At the end of the day, did the "mastering" process improve upon the original?
Imho, yes. Even if subtley.

 

Aye dawg, I wasn't trying to offend you, just shooting straight. Your master was very conservative, when there was room to make the track sound notably better. It reminds me of mix/mastering decisions a lot of guys on an intermediate level make while still learning. I work on top 40 projects with major artist, So the stuff I know, is what a lot of engineer are attempting to learn. So, again I'm not trying to take anything away from your comparison, just giving a little perspective.

In short what I was saying that I think you were far too conservative with the mastering job, especially if you didn't mix the track; that's even more reason to be a bit more heavy handed at making the track stand out from the mixed version. That's why I said whoever mastered it is still a learning about "application", because techniques and gear/plugins are generally only as good as the application. With the wrong or improper application of a principal or technique you can get lackluster results, even with the best gear/plugins.

 

Last edited: Jan 23, 2024

That was my goal all along. It is not a perfect master and there is plenty of room for subjectivity and improvement. Definitely some tweaks could be made to allow the final product to appeal to a larger audience. I know for sure somebody on here can do a better job than me and I accept that. They could help me improve. I'm just glad I didn't destroy the mix haha.

 

With all due respect and seriousness, let's hear yours. We all like to learn; I don't master but I'm fascinated by the process. Let's hear the hidden potential of that track without a remix.

 

No you didn't offend me! Haha. I'm just a big fan of sarcasm and the whole "high level mastering techniques" just sounds like ego/snake oil if you don't provide examples of what you mean. It would be like me saying "you don't understand good guitar performance" and then never showing you me actually playing guitar.

I also have no way of validating that you've worked with large artists. Many people don't know this but I've actually worked with Michael Jackson (see how easy that was?).

I don't work with top 40 artists, never have, probably never will.

But you mentioning that you think I was a bit too conservative with the master is genuinely valuable feedback. Thank you for that. I'll have to consider that I might be able to get away with pushing things a bit more in the future. I'll have to use more reference mixes to compare my master to. Feel free to provide examples of what could be pushed further (EQin, Compression, Saturation).

I'm still more than open to you sharing some special techniques though.

Please show us some work too I'd love to check it out.

 

Same here. I'd honestly really like to hear some top 40 Mastering work. That would give some great perspective. Maybe I really need to rethink my process and work based on what I hear.

 

We can also put is this way...
Would you rather have a piece of metal that is unsharpen then a tool that is like a samurai blade

 

Word. I'll try to post a more detailed description of some more on mastering techniques and principals that aren't really discussed too much on the net (its getting harder to find relevant/cutting edge information that's not click bait or AI generated content on the internet nowadays). With some of the new tools available, things are changing faster than they ever have with regards to how we mix and master.

But I'm working on a live tracks for a concert right now, and were on a tight deadline, so I'll try to jump back into discussion sometime in the next 24, when I have time to type a more detailed reply.

 

Depends on the task at hand...

 

Not interested in talk. I need to hear.

 

Actually, I'm tired of being diplomatic. Back up your big mouth and I'll happily shut up, or go away. Big shot.

 

Also, did the artist give you a track that was already limited/clipped?? Or did you normalize the unmastered track for the comparison?

 

In the end it's all about "perfection"
For the one is perfection the analog sound, and for the other the digital.
We must be happy that there are many tastes, or we would not exist

 

You can have both sound amazing. Life isn't all about binary 1s and 0s (well maybe digital audio actually is). I personally don't believe perfection exists but there's a blend of good and bad and then personal tastes.

 

I'm with you 100%. This discussion started devolving so rapidly who knew a mastering comparison video would be so controversial. Us musicians and engineers are a wild bunch.

 

You kind of added that aspect of the subject, by mentioning the guy with the "$20K monitors". You will probably notice this much more after I mention this, but in audio work when someone has to qualify what they are saying with their resume or the price tags on their gear; it's because whatever they are saying is almost always not correct. " I know you guys won't believe this, but I have been doing this so long that I can tell you the Nyquist theorem is mathematically incorrect". Or some other BS like that. It's like someone saying they have a phd in Meteorology for 20 years and it's going to snow in Death Valley today. You should just take their word for it.

For some reason on forums, it's almost always about the "hocus pocus" of Mastering.

 

I agree that I fanned the flames a bit haha. I only went after that guy because he basically told me I have no idea what I'm doing. Had he just been critical of the track, it wouldn't have bothered me.

You're absolutely right that people talk big based on their equipment and won't even show off their work.

Happened to me on Reddit a few years back that a guy questioned my work so I asked where I could hear his and he said it's "private" and he could not share it. What a joke. At least I posted my work for people to critique.

I'll work on not caring as much. Still want to share my work though and this community seems very reasonable and willing to discuss things.

 

This line of thinking is one of the reasons you don't see a lot of professionals in the music industry and pro-audio world posting sharing in places like this. The logic of saying that "if someone has a resume" that shows they have experience that is distinct from every random guy giving advice on the internet, he is immediately deemed a fraud or a liar, or that because he actually has the gear that some might lust over, somehow "whatever they are saying is almost not correct" is crazy.

Yeah its true that there are a lot of people who are full of shit, and don't know what they are talking about. That would probably make up the majority (90%) of people on here, and other places like gearsluts/space (especially reddit). And yes there are guys who buy expensive gear and don't know how to use it, but that doesn't preclude that ALL individuals with a resume, or high end gear are liars or imbeciles. I am for sure am neither. I have a resume, and I own a lot of gear some might call high end or whatever (Sony C800G, Neuman U67 x2, Custom C12/251, Neve 1073, 1081, x2 La3a SSL 9k strip etc...) But I could use cheap gear and still make a great sounding record.

I also own/manage 4 studio's in my local area... in what universe would that make my point of view inherently less valuable?? Its almost like anytime someone introduces themselves as a professional, or says something that goes against the grain of the common folk, people immediately grab their pitchforks and start attacking. If you don't like my opinion then just ignore it, its not that serious.

The second reason a lot of successful people in various industries don't share in other communities is that they are too busy actually working and making music to post in depth detailed responses. But even if they do have the time, no one like to share just to be attacked or shut down at the onset of the discussion, especially when they probably do have insight that would be beneficial for those who have an open mind and want to hear from somebody with that type of experience.

Also, yall seem to forget most of us here are pirates and citizens of the digital underground. Many of us to a certain degree prefer to remain anonymous on AS, as well as the internet as a whole. Only a fool would immediately post personal info or professional references, just to prove a point and share a few thoughts. I don't feel the need to prove shit to anyone, especially on the internet. I was simply chiming in with my 2 cents just like everyone else. If that rubbed some of you the wrong way, idgaf. The same way some of you dgaf about talking shit when I posted my opinion.

In short, people who have a lot to offer in any capacity, don't waste time sharing when people immediately start talking shit and being confrontational.

lol...for all you guys know I could be Serban Ghenea wanting to share my secrets with the community.

 

Last edited: Jan 23, 2024

if you are serious about mastering you probably want to rectify that! Listen on headphones, earbuds, big monitors and small monitors, and treat your room too.

 

To me the question is more if the difference is relevant in that far as it makes people buy it now, that wouldn't have earlier. To me it clearly is not. I am a friend of very clear effects. The more clear an effect is, the higher the relevance. So why should I pay about $150 for reduced low mids and raised high mids/highs?

I do not say mastering can not be relevant, but the argumentation is at least not enough - to me.