Another mastering question

[Ronnie Wibbley]

Hi all! Please bear with me as I struggle to explain... ](*,)

For a while now I've been puzzled by what exactly constitutes mastering. In the past, rightly or wrongly, I'd always considered it to mean essentially getting the right balance of tone and level between the different tracks on an album.

More recently, though, it seems to have come to mean what I would have called final mixing - ie treating an individual track not in relation to others. I understand the importance of the room, and indeed the equipment used, in getting a final sound which is not compromised by the limitations of the normal tracking area (in many cases, including my own, untreated or inaccurate rooms rather than professional studios), but in that case, surely the only market for these \"mastering\" plug ins and software would be pro mastering houses, able to spend the necessary fortunes to get the room treated properly and all the rest? Of course I don't know the figures, but surely there are many times the number of \"bedroom\" producers and engineers out there than mastering houses... so who is buying the mastering software? I suspect that it is being used by these same \"bedroom\" music makers (no offence intended to anyone!) as mixing tools, thus defeating the object of \"mastering\" in the first place!

I suppose what I'm trying to say is; where does mixing stop and mastering begin?

 

[Ronnie Wibbley]

... or to put it another way;

I work from a \"studio\" which is part of my house. It makes a living for me but it's never going to be anywhere near acoustically perfect. Therefore mastering would be a waste of time... therefore why would there be any reason for me to buy the Precision EQ unless used in the same way as the Pultec?

 

[TheEastGateMS]

well, i can only speak for myself, but . . . my room is nice, not amazing. my monitoring chain is amazing. i know my room. i do not use a single \"automatic\" plugin. everything by hand, by ear. so then, let my product be the test of my \"skills.\" most moderately priced mastering studios offer a free test track of some sort, as do i. this way, only the studio that does a good job will survive, regardless of gear, room, plugs, etc. let your ears be the judge, not a gear list or reputation. they are only helpful in a general way. what if your master sounds like trash through manley gear, or avalon comps because the mastering engineer just didn't do a good job? then the value of these units is nothing. same with plugs. simply put, anyone can buy a car (mastering plugs), but does that make them jeff gordon (a mastering engineer)? for those people, they piss away their money trying to find that \"special thing\" that will make their mixing sound better instead of focusing on bettering their skills as a mix engineer and then putting their trust in a mastering engineer to complete the project.
daved

 

[Ronnie Wibbley]

Just boinging this to see whether anyone else has any comments...

Cheers


Ron

 

[boody]

Hi,

your first definition for mastering sounds like what it should be, the second how I think many people treat the mastering proces.

A lot of master engineers aproach the proces as a remixer and try to alter the sound to their taste. This is no big problem if a mix engineer isn't to sure about his own mix anyway, but it makes the difference between a master engineer and your average guy with some master plugins. If I judge a master it's on how intact the original music sounds. You need to hear the original mix, without flaws and with the right impact. It's the art where less is more. You need to know what the strenght of a mix is and where the problems lay and fix them _without_ altering the mix. Subtle. If you hear a big change in the mix then the master engineer is probably not that good, unless he's asked to do that.

About me; I do some mastering, but mostly it's problem solving. Make one record out of a project with 16+ hiphop artists with bedroom studios, cheap soundcards and broken mikes... Cool, but the opposite of what mastering is about.

my 2ct, regards
Budy

 

[artale]

Hi all! Please bear with me as I struggle to explain... ](*,)

For a while now I've been puzzled by what exactly constitutes mastering. In the past, rightly or wrongly, I'd always considered it to mean essentially getting the right balance of tone and level between the different tracks on an album.

More recently, though, it seems to have come to mean what I would have called final mixing - ie treating an individual track not in relation to others. I understand the importance of the room, and indeed the equipment used, in getting a final sound which is not compromised by the limitations of the normal tracking area (in many cases, including my own, untreated or inaccurate rooms rather than professional studios), but in that case, surely the only market for these "mastering" plug ins and software would be pro mastering houses, able to spend the necessary fortunes to get the room treated properly and all the rest? Of course I don't know the figures, but surely there are many times the number of "bedroom" producers and engineers out there than mastering houses... so who is buying the mastering software? I suspect that it is being used by these same "bedroom" music makers (no offence intended to anyone!) as mixing tools, thus defeating the object of "mastering" in the first place!

I suppose what I'm trying to say is; where does mixing stop and mastering begin?

I have used a number of mastering facilities Bob Ludwigs Gateway,
DRT in New Hampshire and others in the nYC area and this may suprise
you but i have mastered some projects with more success.
My idea of mastering has changed to the process of tayloring the sound
material to be heard with tonal consistancy in every playback environment. Whether it be a car stereo to a walkman to very expensive
gear. I do alot of my own mastering now and the truth is to be obective
and use many monitors at your desposal is key. I use about 7 to 8
different monitors from cheap computer speakers to KRK near fields
to bookshelf consumer products to reference the sound. In the end its the
engineer not the facility that it was mastered in. It can be done in
your home studio. I can vouch for that.

SOme of the components i have used in mastering:

Fairchild
Pultec
LA2A limiter
1176
P EQ
P Limiter
Cambridge EQ
Izotope / OZone
Antares / Tube

Where mixing ends and mastering begins is with attitude.
Mixing is putting together all the ingredients to make the whole.

Mastering is to take the whole and shape it for all to hear on
any playback system. The attitude of mastering is to step even
further back away from the individual parts and listen for
the entire tonality coming through. Is the shape consitant in
all environments? If yes than your done with your project.

I hope i helped.

 

[mtyas]

I seem to skip out on the mastering stage, more and more often these days.
Just put the P.Limiter on the main bus (and sometimes a pultec or somethings) while mixing, and make up the sound directly with the mix.
It's, IMHO, the best thing that DSP powered cards have bought me: the power to master during the mixing stage.