Mastering: convince me it's necessary

[FunkKeysStuff]

This might be better asked over in the EQ forum, but I'll try it here first...

 

While I'm definitely more of a player than an audio guy, I have a decent understanding of basic audio engineering concepts, for stage and studio. This includes what I would call a "limited, but functional" understanding of the mastering process. By my understanding, it basically comes down to optimizing the dynamics, EQ, and transitions between tracks to give the recording a smooth and consistent sound. (I realize any mastering engineer would probably sneer at such a simplistic, ham-fisted description, but we're going for the broad strokes here.) I understand that those are all desirable things, and hence why mastering is necessary... in most situations.

 

However...

 

My last recording was an unusual case which, to my mind, eliminated the necessity for mastering. It was a solo piano recording, all recorded on the same piano, with the same gear at the same settings, during the same one-day session. Basically we threw up the mics, got levels, got a sound, pressed "Record," I sat down and played for a few hours, and walked out with an album. It was recorded direct to 2-track, so there was no mixing to be done. Since all the tracks occupied the same "sonic space," giving them a smooth, consistent sound from one track to the next was a non-issue. The dynamics and EQ were already where I wanted them, and any minor adjustments that were needed (i.e. raising the overall levels for the soft ballads), I was more than able to do myself. There were no fade-outs to worry about, so setting the amount of silence between tracks was a snap. In other words, anything I could think of that a mastering engineer would do, was either A) already done, B) not necessary in this case, or C) something I was comfortable doing myself.

 

Nonetheless, the unanimous advice I got from everyone I talked to was, "Oh God yes, of COURSE you still need to get it mastered! Are you crazy???" When I asked why (given the conditions I described above), the answer was usually a variant of, "Well, because you just have to!" So I did. Then during the mastering session, the engineer actually said, "You know, this is so well recorded, there's really not much for me to do here." Now when I listen back to the mastered tracks vs. the unmastered ones, the only difference I can tell is that the mastered tracks are very slightly louder in some spots -- so slightly that unless I were doing a direct A/B comparison, I would never notice a difference.

 

Given the result, I feel that all things considered, the mastering session was essentially a waste of my money. If I do a similar recording in the future (which is very likely), I am leaning strongly towards skipping that step, and simply using Toast or similar software to produce a red-book standard CD at home.

 

So the big question: can anyone give me a good reason why I shouldn't?

[J. Dan]

Will your tracks ever be played on the radio?

 

If so, I would master. If not, and you're confident that you can get the same results you did this time, I wouldn't.

 

The reason is that when going through the compression that occurs in broadcast, the sound - in particular the dynamics - will be much different than when listening to it unaltered through studio monitors. The mastering process helps ensure that it will cover the right dynamic range and have the volume maximized for radio broadcast so that it sounds consistent with other songs on the broadcast.

 

I've even heard professionally mastered tracks sound good on the CD and sound like hell over the radio.

 

I'm not a studio engineer or anything like that, just my opinion base on my own experience, FWIW.

[ProfD]

If you are satisfied with your recording, mixing and mastering skills, there is no reason to use the pros.

 

OTOH, if you have the time and resources to utilize extremely competent folks in those respective areas, it might be worthwhile to hear what they can do.

 

Michael Jackson's "Thriller" was not only a by-product of the extraoardinary vision of Quincy Jones and his production team but also benefitted from the men he entrusted to create a sonic masterpiece from an engineering perspective too.

 

Otherwise, when it comes to your project, it only matters that you are satisfied with the end product.

[Ian Benhamou]

I agree with Dan. The main reason for mastering other than the reasons you originally mentioned (ie evenness between tracks, fadeouts, etc.) is to guarantee that your CD will sound the same in someone's car, hi fi stereo system, computer speakers, club PA, etc as it did in your studio monitors. Mastering is a highly sophisticated yet simple and subtle final polish on a recordings to give it that finishing touch. I'm no audio engineer, but I've read that sometimes Mastering engineers even add delay or reverb, sometimes just to one side of the stereo field for reasons I'm not exactly sure of.

 

One thing I know for sure is that good mastering engineers are highly sought after and any recording I've made or been part of has always benefited from the mastering process.

[KenElevenShadows]

I agree with Dan. The main reason for mastering other than the reasons you originally mentioned (ie evenness between tracks, fadeouts, etc.) is to guarantee that your CD will sound the same in someone's car, hi fi stereo system, computer speakers, club PA, etc as it did in your studio monitors.

