Craig Anderton's "Audio Mastering: Quick Start"

[studiojunkie26]

Craig,

 

Disclaimer: I think Craig Anderton is a very cool guy who is extremely knowledgeable about music technology, and I respect him greatly.

 

Sorry to do this, but someone had to. I purchased this book for 14.95 off Amazon.com in an attempt to learn a bit more about mastering. As an experienced engineer and musician, I already know the basics of what mastering is, I just want to be able to do it myself a little bit better. Pro mastering costs a fortune and a fortune I do not make off my cd sales. Although, I have gone the pro route in the past so I know what a pro job can add to a quality mix.

 

Granted, this book IS subtitled "The absolute beginners guide to optimizing your CD's sound through creative mastering". What was highlighted in my mind was the "optimize your sound" bit, not the "absolute beginner" bit. My mistake there.

 

However, this begs the question:

 

Point #1: (yes, there are points)

 

If you don't even know what mastering is (absolute beginner), should you even attempt to master something yourself?

 

Hand holding or not, (and trust me, this leaflet offers no hand holding), if you're so clueless that you don't know what the process entials, is it really a good idea to try and learn that process from a 48 page leaflet?

 

Beyond the problem with the premise of the "book" (if you could call it that):

 

"So you're an idiot! Here's How To Master",

 

Point #2:

 

the content is fluffier than EQ Mag (at best). Take the 5 pages (of 48 total book pages) dedicated to "mastering tools".

 

Page 1 tells you that you need, monitors, a DAW, a hard drive, DSP plug ins and a cd burner.

 

Pages 2&3 list popular plug in formats and their respective manufacturers. VST: Stienberg, MAS: MOTU, etc.

 

Pages 4&5 tell you how to insert a plug in.

 

Are you f-ing kidding me Criag? If you don't know what a plug-in is or how to insert it, you most defintely want to leave this entire job to someone else!

 

Basically, the book's advice can be summed up in the following sentence: "Buy a bunch of plug-ins and f around with them until it sounds OK, and remember kids, Fatboy Slim sounds 'bright' and Madonna sounds 'dark'."

 

I could go on and on (if you need to have multiband compression explained to you, you most certainly DO NOT want to attempt to use it!), but I have work to do.

 

I'm not even going to touch the included "reference cd".

 

The bottom line: this book was a bad idea that was also poorly executed. Proper mastering is crucial to a professional sounding product, and this book does nothing to further my understanding of the process.

 

I learned 10x more just by attending a mastering session with a real mastering engineer, something which he never suggests doing.

 

Also, Craig has never professed to be a mastering engineer himself, (which makes you wonder why he wrote this leaflet. my guess? Couldn't turn down the $$$$)

 

Sorry bro, this one was ripe.

 

(BTW for those interested Paul White's "basic mastering" is also available on Amazon.com, costs only $7.95, is over 3x as long, and much more informative/useful)

[KenElevenShadows]

Haven't seen the book, but at that length, my guess is that it would be more of some tips for someone who cannot afford a mastering engineer and wants to know about a few tweaks that they can do to polish up their mix a little before burning CD-Rs. So perhaps in that light, it might be useful as a primer?

[Anderton]

<

 

That's exactly the point of the book, which we tried to make clear with the cartoon-type artwork and the "for the absolute beginning" tag. Think of all the people out there selling CDs at gigs, making CDs of live performance, etc.

 

Paradoxically, this book got some really great reviews -- more so than the other Quick Start books. People who just wanted to know what mastering is all about really liked it, too. In particular, they liked hearing the audio examples on the CD. A lot of them have never had someone point out "This is what something sounds like when overcompressed."

 

Remember, many all-in-one recorders now have "mastering processors" and CD burners, so people DO need to understand what multiband compression is. This book does not assume you're going to read it and go master Metallica's next CD.

 

Having said that, though, my Quick Start books in general did not do well because people simply do not associate my name with books oriented toward total beginners. So they had bought some of my books in the past, saw that I had done one on mastering, and thought "cool, I'll get it" (despite the "For the absolute beginner" disclaimer), then ended up disappointed. Maybe I should write them under a pseudonym .

 

So, I'm sorry you''re disappointed, and I completely understand. But remember there are a lot of people who are NOT on your level and need these basics. The many positive comments I've gotten on this book indicate that. But overall, I would say the comments about the Audio Mastering book have been totally polarized -- either "Wow, this is great, I finally understand what this involves and my tunes sound much better now!" to "This is so basic Anderton should be shot by REAL mastering engineers." There seems to be no middle ground, I've never gotten a comment like "yeah, well it's okay, I guess..." It's either totally positive or totally negative.

 

FYI, as to mastering, I actually have done, and continue to do, quite a bit of mastering and quite a few people in the industry think I'm very good at it. As to the $$$, what I will make from Audio Mastering isn't close to covering the time I put into it. You win some, you lose some.

[GeorgeVW]

I bought that book as well, at the same time I picked up a copy of Bobby O's 'Mastering Engineers Handbook'. Yes, they're books at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of the experience level they're expecting from the reader, but Craig's book is a great tool to use to give somebody an basic understanding of just what mastering is and what's required to do it. Somebody like a friend who's trying to decide if they should take their project to a real mastering engineer or just do it themselves. I didn't expect it to give me the secrets of great mastering (actually, I didn't expect Bobby's book to do that either, just provide a plethora of tips and techniques that I might not be familiar with). I think that it's a good introduction to the concept of mastering, and that's what it's marketed as.

[kylen]

Regardless of the content of books which can range from 'this is a plug-in' to frequency masking, acoustics, human hearing, etc. you still have to go out spend some $$& and a lot of time to actually get your ears around all the variables that seem daunting at first. Play with equipment and songs firsthand.

 

Remember when you wouldn't know 250Hz from 480Hz or why you would even care ? And when the thought of adjusting 'Q' was just too deep ?

 

I guess goin to school or being an apprentice would be cool but there are a lot of us who are home recording folks too that have fun making messes, cleaning them up, then over time don't make so many messes. Then voila ! Suddenly everthing sounds good - overnight success ! He He

 

I don't have this particular book, I've got some other Craig books, Paul White, Bob Katz, Bobby Owsinski, Tape Op, many others. Some just kept me from asking a sales guy a stupid question, others get repeated reading ! Some just give me inspiration when they 'accidently' stir a thought or too...I didn't invent any of this stuff so I had to read about it somewhere first to be able to get a vision - he he.

 

It's taken me about a year to get hooked up into some cool forums and on-line magazines so there's more time but real valuable information too.

 

Sitting with a pro is worth its weight in gold I think - I haven't done that one yet so that's a good idea too that I've got on my list!

 

Next I'll post some stuff on the web - get some feedback and go through the whole iteration again (he he). It's fun - why else ?

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

I'm not writing this to kiss the ass of my friend and group moderator Craig.

 

But my only question is, when a book specifically states it's for an "absolute beginner" and gives information based on that premise, how can you complain about the basic level of information being covered?

 

And yes, of course you have a right to your opinion and I'm not disputing that. But it seems that the book delivered exactly what was promised.

 

- Jeff

[Hendmik]

Originally posted by Anderton:

I've never gotten a comment like "yeah, well it's okay, I guess..." It's either totally positive or totally negative.

Don't take much of that to heart. Statistically speaking, those who have no strong opinion rarely voice that opinion, whether solicited or not.

 

Oh, and I'm not trying to kiss your ass either, but rumor has it, you're DREAMY!!

[Red Winger]

Originally posted by Jeff Da Weasel:

But my only question is, when a book specifically states it's for an "absolute beginner" and gives information based on that premise, how can you complain about the basic level of information being covered?

[videoeditor1]

I can be 100% objective about this, even though Craig's a cool guy.

 

1. You can't think of everything to possibly put in a book (leaflet)

 

2. Even is you could, everything won't fit.

 

3. I've seen Craig walk on water, so...

[Duddits]

Originally posted by Jeff Da Weasel:

But my only question is, when a book specifically states it's for an "absolute beginner" and gives information based on that premise, how can you complain about the basic level of information being covered?

 

And yes, of course you have a right to your opinion and I'm not disputing that. But it seems that the book delivered exactly what was promised.

We all love his Craigness, but the guy who posted this answered your question. He says he's complaining because its poorly executed and isnt really about mastering. Since I haven't read it, I'm not going to pretend like I've got an opinion one way or the other, but I dont see how anyone else who hasnt read it can have an opinion about it either.

 

One thing I am curious about though, is when Craig says

 

Originally posted by Anderton:

FYI, as to mastering, I actually have done, and continue to do, quite a bit of mastering and a lot of people in the industry think I'm very good at it.

I know that when it comes to writing, Craig walks on water, but I too have never heard of anything he has mastered. Does anyone know if Craig has produced or mastered anything that I might know from the radio or something he has done for a major artist? Hope this question doesnt come accross as catty. Im genuinely curious.

