The same thing applies to mixing too. A lot of the “pros” give mix advice but they’re receiving a mix that’s already been over half completed by the producer that selected guitar, bass, kick and snare sounds, reverb lengths, maybe a complete vocal sound etc. so they are sweetening an already pretty balanced mix. We tend to get everything raw. Maybe just guitar DIs, drums tracked straight through the interface pres, so no decisions on sounds, no lush mic pres, EQs, or compression on the way in. We are essentially tasked with production decisions, all the mix decisions, and often they want a master on top of all that.
I agree 100%. most important is to get the best result, and do what it needs to do to sound amazing. Great video Sam, I like very much this mythbusting videos 😂. You are asking (and answering) great questiong and bring people to think about it
This information is the answer thats held many back. When I started working with pro mixers/kmastering engineers I realised they were doing what it needs. They would compress the fuck out of some things- VISUALLY it would appear but it sounded right! When they say use your ears the reason I think it gets laughed at as I think people really don't know how to trust their ears probably becuase of the confusion of "just a db or so" comments. They doubt themselves. Just push the gear to its max, hear the destruction it can do, back it of and realise what it sounds like with a nice amount applied and does it help to resolve a feeling you have with an issue with what you are processing. Once you get past that stage, you stop monoing the tracks so much and just start carving and blending no matter the amount.
100% agree. If the song needs something, give it that something, whatever it is. I HATE when I hear folk saying Mastering only needs 1db here and there. I've always shouted at my screen - HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW? I'm the idiot listening to it and I can assure you, this mix needs 4 snookers, 3 lawyers and divine intervention mate. NOT a single db!
BEFORE THE RANT: I've said this many a time: mastering is and should be the optimisation of the final approved mix for your intended medium of distribution. Time was that records were the main medium and despite the continuing romanticisation of it, records are not immaculate and perfect (i.e. so many playable minutes per side, limited frequency response, limited dynamic range, high noise floor, etc.). So the goal was to make whatever that final mix work within that medium. Now that digital is the predominant medium, you work with those limits, which aren't the same as dealing records, but you certainly want to make sure nothing is clipping, you are taking advantage of what that medium has to offer. Another way of thinking of it is that it's "proofing" the mix. At this point, everything should be squared away and nothing should be radically changed from how it was composed, arranged, tracked and mixed. This is not where a metal song turns into a soft ballad or vice versa. Thus, it is expected that any processing done to create the master should be subtle. *That said* ... mastering *could* allow for *some* ways that could be seen as being radical. The obvious one is increasing volume, especially if the mix has a more conservative volume. Certain processes like compression are inherently wave- or tone-shapers and thus can introduce a characteristic that wasn't originally present in the mix. But this is where a discussion is to be had between the mastering engineer and the client (artist, producer, manager, label ... sometimes one, sometimes all, etc.). Most mastering engineers worth their salt will be more respectful of the source material and will more often than not err on the side of caution. One more point of comparison would be in filmmaking. The final step before distribution will be what was once called colour timing for film and now colour grading for digital. This is where the "look" of the film is finalised where the director and/or the cinematographer will go through the entire film and decide the colour emphasis, the contrast, the brightness, etc. While there is something of a "transformative process" that occurs as this is where the film takes final shape, it is not as if the film never existed leading up to it. Maybe I'm overexplaining it and thus making my own rant ... but I also feel very strongly about this ;) =] AFTER THE RANT Very fair points and I agree with them being raised. To clarify where I was coming from, I do think mastering is sometimes treated as if it were some transformative process where a recording suddenly becomes magically spectacular. Given what you raised, I think what I said about mastering being optimisation still stands. But also to be fair, you only have what you are able to work with. And if the aim is to make it the best sounding master possible - or again optimizing that final approve mix - and if it needs way more processing when compared to the pros, then that is what it will take. At the same time, the master can only be as good as everything else leading up to it. Even if you did everything you possibly could to make that master the best sounding it can be, it doesn't mean that the mix is suddenly good or the recording is suddenly good or even everything else is good. A badly written song or a poorly arranged song or a sub-par recorded tracks are still going to linger. And maybe that's the intent of it. I don't think every single album needs to be "Grammy winning" or "Billboard Hot 100" material. But in the end, intent should be clear and the execution should be at its best no matter at what stage and across all stages. Sorry you had to go through that nonsense ... and believe you me, I don't take kindly of being told what to do as I am already doing it and I'm prepared to take the consequences of such actions: right, wrong, indifferent. But all the same: you make your future like you make your music. Cheers and Godspeed =]
Some people are not aware of things but they learn with time like myself. I mention a million times because I was a former Pro Audio salesman and I'm an Engineer that things work different for everybody. People look to duplicate things for their recordings instead of taking a few key points and take what they've absorbed as a reference point to start. You have a lot of people saying oh such and such did such and such not knowing that it was a purpose but unique for that person work now do something to make your stuff unique!!!