 

I agree with all this, and a good ME can do this. But if the OP has already achieved this, then is it really necessary?

 

 

One thing I know for sure is that good mastering engineers are highly sought after and any recording I've made or been part of has always benefited from the mastering process.

 

My recordings have always benefited from the mastering process as well. There have always been some nice tweaks and things that MEs have done that I've appreciated. That said, I've never had any ME - and yes, I've gone to really good ones - make mine startlingly better. It's always been quite subtle.

 

I have, however, heard another ME take something of a friend of mine and make it sound considerably better.

 

I believe what an ME offers is the last final step in making something sound as good as it can possibly be, one final professional opinion. And ideally, as mixing engineers, we try and get as great of a recording so that it needs as little tweaking as possible. I want to get to the point of where an ME says, "Hey, you know what? It's already fine. I can make it a little louder and even a few odd things out a little, but you know what? Not much else I can do!!" It already sounds great on a lot of different speakers in a lot of different situations, and there's not much more the ME can do. Great.

 

And so in that end, perhaps the OP has already achieved that. I say take a bow.

 

[KenElevenShadows]

I also wanted to add that perhaps with acoustic solo piano, the need for mastering might be less than with something that has many different elements and is a full band with drums and all that, etc.

[zephonic]

If they have top of the line analog equipment they can make the high frequencies really shimmer in ways that cannot be replicated with plug-ins. YMMV, and for acoustic solo piano this may not apply.

 

[Bridog6996]

I kinda think of mastering as the same process as mixing. Just, instead of mixing individual instruments, you're mixing whole songs/tracks. The basic idea is the same. In mixing, you want each instrument in the mix to sound balanced and sit in its own "sonic space." The same is the goal with mastering, except you want that balance across the entire album. With that said, though, they're two different arts. A good mixing engineer, for instance, may not have the same skills as a good mastering engineer. And like anything else, the process is more or less intensive depending on the situation. The mastering process for a solo piano album would be light compared to a full-band album.

 

Anyway, I agree that your recording (any recording, for that matter) will benefit from mastering. Even though the whole album consists of one instrument, each song ineveitably has its own average volume depending on how you played that particular song (unless you're a robot). The mastering engineer will balance those different levels using compression, so that the dynamics of the instrument are still intact, but the average volume is balanced across the album. It'll still have louder and softer parts, but the idea is that the listener won't have to be riding the volume knob from song to song. Also, EQ will be used to smooth everything out in order to make your album portable, meaning that it'll translate as much as possible to most different listening situations, from nice home systems to crappy little boomboxes.

 

Maybe you have all that going on already. It's tough to say without hearing it, but all that matters is that you're completely happy. If you REALLY don't think it needs mastering, don't do it. However, a good mastering engineer will almost certainly make your album sound even better than it already is. Guaranteed. That's their job. It also couldn't hurt to have another set of professional ears listen to your music. The mastering engineer might hear things the mixing engineer didn't catch. Long story sort, mastering is never a bad idea.

[Joe Muscara]

You can also get individual, non-album tracks mastered too.

[Cygnus64]

Given the result, I feel that all things considered, the mastering session was essentially a waste of my money. If I do a similar recording in the future (which is very likely), I am leaning strongly towards skipping that step, and simply using Toast or similar software to produce a red-book standard CD at home.

 

So the big question: can anyone give me a good reason why I shouldn't?

 

Well, it's a tough one. It's hard to rule out the process, you could have had a lousy engineer.

 

There's a mystique about mastering. There shouldnt be. The ONLY thing that matters is if the ME is a good musician and engineer. It's way more important than the gear. I would rather have someone I trusted master in Wavelab than someone I didnt master with fancypants stuff.

 

If it didnt sound better, indeed it was a waste of money. I didnt really like the mastering on my first CD, the label paid for it but I dont think it was a good mastering job.

 

No, there's no reason if it didnt sound better.

[KenElevenShadows]

See, I think there's a point to where if you achieve a truly amazing, great sounding recording, there might really not need to be anything else done to it.

 

Obviously, that's rarely done since just about anything can benefit from really great mastering.

 

But it can be done.

[Bosendorphen]

You might look into HarBal. It gives you a visual sense of the overall EQ of your tune and will allow you to adjust to get a more balanced sound. I've used it in conjunction with T-Racks mastering software with very good results. Some EQ work with a touch of mild compression/limiting makes a lot of difference.

