I was just searching for alternative ideas and techniques and found this Blog on a Mastering Studio website.

https://www.sageaudio.com/blog

I went through 2-3 blog post and it's very well explained and gives great tips and explanation on the how and why to do different task when mastering.

It might be useful to some so I thought I'd share.

He/They also have a YouTube channel with very concise explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/@sageaudio/videos

I'd suggest you'd have a quick look whenever you have time, if interested obviously.

 

I stumbled across their youtube channel 6-12 months ago. I watched a lot of their vids. There's a lot of well-presented ideas in there for sure, my only gripe is that they make up too many "rules", which i think will give people the wrong impression that things HAVE to be this or that way.

Definitely some nifty tricks in there though, as long as you understand that the processing choices wont work on all source materials like the videos imply. That's not how audio works

 

For me, that channel is like starting to play football but straight to learning how to be Messi & Ronaldinho combined without even bother to strengthen the fundamental, athletic part of the sport, like fitness, stamina etc. AT ALL. Come match day, even when he can do what Messi does with his eyes closed with one hand holding his dick, aint no stupid coach going to name him to be the first starting eleven simply because he's not fit. You gotta be able to play 90 minutes first, the rest comes after that.

No other youtube channel missing the point more than that one. He made the simplest thing ever become so much harder. 90% of his tricks, the track doesn't even fucking need it. As simple as adding a touch of high end to EVERY TRACK EVER will of course make it sounds "better" because well that's how our ears work, but does the track needs it at the first place ? did he mention that can changed the whole balance of the track ? like I said, missing the point. Stay away, you won't learn anything from that trust me, it's cool but you'll realize how dumb they were the more you know about your stuff. Especially mastering, where 90% is about making the right decision with minimal moves, not doing cool trick like adding bunch of notches of notes out of the key of the song using EQ when the track sound perfectly fine at mastering stage. who the fuck does that ? sigh

 

Last edited: Jun 11, 2023

It didn't hit me that way. I must say that I've watched 2-3 videos and blog post at most and went back to a project but I never felt he was dictating how to do specific task.

One I remember watching was how he perceived different type of compressors and I found it enlightening as it was not my perspective but still I thought that was a great explanation especially for someone starting.

Now there's a lot more advanced technique to be learned but I definitely think its a great starting point after learning how to use a mouse.

 

I watched probably 20 of their videos. After a while i realized the knowledge wasn't coming from an experienced place. More likely that it's a young guy who learned some tricks off an experienced guy and is making content out of it as a way to get more clients. Kudos to them for the smart business move, but don't think that the channel is the holy grail of good information. The channel is only useful to me as a reminder of some tricks that exist that i may have forgotten about. But i wouldn't recommend it to young ME's that are trying to learn the fundamentals.

If you want a good mastering-specific youtube channel try Mastering Explained: https://www.youtube.com/@MasteringExplained/featured

If you wanna go a step further and do a paid course i can recommend the Mixing With Mike courses:
-Basic Mastering Course (for fundamentals)
-Advanced Mastering Course (put it all together)

He goes into an awesome amount of detail, he's an actual professional with legitimate mainstream credits (not a youtuber), he's a great communicator/teacher, he responds to any questions you post on the videos, AND he has a "name your price" sale on at the moment where you can pay a minimum of $10 for each course. Which is insane value, he could easily charge hundreds more.

I bought Ian Shepherd's mastering course 3 or so years ago as well as Mike's advanced mastering course and i can say that Mike's course is a million times better than Ian's. And it's not even close.
Ian's is more like an indoctrination than an education. It's more "preachy" than "teachy". There's only like 8 videos, all about 20-30 mins each, and it cost me about $400 from memory. It's not a terrible course but it has a lot of fear-based information in there that has confused young engineers imo. (i've spoken to a couple of pro mastering engineers that are consistently annoyed by Ian's influence because every week they have to educate people who have been conditioned by Ian's misleading information (in regards to loudness penalties/targets etc)).

Mike's course has 91 videos and it costs $10 (think i paid more like $40 back when i bought it a few years ago). He also goes way deeper into philosophies and mindsets and what goes behind the decisions. Just so so so so so so much better. And insanely cheap right now. I have no idea why he has done this sale so cheap, maybe he's gone crazy.