ditto for everything you said. Very insightful. I would have put a little more emphasis on the mixer using reference tracks. Without that you could stray from your audio standards and lose your objectivity.
Having done many things but having mastered none I can say their all pretty damn close to 1 and a done🤨 Good points though music really has no rules which makes perfect sense to me so I would say to the mastering engineer, use your best judgement and hope I like it😅
If you get paid to master some music, and you don't consider trying everything (and anything) to make the best version of the tracks you can for commercial release, then you are not doing your job. A well balanced mix only requires subtle changes, a crappy mix might need the kitchen sink throwing at it, to make it sound good. The 1% mastering advice should be given to mix engineers instead 😀
He speaketh the truth
I think you're right about the topic, do what you have to do to make it sound the best by any means necessary.
The same thing applies to mixing too. A lot of the “pros” give mix advice but they’re receiving a mix that’s already been over half completed by the producer that selected guitar, bass, kick and snare sounds, reverb lengths, maybe a complete vocal sound etc. so they are sweetening an already pretty balanced mix.
We tend to get everything raw. Maybe just guitar DIs, drums tracked straight through the interface pres, so no decisions on sounds, no lush mic pres, EQs, or compression on the way in. We are essentially tasked with production decisions, all the mix decisions, and often they want a master on top of all that.
I agree 100%. most important is to get the best result, and do what it needs to do to sound amazing. Great video Sam, I like very much this mythbusting videos 😂. You are asking (and answering) great questiong and bring people to think about it
This information is the answer thats held many back. When I started working with pro mixers/kmastering engineers I realised they were doing what it needs. They would compress the fuck out of some things- VISUALLY it would appear but it sounded right! When they say use your ears the reason I think it gets laughed at as I think people really don't know how to trust their ears probably becuase of the confusion of "just a db or so" comments. They doubt themselves. Just push the gear to its max, hear the destruction it can do, back it of and realise what it sounds like with a nice amount applied and does it help to resolve a feeling you have with an issue with what you are processing. Once you get past that stage, you stop monoing the tracks so much and just start carving and blending no matter the amount.
100% agree. If the song needs something, give it that something, whatever it is. I HATE when I hear folk saying Mastering only needs 1db here and there. I've always shouted at my screen - HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW? I'm the idiot listening to it and I can assure you, this mix needs 4 snookers, 3 lawyers and divine intervention mate. NOT a single db!
The young Jimmy White fan in me appreciates the comment 😎
BEFORE THE RANT:
I've said this many a time: mastering is and should be the optimisation of the final approved mix for your intended medium of distribution. Time was that records were the main medium and despite the continuing romanticisation of it, records are not immaculate and perfect (i.e. so many playable minutes per side, limited frequency response, limited dynamic range, high noise floor, etc.). So the goal was to make whatever that final mix work within that medium. Now that digital is the predominant medium, you work with those limits, which aren't the same as dealing records, but you certainly want to make sure nothing is clipping, you are taking advantage of what that medium has to offer.
