5 things you need to know about Mastering...

[wub]

http://www.uaudio.com/blog/5-audio-mastering-tips/

The mastering engineer is the last step of the artistic phase, and the first step of the manufacturing phase. It’s the final opportunity to listen, polish, and make a change in the sonic presentation. It is also the first step of the manufacturing phase, because it prepares the master in the way that best suits the needs of the manufacturer.

The goal is to listen to the broad picture; the actual content is immaterial. The mastering engineer is paying attention to EQ presentation, to level presentation, to dynamics presentation. It’s taking a collection of songs, and creating a flowing body of work.

A Bit of History

Mastering has changed greatly since the late 1950s, when mass-produced music became the norm. At the time, record labels owned studios, and the labels employed the engineers. Engineers started their careers as apprentices, and the first stop on their path was to apprentice with the mastering engineer. This was to develop and hone their listening skills. The mastering engineer was responsible for transferring the final tapes from the mix/balance engineer, and ensuring that the transfer to lacquer (the master at the time) was as accurate as possible. The whole goal was to duplicate the tape sound on the disc. In the process of apprenticeship, the new engineer listened to hundreds and hundreds of transfers, and learned the subtleties of this art from a seasoned professional. As the new engineer gained skills, he or she typically moved to training with the mix engineer, and recording engineer.

As the studio/label relationship broke down over the years, engineers became independent, and started working in different studios. The challenge here was that each studio had a different mix environment. The engineers were then tasked to polish the results from a less familiar environment, using the tools they had at their disposal: EQ, dynamics, processing, and levels. This is the situation we are still in today, in which the role of the mastering engineer has expanded to become the final check for both the technical and artistic aspects of a project.
Preparing Your Mix for Mastering

1) Be Prepared

When you show up at the session, it’s essential that you are prepared. You should clearly label which are the final mixes you’d like the engineer to use. You should have all the details of the file finalized such as song titles, sequencing, and metadata such as ISRC codes and CD text. It's also important to have documentation of any known problems with the files as well. Accurately note the existence and location of glitches, digital errors, distortion, bad edits, and level problems. This will save a lot of time and money during the mastering stage.

Additionally, you should know who the manufacturer will be, and what their requirements are for type of master and method of delivery. Make sure the songs have been accurately timed out, so that they will comfortably fit the size of the intended format(s). If you are supplying the pre-master mixes on an analog format (like tape), it is very important to include full reference tones and documentation of the specifics. This assures that the material will be played back at proper levels and bias.

2) Provide Alternate Mixes

A preferable way to present files is for the mix engineer to include alternative versions of the mix: vocal up, vocal down, solo up, solo down, etc. Remember it is important keep these alternate mixes well marked, organized, and documented.

With the advent of DAWs, one question that has come up is whether it is preferable to have stems as part of the delivery. Some engineers prefer stems to allow more tweaking and flexibility in the mastering process. However, there are also several potential drawbacks to this.

Including stems can blur the line between mixing and mastering. The mastering engineer can start to lose objectivity, because he or she is now tasked with balancing the final mix. Another concern is that the character of the whole doesn’t necessarily translate to the character of each of the stems. In trying to optimize each individual stem, the result is often detrimental to the nature of the final mix.

3) Don’t Over-Compress the Final Mix

Digital audio files should be delivered at the same resolution as the recording. It’s important that the mixes include some headroom to allow the mastering engineer room to work. A good rule of thumb is to have peaks at around -3 dBfs with an average (rms) around -10 to -14 dBfs. Final buss compression should remain minimal, because it's not something the mastering engineer can undo. A standard practice can include final compression of the mixes as a reference file to the artist, but it’s best when that’s not included in the delivered files for mastering. With high-resolution audio there is no advantage to maxing out the levels.

In a related issue, it’s helpful to not have fades included on the final mixes. The mastering engineer can make fades shorter, but can’t make them longer. Sometimes in the sequencing you realize you want it longer than you thought you did, just to keep things flowing properly.

A Note on Loudness:

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about the issue of loudness. There are pros and cons to having high levels, but there’s a point where it can be too loud or too quiet. A misconception about a loud file is that it will sound louder on the radio, when in fact the opposite is true. Going through all the compressors on the broadcast can clamp onto a signal and hold it back. The louder a song, the smaller it will sound on the radio.

Similarly, a misconception about MP3s is that the louder the song, the better they sound. The purpose of an MP3 is essentially to shrink the file size, which occurs by eliminating data. The algorithms are designed to throw away data below a certain threshold. Low-level information is discarded. A highly compressed song has no low-level content, therefore the algorithm is throwing away information you can hear.

4) Gear Is Great; the Room Is Better

The most important piece of equipment for a mastering engineer, besides his or her own ears, is the room. The feedback given by the room affects the perspective and opinions of mastering engineers, which in turn influence the decisions they make. A revealing monitoring environment tells everything about the mix — the good and the bad. This is necessary for mastering engineers to be able to make accurate changes that affect the final translatability of the audio. One of the goals of mastering is to ensure that the project sounds as good as it can on a wide variety of playback systems.

5) Don’t Master Your Own Work

If you are too close to the material, it is hard to emotionally separate yourself from the content, and accurately hear things like level, EQ, and dynamics. This is not because you don’t have the skills, but because it is extremely difficult to have the emotional detachment necessary when you are listening to your own work. An essential role of the mastering engineer is to be emotionally unbiased. The mastering engineer and the mix engineer should be two separate people, in two separate environments.