If the prices were to reflect the actual value then they should be swapped. Mike's should be $400 and Ian's should be $10. That's the price i'd be comfortable paying for those courses anyway.

Also, Mike has amazing mixing courses too, which are also on sale for an insane price.

I did his "Fundamentals of Mixing" course back in 2016 when it was free on youtuber and it legitimately set me up to become the mixer i am today. It makes you understand the things that allow you to make creative/contextual decisions in the future

 

Last edited: Jun 12, 2023

This is one of the reasons I love this place. Thanks for the recommendation, I didn't know Mike but I found his free mixing course on youtube and I'm really liking it so far!

 

Mixing With Mike is dope and his plugin review is the best! I watch all his video on notification. Never bought his course, but from preview and free stuff it's probably good. They are gems on his youtube channel, you just have to scroll down bottom to 4-5 years ago videos. It's like a complete mixing course targeted to intermediate and novice mixers not the usual newbie stuff. Watched all of them, pretty good I'd say. The best part he always share the story of origin of most of the techniques used in the digital domain back in how it was done in analog days, it's easier to understand the whole concept and idea of it that way.

just want to add the other ones that I like is Marc Daniel Nelson (Make Mine Music) series on Produce Like a Pro Youtube channel. He has his own way of doing stuff, but some of his videos I find them useful because we believe the same thing. No such thing as making the mix sounds good, it's all about making them to sound like a record.

 

Last edited: Jun 12, 2023

I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective.

I wont lie, I didn't go deep into his videos but the 2-3 blog post videos I've watched never came across as a new guy on the block but I'll believe you word for word as I don't have time to watch 20 videos about mastering, I actually have masters to deliver.

I don't need to take classes anymore but I also love a quick chat with a fellow ME.

I think that's my favourite part about all of this. There's 1 light bulb to be changed and there's 100 people interested in that light bulb that would all change it differently from one another.

I posted a funny mix and master experiment in a headphone thread a few weeks back. It consisted of me buying the flac version of 4 different renown urban song and me taking those same songs multi-track, mixing them to my taste and mastering them. Once done, I sent it to 7 different friends, musician and M.E's.

The conclusion was very impressive.

On 7 participant with the whole range of music understanding from unkowledgeable to professional the result goes:

Song 1:
Released Mix and Master: 2
My Mix and Master: 5

Song 2:
Released Mix and Master: 2
My Mix and Master: 5

Song 3:
Released Mix and Master: 3
My Mix and Master: 3
Cant decide: 1

Song4:
Released Mix and Master: 3
My Mix and Master: 2
Cant decide: 2

One thing that really hit me was that the more knowledgeable the person was (2 of them are seasoned professional), the more they were picking my Master over the Released version.

All of that to say that one man's pot of gold is another one's trash, and vice versa.

When I heard the Orchestra that was all recorded and mastered by Neumann in Switzerland as a stunt for their new ground breaking Audio Interface, the MT 48, I thought to myself, what a piece of trash and a waste of good musician time. But I'm 100% sure that many people and Master Engineer will prefer the Neumann's recording and master over Bates Philharmonia Fantastique recording.

That's just how life is.

You can serve a Filet Mignon to someone that will toss it aside and call a Big Mac gastronomy. No one is wrong. It's just different taste.

That's how this Blog came across to me. I didn't hear him preaching and calling anything a 100% rule to follow but I guess someone might have perceived it like that. I still think, based on the Compression Mastering blog post I just took a look at again, this is a great place to gather info and ideas.

I've also had a similar experience as yours in Mike classes that you mentioned but I wouldn't think that he is an average M.E. because it didn't teach me as many things as I would have liked to or that his thought process was too generic and pre-chewed stuff I heard thousands of time in my career that I too often didn't apply and worked better. It's just different taste and ways of teaching I believe.

As I said in the original post, It might be useful to some so I thought I'd share.

There's thousands of other resources out there and I think it's a great thing to be able to suggest another perspective or path without feeling the need to step on someone else's head. It show how well versed you really are on a subject in comparison to someone throwing a tantrum and not bringing anything useful to the topic which just show immaturity and a big lack of knowledge in the subject. If not, they wouldn't feel so insecure and feel the need for the world to see they feel threaten.

Mike's a great teacher. He's not my cup of tea but he helped a lot of people I'm 100% sure.

