Hey thank you for taking the time to troubleshoot what might have been causing an issue, and then going back to listen again. I'm glad you like the mastered version. I never anticipated getting this much feedback on this post so this is really cool. I think I underestimated this community.

Edit: I'll make sure to add in to future comparison videos to play the video at higher quality settings! Idk YouTube can be all over the place with it's audio playback bitrate. I think Dan Worall made a video about it.

 

I like how you broke it down into frequency ranges and their respective instruments. That's a good way to analyze masters. It's interesting that a few people have mentioned the extra width in the high frequencies. I only remember using a tiny bit of stereo widening but it seems like it went a long way if it's noticable to multiple people. Now I know I don't need to push it too far. Plus the track was plenty wide to begin with.

Thanks for the feedback!

 

Well, I was worried I was crazy, my ears were shot or the people saying they heard a difference were lying to make themselves feel superior (and I didn't really think it was the last one)

 

Hahaha reminds me of the Yanni/Laurel thing that happened a few years back.

Also the mastering engineer who commented saying he didn't hear a difference doubled down and left another comment I guess implying I don't know what I'm doing? Hahaha

This was his response:
"In my job im using ATC 150) @synthdrift sorry, but you do not understand what the mastering looks like. Fixed some soft of problems, too much low frequency, stereo base, analog saturation. Main thing doing all tracks the same quality compare with other cool tracks. In your job no master has good quality, has some problems with mixing but not critical. So, you do not need mastering in your case. Good luck!"

Look, I don't consider myself amazing or even great at mastering, but I'm baffled by this guy.

He's using $20k USD speakers and owns tens of thousands of dollars of analog equipment and is acting like I'm clueless because he can't hear a difference.

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but I think he might be serious. I kinda want to tell him that if he's using $20k speakers and can't hear a difference he might want to get his ears checked.

Yeesh

 

That's crazy. It's gotta be what happened to me.

 

But $2 ears?

Ok, seriously, like the others already said, there is a difference and it is audible, that guy should change his job.

 

Dude forgot to turn them on, honest mistake.

 

Hahaha I'm feeling the same way. I kind of wonder if there's quite a bit of translation issues going on here. The guy gave me minimal useful feedback (too much low end, bass is too stereo, not enough saturation), but then basically stated that I have no idea what a good master sounds like and that the track didn't need mastering anyways

I was sent this track to master it and I thought I did an alright job for $15. I've been practicing and learning Mastering for 5 years. People here seem to think my version is alright and gave me some valuable critical feedback. It's not rocket science

I chirped back at the guy and told him I didn't think he should be telling me I don't know what I'm doing based on his work that I heard. He didn't seem to like that lol. Maybe I was a bit too snide towards him considering it could be translation issues.

Just two no name engineers starting useless internet drama at the end of the day

 

I bet all of his expensive analog equipment make for very nice art pieces in his studio

 

It is both...
Unmastered is like a diamond that is not worked on. So a raw "thing"
Mastered is when this "thing" is shaped to meet the so called "mastered" sound.
Eather way, you want to have the "unmastered" to create the "master".
In other words... When someone fiddles with the mastered thing... well
It would be called "overdue".
But there are engineers that have the tools nowdays to see or hear if that
is. It's all about the sound that "is".

 

Last edited: Jan 22, 2024

Just tell him "your mom" and move on. It's the most professional thing to do.

-mk_96 (not a professional)

 

Remember that "Mastering" is what you sell to the one that feels or likes the "Mastering".
Mastering is all about "Taste" as what the "Customer" wants.
In other words... The "Picture" can be... While on the other hand The "Picture" could not.
It all depends on the moment that the "buyer" would "accept"

 

The biggest issue with this test is that its done by someone who doesn't quite understand high level mastering techniques, and most importantly application. The difference between these two songs are from a 'practical standpoint' are negligible. The discernable differnce between both examples could have been achieved in the stage mix alone, which (to me) defeats the purpose of the mastering chain in this example. As someone who has mixed and mastered hundreds of records, I'm a big fan of doing everything that from the mix side that I can before depending on the master bus, BUT with that being said I always mix through a limiter to ensure I can get an idea what my mix will sound like during the mastering phase. Most modern mixes from pro's tend to be 99% the finished sound with the mastering phase being mostly a touch of limiting, and minor, or creative enhancements.

