confident in tracking and mixing vs mastering.

I'm no pro, I'm not even claiming to be good at any of the 3! But I beleive that I can track better than I can mix. I've altered my tracking procedures in ways that definately help out my mixes, that is fact.

And I think I can mix better than I can master, prolly not by much tho :) I haven't really figured out for myself how to tweak mixes to make the mastering easier, I'm just not to that point yet, I don't have the experience to know to "take it ez on guitar in this freq range" or "make sure you compress the drums such a way" or whatever.. If I tracked a vox track that sounded like it came thru a telephone, I wouldn't bother trying to mix it, I'd re-track it. Similarly, I don't have that many (if any) final mixes I feel are good enough to start figuring out the mastering process.

So people just have a better handle on tracking and mixing. So then, if mastering is my weakest link, then that's the part I'd outsource if I could only afford to outsource one, because that's where I think I'd get the most bang for my buck.
 
The irony here is: the less mastering a mix needs, the better mastering will actually make it sound. That may seem nonsensical on it's surface, but there are a lot of nonsensical things in this world that are entirely true nonetheless.

This doesn't just apply to mastering but to the entire audio production process. The better the performance the better the track sounds and less effort needed during mixing. The better the track the better the mix sounds and less effort needed to EQ, compress etc. I touch on this in the article Chili referred to.

Of course the better the song the less any part of the audio production chain matters. Home recording should be about creating great music that wouldn't see the light of day otherwise.
 
mastering house
This doesn't just apply to mastering but to the entire audio production process. The better the performance the better the track sounds and less effort needed during mixing

Ok, your done with the amount of seemingly stupid questions you get asked on a regular basis, but this I find slightly annoying as Glen obviously knows what you have just said and was saying the same in his reply, however you feel you have to mention about getting the performance/tracking...etc etc right first, he knows, I knows we all knows, mabay some are lazy or expect too much from mastering, maybe some can't mix for toffee, but. If, for instance, I wanted to know how to perform I would not be in this forum at all, if I wanted to know about tracking I would.....but in another post. This thread is about mastering and from which and most other threads I read on mastering you guys(the pros) have a pet hate of people expecting too much from the mastering proccess basically as Glen said himself cos it just doesnt work and which is why you mentioned the stuff you did, performance,tracking..... I can only sympathise that it must be annoying, I get similar annoyances from my job and what is asked of me, people expecting magic to cover up for lack of ability basically. However I must ask you your take What Is Mastering, or some of it anyway? I am sure there are some things we can do at home with cheap gear, I am not under any illusion that the results will be very much less polished than what a pro with pro gear could do, but there must be some tips you are willing to give even if it's just to get annoying amateurs like myselves of your back for a while. I probably will end up throwing some buisness your way soon anyway if you would want it (not implying anything about here to look for clients..that was in an earlier post meant in some way as a joke with a jab to get a response, I wasnt being serious just then) because I doubt with my equipment I can master to the point of astounding, even with years of work and training. A couple of tips from an experienced man like yourselves wouldnt go a miss for now though, please?
 
mastering house

Ok, your done with the amount of seemingly stupid questions you get asked on a regular basis, but this I find slightly annoying as Glen obviously knows what you have just said and was saying the same in his reply, however you feel you have to mention about getting the performance/tracking...etc etc right first, he knows, I knows we all knows, mabay some are lazy or expect too much from mastering, maybe some can't mix for toffee, but. If, for instance, I wanted to know how to perform I would not be in this forum at all, if I wanted to know about tracking I would.....but in another post. This thread is about mastering and from which and most other threads I read on mastering you guys(the pros) have a pet hate of people expecting too much from the mastering proccess basically as Glen said himself cos it just doesnt work and which is why you mentioned the stuff you did, performance,tracking..... I can only sympathise that it must be annoying, I get similar annoyances from my job and what is asked of me, people expecting magic to cover up for lack of ability basically. However I must ask you your take What Is Mastering, or some of it anyway? I am sure there are some things we can do at home with cheap gear, I am not under any illusion that the results will be very much less polished than what a pro with pro gear could do, but there must be some tips you are willing to give even if it's just to get annoying amateurs like myselves of your back for a while. I probably will end up throwing some buisness your way soon anyway if you would want it (not implying anything about here to look for clients..that was in an earlier post meant in some way as a joke with a jab to get a response, I wasnt being serious just then) because I doubt with my equipment I can master to the point of astounding, even with years of work and training. A couple of tips from an experienced man like yourselves wouldnt go a miss for now though, please?

