(talking about one song only - not an album)

so during mixing, we get the volume, EQ, stereo placement...etc all is ok

so we are happy with the mix

Now at mastering, since we are happy with the mix i would assume that the only thing that remains would be to increase volume to be at same sort of volume with other tracks out there and check in various playback systems.

my question is, what makes mastering engineers compress or grab an eq? why wouldn't a mixing engineer do this before reaching mastering, by applying eq or compression on busses or individual tracks, or even apply that compression or eq on the master

Its like the mastering engineer is changing the vision of the mixing engineer when they grab an EQ or compress? otherwise i think the mixing engineer would have done it in the first place?

its not like the mixing engineer is not working for the final product (except compatibility to systems and loudness).....so why do mastering engineers keep grabbing eqs and compressors

i want to understand what exactly is done during mastering and why given the above

thanks!

 

Last edited: Aug 17, 2022

Thank you of the digital age and your new innovative products like the home digital
audio workstation, increasingly mixes "Mixing" and "Mastering" into one process.

Bob Katz is a mastering engineer known for his influential book on mastering and his recordings of jazz and classical music.
https://gikacoustics-de.translate.g...l=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

How to: Mastering Audio by Bob Katz

Buy the book from Amazon here: http://bit.ly/6h5Mqg

Bob Katz- Mastering legend live PMFC interview with interactive Q & A

 

I pondered on this too and from what I understand :

1) Mastering engineers have expensive equipement and great monitoring capabilities.They'll be able to hear things that you can't and tweak things in ways you probably can't or don't know about.
2) Mastering engineers have a different set of ears than yours, and a different taste, so they give you a different and fair assessment of your song
3) Mastering engineers have specific skills and experience, to bring your song to certain standards (not only standards of loudness but standards in the industry within specific genres).

Anyone feel free to correct me or add to the list.

 

If there are no problems in the mix, then yes, nothing should be changed. But honestly, this happens in less than about 1 in 100 cases.
I have achieved this once with a mix of ours and so far haven't received a single mix for mastering where this was the case.

That should never happen (if what the mixing engineer had done was in accordance with the artist).

 

but when u say u achieved this 1 in 100 cases

isn't that because u hurry to go to the mastering stage? otherwise i think it would all be solved in mixing

 

One of the main goals of mastering is to ensure consistency across a collection or domain in terms of frequency distribution, loudness, dynamic range, stereo width, etc. This cannot be done in the mix, because this final product simply doesn't exist at this time yet. That's why the mix is usually a bit more restrained to leave enough headroom for the final touch in the mastering process.

There is a nice guide from iZotope called "Mastering with Ozone", however it does not apply to this software only but also mastering in general with various principles and explanations:
https://downloads.izotope.com/guides/iZotopeMasteringGuide_MasteringWithOzone.pdf

Take a look if you like. It will answer many of your questions.

 

thanks i've been reading the first page

Diagnosing Common Problems It sounds small, and isn’t “loud” enough. Turning it up or mixing down at a higher level doesn’t solve the problem. Yes, that makes it sound louder, but doesn’t add the required impact or clarity. It sounds dull. Other recordings are warm and deep yet bright and open—all at the same time. You try boosting the EQ at high frequencies, but now your song just sounds harsh and noisy. The instruments and vocals sound thin and lack the same sense of fullness that your favorite recordings have. You patch in a compressor and adjust some controls, and now the whole mix sounds squashed. The vocal might sound louder, but the cymbals have no dynamics. It’s fuller… and lifeless. The bass doesn’t have punch. You boost it with some low-end EQ, but now it just sounds louder and muddier, not punchier. You can hear all the instruments in your mix, and they all seem to have their own “place” in the stereo image, but the overall image sounds wrong. Other tracks have width and image that you just can’t seem to get from panning the individual tracks. You had reverb on the individual tracks, but it just sounds like several instruments in several different spaces. Your other CDs have a sort of cohesive space that brings all the parts together. Not like rooms within a room, but a “spaciousness” that works across the entire mix.


i'll read more to understand better, but seems very informative

eq: Cutting or boosting more than 2-4 dB means you probably have a problem that you can’t fix from the stereo master. Go back to the multitrack mixing step.

Use reference music that you think sounds good in your room.

 

Last edited: Aug 17, 2022

If you're perfect at mixing...

 

i guess at mastering u can make quicker overall changes ...but as i've read you can't be making large adjustments at mastering

so i guess mixing for large adjustments and mastering for small ones

 

This is a question I've often asked myself. I've read some interviews where a mastering engineer made references to correcting individual stems. This would mean he was provided with all the stems of a song and not just the two-track. And I've also seen where record companies say, "Make sure your two-track song is less than -3dB so we can master it." IOW, mastering was done using either individual stems or two-tracks. No wonder people get confused about what mastering is.

 

A stem mastering can almost sound like a remix - if that's intended. Been there, done that.

 

So you're going to get a totally screwed up mastering. I received the work of some famous mastering engineers and I was disappointed with it, but the label didn't want to pay twice so it was released as is. That's why I'm trying to master mastering on my own.

 

My personal opinion on this is that in a perfect world, where all people were highly skilled at mixing, mastering engineers would be superfluous. When the mix would be perfect in terms of punch, color, balance, stereo width and dynamics you really would only have to ramp up the limiter without killing the mix and everything would be fine.
However, I believe that in 99 of 100 cases, mastering engineers have more trained ears which is why the current industry standard is to let them cast a glance over your mix and correct the very things I have mentioned (punch, color.. ) if needed. The mastering stage is sort of like the quality check in the process that leads to the release.

 

Mastering used to be medium specific. Thats where it stems from. Tape needed(s) a different dynamic and freq. range than vinyl.
As loud a possible without braking the medium or have the needle jump out of the groove.
From there it became what it is today. Finalising what is mostly already finished for the digital domain and Bob's y'r uncle.

.seb