What is your take on what makes a great mastering engineer vs. a good or just a decent mastering engineer? Specific to the genre or not...
Any experiences?
Any experiences?
What makes a great mastering engineer?
- Thread starter Plec
- Start date
I'm just gonna put it out there that I still don't see how if you've got a perfect mix from an excellent mix engineer the mastering process needs to be anything more than just making it loud. Maybe in the case of genres other than metal where there are different mixes for different songs (as I was only recently made aware of 
), it helps to have one dude (the ME) who is able to take it all and make it feel like one cohesive end product, but since the obsession in metal seems to be uniformity of the mix through the whole album (don't get me wrong, I have no problem with this, I might even prefer it), a dedicated skilled Mastering Engineer seems unnecessary. Case in point, I'm pretty certain Andy masters all his own stuff, and I am certain that he's not the only one, and tons of stuff (metal) that's been mastered by the mix engineer sounds plenty good to me as well!
), it helps to have one dude (the ME) who is able to take it all and make it feel like one cohesive end product, but since the obsession in metal seems to be uniformity of the mix through the whole album (don't get me wrong, I have no problem with this, I might even prefer it), a dedicated skilled Mastering Engineer seems unnecessary. Case in point, I'm pretty certain Andy masters all his own stuff, and I am certain that he's not the only one, and tons of stuff (metal) that's been mastered by the mix engineer sounds plenty good to me as well!
chonchball
37studios.com
Mastering is more than EQing and slapping some comp/limiter settings on it to make it loud.
It's setting the pacing between songs. That takes a certain intuition. It's making sure the songs have the right dynamic within its apparent loudness, this is more true for albums that AREN'T metal, but let's say you have a soundtrack CD of 11 tracks for a movie soundtrack and all of the songs are by different Engineers and diiferent Mixers in different studios, in different countries! It has Coldplay, Incubus, Taylor Swift, The Jonas Brothers, Nickelback, 3OH!3 and, and Rascal Flatts, all on one CD among others. Tell me mastering that project wouldn't be a nightmare!
First of all, you're answering to some pretty snobby millionaire execs who are going to be overlooking the project through a microscope, so your skills of being a good EQ/Limiter don't apply when it comes to dealing with the PEOPLE, and that's a big part of it too. But beyond that, you have a ton of songs that have no business being in the same playlist coming at you one after another, and the listener subconciously expects those songs to be of equal loudness and power. If you use the same mastering settings from Coldplay to 3OH!3, i bet your high end is gonna be on the fritz and whoever listens to it would get pretty bad ear fatigue from the get-go.
Every one of us here who has done projects for a client other than for our own hobby has heard the same question time and again: "So what exactly IS mastering? Is it just making it louder?"
I always answer the question with a non-answer, and just say, look... it's a pretty in depth answer to a fairly complex question, but in your specific case, yes you will hear a difference in volume.
Being a good mastering engineer is just like being a good audio engineer though when it comes to your abilities beyond your tools. There's more to it than downloading Cubase, buying a Firepod, getting a few mics and then calling yourself a producer because you have the ability to immortalize audio.
Part of being good at mastering is meeting the clients' specific needs, meeting the expectations of the the public, and adding something to the mix that was unachievable in the mixing process.
Good mastering engineer: Alan Duchess
Bad mastering engineer: Me
It's setting the pacing between songs. That takes a certain intuition. It's making sure the songs have the right dynamic within its apparent loudness, this is more true for albums that AREN'T metal, but let's say you have a soundtrack CD of 11 tracks for a movie soundtrack and all of the songs are by different Engineers and diiferent Mixers in different studios, in different countries! It has Coldplay, Incubus, Taylor Swift, The Jonas Brothers, Nickelback, 3OH!3 and, and Rascal Flatts, all on one CD among others. Tell me mastering that project wouldn't be a nightmare!
First of all, you're answering to some pretty snobby millionaire execs who are going to be overlooking the project through a microscope, so your skills of being a good EQ/Limiter don't apply when it comes to dealing with the PEOPLE, and that's a big part of it too. But beyond that, you have a ton of songs that have no business being in the same playlist coming at you one after another, and the listener subconciously expects those songs to be of equal loudness and power. If you use the same mastering settings from Coldplay to 3OH!3, i bet your high end is gonna be on the fritz and whoever listens to it would get pretty bad ear fatigue from the get-go.
Every one of us here who has done projects for a client other than for our own hobby has heard the same question time and again: "So what exactly IS mastering? Is it just making it louder?"