Whoa, I think that you misunderstood the intent of my post. It was just a comment to underscore the fact that mastering isn't the only part of the audio production chain that is dependent on the previous. In fact anything is dependent on it's components, if you're building a house you're dependent on the materials you use, if you're making a pie good fruit makes a better pie than rotten fruit, etc. I've seen threads where people single out mastering as the point in the process where the less processing done the better the product, it applies to all.

It was also to point out that home recording should be about creating new music that wouldn't have been possible to get out with out before the advent of prosumer based recording equipment. Trying to get the same results as a pro recording facility with engineers that have been doing this for years is not being realistic, and shouldn't be the priority.

As far as tips I've been giving them here for years. Good mastering starts with developing your ear. This isn't something that one can buy at Guitar Center or learn with a few quick tips. I recently posted a thread here to start folks in that direction (see critical listening thread), had my students go through the effort of mastering one of the tracks here, setup pages for download and had my associate engineer and I go through the masters in order to pick one for the thread. When I asked to get feedback there was really only one or two people who went through the effort to respond.

If people are not willing to put in the work, and just want a few "tips" or plug-ins to instantly become a mastering engineer, you're wasting your time and the time of people who do this for a living and spent their time trying to help. Whether people want to participate in threads like the critical listening thread and simliar ones, or are too shy to comment, putting in the work to develop your ear is the best tip that I can give.
 
Last edited:
If people are not willing to put in the work, and just want a few "tips" or plug-ins to instantly become a mastering engineer, you're wasting your time and the time of people who do this for a living and spent their time trying to help. Whether people want to participate in threads like the critical listening thread and similar ones, or are too shy to comment, putting in the work to develop your ear is the best tip that I can give.

See, now this is a worthwhile response to an overall terrible problem facing the music industry right now. I applaud such a statement. I, like many others, started as a DIY-er, and learned and read everything I could possibly find on mixing, recording, mastering, DAWS, mics, pre's, you name it. And I too was looking for that "step by step" process to get my mixes to sound like the pros.

BUT HERE IS THE MISCONCEPTION: You most likely will not get close to sounding like the pros. Of course they have expensive gear, and well treated and designed rooms. Yes of course that ads to their finished product sounding superior to that of the home recordists. But the biggest advantage they have is experience, knowing each piece of gear and EXACTLY what it does to the sound. They know how to get the best out of a recording, they know about mic placement, they know about selecting the proper mics..

The point is that there is so much that goes into making a decent recording, then a decent mix and then a decent master.

The misconception that the mastering engineer will fix your mix has to be disbanded. If you think that the mastering engineer will "fix" the sub par job done at a home studio, you are wrong. The minute he starts to actually fix your mix, he has turned into your mixing engineer and you have hired him for the wrong task. Maybe on sites like this you will get lucky, and some of these guys will actually try and fix your stuff, but if you send it out in the real "audio" world, most will turn up the EQ, fix your stereo field, apply some compression and dither to make it sound more "full" and that alone to your ears will be such and improvement that you think your mix has been saved. IT HASN'T..It just sounds better than what you sent in. But compare it to "pro" mixes and it will still fall short. That is why these guys on here get so irate at many posts. Its not the amateur per-se they are upset with, it is the misconceptions that are being allowed to spread through the community of pros and hobbyists alike.

Mastering is the GRAND SCALE mixing view of a body of work. It is supposed to smooth out and enhance the overall message of the artistic work you are presenting..Not fix it on an individual basis. I hear a lot of people who send one song to be mastered...and I often wonder..Why are you mastering one song? If you are only putting out one track, you don't need a master yet (in my humble opinion) Think micro vs. macro.

The next thing is the belief in this fail proof process to achieving a good mix in the first place. Ask 30 mixing engineers, and you know what you will get? 90 different approaches. Its what works best for you with what you have - bottom line. Most fail to realize, the best gear you have is your EARS. They won't lie to you..IF you A/B with a pro recording you will see exactly how yours DOES NOT sound like it. You must develop a critical ear..I mean really listen..Learn to pick out the different things going on in a mix and in a recording. Then learn what a compressor does, learn what an EQ does..Its not only good enough to understand it with words, BUT your ears have to understand it too. then play with these things everyday..Learn them inside out. That way if u move on to a new piece of hardware, or a new plugin..you know exactly what it is supposed to do, and u will know how it is inferior or superior than what you have already mastered.