 

Until that guy posts his own before/after of his work it's all oral fart gas.

He's probably lying about the monitors too.

 

I agree in the sense that that is the theory behind Mastering. I just wanted to demonstrate some sound shaping possibilities. I had to do quite a few fixes in the mix rather than just do a minor enhancement mastering. But it's all subjective at the end of the day.

 

You probably would have handled it a bit more professionally than me. Only reason I got bitter with the guy is that he presented it that I basically had no idea what I'm doing, rather than critiqued the actual mix. So I wasted my time going back at him

It's over now but if someone tells me I have no idea what I'm doing, I'm at least going to try to defend myself. I'm probably just talking to myself at this point tho.

 

neither of these files sounds very good. So the key is to record what your doing "properly" in the first place.
So , Im not trying to be mean or anything , but these are not good all the way around.
I come from the land of analog tape clear back to the 70's , and honestly since computer and digital recordings
have come of age , everyone trying to make their songs as loud as possible , has destroyed what a good mix
should / could really be !!
ive seen many engineers ( and myself included ) ; spend the time to record tracks as close to the sound source as
possible , so as to keep each instrument in its own world of timbre of where it is naturally at. And with the digital world
"being able to break all the rules , have brought us to where we are at now. ( and BTW: sometimes rules are made NOT
to be broken , ya know ; common sense and also timbre "laws of physics" , should be applied and followed !!
So , alot of times thru the past , ive watched many songs get 'mix down' without being mastered , just mixed to two tracks
and come our sounding astounding ..... ( ie: Motown Studios , just pick a song , their wonderful !!! )

its to bad we've lost all that magic.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 23, 2024

Please go into detail about the magical "high level mastering techniques" that I don't understand. Maybe you can teach me some useful stuff. Just saying I don't understand it is useless. Please go into detail about the issues with master (and explicit ways to correct them) to help me improve.

Also, yes obviously things should have been fixed it the mix. I don't know why I have to explain this. I DO NOT HAVE THE MIX haha. I was sent this mix and gave feedback to the producer/mixer about what could be changed. He only made minor changes.

I think the fact that I was able to accomplish certain things in the mastering process that are things that should have been done in the mix process (as you said) demonstrates a reasonable understanding of improving sonic qualities and delivering a more professional sounding product to the client. That was my goal. Mastering in this application was almost as corrective as I've ever had to do it. Correction is enhancement in many ways.

Yes, most modern mixes are 99% done and then they pay a guy (in a $200k studio) $100 to put AOM invisible limiter, Ozone Maximizer, or Fab Filter Pro L-2 on the mix and say "well that was some hard work choosing a limiter". (This isn't a joke BTW I actually saw this exact thing in a MWTM video for a Porter Robinson song mastering session).

I am not receiving mixes at that quality. Not even close. If you want to send me any world class mixes to throw a limiter on and then pay me $100, DM me and I would be elated to do that. No seriously, please do that

 

I worked with what I was sent. The producer already had his kick clipping. I agree that things need to be done correctly in the recording/producing stage. I unfortunately didn't have any control over that. If it were my own mix I might have had more control. I honestly kind of agree that both files don't sound great. The point was to test which one sounds better. Even when you have 2 bad things, one of the them has to be better. Music changes and you can learn to like both the old and new. I love listening to Bill Evans, but I also love The Contortionist. Their mixes and masters sound completely different, but there are things I like about both of them. Neither of their processes would be "right" for each other (recording, producing, mixing, master).

 

Last edited: Jan 23, 2024