I always answer the question with a non-answer, and just say, look... it's a pretty in depth answer to a fairly complex question, but in your specific case, yes you will hear a difference in volume.
Being a good mastering engineer is just like being a good audio engineer though when it comes to your abilities beyond your tools. There's more to it than downloading Cubase, buying a Firepod, getting a few mics and then calling yourself a producer because you have the ability to immortalize audio.
Part of being good at mastering is meeting the clients' specific needs, meeting the expectations of the the public, and adding something to the mix that was unachievable in the mixing process.
Good mastering engineer: Alan Duchess
Bad mastering engineer: Me
Seems like most of your answer was specifically targeted towards what I already mentioned though, getting things consistent between tracks that were mixed by different people or that have especially different dynamics (or different artists/styles for that matter), but none of it applied to the average metal album by one artist as far as I could tell. And then a bunch of vague "you wouldn't understand" statements
chonchball
37studios.com
The OP stated "specific to the genre or not"
I was answering based on that, not attempting to sound vague nor argue with your post. Just adding my 2 cents to the topic.
I think with metal albums, it IS about consistency, and if you can make it big and loud and consistent, you've done your job as a mastering engineer (for the most part)
I was merely trying to expand on other branches of the topic by mentioning other aspects that can make for a good mastering engineer. Hopefully the OP finds it interesting or useful.
And admittedly, some parts of mastering still are vague to me, that's why I prefer not to master, because "I don't fully understand" nor do I have the right listening environment.
I was answering based on that, not attempting to sound vague nor argue with your post. Just adding my 2 cents to the topic.
I think with metal albums, it IS about consistency, and if you can make it big and loud and consistent, you've done your job as a mastering engineer (for the most part)
I was merely trying to expand on other branches of the topic by mentioning other aspects that can make for a good mastering engineer. Hopefully the OP finds it interesting or useful.
And admittedly, some parts of mastering still are vague to me, that's why I prefer not to master, because "I don't fully understand" nor do I have the right listening environment.
Jind
Grrrr!!! (I'm a bear)
- Mar 7, 2009
- 2,542
- 0
- 36
I tend to agree with chonchball on his statements about what mastering is and that it is a hell of a lot more than "making it loud". On a song to song basis, many people can put out great stuff, but when it comes time to release an entire disc of music, it takes something that can't be purchased - a great ear. Once again - song to song, many folks can generate great sounding work, but putting it all together with all the magical ebb and flow stuff that comes across as a great album, when listened from front to back, requires a different sort of ear than just getting a great mix down for one or two songs.
Just my 2 cents about my understanding about what makes a great mastering engineer.
Just my 2 cents about my understanding about what makes a great mastering engineer.
But very rarely do you have a mix that is perfect? And one of the toughest disciplines to master about mastering is to know when you've done enough... when to stop basically. To master in the same environment that you mixed in is also quite counter productive, right?
Maybe in the case of genres other than metal where there are different mixes for different songs (as I was only recently made aware of
Mastering in the traditional sense isn't really about anything more than transferring and optimizing the original recording for the destined end-medium. And since pretty much everybody can do that with a dithering algorithm and Waveburner... why would you need a mastering engineer at all?
I find this quote in particular interesting...
A clients specific needs in terms of sound, or are there any other specific needs you are referring to? How does the expectations of the public differ from the clients specific needs? Isn't mastering about finding a middle ground and adjusting the program to play well on as many systems as possible? Shouldn't all the creative decisions have been made at the mix stage already? What is it that you can do in mastering that you can't do at the mixstage?
DanLights
Santa Hat Forever
I won't put 2 cents but I'll put like 0.5 cents cause it's more to the question than to the answer, and please don't flame me for what I'm about to say, keep it in context
I used to be the impatient bastard who had to download the leaked album from X band before it was actually released (now I'm just too lazy), most of the time I bought it because I liked it, other times I never bought and sometimes never heard it again/deleted it from my hd for space issues.
my point is, some of these leaks are unmastered versions, so I sometimes listened to the unmastered version of a "pro" album. Besides the obvious difference in loudness, I noticed that the overall sound was "weaker" than mastered albums, as in every instrument sounded kind of weak, not in-your-face, and it was all missing a certain glue to everything, like you can feel some more separation from the tracks, other than the perfectly coherent sound of a mastered pro album. This is all in the same track, not comparing different track like what seems to be the topic talked here. Am I nuts? or is that also what makes a good mastering engineer? the adequate use of compression, reverb and Eq to glue together the mix and beef it up a bit?
I used to be the impatient bastard who had to download the leaked album from X band before it was actually released (now I'm just too lazy), most of the time I bought it because I liked it, other times I never bought and sometimes never heard it again/deleted it from my hd for space issues.
my point is, some of these leaks are unmastered versions, so I sometimes listened to the unmastered version of a "pro" album. Besides the obvious difference in loudness, I noticed that the overall sound was "weaker" than mastered albums, as in every instrument sounded kind of weak, not in-your-face, and it was all missing a certain glue to everything, like you can feel some more separation from the tracks, other than the perfectly coherent sound of a mastered pro album. This is all in the same track, not comparing different track like what seems to be the topic talked here. Am I nuts? or is that also what makes a good mastering engineer? the adequate use of compression, reverb and Eq to glue together the mix and beef it up a bit?
But do you really think the top mixing engineers out there are only capable of getting a great mix down for one or two songs? And that there has to be all that many difference changes in mix settings between songs if the greatest care was taken to keep the sound consistent through them all? That's what I'm getting at (and for the umpteenth time, I'm only talking in metal, and as I said, Andy's productions come across as "a great album with magical ebb and flow" (whatever that means
) to me!)Good question!
Andy, Lasse, Jens Bogren, and so many others have mastered their own stuff, and it sounds great to me!
But do you really think the top mixing engineers out there are only capable of getting a great mix down for one or two songs? And that there has to be all that many difference changes in mix settings between songs if the greatest care was taken to keep the sound consistent through them all? That's what I'm getting at (and for the umpteenth time, I'm only talking in metal, and as I said, Andy's productions come across as "a great album with magical ebb and flow" (whatever that means
IMO consistent albums are by far the easiest to make both mix and mastering wise because if you want it consistent you must treat it like a live performance more or less. Very rarely do you need to change the basic settings between songs, maybe something needs changed on specific parts if you're in for a surprise but other than that it's very straight forward which is also why most mastering engineers get a metal album done in 2-4 hours whereas a more complex pop album with different mixers, producers might need 8-10 hours.
I'd say we're in agreement then! (and I'm just a bedroom quarterback, and you're the pro, so I'm glad my intuition and logic at least are up to par
)
Fox Mulder
The Truth Is Out There
I once heard a great quote about mastering. It said, "Mastering is simultaneously the last step in the creative process and the first step in the manufacturing process." I'm sorry, that I really don't know who gets the credit for that quote, but it's a great way to think about mastering.
Mastering is about the creation of a final product. In CD mastering, you collect the final music mixes that make up the product (the CD), and adjust them so that they all sound like they belong together on the same CD. These adjustments might include:
EQ
>To even out the frequency balance of each song
>To help match the sound of all of the songs to each other
Compression
>To gently even out the dynamics of the mix
>To smooth out some of the transient attacks in the mix.
Limiting
>To lift the overall amplitude level of the mix, making it "louder"
>To bring out some of the quieter details by raising them up in relation to the louder parts
Ambience (yes, in some genres, probably other than metal)
>To add a sense of space or size to the overall mix
Image adjustment
>To fix any problems in the left/right symmetry of the mix
>To adjust the overall width of the stereo image
Trimming the start and end of each piece
>To create pleasing fade-ins and fade-outs
Level matching
>To ensure that all of the songs on the CD feel like they are at the same loudness
Assembling the songs in order (duh)
Adjusting the space between each song
>To create good pacing from one song to the next
Mastering is really about creating the delivery mastera fixed, physical piece of media from which the product, in this case the music CD, is manufactured.
To most of us, the term mastering is also used when referring to the act of taking one mix, all by itself, and adding a little EQ, compression, and so forth, just to make it sound better. Technically, that's not mastering, since there's no element of assembling a final product or creating a delivery master. Mastering is really about the assembly of a fixed, final product from a large set of assets, like ten or twelve final mixes of songs. As long as we remember that, we can happily take one of our mixes, process it to make it sound better, and call it "mastering."
While not as glamorous as recording or mixing, mastering is most definitely a creative act. Mastering engineers need to have excellent ears, strong musical instincts, and strong familiarity with a wide range of musical styles. A mastering engineer is, among other things, a fresh set of experienced ears to help make the final product as good as it can be. By sculpting each song with EQ and compression, and carefully assembling the entire CD, he can create a satisfying, cohesive project out of the individual elements.
Like most music production stages, mastering has its creative restrictions, too. When mastering a project, a mastering engineer is usually servicing the original mixes. Mastering isn't about totally changing the sound of a mix; a mastering engineer must remember that someone liked the way it sounds. That's why they approved it, and sent it to the mastering engineer for mastering. His responsibility, then, is to bring out the best in that mix, not change its character completely. While there are some cases when the mastering engineer must "rescue" a bad mix, this isn't really part of the job. Despite the running joke among engineers, "we'll fix it in the mastering," mastering is supposed to be about improving a good mix, not fixing a bad one.
Despite the strong creative element, mastering is also about having high-level technical skills. A mastering engineer knows intimately how EQ and compression can affect the 2-mix, and therefore how to apply it effectively to rebalance a mix. Mastering engineers must have a thorough knowledge of digital audio, and how to squeeze the best possible sound quality out of digital audio productions. Also, since the job is about creating a delivery master from which hundreds, thousands, or even more CDs are made. the mastering engineer knows how to correctly prepare a delivery master for manufacturing CDs without defects.
Mastering engineers hear differently than tracking and mixing engineers. Mastering requires patient, careful listening. A mastering engineer may listen to several minutes of a song, over and over again, before making a single adjustment on an EQ or a compressor. Sometimes the engineer will listen to an entire song, over and over again, just forming an opinion about what the mix needs, before doing anything at all to it. Unlike the relatively fast pace of mixing, mastering is as much about considering options as making changes.
Mastering is about the creation of a final product. In CD mastering, you collect the final music mixes that make up the product (the CD), and adjust them so that they all sound like they belong together on the same CD. These adjustments might include:
EQ
>To even out the frequency balance of each song
>To help match the sound of all of the songs to each other
Compression
>To gently even out the dynamics of the mix
>To smooth out some of the transient attacks in the mix.
Limiting
>To lift the overall amplitude level of the mix, making it "louder"
>To bring out some of the quieter details by raising them up in relation to the louder parts
Ambience (yes, in some genres, probably other than metal)
>To add a sense of space or size to the overall mix
Image adjustment
>To fix any problems in the left/right symmetry of the mix
>To adjust the overall width of the stereo image
Trimming the start and end of each piece
>To create pleasing fade-ins and fade-outs
Level matching
>To ensure that all of the songs on the CD feel like they are at the same loudness
Assembling the songs in order (duh)
Adjusting the space between each song
>To create good pacing from one song to the next
Mastering is really about creating the delivery mastera fixed, physical piece of media from which the product, in this case the music CD, is manufactured.
To most of us, the term mastering is also used when referring to the act of taking one mix, all by itself, and adding a little EQ, compression, and so forth, just to make it sound better. Technically, that's not mastering, since there's no element of assembling a final product or creating a delivery master. Mastering is really about the assembly of a fixed, final product from a large set of assets, like ten or twelve final mixes of songs. As long as we remember that, we can happily take one of our mixes, process it to make it sound better, and call it "mastering."
While not as glamorous as recording or mixing, mastering is most definitely a creative act. Mastering engineers need to have excellent ears, strong musical instincts, and strong familiarity with a wide range of musical styles. A mastering engineer is, among other things, a fresh set of experienced ears to help make the final product as good as it can be. By sculpting each song with EQ and compression, and carefully assembling the entire CD, he can create a satisfying, cohesive project out of the individual elements.
Like most music production stages, mastering has its creative restrictions, too. When mastering a project, a mastering engineer is usually servicing the original mixes. Mastering isn't about totally changing the sound of a mix; a mastering engineer must remember that someone liked the way it sounds. That's why they approved it, and sent it to the mastering engineer for mastering. His responsibility, then, is to bring out the best in that mix, not change its character completely. While there are some cases when the mastering engineer must "rescue" a bad mix, this isn't really part of the job. Despite the running joke among engineers, "we'll fix it in the mastering," mastering is supposed to be about improving a good mix, not fixing a bad one.
Despite the strong creative element, mastering is also about having high-level technical skills. A mastering engineer knows intimately how EQ and compression can affect the 2-mix, and therefore how to apply it effectively to rebalance a mix. Mastering engineers must have a thorough knowledge of digital audio, and how to squeeze the best possible sound quality out of digital audio productions. Also, since the job is about creating a delivery master from which hundreds, thousands, or even more CDs are made. the mastering engineer knows how to correctly prepare a delivery master for manufacturing CDs without defects.
Mastering engineers hear differently than tracking and mixing engineers. Mastering requires patient, careful listening. A mastering engineer may listen to several minutes of a song, over and over again, before making a single adjustment on an EQ or a compressor. Sometimes the engineer will listen to an entire song, over and over again, just forming an opinion about what the mix needs, before doing anything at all to it. Unlike the relatively fast pace of mixing, mastering is as much about considering options as making changes.
chonchball
37studios.com
Ah, okay to elboarate on what I meant by meeting client / public needs
sometimes you have a client whose band wants their album to sound 'like' (pick any) As I Lay Dying album. But the band's sound more closely resembles Alter Bridge (i'm being extreme here for the sake of example). So as the mastering engineer, in order to somehow find a balance there, you need to figure out what it is about the As I Lay Dying CD that makes it punch the way it does, and apply some of those principles to the band's master. OR, you need to exercise the flipside of the coin that I meant when I said you have to have people skills and explain to them that the sound they are asking for is not appropriate for their style of music, based on what the public would be comfortable hearing and then master the CD with more reasonable settings that compliment the specific mix.
About 10 years ago I was in a pretty bad numetal band that sounded like a cross between Will Haven and Limp Bizkit trying to incorporate Neurosis and deftones riffs into our sound, and after we got done recording, we handed the mastering engineer the Vision Of Disorder "imprint" cd as a reference.
We were late teens / early 20s with a record contract, and had a CD going out to retail, and we had completely misguided expectations. Luckily, the engineer pointed out that our mix sounded NOTHING like the CD we handed him and it would be unachievable to make the two sound similar. But at any rate, good masters sound very different from each other, even if they are appropriate for the specific CD. Like Dillinger Escape Plan's Miss Machine versus Ion Dissonance's Minus The Herd. They both sound like what they should sound like, and they're both relatively the same genre, but the MASTERS, not just the mixes, sound NOTHING alike (and they are both mastered by the same person might I add)
So I guess what I was getting at there was that being a good mastering engineer is in some part knowing how to show discretion with your clients to help guide them through a smooth and happy mastering session where not only is the sound of their album nice and loud and punchy, but also that the client leaves feeling confident with it, and the end-listener is pleased with what they hear.
I don't think this is the most crucial element, and it wouldn't come into play ALL the time, but it comes into play some of the time, and it's good to have the wherewithal to get 'er done!
sometimes you have a client whose band wants their album to sound 'like' (pick any) As I Lay Dying album. But the band's sound more closely resembles Alter Bridge (i'm being extreme here for the sake of example). So as the mastering engineer, in order to somehow find a balance there, you need to figure out what it is about the As I Lay Dying CD that makes it punch the way it does, and apply some of those principles to the band's master. OR, you need to exercise the flipside of the coin that I meant when I said you have to have people skills and explain to them that the sound they are asking for is not appropriate for their style of music, based on what the public would be comfortable hearing and then master the CD with more reasonable settings that compliment the specific mix.
About 10 years ago I was in a pretty bad numetal band that sounded like a cross between Will Haven and Limp Bizkit trying to incorporate Neurosis and deftones riffs into our sound, and after we got done recording, we handed the mastering engineer the Vision Of Disorder "imprint" cd as a reference.
We were late teens / early 20s with a record contract, and had a CD going out to retail, and we had completely misguided expectations. Luckily, the engineer pointed out that our mix sounded NOTHING like the CD we handed him and it would be unachievable to make the two sound similar. But at any rate, good masters sound very different from each other, even if they are appropriate for the specific CD. Like Dillinger Escape Plan's Miss Machine versus Ion Dissonance's Minus The Herd. They both sound like what they should sound like, and they're both relatively the same genre, but the MASTERS, not just the mixes, sound NOTHING alike (and they are both mastered by the same person might I add)
So I guess what I was getting at there was that being a good mastering engineer is in some part knowing how to show discretion with your clients to help guide them through a smooth and happy mastering session where not only is the sound of their album nice and loud and punchy, but also that the client leaves feeling confident with it, and the end-listener is pleased with what they hear.
I don't think this is the most crucial element, and it wouldn't come into play ALL the time, but it comes into play some of the time, and it's good to have the wherewithal to get 'er done!
Gomez
Member
experience, attention to detail, exposing the full potentialof each individual song.
Knowing it's 'enough' in term of processing and limiting and when NOT to process.
A good mastering engineer should provide you with a cohorent album, that sounds great in all sort of playback systems.
Sorry about typos - writing from my mobile.
Knowing it's 'enough' in term of processing and limiting and when NOT to process.
A good mastering engineer should provide you with a cohorent album, that sounds great in all sort of playback systems.
Sorry about typos - writing from my mobile.