Of course I can understand what its like to be a newbie and frustrated. I know how it is to think that your mixes are lacking and it has to be gear or it has to be the room, or it has to be any other factor than you. The problem is, no one ever tells you how to achieve that sound..cause they can't explain it. You need a good set of ears that are critical. And I dont think most can explain in an intelligible way how to develop those ears. but I will tell you this. I am a "pro" now, working with a slue of artists and I have met many engineers and producers. I've literally seen guys mix pro recordings on headphones in hotel rooms in between gigs. That is because they know their equipment, and they know how it translates...Cause they spent the time to learn it, and trained their ears to understand the shortcomings of doing things that way. I have heard entire ALBUMS mixed on inferior computer speakers in a square rooms with maybe a thousand bad modes and cuts in all types od frequencies. But these guys know the shortcomings.

LEARN YOUR SHORTCOMINGS. Dont depend on mastering to make your mix good. Spend three years on the mix to make it good, and then send it to the mastering engineer to get it to an overall level withing a body of work. It is time and money better spent.
 
mastering house

Ok, your done with the amount of seemingly stupid questions you get asked on a regular basis, but this I find slightly annoying as Glen obviously knows what you have just said and was saying the same in his reply, however you feel you have to mention about getting the performance/tracking...etc etc right first, he knows, I knows we all knows, mabay some are lazy or expect too much from mastering, maybe some can't mix for toffee, but. If, for instance, I wanted to know how to perform I would not be in this forum at all, if I wanted to know about tracking I would.....but in another post. This thread is about mastering and from which and most other threads I read on mastering you guys(the pros) have a pet hate of people expecting too much from the mastering proccess basically as Glen said himself cos it just doesnt work and which is why you mentioned the stuff you did, performance,tracking..... I can only sympathise that it must be annoying, I get similar annoyances from my job and what is asked of me, people expecting magic to cover up for lack of ability basically. However I must ask you your take What Is Mastering, or some of it anyway? I am sure there are some things we can do at home with cheap gear, I am not under any illusion that the results will be very much less polished than what a pro with pro gear could do, but there must be some tips you are willing to give even if it's just to get annoying amateurs like myselves of your back for a while. I probably will end up throwing some buisness your way soon anyway if you would want it (not implying anything about here to look for clients..that was in an earlier post meant in some way as a joke with a jab to get a response, I wasnt being serious just then) because I doubt with my equipment I can master to the point of astounding, even with years of work and training. A couple of tips from an experienced man like yourselves wouldnt go a miss for now though, please?

I don't work as a mastering engineer per-se, but I will offer advice from the pro's who work at my studio instead of telling you why you can't or shouldn't, ect.

Mastering is a macro process. It isn't something that is applied to an individual basis (micro). Mastering is really the process of getting your body of work ready for mass duplication. And as with any project in any medium, you need some level of consistency. This is the "magic" of mastering. Taking an album of music, and getting it to sound coherent in volume and dynamics. The mastering stage is also where you decide the order of the presentation (how to number the tracks) At the mastering stage, you make the decision about the gap bet. songs..whether to fade a song out, whether to fade one in..as layman's as it gets..the relationship of each song to the next on a body of work. This isn't supposed to improve the mix of the individual track...but to find the common things in each track (so to speak) that need to be brought out (or removed) to make it sound "even"

Some things a mastering engineer will do (these are the things generally out the price range of the home recordists)

Multi band compression - Literally compressing different bands of frequencies (can be achieved SOMEWHAT with parallel compression..Not too hard to set up, but time consuming on most DAWS..forget it if you are using hardware)

Multi band eq'ing
- Same as above, just with EQ

Automation of Volume Controls - to make sure all the songs maintain an overall consistency in volume obvioulsy

Preparation and writing of the master tape/CD for duplication - depending on the studio/plant this is different from place to place.

Stem mixing is popular now..But a lot more work, and usually a lot more expensive. I really don't see the point in it unless you have a good two weeks to a month to get the masters done..but hey...If you can afford it by all means.


