I have to say, it's strange that mastering conversations always seem to stray into loudness/volume. I don't understand the appeal of debating one of the few facets of audio production that doesn't leave a lot to be discussed without beating the same sub-topics to death—and often, seemingly only to vocalize ones viewpoint concerning streaming platforms, or music retaining proper dynamics, ecetera—as opposed to discussing techniques, or order of operation Pros/Cons, slope roll-offs and their effects, FIR vs IIR EQ, or anything that might give people new ideas, or showcase missteps they may have been making concerning the technical aspects of it. (If you notice, @BlackHawk ,I never said that your assertion on patterned human behaviour was innately wrong.)

 

This is basically the same idea as flat-response monitors, it's the belief that the more controlled the environment is, the more you can hear the audio as it actually is sonically, the better chance it'll have translating to a wide array of various systems.
Also, I don't know if "his" alludes to mix engineers or consumers when you say "[...] if everyone just has 'his' ears?"

 

Yes, that's a very important topic.
But I just make it short:

I do have an extremely flat response and close to 0 reverb.
And I tell you everything I ever heard through this system (even very dry sounds) sounds good as long as it was not a very bad production like for example E.T. - Katy Perry.

And close to everytime I hear some famous guys doing sound processing (adjusting it so it translates well on whatever) it gets worse - immediately. Not because they are bad at it, but because they actually did something.

What I want to say with this is "it does not need a lot for it to translate well".

 

Last edited: Jul 6, 2024

Question that bothers me, considering how much limitation an EQ in a daw has, if we are that much sensible to midrange, and if on two stages the original production goes thru the digital, are we transitioning from liking midrange to being so much focused on he transients and the top end rather like before while tape was kinda gluing stuff together... not having as much harshness.. going thru the gear/console/conversion with much more smoother tone signature?

I see myself, like i would prefer something that has more transients and air on perc and stuff, short sizzly sounds, but if you play me something that has a great midrange tone without letting me having an option to switch to some edm quickly(adhd) i kinda like it more than the top end as it seems that it represents "the moment" better than how high end makes us feel. It is just me tho..

 

What limitations are you assuming a digital EQ has?

As for your question, I feel like it's one that falls more into the realm of music psychology or the sociology of music than any technical field, but the lack of intrinsic warmth/glue/suppression in a digital mix (assuming a lack of plugins to that end, or any significant outboard gear, etc.,) and how we perceive, respond, or react to music like that in the long-term, is interesting when viewed through a field that analyzes subjective human experiences.

 

@eXACT_Beats_
I´m not assuming, take the hw. SPL PQ EQ and boost 20 db, still does not distort/shrill or cramp but all that plugin EQ-s are doing is basically that, limiting how much can you work the limits of a particular recording...-> not something that was as a process used on older(praised) songs that were mixed thru the significant boosts be it Neve or old EMI desks(Beatles albums mixed while boosting 18KHz for 15db on every song prior to J37..) and so on., so by limitation i mean not being able to boost and still be within the musical range/without digitalism, which Massenburg EQ could do. Put piano on it, boost the hell out of it until it cuts thru the mix and hear how it works within the natural "image" in our brain... pull 3 massenburgs, few neves, boost on a SSL console, great....now "shrill" that on every track with a plugin EQ until it compounds and expect the "depth" of a mix. "Cutting only" is fine, but even tho i dont like a lot of music in general, Pink Floyd DSOTM was not mixed with the "cutting only"...

Yes, i agree. Human expirience is a hella broad subject. I´m certain tho that nobody likes the sound of the earthquake coming, or loud thunder from low clouds, and i would not say it has to do with sociology, if you ask people if they think is it glued or not, they would know only that it sucks hearing it. So there is a level of embeeded response that we have programmed while moving in the time-space domain, so i wonder does it mean that older generations of people are bound to listen to the old music because the "new" is mixed/mastered to fit the brainwave of people with low attention span...it falls under subjective human expirience, but if majoriti of the people are on autopilot and the mastering/mixing engineers are focused on the business plan which cannot be coped with the analog recall, where are we going..

Will people rediscover some albums and will they blow up like how Metallica started having gigs from a track played in a big movie and stuff, like, are we moving foward or will we rebound back to what worked before at some point, maybe the pendulum is on a decline?

