Why can't you master in a home studio?

I'm pretty sure I remember Master saying that, or maybe it was Tom.
Something to the effect of maybe glancing at a meter to check once in a while, but totally not relying on it.
 
RAMI said:
No offense, but I don't buy any of that. If it works for you, then cool, I'm not putting it down. But mixing and mastering should be done with your ears. Period. There are no "standard" frequency ranges. What if your graphic tells your eyes that your song "looks" right", but it sounds better when you get it sounding good to your ears, even though the graphic tells you it's "wrong" (which it isn't)?

I would bet all my equipment that a "real" mastering engineer doesn't use any kind of visual graph, unless they're trying to pin-point a problem that they HEAR first, but can't quite locate.
Click to expand...

None taken for sure. When I posted I knew it was going to get some push back.

However, I did do a few tests with some songs I had listened to from back in the 70's (maybe three or four random tests) and what convinced me that this was not to far off was that every song I tested, fell within the spectrum tolerance. However, this chart is still just a guide and not an absolute. But if you don't have the ear training, it is, for me, a good guide.

BUT, I would say, to your point, the ears should have the final say. No dispute there.
 
I am not one to ever really use a spectrum analyzer to heart, but I do notice that substantial 'sharp' peak at 120Hz, on your sample plot. I hope this is not an average, but a peak at a kick drum hit at some point during a song.

Also, though I am not a mastering engineer, by any means, what is up with the slope from 10Hz and below? That looks like an area for really bad things IME. It seems logical, that if there is information in your recording, way below what humans can even hear, that there could be an issue there. HPF seems a necessity, for whatever this plot was taken from.

-I think the 'brown' note is somewhere in that range...:)
 
I would bet all my equipment that a "real" mastering engineer doesn't use any kind of visual graph, unless they're trying to pin-point a problem that they HEAR first, but can't quite locate.
Click to expand...
I'll use one (usually built into a FFT EQ) to pull things like video whine -- I know it's going to be "somewhere around 15.875 kHz" but it depends on the refresh rate and resolution of the monitor that created it. Seen it as low as 14.xkHz and higher than 16kHz. In that case, the visual representation makes it an easy fix.

And for calibration, of course -- Which is the main focus of just about any meter.
 
Fitting a track into the parameters of a graph is essentially the same as pressing a press set EQ plug in.
At least with non destructive editing it doesn't have to stay that way.
Presets and preconceptions are all very handy & we use them daily in various way - for example I set up my bass & signal path the same way almost every time to achieve a preconcieved result. As I develop musically/som=nically that preset isn't working nearly as well as it used to as the environment the bass is in changes almost every time.
I don't have the ears for mastering & am not prepared to pay for & trust a plugin or suite of VSTs to listen for me.
 
DM60 said:
If music is sent to a radio station, there has to be some standard so that the stations are not having to make adjustments for each song or get a set of instructions on how it should be EQ'd.
Click to expand...

FYI,
Radio stations have already thought of this, and every one I've ever been to does it. Most stations use a multiband compressor over their output to even out levels etc. That's why if you listen to a song on one station and then another, it can sounds marginally different depending on how the multiband compressor is set.
 
Hum, learning something new every day on this site. Love it.

plot_henley.gif

Here is a plot from Don Henley's End of the Innocence. I am pretty sure he had some good master engineers. Once again, I use to get an idea.
 
Curious-- It shows the lack of content (expected) at the top, but why the steady level down to '3Hz?
 
Well since many of us home recordists forgo the Good Material; Good tracking spaces; Good mic technique; Good performances, Good editing; Good mixing spaces, Good monitors and Good mixing technique that the pros have........

It seems kinda silly to worry about good mastering at the end of the process. Why not just stick a make it loud preset on there.

Kind of like building a chair out of the cheapest particle board you can find, the legs are uneven, the back isn't straight, it was painted with some watercolors from a Barbie coloring book but now I think I should send it to Japan for a master of Lacquering to put the final coat of Lacquer on it and make it look "Pro"

Just sayin' and yes I'm feeling feisty today

YMMV
 
Last edited:
Bristol Posse said:
Well since many of us home recordists forgo the Good Material; Good tracking spaces; Good mic technique; Good performances, Good editing; Good mixing spaces, Good monitors and Good mixing technique that the pros have........

It seems kinda silly to worry about good mastering at the end of the process. Why not just stick a make it loud preset on there.

