I'm just reading what you said about your current impressions of "mastering" are. You only list a few things, and I just want to talk about them.dylanger wrote:From what I understand mastering prepares the product for its final destination. It makes sure that all songs are at the same volume, proper amount of time in between each song ect. I've read a few articles on this a while back but forget most of the stuff that was said. Taking away compression seems to ring a bell. ...
... Whoever ends up buying my album will probably not be listening to it the whole way through but most likely in a playlist. So if my song is in a playlist that includes David Myles, Glen Hansard, John Mayer, and Colin James, and I'm not worried about the volume of the track, guess who's song is going to get skipped over if its an average Joe listener.
Malcolm Boyce wrote:
I bring this up to suggest that many projects that are coming out crushed and distorted are where one of the top 2, if not the first direction for mastering is "loud".... and then if you can, make it sound "good".
Malcolm Boyce wrote:Once upon a time, someone "mastered" an album because they had to. The listening formats made it a necessary part of the process. Now, with digital being the recording and delivery format, it has become a process that is entirely elective, and IMO one that not enough people put the right amount of investigation and thought into. Producers/engineers with experience will have a solid understanding of what they expect from album mastering and/or a finished product. Unfortunately, this is a decision that is being made by artists and/or people funding projects, that don't really understand what to expect from a "master", and it's become a common occurrence that albums are being messed up with totally inappropriate "mastering" jobs.
dylanger wrote:... Taking away compression seems to ring a bell.
I agree with you, but because of the technology, pretty much anyone can send a product to be replicated without it being what you or I would consider, "properly" mastered.macrae11 wrote:Malcolm Boyce wrote:Now, with digital being the recording and delivery format, it has become a process that is entirely elective, and IMO one that not enough people put the right amount of investigation and thought into.
Been meaning to chime in on this for a while. The part I've underlined IMO is completely untrue. If you're making physical copies mastering is an absolute necessity.
You absolutely have to have great mixes for them to translate to be a great master. As you said, good balances and tailored to hold up under some minor peak limiting, and you can certainly have a decently "loud" end result without a lot of heavy clipping or distortion going on.macrae11 wrote:The big thing to keep in mind is that loudness, or at least good loudness, comes from the mix, not the master. Of course you can blast things in the mastering phase but it will have far worse results than getting a good hot mix and then just getting the last 5% from the master. And by hot mix, I don't mean already limited and compressed to death and peaking at 0dBFS. I mean well balanced, aggressive mix without a lopsided frequency spectrum. ie big buildups in the lows or low mids, or excessively bright.
macrae11 wrote:After primarily mastering for our own clients I started getting requests to master other peoples stuff which I greatly prefer. I still like to have projects that I mix, mastered by J. when the budget allows. I don't have what I consider a mastering grade listening environment, but it works quite well. I'd love to have a set of B&W's in a large room, but I'm using Dynaudio's in a well treated, small-medium room with good results.
Mathieu Benoit wrote:macrae11 wrote:After primarily mastering for our own clients I started getting requests to master other peoples stuff which I greatly prefer. I still like to have projects that I mix, mastered by J. when the budget allows. I don't have what I consider a mastering grade listening environment, but it works quite well. I'd love to have a set of B&W's in a large room, but I'm using Dynaudio's in a well treated, small-medium room with good results.
I'm having something mastered by you right now, and I feel perfectly comfortable letting you do it. The client's budget was blown to smitherines months ago, so this was a cost effective way to give them something better than me just slapping a limiter on it and walking away. The thing I like the most about it is that it's a final check that is done by you in an environment you are comfortable with. Between that and knowing that you are very competent with the technical aspect of it, I'm totally comfortable with this arrangement for this particular project.
I have another project that I'm producing by myself that is definitely going to J. simply because the budget is there, and I've been so meticulous about every step along the way that it would be foolish to start cutting corners now. I'm also planning on going down for the session, and I might entertain offers if anyone is interested in coming down with me.
macrae11 wrote:Depending on the timing I'd be interested in that, just because I've never done an attended session with J.
macrae11 wrote:After primarily mastering for our own clients I started getting requests to master other peoples stuff which I greatly prefer. I still like to have projects that I mix, mastered by J. when the budget allows. I don't have what I consider a mastering grade listening environment, but it works quite well. I'd love to have a set of B&W's in a large room, but I'm using Dynaudio's in a well treated, small-medium room with good results.
IMO, the "subtlety" in a different job would be dependent on how much gets tweaked in the process. If an album gets some heavy lifting done at the mastering stage, the differences from place to place would be much larger than if light EQ etc. is done and little else.Nick H. wrote:How subtle is the difference? I'll be looking to have something mastered within the next few months, and I doubt the budget will allow for Archive Mastering. And, are the differences in quality of a mastering job somewhat dependent on the project?
Scott DeVarenne wrote:I don't do much of the mixing, but I will definitely start smacking 'er down on the 2 bus, as I go.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests