The Myth of Mastering
Every engineer / producer knows just how important the mastering stage is in completing a record. A good 'cut' can only enhance months of hard work; recording and mixing, creating a sound which you and the artist believe in. At the same time if a record is mastered badly, all the effort may as well be seen as wasted, because in one afternoon the whole sound can be destroyed. The problem is everyone has a different idea of what is good or bad, and unfortunately, there are probably far to many people in decision making places that could not even tell the difference between mastered and un-mastered mixes. So it comes down to you as an engineer to try and ensure that the mix will 'survive' the cut, and it is now becoming harder to know how far the final mix should be taken to allow for it to move on to the next stage. Ideally you want to leave plenty of opportunity for the engineer doing the master to be able to work the track and get the most out of it, in terms of overall EQ, but more importantly level!
Now here is where again it becomes very subjective. I am sure some purists out there don't believe mastering should always be about getting the loudest CD you can. Well I am certainly not one of those! I love nothing more than putting a disc in the player and having to actually turn the volume down because it is so loud - the overall sound jumps out of the speakers at you, and is exciting to hear. So where does that sound come from? Is it in the mix or is it down to the mastering? I am going to be very honest now. I have never been impressed by any mastering job I have heard in the UK. Again, that is probably just my opinion, as I'm sure the mastering engineers liked the sound of what they were doing to my mixes (at least I hope they believed in their own work!). What is it I haven..t liked? Several things really. Firstly the volume level that is always achieved by the engineers over here just doesn't seem to compare with my favourite sounding CDs. Secondly, none of the masters ever seem to have that same sheen and brightness as some of the albums I consider to have a stunning sonic quality. What else has probably left me unimpressed with a master, is hearing the results you can get yourself in protools using plugins, and multiband compressors. I have always steered away from these types of processes as I believe it is putting mastering engineers tools in a mix engineers hands. The two processes should be kept separate. But it does beg the question 'if I can make a track sound like this with a bit of software, then why doesn't it sound better if I give to a dedicated mastering engineer?'
The mastering engineers over here seem to be very 'EQ happy'. Adding plenty of treble but leaving the bass sounding weak, or vice versa. So again we come back to wondering how far a mix should be taken prior to being mastered. So I think, right last time, a track was mastered he added so much top it made the mix sound bass light, so why don't I make it a bit duller in the mix so when it gets mastered it should be just about right. Or with compression - last time the mastering guy squashed the track so much that the punch from my drum balance was lost, so maybe if I leave the drums slightly too loud by the time it gets mastered it should be just about right. Surely this is all wrong. I should just mix a track and not have to worry about it getting butchered further along the line, but unfortunately this is has never been the case, until an experience I had recently.
I mentioned earlier that all my favourite sounding records are exciting, punchy extremely loud and have an overall sparkle to them, and they also all have one key thing in common. They were mastered in America. The mastering studios in New York have always been regarded as some of the best in the World, and I was fortunate enough to attend a mastering session with an engineer whose name I have repeatedly seen on the back of every great sounding album for the past 10 years. It was one of the most eye opening experiences I have ever had as an engineer. The first thing that struck me immediately was the attitude of the engineer. Considering he has won Grammy awards for his work, he was one of the nicest guys I have ever met in a studio, which was a welcome change from some of the engineers you meet in British mastering suites, who seem to think they know best and can make you feel inferior. The hospitality at the facility was first class, and with a view from the studio window that looks out across the Hudson River at the Statue of liberty, it felt like an inspiring place to be working.
Technically, the studio didn't really have any equipment that wouldn't be found in or is available to a UK mastering house. I guess the real difference comes down to how it all gets used. The attention to detail throughout the entire session was incredible. Mastering different sections of songs, with varying settings and EQ's to ensure that the entire piece of music was perfectly balanced from start to finish. If he felt one section wasn't punchy enough, then this would be compressed differently to the rest of the track, to make sure the record sounded exciting all the way through. Different sections were mastered at different volumes to ensure the maximum dynamic for each song, while always keeping the level optimum. Different gear was used from song to song, just what ever was needed to achieve the best result and tie all the tracks together with the consistency an album needs. Definitely not a case of set up the first song and use the same toys for all the rest, which unfortunately I have seen far to many times in this country.
Now I know why all the American CD's sound so much better. It really is down to the mastering. Sure enough, the project I was working on came out sounding absolutely stunning. For the first time in my career, I have heard a cut that sounds like it has been mastered. It is very loud (stands up against any other American album), and has that super slick CD sheen to it that I always wondered how it is achieved. I am sure it is not the sort of sound that everyone likes, but for me I really do see how important good mastering is, and when it is done right what a massive difference it can make to the sound of your record.
Every engineer / producer knows just how important the mastering stage is in completing a record. A good 'cut' can only enhance months of hard work; recording and mixing, creating a sound which you and the artist believe in. At the same time if a record is mastered badly, all the effort may as well be seen as wasted, because in one afternoon the whole sound can be destroyed. The problem is everyone has a different idea of what is good or bad, and unfortunately, there are probably far to many people in decision making places that could not even tell the difference between mastered and un-mastered mixes. So it comes down to you as an engineer to try and ensure that the mix will 'survive' the cut, and it is now becoming harder to know how far the final mix should be taken to allow for it to move on to the next stage. Ideally you want to leave plenty of opportunity for the engineer doing the master to be able to work the track and get the most out of it, in terms of overall EQ, but more importantly level!
Now here is where again it becomes very subjective. I am sure some purists out there don't believe mastering should always be about getting the loudest CD you can. Well I am certainly not one of those! I love nothing more than putting a disc in the player and having to actually turn the volume down because it is so loud - the overall sound jumps out of the speakers at you, and is exciting to hear. So where does that sound come from? Is it in the mix or is it down to the mastering? I am going to be very honest now. I have never been impressed by any mastering job I have heard in the UK. Again, that is probably just my opinion, as I'm sure the mastering engineers liked the sound of what they were doing to my mixes (at least I hope they believed in their own work!). What is it I haven..t liked? Several things really. Firstly the volume level that is always achieved by the engineers over here just doesn't seem to compare with my favourite sounding CDs. Secondly, none of the masters ever seem to have that same sheen and brightness as some of the albums I consider to have a stunning sonic quality. What else has probably left me unimpressed with a master, is hearing the results you can get yourself in protools using plugins, and multiband compressors. I have always steered away from these types of processes as I believe it is putting mastering engineers tools in a mix engineers hands. The two processes should be kept separate. But it does beg the question 'if I can make a track sound like this with a bit of software, then why doesn't it sound better if I give to a dedicated mastering engineer?'
The mastering engineers over here seem to be very 'EQ happy'. Adding plenty of treble but leaving the bass sounding weak, or vice versa. So again we come back to wondering how far a mix should be taken prior to being mastered. So I think, right last time, a track was mastered he added so much top it made the mix sound bass light, so why don't I make it a bit duller in the mix so when it gets mastered it should be just about right. Or with compression - last time the mastering guy squashed the track so much that the punch from my drum balance was lost, so maybe if I leave the drums slightly too loud by the time it gets mastered it should be just about right. Surely this is all wrong. I should just mix a track and not have to worry about it getting butchered further along the line, but unfortunately this is has never been the case, until an experience I had recently.
I mentioned earlier that all my favourite sounding records are exciting, punchy extremely loud and have an overall sparkle to them, and they also all have one key thing in common. They were mastered in America. The mastering studios in New York have always been regarded as some of the best in the World, and I was fortunate enough to attend a mastering session with an engineer whose name I have repeatedly seen on the back of every great sounding album for the past 10 years. It was one of the most eye opening experiences I have ever had as an engineer. The first thing that struck me immediately was the attitude of the engineer. Considering he has won Grammy awards for his work, he was one of the nicest guys I have ever met in a studio, which was a welcome change from some of the engineers you meet in British mastering suites, who seem to think they know best and can make you feel inferior. The hospitality at the facility was first class, and with a view from the studio window that looks out across the Hudson River at the Statue of liberty, it felt like an inspiring place to be working.
Technically, the studio didn't really have any equipment that wouldn't be found in or is available to a UK mastering house. I guess the real difference comes down to how it all gets used. The attention to detail throughout the entire session was incredible. Mastering different sections of songs, with varying settings and EQ's to ensure that the entire piece of music was perfectly balanced from start to finish. If he felt one section wasn't punchy enough, then this would be compressed differently to the rest of the track, to make sure the record sounded exciting all the way through. Different sections were mastered at different volumes to ensure the maximum dynamic for each song, while always keeping the level optimum. Different gear was used from song to song, just what ever was needed to achieve the best result and tie all the tracks together with the consistency an album needs. Definitely not a case of set up the first song and use the same toys for all the rest, which unfortunately I have seen far to many times in this country.
Now I know why all the American CD's sound so much better. It really is down to the mastering. Sure enough, the project I was working on came out sounding absolutely stunning. For the first time in my career, I have heard a cut that sounds like it has been mastered. It is very loud (stands up against any other American album), and has that super slick CD sheen to it that I always wondered how it is achieved. I am sure it is not the sort of sound that everyone likes, but for me I really do see how important good mastering is, and when it is done right what a massive difference it can make to the sound of your record.