[FunkKeysStuff]

Thanks everyone for the advice. Just to clarify, I was very happy with the ME I used, and I wouldn't hesitate to go to him again for just about any other situation. But when even he tells me, "Yeah, I'm pretty much doing nothing here," that's when I start to wonder what I'm spending my money for.

 

Of course, part of it was that I told him I was deliberately going for a very natural sound, and that there are few things in the world I hate more than the sound of an overly-compressed piano.* He respected that and worked within those parameters, which is one of the reasons I liked him.

 

As far as radio play, it'll probably get played on a few indie jazz stations, but you won't be hearing it on Clear Channel anytime soon. It's a quirky selection of tunes, from Joplin to Prince (specifically, his '80s dance hit "Kiss"... yes, as a solo piano piece.) I'll post a link to some of the files one of these days.

 

 

*And by "overly-compressed," I basically mean, "if I can tell it's been compressed, that's too much." This stems from a previous bad experience where the tracking/mixing engineer assured me that he'd be able to make the less-than-great-sounding piano in his studio sound like gold in the final mix. His method: compress the absolute hell out of it, in the harshest way possible. So rather than just a crappy old piano, it ended up sounding like a crappy old piano with the attack/decay slope of a MiniMoog bass patch.

[Griffinator]

You might look into HarBal. It gives you a visual sense of the overall EQ of your tune and will allow you to adjust to get a more balanced sound. I've used it in conjunction with T-Racks mastering software with very good results. Some EQ work with a touch of mild compression/limiting makes a lot of difference.

 

Dear God, you just named the biggest prosumer joke software pieces in the industry.

 

Too many hacks running around using HairBall and T-Sucks to squish the life out of their music and calling it "mastering"...

[Griffinator]

Thanks everyone for the advice. Just to clarify, I was very happy with the ME I used, and I wouldn't hesitate to go to him again for just about any other situation. But when even he tells me, "Yeah, I'm pretty much doing nothing here," that's when I start to wonder what I'm spending my money for.

 

Of course, part of it was that I told him I was deliberately going for a very natural sound, and that there are few things in the world I hate more than the sound of an overly-compressed piano.* He respected that and worked within those parameters, which is one of the reasons I liked him.

 

As far as radio play, it'll probably get played on a few indie jazz stations, but you won't be hearing it on Clear Channel anytime soon. It's a quirky selection of tunes, from Joplin to Prince (specifically, his '80s dance hit "Kiss"... yes, as a solo piano piece.) I'll post a link to some of the files one of these days.

 

 

*And by "overly-compressed," I basically mean, "if I can tell it's been compressed, that's too much." This stems from a previous bad experience where the tracking/mixing engineer assured me that he'd be able to make the less-than-great-sounding piano in his studio sound like gold in the final mix. His method: compress the absolute hell out of it, in the harshest way possible. So rather than just a crappy old piano, it ended up sounding like a crappy old piano with the attack/decay slope of a MiniMoog bass patch.

 

You just answered your own question.

 

There's really nothing to be done to a well-recorded solo piano to make it sound "better" in the mastering process. If you recorded it right in the first place, and you don't want it to be compressed at all, then the ME really has no job to do other than pat you on the back for a session well done.

 

If you had an actual session where there were multiple instruments, possibly vocals, in a mix, that's where that final coat of polish can really come in handy.

[Cygnus64]

You might look into HarBal. It gives you a visual sense of the overall EQ of your tune and will allow you to adjust to get a more balanced sound. I've used it in conjunction with T-Racks mastering software with very good results. Some EQ work with a touch of mild compression/limiting makes a lot of difference.

 

Dear God, you just named the biggest prosumer joke software pieces in the industry.

 

Too many hacks running around using HairBall and T-Sucks to squish the life out of their music and calling it "mastering"...

 

A tool is a tool. A good musician takes advantage of any tool available to them in their budget.

 

In my personal experience, I have run into a lot of "hacks" who have fancy rigs and laughable skills. Unfortunately I learned the hard way, a few years back I hired an engineer with 100K worth of gear that couldnt mix as well as a deaf monkey with a copy of Reaper. I've run into a LOT of those over the years.

 

I know a fine musician who uses Har-Bal (Ive never used it or seen a copy). He was on an internet site talking about it, being berated by "engineers" telling him how crappy it is. I eventually heard mixes by these people. The engineers with the fancypants stuff had some of the most God-Awful tracks in existence. The musician with Har-Bal had a smokin track. He had skill, the others had money to buy gear and no skill.

[J. Dan]

Sounds like you would probably be OK without, but it's still not a bad idea as almost a safety measure - kind of a final check by a third party to make sure there isn't going to be anything weird dynamically whene it ends up on different systems, i.e. radio. You can decide for yourself if that's worth the money or not.

 

I would also argue that good mastering should not significantly change the sound of a track - that is handled in the mixdown. If the track sounds much different after mastering, something's wrong. The idea is to tame the dynamics and EQ (usually with multiband dynamics processing) for consitency on multiple systems WITHOUT drastic changes to the mix.

[KenElevenShadows]

You might look into HarBal. It gives you a visual sense of the overall EQ of your tune and will allow you to adjust to get a more balanced sound. I've used it in conjunction with T-Racks mastering software with very good results. Some EQ work with a touch of mild compression/limiting makes a lot of difference.

 

Dear God, you just named the biggest prosumer joke software pieces in the industry.

 

Too many hacks running around using HairBall and T-Sucks to squish the life out of their music and calling it "mastering"...

 

Har-Bal is not a joke. It simply is a tool for showing the overall EQ, etc. of your mix. It's what you choose to do with that information afterwards. I have never heard anyone joke about this software before, call it "prosumer", or think it's for hacks, so to say it is a joke within the industry seems a bit odd to me.

 

By the way, I don't use Har-Bal. I know what it is from other MEs, but I don't use it.

[Bridog6996]

Neither Har-Bal nor T-Racks are "joke" software in the slightest. The joke is when someone mindlessly runs a track through a preset and thinks they just mastered it. You have to understand what you're doing, and, most of all, have an ear for it. The software is just a tool.

[Joe Muscara]

I think it's funny when someone says, "I had it mastered, and they ruined it," like that was their only copy. Though I do understand if it was a label decision and of course the label used what they paid for.

[Cygnus64]

I think it's funny when someone says, "I had it mastered, and they ruined it," like that was their only copy. Though I do understand if it was a label decision and of course the label used what they paid for.

 

Well, if an individual doesnt like the mastering, they ruined it in the sense that you're out some serious dough.

[Joe Muscara]

I understand the loss of money, but the way some say it, it makes it sound like they had to use it.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Mastering is one of those things that is highly missunderstood, and bvery oopen to interpretation. Every jerk with a PC and Reaper thinks that he is a mastering engineer. Let us discount them for a moment, and assume that we are talking about real mastering engineers, with real rooms, and serious balls to the wall gear, and the knowlege to use it.

 

When a mastering engineer tells you that he doesn't have to do much, he didn't say that he didn't have to do anything. He gave you a compliment. It is far better than what I have said so often, which is some variation of, "take this away and get it mixed correctly."

 

Sometimes indeed, the mastering engineer has little to do, and this should be considered a good thing. I believe that it is well worth the cost to have a mastering engineer check your mixes in a properly designed and treated room that you could not build, on a system that you could never afford, before you go hand have 3,000 copies made only to find that there is some problem that you could not detect on your system.

 

The little tweaks and changes that make a good recording even better are much more fun to do than trying to surgically revive a mix that arrives dead on the table. Some clients see only small changes being made and feel that in order to earn my money I should be doing much more; while the client who brings in a total piece of garbage expects miracles and still complains about the price. Oh, and no matter how bad is sounded when it came in the door and no matter how good it sounds when it leaves, if there is -anything- wrong with it, it becomes the fault of that damned mastering guy. Guitar out of tune? mastering guy. Singer flat? Mastering guy. Wrong notes being played? Mastering guy. Tacky clothes on the baddly lit band photo? Yeah, that mastering guy really sucked, he messed the whole thing up.

 

There is no accounting for taste. I've heard a band complaining that Bob Katz messed up their CD. Really? Bob Katz? and did anybody bother to discuss this with Bob? 'Cause he is one of the bigger names in the business, he's pretty precice about what he does, and I know that a little communication would have solved the problem.

 

Anyway, like the bike riders say, anyone who thinks that he does not need to wear a helmet has nothing to lose. No, you don't need mastering. It is wise to have it done, but only by a reputable mastering engineer. (And by the way, they are really pretty affordable.)