Kind of like building a chair out of the cheapest particle board you can find, the legs are uneven, the back isn't straight, it was painted with some watercolors from a Barbie coloring book but now I think I should send it to Japan for a master of Lacquering to put the final coat of Lacquer on it and make it look "Pro"

Just sayin' and yes I'm feeling feisty today

YMMV
Click to expand...
it's mastered once it's burned to Cd ..... or made available for download or whatever.
 
jimmys69 said:
I am not one to ever really use a spectrum analyzer to heart, but I do notice that substantial 'sharp' peak at 120Hz, on your sample plot. I hope this is not an average, but a peak at a kick drum hit at some point during a song.
Click to expand...
I'd be willing to bet it's in the key of A something.
 
Thanks to Bristol Posse! I just got off the floor from a literal ROFL. :D That was almost an SIIGTP (stop it, I'm going to pee)!
 
Bristol Posse said:
Well since many of us home recordists forgo the Good Material; Good tracking spaces; Good mic technique; Good performances, Good editing; Good mixing spaces, Good monitors and Good mixing technique that the pros have........

It seems kinda silly to worry about good mastering at the end of the process. Why not just stick a make it loud preset on there.
Click to expand...
Some of the things that I hear coming out of home studios these days rivals some of the best done in commercial studios, and some stuff out of commercial studios can rival the worst coming out of home studios. Those lines have been blurred for a couple decades already...So it's hard to throw everything in the same box and say home is crap and commercial is good... cause it always comes down to the conviction.
 
Lt. Bob said:
So merely because a guy is a mastering engineer doesn't automatically make what he does right.
Click to expand...

Agree! :D For all of my serious projects, the ones that will become commercial products - I have mastered. The best advice I can offer here is look at their credentials. As with any profession, credentials tell the story of a mastering engineers successes. I look at how many Grammy's they or their albums have won and/or been nominated, Dove awards and similar industry recognition. You must do your research, but once you find an engineer - start building your relationship. The more projects you work together on, the more they get to know your style and you theirs.

Lt. Bob said:
...the M.E. put in all this sub-aimed lowend and also made it pretty damned bright on top.
Click to expand...

This is interesting - because most ME's take out bass - which happens to be the biggest problem that home studios have TOOO MUCH BASS. Lack of bass traps and incorrect diffusion and incorrectly designed facilities all contribute here. I would have to ask "did your friend tell the ME to add anything" - because a properly mastered record should be as close to the original mix with a few EQ and perhaps some leveling added. When I was really new to recording - I once sent an album to get mastered with 15 pages of notes for the engineer - guess what? when I got it back - it sounded horrible - in fact it sounded like my notes. I told him / paid him to remaster without my notes - 2 songs actually made on the Top 10 Christian Artists list. An ME will generally fix, at not cost, anything you do not like - as longs as you did direct them as such.

Finally, I have found very few studio engineers who either know how to master a project or more importantly, have the correct set of tools/equipment/facility to properly master audio. This includes me! they are two completely different worlds. Sound Forge or whatever is a great tool to use to get a rough idea - BUT then strip off all the Bus processing and send the unprocessed file to the engineer and let them do their magic.
 
blund69 said:
I would have to ask "did your friend tell the ME to add anything" - because a properly mastered record should be as close to the original mix with a few EQ and perhaps some leveling added. .
Click to expand...
which gets back to the "just 'cause it's an M.E. does NOT mean that he's a good M.E.

Is every doctor good? no
is every car mechanic good? no
is every roofer good? no

yet there's this idea that every M.E. is good and the end results always sound a particular way..
It's silly to think that.
IF the main thing that M.E.'s bring to the table is their ears ..... then just like anything else to do with ears they're gonna be all over the place.
It's not like every M.E. has a template that makes every recording sound a specific way.
Plus an M.E. that's mastering for hip-hop is gonna have a very different product than one who tends to do mostly acoustic work.
 
Linear acoustics, full range and linear monitoring, experienced engineer (as in has worked in pro audio for a long time), high end specialized audio equipment. If you have that at home you can master music at home too just like a professional. Most people do not have this set up available nor the experience.

The difficulty will be experience and objectivity. Experience is no built over night and objectivity speaks for itself if you are mastering your own material.

Further details if you are interested on my blog:

http://www.masteringmastering.co.uk/mastering-blog.html
 
One of the single most important things needed to do a good job with audio finalizing (what most people think is mastering) is a room. Not just any room but a big room with as neutral a sound as possible. Very few residential structures have an interior space that meets that requirement.
 
you know all this makes technical sense, the huge room and all that....but then I see pictures of a crappy Abbey Road with a mono speaker and a mastering room of not much better , or Motown residential building turned studio and I wonder about all of it being so important.

but then maybe they sent the stuff to some professional room for Mastering? I don't know. Mastering rooms seem to have been left out of the pictures and storys for the most part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top