Hi Studio. my first thread.
Opinion is somewhat divided when it comes to the issue of mastering. In my case I've always had a problem with the idea of applying "mastering" to the completed final mix. To me I've always thought of it as a "blanket statement" You really can't ( and I believe shouldn't ) apply all the audio enhancement to THE WHOLE COMPLETED FINAL MIX.
What I have been doing, and it seems to work for me, is to decide WHICH INSTRUMENT within my final mix could EFFECTIVELY have EQing etc compression and the choice of mastering enhancements applied to it. Some instruments really DON'T NEED mastering and in fact are infinitely better off without. In fact sometimes I've decided NOT to apply mastering AT ALL. I believe that the time to get your final result is at final mix stage.
" Mastering " , in my opinion, and I accept that we all have differnt ideas, will only be effective when applied to the instruments within your final mix that will effectively accept it. When you apply mastering to selected instruments within your final mix, often but not always, it can boost thier volume level. Easy...jsut adjust the level of the rest of your mix to suit. For me, this works, and my work, I believe is improving.

Cheers, Masternot.

Hi and welcome.

though I'm not entirely sure what point you are making here

For example what's this mean?

Quote:

will effectively accept it.

By the way mastering has nothing to do with individual instruments really, it's all about the stereo mix, or stems in surround.

Sure slight variations of e.q. can be made to emphasie around a particular instrument but.... it's a final mix.

Anything before a final mix is not mastering but mixing.
_________________
Recording Studio Suntans

...With utmost repect... if you don't get the essence of my post , there is no point in my reply in full. By the way, mastering has everything to do with undividual instruments, in fact it has every thing to do everything involved in the production. The trick is to know when to apply it , to what, and when not to applty it.
Goodbye.,

No respect needed, and I kind of see your point.

Isn't what you are doing though simply "mixing" like we all do?

We all think about the finished product, the finished mix and tweak individual instruments here and there, e.q. here and there, compress here and there, or NONE at all of course.

Then (in the professional industry), the final mix is sent off to be mastered, for eventual mainstream release.

The mastering engineer (who is then paid lots of money) masters the product as a whole.

I'm aware many people may take the "master as they go" approach in home recording though, and even in professional studios (much against the mastering engineers wishes). Typically many mix engineers will make their mix as finished as poss before leaving the studio, which of course is a combination of the whole organic mix process.

BUT - mastering is generally a different part of the process.

My post wasn't meant to offend, but to stimulate discussion, welcome to the forums.
_________________
Recording Studio Suntans

Yeah, at school they were drilling into our heads the differences in stages of mixing, pre-mastering and mastering.
Pre-mastering and mastering are generally done by the same engineer, but pre mastering is the sweetening up of the stereo or surround mix (ie. eq, compression, maximizing, normalizing...). Mastering is the actual process of burning that first "final" version to CD or whatever medium you use. The master copy is then sent out for duplication.


As the mix engineer, you should consider what the mastering engineer would like to get. Get the mix sounding as good as possible without final eq, compression, or fx. Also, I hear that it can be a good idea to send multiple mixes to the mastering engineer, just so he/she has more options.

It's a chain, really.
The recording engineer should capture the best performances possible for the mix engineer. The mix engineer should make the performances sound their best for the mastering engineer. And the mastering engineer prepares the mixes to sound their best to the rest of us..

The general purpose of using an outside mastering engineer is similar to hiring a consultant in any line of business. A mastering engineer has experience and gear dedicated to the mastering process and can bring an objective ear to the project. Trying to master on the same gear and the same room as where the tracks were mixed often times becomes difficult since the room and gear may be deficient in some area and the same mistakes can be repeated. For example if your room is bass deficient, then the mixes will have a tendancy of being bass heavy. Mastering in the same room and monitors will not reveal the problem.

The only time that I would suggest self-mastering is for demos, or when you simply want to learn more about the process.

Nice response uncle_jeer...you are right on the button (no pun intended)....I also agree that Mastering should be done by an outside source...I have done numerous mixes that I felt were very good but I have been humbled more than once by the job the Mastering Engineer did to the recordings. Sometimes, it's just a matter of better equipment but most Mastering Engineers I have met have incredibly good ears and much more expierence.

To the guy that doesn't like to Master, I suggest you take a tune in and go through the process. I think it will change your opion and possibly change how you mix and process (compress)....guaranteed !

PS: Most Mastering Engineers prefer little or no compression on the mixes sent to them, as they spend more time trying to fix the "overcompression" that most engineers feel the need to use.