 

You should be able to beat another person's work almost every time. If you have access to their results; you are armed with a target to beat and they were not. It's the best reference point you can possibly have available to you.

 

In my perspective, definitely. And I did. Not sure you would, though. I know some didn't and its understandable and respectable.

If everyone had my taste, I'd be an over protective husband.

Other people will have different taste and that is also to be made clear. It's like anything in life.

When I was a kid, my red shoes were running a lot faster then my friends yellow sneakers. He was also 2 years younger then me. It was known around the bloc that my red shoes were very fast and the best around. He grew up later on to beat me with some black shoes. We then all agreed that the black shoes were the best ones.

I once had a conversation with a young lady that was rating the quality of her favourite music by how loud it was apparent to her in her earbuds. I would never put me in a position to argue about taste. She was right in her own preferences. I, obviously, have different criteria of quality. Not sure my criteria are everyone's criteria here though just as much as I don't always agree as to which album is the best engineered at the Grammy's.

It is what it is.

 

Very much true. Even without taking into account possible time constraints.

 

If I saw art as a competition, I'd say that I agree with both of you but It's hard for me to say that red is better then blue or vice versa.

A louder master might not be appropriate for everyone. Nor does a more bassy or a clearer master.

In that perspective, I don't re-master music to beat mastering engineer but to give it my sauce and see who's into it and who's not and try to understand something out of it.

Other thing to consider is that I heard many re-mastered album that were, to my taste, worst then the original release because they were smashed into a limiter to fit that era's mastering trend. Those same re-mastered went to sell million of copy's which I would never buy as a reference but many people bought for enjoyment.

While I can see why some people might see audio engineering as a competition, I don't fight for my contracts but work with an artist. If he ask me, then we're already in a specific direction. If he want something I'm not used to accomplish or don't agree with, I'll simply communicate it and go on from there.

The end result and only true person to be able to judge my work is only the one putting money on the table. If I can meet his expectation and I'm OK with what I've delivered, the rest of the ''competition'' can definitely be won by the other 99 M.E. and I won't lose a minute of sleep and will be cheering for them while they carry the trophy on the podium.

I like my master to be driven by my taste, not by my ego. But that's just me.

YMMV

 

My comment was in reference to most "end client" work; where you do not have creative freedom or artistic license to do anything other than a standard "good mix" which will in turn be evaluated upon very conventional aspects. Such as clarity, balance, perceived loudness, and all other conventional and directly comparable KPI's. It's also how most people practice, because things like personal taste and artistic concerns are not as measurable (or helpful) to evaluate their own improvement. It's why people pick the songs they practice with; it's already someone else's music and you have an already finished and "accepted as a good mix" to target. Like his comment, it is also why some people assign themselves arbitrary deadlines for their practice tracks.

 

25 years in music, almost 15 years (assistant to small business owner) in the studio now. That's how it works and I've been hanging with among the top ones in the country and that's how everyone works. Taste, flavor, all that bs ends at mixing process. The only creative part left for M.E is doing all the hardest part of the job by finishing, making the record ready and most importantly being stealthy enough like he was never there. If he got caught, or having the needs to talk, he's not fit for the job. It's that simple. A&R are known to blacklist M.E that trying to add his own touch to the music everyone already approved. It's his (the A&R guy) music for all he care.

 

While I agree with you on the big line, the result and needs from labels are actually usually very specific. And just to clarify, I did not ''remix'' songs(as in DJ remix). I (re)mixed them myself from dry multi-tracks (not stems). So there was no production involved ( other then verbs, delays, panning, Vox tuning etc..). In case it was misunderstood, I prefer to demystify that part.

Now, as I said, I obviously think I did a better job then the original mix and master in my limited 4 track test and a bit over the half of my result was also agreed to be ''better'' in their own perspective but really I am no one to tell who think this or that is better. The people listening to the songs are the judge and once it's out in the wild, my perspective weight as much as the next men.

I mean, I asked my wife to judge the songs without her knowing which one was mine and she thought they were all sounding the same until I forced her to pick a version and she chose one so I stop bothering her. So it was as random as it could possibly be. (she also have zero knowledge of music and a lot less of audio engineering). She then heard the differences when I started pointing them out by cross referencing after she chose.

