To Master (myself) or Not to Master (myself)

[e_rock]

What about the guy who just wants to master for himself and maybe pass along to a few friends? What's the recommended way to home master? Just enough to get the levels even and smooth the sound out.

In my former life in bands I knew a guy at Polygram who mastered our albums on the side. I was always incredibly amazed at how different the album would sound when we walked in and when we walked out. Definitely some serious mojo going on in that mastering room. If you plan on doing anything commercially with your work, let a professional do it.

 

[Massive Master]

All styles of music benefit from good mastering. String quartet, and orchestral records get mastered to.

Mastering can bring the low end down in the 1 or 2 songs in your example. It can not always lower the prception of the instrument level in a mix but can lower or raise the low end energy.

Most mastering studios will do different rates for major and indie records

I would dare to say that good mastering is even more critical in dynamic, dare I say "softer" music than most HR/HM. The overall quality of heavy metal mastering can vary widely and still remain acceptable. Open, airy, clean sounding recordings require much more finesse. You can overcompress Metal and people will love it. Overcompress a chamber orchestra and... Well... I think you get the idea.

 

[masteringhouse]

No one can explain it.... It remains a great myyyyssssterrrry. No seriously, if you get one of these mastering guys to tell you what they do step by step then you are ummm, really cool

Quite simply, we listen and respond with an objective ear. All of the other processing and gadgets are secondary and should only be used where needed.

When you are hiring a mastering engineer, you are hiring them for their experience, style, and opinions.

 

[xfinsterx]

Is it possible to burn a cd at 44/24 and still play the same on a cd?

 

[masteringhouse]

Is it possible to burn a cd at 44/24 and still play the same on a cd?

It's not redbook standard, so not on a "normal" CD player. A masterlink can accept this format however.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

i mean i can see how a metal band with lots of noisy guitars going on would definitely need mastering, but how about say an acoustic three piece or something? Is there less need there?

Definately MORE SO. In fact, mastering will bring out the detail and overtones of that type of ensemble more so than a metal mix. A metal mix usually needs to be taken down a few notches and given some depth to it because everything is so IN YO FACE. Soft stuff is more delicate and trickier IMHO.

Mastering loud music is easy--the client will always want that ugly squished sound, so you open up L2 and set to NUKE. Easy as hell. Heck, even the punk guys want that now.

Soft music... is infinitely more difficult to record, mix and master if you ask me. Because any idiot can (and will) thrash out their instruments with no dynamics just LOUD LOUD LOUD. And that's easy to contend with.

 

[masteringhouse]

i mean i can see how a metal band with lots of noisy guitars going on would definitely need mastering, but how about say an acoustic three piece or something? Is there less need there?

Or are there issues regardless of genre which make mastering essential in all cases?

The "amount" of mastering is genre independent, it's dependent on the quality of the mix.

I've spent hours on punk mixes that were mixed poorly in order to bring out elements that were buried in the mix or because of poor recording and mixing techniques, and just a few minutes on acoustic bluegrass tracks that were mixed well.

Mastering punk, hardcore, or rock is MUCH more than slapping on a limiter and setting it to stun. Likewise mastering softer material is more than playing around with a compressor for hours. The real question is, what quality or qualities are important in the final product, how good is the frequency balance, volume balance, stereo width and depth, etc. in both the individual track and across all tracks on the CD? Once you have that figured out, you can determine what processing needs or does not need to be done to the mix in order to achieve the goal. This holds true for all forms of music.

 

[LRosario]

Further point, say there's a problem in the mix, on a particular song, for example on 1 or 2 songs out of a collection of 10 the bass is too loud in comkparrioson with the other tracks. Is that something that would/could be fixed in mastering or is it a case of go back to do a remix every time?

Presumably rates vary too?

Do these guys charge according to who the client is (record label or hobbyist), or is there a set fee?

This is a double edge sword in the industry. When we find "flaws" in a song, it could be fixed in various ways. It just depends on what options we have avalible to us. If a bass track didn't come out like the client wants, we could consider re-recording the track, if the time and money permit. But we aim to nail it the first time in. However, it does happen.

Say if we don't have the time to go back into the music box (studio), and the track is at least workable, we'll get it right in either remixing or mastering. Technology these days is phenominal for this.

Keep in mind, these are all things that are covered before any major release. No engineer should ever be satisfied until the client is satisfied.


In terms of how mastering engineers decide pay rates, it's usually nailed out through lawyers and contracts. I'm not exactly sure how they do it, but we get paid either through a) a set fee discussed before recording or b) we get a certain percent based on record sales, but thats more for when we deal with record labels of any type.

The way I see it, if the engineer is good, he should be able to charge just about anything he wants, within reason of course.

 

[fenix]

master yourself. It's homerecording.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

master yourself. It's homerecording.

Or find another homerecordist to master it for you--and you master their material. The main point is objectivity and a second opinion.

 

[kylen]

master yourself. It's homerecording.

Amen fenix...

 

[masteringhouse]

Amen fenix...

No harm in trying to do it yourself, though I agree with Cloneboy. If you want to keep it in the home recording category, at least get another opinion from another home recordist. As someone once said, mastering your own mixes is like an author trying to edit his material. There's no objectivity, or second perspective. Additionally in the audio world, if you're mastering and mixing in the same environment, same speakers, same ears, there's a very good chance that your mixes aren't going to translate well on other systems.

There's a lot of "mystery" around mastering (sometimes even propagated by MEs for reasons of job security), just as there are supposedly "tricks" in mixing. IMHO there aren't any "tricks" or magic incantations, it all comes down to one thing, good solid engineering. Knowing when to use or not use something, knowing what processing is needed to achieve a certain goal, knowing how mic A sounds compared to mic B and why that is a better choice for recording a given track. If you have those skills with only a few years experience, then you are very rare breed.

The answer in regards to if you should or shouldn't master yourself really comes down to questions like the following:

1. Do I want the highest quality possible for the final product, or is it just a rough demo or something that I'm doing for self-educational reasons?

2. Do I have the gear and a listening environment that lends itself to high quality mastering?

3. Am I objective enough to be able to see what's good and problematic about the mix?

4. Do I have the skill, experience, and knowledge to fix the problems and to leave well enough alone?

 

[lanterns]

that's right on the mark!!!

 

[Apple]

I agree that by the end of mixing, your objectivity is pretty much shot. I often play and sing everything and from experience, I try and get things done quick. Which I can rarely do successfully. With mastering, I'm always thinking that the majority of times, the mastering engineer is dealing with a fairly well mixed effort. With certain genres, like rock and pop, the norm is maybe to brighten up the mix and make the record as loud as possible. I'm just guessing, but a lot is made out of mixing and it really isn't that big a deal when you have decent equipment. The majority of my problems early on were just that I was looking for results that my equipment couldn't deliver. Mastering is a vague or maybe misused term to a lot of people including myself and there is a studio down the street from me that says it can master but it really isn't a mastering house. He has a masterlink and a TC finalizer. If the majority of mastering is simply sweetening the mix and making it a bit this that or the other-maybe a little louder, then It would be nice if there were some better options for the home recording market. There is so much junk out there making big claims and anyone with a passion for recording is going to want to check it out. (hence, they get on this site hoping to gain a little and share a little knowledge) I think what a majority of people want to do is just make their efforts sound a little better. It would be nice to play my recording back to back with a commercial release and not notice a big difference in brightness and loudness.