Another way of thinking of it is that it's "proofing" the mix. At this point, everything should be squared away and nothing should be radically changed from how it was composed, arranged, tracked and mixed. This is not where a metal song turns into a soft ballad or vice versa. Thus, it is expected that any processing done to create the master should be subtle.
*That said* ... mastering *could* allow for *some* ways that could be seen as being radical. The obvious one is increasing volume, especially if the mix has a more conservative volume. Certain processes like compression are inherently wave- or tone-shapers and thus can introduce a characteristic that wasn't originally present in the mix. But this is where a discussion is to be had between the mastering engineer and the client (artist, producer, manager, label ... sometimes one, sometimes all, etc.). Most mastering engineers worth their salt will be more respectful of the source material and will more often than not err on the side of caution.
One more point of comparison would be in filmmaking. The final step before distribution will be what was once called colour timing for film and now colour grading for digital. This is where the "look" of the film is finalised where the director and/or the cinematographer will go through the entire film and decide the colour emphasis, the contrast, the brightness, etc. While there is something of a "transformative process" that occurs as this is where the film takes final shape, it is not as if the film never existed leading up to it.
Maybe I'm overexplaining it and thus making my own rant ... but I also feel very strongly about this ;) =]
AFTER THE RANT
Very fair points and I agree with them being raised.
To clarify where I was coming from, I do think mastering is sometimes treated as if it were some transformative process where a recording suddenly becomes magically spectacular. Given what you raised, I think what I said about mastering being optimisation still stands. But also to be fair, you only have what you are able to work with. And if the aim is to make it the best sounding master possible - or again optimizing that final approve mix - and if it needs way more processing when compared to the pros, then that is what it will take.
At the same time, the master can only be as good as everything else leading up to it. Even if you did everything you possibly could to make that master the best sounding it can be, it doesn't mean that the mix is suddenly good or the recording is suddenly good or even everything else is good. A badly written song or a poorly arranged song or a sub-par recorded tracks are still going to linger. And maybe that's the intent of it. I don't think every single album needs to be "Grammy winning" or "Billboard Hot 100" material. But in the end, intent should be clear and the execution should be at its best no matter at what stage and across all stages.
Sorry you had to go through that nonsense ... and believe you me, I don't take kindly of being told what to do as I am already doing it and I'm prepared to take the consequences of such actions: right, wrong, indifferent. But all the same: you make your future like you make your music.
Cheers and Godspeed =]
When's the book being released??
@ All in due time 😉
YES! 1000% TRUE! And when doing it just answer the "WHY?" and "WHY NOT?" not because you read it and watched it as a RULE. Theres NO rule! 😄
Some people are not aware of things but they learn with time like myself. I mention a million times because I was a former Pro Audio salesman and I'm an Engineer that things work different for everybody. People look to duplicate things for their recordings instead of taking a few key points and take what they've absorbed as a reference point to start. You have a lot of people saying oh such and such did such and such not knowing that it was a purpose but unique for that person work now do something to make your stuff unique!!!
ditto for everything you said. Very insightful. I would have put a little more emphasis on the mixer using reference tracks. Without that you could stray from your audio standards and lose your objectivity.
Only one rule: Whatever sounds better.
Isn't that the point of us using reference songs , to get in that tonal and volume range when they are balanced off with each other ?
Having done many things but having mastered none I can say their all pretty damn close to 1 and a done🤨
Good points though music really has no rules which makes perfect sense to me so I would say to the mastering engineer, use your best judgement and hope I like it😅
9 out of 10 times the problem with songs is not mixing or mastering.... It is bad composition that doesn't make for a great song to begin with.
a youtuber with a rational mind???
If you get paid to master some music, and you don't consider trying everything (and anything) to make the best version of the tracks you can for commercial release, then you are not doing your job. A well balanced mix only requires subtle changes, a crappy mix might need the kitchen sink throwing at it, to make it sound good. The 1% mastering advice should be given to mix engineers instead 😀