Can you do this on your own, you damn skippy. Some of pro tools plugins are great for mastering, but of course you have to know what you are using them for, and what exactly they are doing.

Tips?:?: Dear I! I do!

First pick your order, line all your ducks up in a row..and listen to the overall mix (by this I mean each song and how it plays into the next)

Make your decision about sound spacing, fades and cuts

Get the overall volume to the same levels

EQ things relative to each other..Just as how you would do it in a regular mix...but this requires multi band machinery due to it already being interleaved as a stereo file

Compress things to bring out details that are still sitting too hidden in the mix (if necessary)

Dither....hopefully you prepared your stuff at at least 24 bit..you need to remove the translation noise that occurs when in coverts down to 16bit..(think changing a 192kps mp3 to 64 kps,..That annoying noise you hear)

Listen you your album in a couple different locations, identify weak points and get back to all the steps above...

I mean, very BROAD statement of the process of course..and u don't have $10k plus monitors, a room with hardly and parallel wall to ceilings, tons of great treatment and sound attenuation that was measured on sensitive equipment and tuned correctly..but who cares..we are home recordists! right?

I know the pros on this site will martyr me for this post, but I'm being very general and I'm sure they understand. You still won't sound like half of these guys, but at least you will sound consistent and coherent if done right..and your album can be a decent demo to shop to the majors, or good enough to sell to your friends on Itunes. Either way, it will be a great experience for you and your ears, and you will understand the process that much better. That way, on the next project, you will remember any short comings of your process before you got to mastering, and hopefully take corrective action before that final stage is reached.

Hope this was not completely useless
 
One thing to remember when participating in forums like this is that often the poster is not only talking to the active person in the thread, but talking to everybody reading the thread.

One again, nobody - including Masteringhouse - is accusing anybody specifically of anything. Whit I personally would like newbs to this forum to understand is that there are one or two ineffable truths that keep popping up in these forums that many of us who have been around for a few years understand to be major core issues underlying home recording. If true understanding of these issues were to permeate the entire readership, not only would half of the threads out right disappear, but - more importantly - the overall quality of independent recording would improve. Which is what (I think) we all really want.

For me personally, I feel there are three issues that underly about 90% of the questions posed here. Just imagine, take care of these three fundamental issues, and 90% of the problems presented in the M&M forum would be taken care of. That's a pretty big thing, yea?

And all three of them underly this whole question about the role of mastering (And none of these are digs at anybody, they are observations of the reality of the situation):

1. Most people, when they first get into this racket, don't have the ear required to do it well. This is true of every phase of the process, from performance to mastering. A few folks are lucky enough to have the natural talent for critical listening, and some have developed it in an audiophile-ish way before getting behind the glass, but for most, it's a skill that needs to be learned. It takes time. And trying to track or mix or master without that skill it is like trying to drive in a snowstorm without windshield wipers while wearing a blindfold.

2. There is a tendency these days for newbs to be in a rush to hit the record button. They are in such a hurry to get their stuff up on mySpace or to otherwise get it out there that they just haven't patiently gone through the steps required to ensure that the performance, tracking and the mixing are putting the artist's best face forward. It's like someone who wants a photo portrait of themselves, and neglects to shave or do their hair well, and takes the picture with an instamatic camera in a poorly-lit room, because they just don't take the time to set it up right.

3. This is what Masteringhouse said about the dependency of each part of the process upon the previous parts. Don't get angry if I re-state it again in my own way, because frankly, I don't feel this can be over-stated:

It's the performer's job to make the tracking engineer's job easy.
It's the tracking engineer's job to make the mixing engineer's job easy.
It's the mixing engineer's job to make the mastering engineer's job easy.
It's the mastering engineer's job to make the listener's job easy.


Now, folks are going to get pissed and say, we know, we know, stop beating us over the head with it, guys. Well, mandrum, you most probably do get it, from my conversations with you, you seem like a pretty sharp guy who gets things pretty quickly. But you'd be amazed at the quantity of folks out there who say or act something along the lines of, "I know, I know that the quality needs to be front-loaded in the process, BUT..." and then continue with a "but" trying to justify their ignoring that platitude anyway and looking for an end-game shortcut to be able to bypass having to obey it.

G.
 
Back
Top