 

Bill

[Bosendorphen]

You might look into HarBal. It gives you a visual sense of the overall EQ of your tune and will allow you to adjust to get a more balanced sound. I've used it in conjunction with T-Racks mastering software with very good results. Some EQ work with a touch of mild compression/limiting makes a lot of difference.

 

Dear God, you just named the biggest prosumer joke software pieces in the industry.

 

Too many hacks running around using HairBall and T-Sucks to squish the life out of their music and calling it "mastering"...

 

Well yeah, if they are used indiscriminately. I think if used sparingly/judiciously they can enhance a mix. Not saying they replace a trained mastering professional. Just helpful. SOS magazine seemed to give HarBal high marks.

 

I use both of them in my soundtrack work for a little punch and sparkle. But I use them judiciously and tend to shy away from them for the "classical/orchestral" stuff. More for the pop/rock things. Time and budget often preclude taking a score for a corporate video, TV/cable show or indie feature to a mastering house. So they are useful tools in that regard, again if used judiciously and your basic mix is done well.

[Cygnus64]

Every jerk with a PC and Reaper thinks that he is a mastering engineer. Let us discount them for a moment, and assume that we are talking about real mastering engineers,

 

It wouldnt be very kind if someone said: " I know you play piano, but a REAL musician..."

 

Every jerk with a PC and reaper has a very powerful set of tools. In no way am I comparing them to a pro mastering suite, I am not. I'm a pro musician and have some serious cash wrapped up in my instrument. That said, I'm not going to dismiss someone who doesnt have the same quality instrument as I do, because they can and often surprise me.

 

My point: It's ALL about talent, which is about natural talent but mainly about hard work. It's way too easy to BS in the music biz. For the record I've run into Bill@welcomehome on another site and I definitely think he knows his stuff, this isnt directed at him and he's a serious pro. A lot of others are not, they are good with the gift of the gab and have the ability to buy fancy toys.

 

To paraphrase another post, for every "hack" with a copy of Har-Bal and T-Racks, there is an equal "hack" with a full-blown PT rig, SSL stuff etc. A guy with a Lexus is not always a better driver than a guy with a Yugo.

[Bosendorphen]

 

To paraphrase another post, for every "hack" with a copy of Har-Bal and T-Racks, there is an equal "hack" with a full-blown PT rig, SSL stuff etc. A guy with a Lexus is not always a better driver than a guy with a Yugo.

 

+1

[KenElevenShadows]

I can't believe how long we're going on with this Har-Bal thing. I've heard crappy recordings with an SSL console, but I've never concluded that it was because only hacks use SSL consoles.

[Anderton]

I use Har-Bal. One of the CDs I mastered with it won an award.

 

My main use is with high-res classical music. With Har-Bal, I can dip any rogue room resonances with far greater ease than a parametric. The thing about Har-Bal is you really have to know what you're doing in order to differentiate between unwanted response anomalies and anomalies that are a characteristic of the room or instrument.

 

But I would prefer that people keep spreading the "Har-Bal is a joke" sentiment because the fewer people who know how to fix recordings with it, the more business I'll have

 

For most of my mastering all I use is Har-Bal to do EQ, and maybe a good shelving EQ to add a little lift or cut on the high or low end. For rock projects I may use a dynamics processor or I may do the "micro-mastering" manual limiting I described in EQ mag a while back. Sometimes I use both if the client wants a "loud" CD but I want something where I won't be embarrassed to have my name on it

[Cygnus64]

But I would prefer that people keep spreading the "Har-Bal is a joke" sentiment because the fewer people who know how to fix recordings with it, the more business I'll have

 

 

Ha! Yup, every time I read the comments from the Har-Bal bashers, I keep this thought in the back of my head. I've never used it, I'm tempted to buy it now.

 

I have a friend who went all ADAT in the 90s, I think he bought four and the bridge, some serious money. He despises programs like Sonar and Reaper, and it's all financial jealousy! He blew 20 grand on a system that can't do what Cubase LE does, and they give that away in cereal boxes.

[ProfD]

I have a friend who went all ADAT in the 90s, I think he bought four and the bridge, some serious money. He despises programs like Sonar and Reaper, and it's all financial jealousy! He blew 20 grand on a system that can't do what Cubase LE does, and they give that away in cereal boxes.

That is very funny but true.

 

Your friend can blame the MI industry for putting those ADATs out of commission.

 

Of course, times have changed and technology has become more affordable. Yet, skill and talent still cannot be bought, sold or traded.

 

A craftsman puts the tools to work and bangs out a finished product.