 

Last edited: Jul 6, 2024

In my opinion, the very concept of mastering your own song/mix makes the concept of mastering, independent quality control and detailed polishing, absurd.

A lawyer doesn't defend himself in court when he's accused, even if he knows how. He hires a lawyer for that.

So if you can't take an unbiased perspective after mixing (nobody can), the only thing left is loudness, right?

 

what would the threshold be for what you would consider the "mickey mouse" speaker category? obviously i know that as you ascend the quality ladder with monitors your finished product is going to ascend relatively, quality wise. but are you saying that there is a floor for when you may as well not even try to master your own track if your monitors aren't that quality or better?

for example, im using a set of yamaha hs8's. I only use my setup for my own music and i'm not a paid musician so sending my stuff off and paying someone else to master (or mix or anything else for that matter) just isn't really on the table for me. that said, at this stage, neither is a set of Genelec 8351B's.

i guess short version is do you consider upper-low tier/lower to middle-mid tier studio monitors (my hs8's for example) to fall into the "mickey mouse" range or did you mean like guys trying to mix/master on their computer speakers or just anything besides actual monitors?

 

Do not assume.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 15, 2024

Nobody called mastering engineers better makers. You are. They are not, at least not as you describe. For the most part the goal of mastering is to bring a track or an album etc., to conform with the industry standards and at the same time do a finishing polish if possible. But the latter is not mandatory and not everyone in the biz will do so. What's so difficult to grasp i wonder... You have master engineers which also possess musical talent and some who are just trained engineers. Some will make you jump with joy from your seat when you sit next to them in the room and they 're tweaking your mix and some will just be ok. It's possible and has happened to me as well, that some will even make you think "i can do this by myself, wtf am i doing here". It is the same as mixing. There good, mediocre and bad or sloppy engineers. In pop and rock nobody expects from a pro recording engineer to be musical. In classical music though, you have to be able to read sheet or else you can't follow what the orchestra is playing. And in most cases it's mandatory. Therefore, there are levels of expertise and producers and labels etc., pick their poison as to whom they 'll use for the job.
To sum it all, there ARE standards in discography and streaming media and tracks prone to release need to conform with those standards. This is the norm and this is what mastering does in a nutshell. You can be an anti-conformist of sorts and do everything your way, it is your right. Although if you value high enough what you do and pursue commercial success you will most likely go with the norm and do the research and find who will master your precious for you. If you are a signed artist, chances are people in your label already know someone for the job.
The "record" release process involves the stages we all know, recording, mixing, producing and mastering to become from an idea a finished commercial product. A near perfect mix is NOT a master baby. It's just a very good mix. Can you learn to master? Yes you can. Will someone specialized be better at this? Most likely. A second pair of ears is always better. Just to distance/differentiate yourself from the shoes of the artist/creator and listen to your track as a complete stranger in "detective engineering" mode, most people need a certain mind discipline that they can't master (pun intended). Not to mention you have to be really of age to do so, because when you 're young your senses will always overwhelm you, surpassing whatever your left part of your brain should do when mastering, which is mostly cold calculations. And this is why most self made masters are always lacking and poke me with a stick if they don't.
Cheers

 

This isn't 100% true, but it's pretty close. A master done by an uninvested interest and fresh ears is almost always better. But it hardly means you can't do it yourself. This ends my reply to your quoted post. It's amazing to see how every single discussion of mastering, online; will devolve into some d*ck swinging contest. "My 20K in monitors", or someone talking about gear they have never seen in person nevermind used, nebulous adjectives that always seem to end with a Y; it's just funny. It's similar to how pretty much anyone can tell you at length how complicated their job is and how they are irreplaceable. When they take the time to explain it, they usually just get themselves fired.

 

There you go mate. I wasn't involved in this but supposedly the release went so well that they hired extra help (yours truly) for the second volume hehe.

Fuck yes. Spot on hahaha. Just to not be misunderstood i love most tracks in this compilation. Listen to it 3-4 times and it starts growing on you. It did for me anyway. The reason i prefer the particular track is simple, i like to get high with some good weed from time to time (edit: when not working on music haha) and this makes a perfect background track .