Uncle_jerr is right on the money. Also from what I understand of mastering, its not just about final compression and EQ. When you have your finished stereo interleaved file (or 2 trk master), the tops and tails will need to be edited down. They also might warrant a fade in or out. There is also the continuity of the finished material and a mastering engineer along with the artist might have some input to the order of track play. There are things that are more effective to do at the master, not in the mix with individual tracks. Plus there is always the benefit of having a professional second opinion, more ears especially trained ones will notice something that you might not and they will also understand the mediums for music delivery/broadcast etc. and what that will do to the overall sounds.
This is an industry of working with people and it is more people again who listen to and experience the music made.
If you want to create music that only you will listen to, go ahead do what you want....

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought once upon a time mastering was originally the preparing of the completed mix for a specific mechnical reproduction system/medium? That is, there was a master made for vinyl, a master for cassette, one for 8-track, etc., each crafted to deal with the specific audio qualities and problems with the medium?

huggy wrote:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought once upon a time mastering was originally the preparing of the completed mix for a specific mechnical reproduction system/medium? That is, there was a master made for vinyl, a master for cassette, one for 8-track, etc., each crafted to deal with the specific audio qualities and problems with the medium?

Yeah kind of, but not anymore, well preparation for medium does still, always digital now though really. The term has morphed to mean much more these days, like language always does.
_________________
Recording Studio Suntans

Yes, I agree. Sometimes it helps to have perspective on where things came from, though. Today we prep for data storage formats rather than for the frequency responses of the medium because storage is (mostly) digital.

I think your idea of what mastering truely is, has gotten a bit distorted. mastering is not subjective like say, putting eq on a guitar track. No, mastering is like adding global changes that effect every aspect of your mix. I'm the king of analogies, so hear me out: lets say that a cereal in the box is your music, when you pour it into a bowl that is your mix, but its not breakfast until your pour that sweet milk on top, representatively as mastering.
Mastering makes your final mix its best, most universally playable, format. It helps your stereo perception and EQ as a whole, plus it puts that final touch which is yet to be truely defined that clicks that little light bulb in your mind that makes you feel like, "yeah, thats complete." A painting by itself is wonderful, but framing it and displaying it properly so that everyone can see it makes it art for the masses. Thanks!

I disagree partly, mastering is very subjective:

And that subjectivity all comes from ... the mix.

so in essence if you mixed well and some people do the master engineer has less activity and thus less subjectivity because there is less to do.

Give an awful mix to the master engineer and a lot of subjectivity comes into play.

so in part yes if you had say a single guitar track and a vocal and it was mixed well then..mastering in the modern sense that I believe the original poster meant (i.e compression , level , limit , cut) may be obsolete.

personally I’d do it anyhow but limit it's scope.

maybe what the original poster was trying to say (and has not realised yet) is that compression and limiting is not always needed.

that i agree with.

maybe change your name to compressionnot.
_________________

Stacey the Pagan Goddess of digitalindustry.

no matter what people define Mastering as..

here are some facts:

Places exist called "Mastering Studios"

they have at their disposal and primary use almost everytime:

EQ COMPRESSION LIMITING and CUTTING.

and that's what mastering is. (not all and in that order.)
_________________

Stacey the Pagan Goddess of digitalindustry.

I think there is a lot of confusion of what mastering is. Mastering is done AFTER the mix is completed. Mastering is a complete PROCESS that consists of many different techniques and can ONLY be done by an extremely high trained engineer with SPECIFIC hearing capabilities.

ok? ok.

Mastering engineers have worked in the industry for years and years and have developed a specific ear for detailed listening. They can hear a 1-3 db difference in a specific frequency throughout an entire mix. They try to make your COMPLETE album a UNITY mix. Mastering has to do with making all the different mixes of each song match the next song in the line up so it sounds like ONE SOLID UNITY album. They prefer to use very little of any use of compression, EQ, Reverb (yes some actually use reverb when needed), limiting, expanding etc... They run the mix through MANY DIFFERENT SYSTEMS and make a unity mix that will sound great on a crappy mono system or an expensive surround sound sytem or a small stereo radio. They also make different mixes for different mediums depending whether its for film, radio, cd, internet or all the above. Mastering engineers have the most expensive and best quality A/D D/A converters which is a big part of being a mastering engineer and thats why they can charge so much money to use their ears and their expensive gear. Think of mastering as the icing on the cake after everything is recorded and finished. I've only talked to one mastering engineer but through all the classes i've taken this is the just of what the mastering PROCESS is.