It is always best if you can involve your mastering house early in the process. Get the specifics for submittal before the final mixes if possible. If they are willing and time permits, submitting your mixes ahead of the mastering session can allow for detection of problems and suggestions for improvement.

Conclusion

Mastering is the final creative step to take your mixes to the next level. The specialized equipment, finely tuned monitoring environment, and most importantly, the unbiased experience of a pro will help you hone your material to a competitive edge.

Following these suggestions can help you enter this final stage with confidence, and help you maximize your time for a smooth and productive session. This will ultimately save you time and money, prepping the way for a productive and hopefully enjoyable experience.

[Amphix]

Really good read, thank you for this.

[Jas0n]

I'm interested in the "don't master your own work" thing. I fundamentally disagree with it. Am I the only one who would argue that a person, if qualified, probably SHOULD be the one to master their own work?

[pandy]

In a perfect world I'd master myself. I accept the problem the article's driving at - even while composing it can be tough to be objective. But it'd be nice to have control over every creative aspect of my production.

[AxeD]

Maybe we should master eachothers tracks then. Dunno whether this will work or not.

[wub]

I'm interested in the "don't master your own work" thing. I fundamentally disagree with it. Am I the only one who would argue that a person, if qualified, probably SHOULD be the one to master their own work?

Yeah, but you'd always be listening to it as your track. If you gave it to someone not involved with the creative process, they wouldn't listen to it the same way. They'd listen to it as a standalone piece of audio, not as the end of a creative process.

[wub]

Maybe we should master eachothers tracks then. Dunno whether this will work or not.

That is a fucking nice idea actually. Maybe we get a track that one of the heads has produced, and then have a sort of mini mastering exercise where everyone takes it away, and does what they can to it.

[grooki]

The point about loudness is a bit silly I think. It is just true that people perceive music as being better if it is louder. That a major reason people go to clubs with nice sound systems - they want to hear the music really loud. That is whole reason the loudness wars exist. Obviously there is a point where a track will start to sound bad even to a "layperson", but the general idea is get it as loud as possible before that point.

I don't think it's something to shy away from either, one doesn't have to be better than the other, it's just different people wanting different things from sound.

[Majin]

From what I've heard, it's the more dynamic mixes that hit hardest, not the ones with the highest average volume level.

[sargentpilcher]

This is my opinion, so please take it with a grain of salt.

I think this is much more of a tool used by the mastering industry to get you to give them your money. What I believe to be more important over all, is that you know what the fuck you're doing. If you don't, you will ruin the song, but if you do, you will probably be doing the exact same things that the ME's do.

Skrillex for example, uses fucking Ozone, and his shit sounds amazing. Unless you're producing some shit for a major motion picture, or is going to be played by Britney Spears, then I don't really even see the need to pay somebody else to do what you know how to do.

Now me personally? I would have no idea what I'm doing, but that doesn't mean I couldn't learn.

[Mad_EP]

I'm interested in the "don't master your own work" thing. I fundamentally disagree with it. Am I the only one who would argue that a person, if qualified, probably SHOULD be the one to master their own work?

I know a few professional mastering engineers who also write music - none of them master their own work. To me, I just don't see it as mastering unless a fresh set of ears is putting those final - and most important: OBJECTIVE - touches on it. If it is your own track, it is impossible to be 100% objective.

[deadly_habit]

[efence]

I'm interested in the "don't master your own work" thing. I fundamentally disagree with it. Am I the only one who would argue that a person, if qualified, probably SHOULD be the one to master their own work?

Yeah, but you'd always be listening to it as your track. If you gave it to someone not involved with the creative process, they wouldn't listen to it the same way. They'd listen to it as a standalone piece of audio, not as the end of a creative process.

i've been doing alot of mastering recently and have a couple of full albums coming up and need all the practice i can get. a mastering comp or a sticky thread where people post stuff for people to master would be sweet

[AxeD]

Maybe we should master eachothers tracks then. Dunno whether this will work or not.

That is a fucking nice idea actually. Maybe we get a track that one of the heads has produced, and then have a sort of mini mastering exercise where everyone takes it away, and does what they can to it.

Yea it could work out for sure, I don't produce any dubstep though

[tuckerlinen]

I'm interested in the "don't master your own work" thing. I fundamentally disagree with it. Am I the only one who would argue that a person, if qualified, probably SHOULD be the one to master their own work?

I know a few professional mastering engineers who also write music - none of them master their own work. To me, I just don't see it as mastering unless a fresh set of ears is putting those final - and most important: OBJECTIVE - touches on it. If it is your own track, it is impossible to be 100% objective.

truth, like you should never be the editor of your own novel...



(what novel?)

[Artie_Fufkin]

L'd MAO @ 128kbps mp3s

Nice one deadly. That should be a prerequisite for anyone who is sending their stuff to a ME.

[Shum]

@deadly habit: gold

[Littlefoot]

Nice article, I will defo save that one and link my clients who are unsure of the process at some point Im sure, thanks for sharing

[sobie]

Really enjoyed this read. I went to school for Audio Design and Production and a lot of what was said more specially to having another set of ears on the Mastering step is important.

[Be-1ne]

When I go mastering the track I walk away with is vastly different to the one I went In with, sound and quality wise. I say this is largely due to the extremely nice bits of kit Beau uses. However he does say that he find my tunes easy to work with and they allow for nice clean very dynamic masters.

I also get to have input during the session, but largely trust the guy who's, you know, a mastering engineer.