So to think I did it better, it's debatable. My result were louder, but less dynamic without adding intolerable distortion (my definition of better in those case). My result were more clear and opened but less glued and stucked together (my definition of better in those case). My result were more heavy and had more presence and had more details and energy but with less upfront mid lows and mud ( my definition of better in those case ).

Are those criterias we all agree upon in terms of mix and master quality? Apparently not as the Merging Technologies (my bad, it was not Neumann) recorded this:
Strasbourg Philharmonic Orchestra - The Glagolitic Mass and Sinfonietta by composer Leoš Janáček.
https://tidal.com/browse/album/219353468

Article here:
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6953641439499046912/

At my first listen, I thought that it sounded extremely muddy and lacked so much details but didn't want to call them out in the MT 48 thread where I was informed about that recording.

Then I compared it to Bates: Philharmonia Fantastique: The Making of the Orchestra
https://tidal.com/browse/album/221852200

Now do I still think the Merging technology stunt is a flop? I definitely do but I wouldn't call them out on it as I am 100% sure someone and /or all of them think this is a great recording and I would encourage them to keep on doing what they are doing.

I'm in no place to judge creativity nor balance quality. Even though it is my job, I was not paid to judge their work and I still understand that there's a whole spectrum of people that like different rendering.

Me spending 2 hours to mix a song and another hour (a few days later) to ''master' it have no bearing on the fact that I did it to my taste and that it might be better or not. I did it to my preferences and fixed huge issues that were obvious to me.

if I had to guess with my previous experiences, I'd say another mix engineer and Master engineer would have done it differently and to them, it would have been better. And I would encourage them to keep that perspective.

First time I listened to Jai Paul leaked album, I really thought it sounded like a piece of trash. Literally. Then over time, the aesthetic got over me and I started to develop a taste for it. Same thing for Paper Planes by M.I.A. or Understood by Mick Jenkins.

I still don't use those songs as references but they are still some of my favourite songs when I ant to listen to Urban Murcan music.

So better or best...to who and when? In which particular use case?

It's too broad to pin point and say we can all agree upon what's best. Music just don't work that way.

Unless we're talking business, then play count is what's best. That's about it.

My wife is a lot better then yours to me. I hope you believe yours is better then mine if you are married.

I have the same relationship with music when I do it for the love of it. If I'm paid, I meet expectation and call it a day.

 

Sorry to diverge from the current discussion but just wanted to point out that I actually ended up buying one of Mike's course (Basic Mastering) and I'm really enjoying it so far, a LOT of useful info that will definitely help me finishing a comp I'm releasing in a couple weeks. Can definitely recommend it.

PS: I was delighted to find out he worked with Whitney Houston, one of my idols.

 

The point is not whether your mixes were objectively or subjectively better, or preferred by a group of people representing general public. It's quite plausible, actually. However, without knowing exactly what constraints the original MEs faced - specific client/A&R submitted demands and reference mixes, deadlines etc., a meaningful comparison is impossible. There's no level playing field.

 

I do understand that point.

The point I'm making is, even though I was making a mix and master in 30 seconds top chrono and everything was better in my opinion, there would still be no meaningful comparison other then me vs me.

But let's be honest here. If you guys ever played with some of those guys, you know those track are not the type to be sent to a label 5 minute before being pressed and they are not mixed nor master by one and only person.

Of course you guys don't know which tracks nor artist I'm talking about but I'm not talking about any B artist at any major labels.

So anyways, even that part has nothing to do with the fact that I didn't do that as a competition vs them but one vs me.

Weither we use the part of those 7 person being knowledgeable or seasoned professional as also no point in the result as I was not seeking approval but wondering how it was perceived.

Obviously, my personal test can be seen by anyone from whichever perspective they want. I am the only one that know why I did it and it has nothing to do with anything that was mentioned other then seeing how my work was received if I ghost myself out of the equation.

After that, anyone can actually judge how precisely I wrote the name of the artist in my file project if they want and if that make them happy but that has equally no point in my specific experience.

There's no comparison to be made. I made it for myself. Not for other to tell me how long my schlong actually is. I know how long it is, I have my bank account statement to confirm that.

That's exactly what I loved about that Compression blog. It brought an open idea. Not a pre chewed setting path to be followed.

Apply to taste and enjoy.

 

Bob Katz Book, Mixing Audio is the best resource ive ever seen. Bobby Owsinski's book The Mastering Engineers Handbook is as well

 

Totally agree with that.