Tell me about it lol. This is still as trippy as it gets. I remember asking if they would let me extract the drums and re-mix the track (the rest could stay as they were) but (to their own right of course) they replied that the panning was intended and has to stay as is.
All the best

 

Last edited: Jul 7, 2024

Have you noticed that while there are always exceptions to any rule, even with engineers, most are either recording/mixing engineers or mastering engineers? Sure, it is feasible to do both, but in more than twenty years, I have not seen the same engineer in a professional recording complex do both. Always one or the other specialists. In the scenario of personal music, that's pretty much saying it. I think it is possible to master your own music but it comes down to the fact that the writer is less objective because they're too close to it.
It sounds cold, but for the best results, you need someone professional who is just doing their job and has no vested interest in the music itself.

 

Yeah. That's fine. This is basically what "Sinus Well" said. There is indeed a very objective target about loudness, it just does not have immediately something to do with making music sound better.
And I can do this by myself as it was already said.


I know that a lot of cliches have been build up, because people read the same nonsense over and over again.
So I am just going to remind people to this argument:

So yes, it has to be a very objective task because everything else would be nonsense.

 

Last edited: Jul 8, 2024

There is much more than loudness, i did explain that.
For instance, too many people are making dance music of all sorts but it would be a miracle if even half of them knew the musicology behind the styles they play themselves. Is it needed ? Not really, in the creative part, no. In mastering yes. The more you know about a genre or subgenre if you like, the easier is for you to connect the dots and know exactly where the track you are listening to can go. What privileges you may take or not. The dos and the dont 's. Most specialized master engineers know the genres they dwell into much better than the artists producing them. Because an artist may have written or produced 200 tracks, an engineer may have mixed or mastered 2000 easily. And yeah in this case more is more anyway you look at it. Experience man. And with it comes perception. And now tell me that this is nonsense and everybody can do it. Simply put, it is physically impossible to have done so unless you are a seasoned master engineer for at least 20 yrs.
I will not get into environment/ room sound and blah. These are covered from day 1, mastering studios are typically flat. If you are listening to the room instead of the music you 've done something wrong hehehe. What is also mandatory is the loudest possible set of speakers with the cleanest possible sound. Perhaps some peeps don't know this but mastering as opposed to typical mixing is a "loud as fuck" process. Every nuance has to be heard and comprehended. So as i explained earlier this is not about gear. It's about ears, and if so, mastering engineers should be considered the "bats" of the human kind. Because their expertise is listening and knowing what it is they 're listening to, whereas songwriters' expertise is creating.
Cheers
PS: As you might have understood by now, i do not name things to make 'em really objective for you. Like limiting/EQ etc etc. You have to use a bit of imagination as to what the dos and the dont's can be in each genre. Only because they are real and not fictitious.

 

Last edited: Jul 8, 2024

Yes i have 25 albums on itunes. Check to my music DJ ALEX BLK

 

a lot of people get confused about mastering, but at the end of the day if you need a perfect master, all you need is a clipper. set the threshold of your clipper to -60db and then add a 60db volume boost after it, and say goodbye to your competition.

 

I like to run my final mixes through a good High Gain guitar amp sim. Any will do but just make sure you bypass the cabinet model.

 

So what? You, me and others have albums out there....and someone probably has 100 albums out there. I have awards spanning 30 years for different musical endeavours, they also do not mean jack shit. The only thing that matters is the music. It's better to have 10 albums that sound musically fantastic than 100 that are mediocre. Mine also involve musicians that can actually play their instruments really well. What does DJ stand for? Disc Jockey. Tell me how great an engineer you are when the only thing you mix are real acoustic instruments, not pre-balanced and pre-compressed electronics.

EDIT - By the way, musically since albums were made, an album is not one tune unless that single tune is more than 35-40 minutes in duration.
An E.P is generally 3-5 tunes and an album generally has more than 6 tunes on it. Anyone can upload one tune at a time, it is still just a single tune, no matter what the streaming site says. Most people upload the tunes for their albums inside the album. Look up the word "album" - it means collection, and in larger amounts, an anthology if it is a massive collection .

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 11, 2024

I counted 25 songs. A 'single' with one track is now considered an 'album'? Anybody can put their music up on Apple Music, it has no indication of quality or not, just that someone has the money to get it on there, same with Spotify.