[Anderton]

<

 

Most of the mastering I've done has been for commercial projects, however, I did master the Rei$$dorf Force album "Smart Dust" that was released on EMI in Europe, as well as the new CD by Function (a Tampa-based electronic music group), which hasn't been released yet. I've done the mastering for my three sample CDs, the audio examples I've posted online (including that of my live performance at NAMM that will be posted on EQ's web site), of course my own music (there are links to several file at www.craiganderton.com), the Linda Cohen/Michael Kac classical guitar/harpischord album "Naked Under the Moon," the audio for the various online videos I've done for companies like Korg, Discrete Drums, etc., and the soundtracks for several independent films (but given that they were not family entertainment, let's not go there!).

 

I've never really tried to turn mastering into a business, and I don't claim to be the ultimate mastering engineer of all time, but I know enough to do a good job when it's needed for a project. I'm actually thinking of getting into it more because people like that I can make things loud but they still have dynamics

 

As to production, it's more likely you would have heard some of what I've done, although probably as background music at restaurants . During the 80s I was involved with quite a few "new age" recordings that did well, including David Arkenstone's "Valley in the Clouds," "Emerald" by Tingstand, Brewer, and Rumbel, several Spencer Brewer cuts (mixing and production), three albums by classical guitarist Linda Cohen, and of course, my own "Forward Motion" which was syndicated on the WAVE and favorably reviewed in Rolling Stone, so it got a lot of airplay. It was also featured on United Airlines inflight entertainment for several years. 15 years later, I'm still getting royalty checks, mostly for airplay in foreign countries.

 

That's the stuff off the top of my head. Although my playing was all over the "Time Stretch Paradise" CD I wasn't involved in the production, mixing, or mastering.

[Dan South]

Everyone has to begin somewhere, so yes, rank beginners SHOULD master material if they want to learn how it's done. There's no OTHER way to learn than by diving in. I'm sure that Craig's book is a wonderful guide for those beginners, and I'm sure that some of those beginners will be winning technical awards and critical acclaim one day.

 

If you want to learn calculus, don't sign up for a remedial math class. The lessons have to match the student's level.

[Anderton]

<>

 

I agree with this STRONGLY, even if (*especially* if) the person plans to use a professional mastering engineer. Trying to do it yourself gives an appreciation for the process, and allows a more intelligent level of discourse with the engineer. AND when you watch a pro mastering engineer, you'll learn a lot more if you're already familiar with the terms and tools.

 

I learned mastering from watching really great mastering engineers, but not everyone has that opportunity.

[Rim]

I did buy the book almost two years ago and I gave it a grade of A-. I did a small review of it on this thread (near the middle): http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005426#000000

 

It sounds like you are much further ahead than I was two years ago. I would agree that actually seeing a mastering engineer even once would be extremely educational, but I don't have that kind of contact.

 

I do agree that Paul White writes very good books and they are not for the very beginner. I would call them more of intermediate or at least "not a beginner anymore" level. I have bought and learned from many of his books.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, I've also bought Bob Katz\' Mastering Audio book. This is definitely not a beginner's book, IMO. It may even be above intermediate. I've only started reading a few chapter and my eyes have glazed over. You may want to check it out.

 

- Rim

[Duddits]

Originally posted by Anderton:

I've never really tried to turn mastering into a business, and I don't claim to be the ultimate mastering engineer of all time, but I know enough to do a good job when it's needed for a project. I'm actually thinking of getting into it more because people like that I can make things loud but they still have dynamics

Nah, your not fooling anyone. You want to get more into it cause the mastering guys get the coolest toys.

 

Anyway, thanks for the bio.

 

One thought is that maybe the guy's disapointment is related to the concept of mastering itself. It sounds like the purpose of your manual is to help beginners get their CDs to sound as good as they can. Dan South's idea that everyone should start mastering themselves almost goes without saying since thats how everyone starts out anyway. You, know, like everyone starts out as their own proctologist. But is that really "mastering"?

 

From what Ive heard, most mastering engineers will say that the most important part is a fresh set of ears, and that mastering at a beginning level starts beyond the level of advanced tracking. I could therefore see how someone might look at self mastering for stark beginniners as an oxymoron, and feel mislead.

 

Maybe just retitling it and marketing it to all the kids buying garageBand would be the ticket.

[Anderton]

<>

 

Good point. There is no term that's the equivalent of "home studio" or "project studio" for mastering. The purpose of the book, though, is the same as "mastering," which is to help people take a finished track and make it sound better through the judicious use of art and technology. Perhaps my definition of mastering is broader than most -- I think of applying that kind of final touch to any project as mastering. I'm sure quite a few people think "mastering" refers to top engineers with fantastic ears using great gear, rather than simply the process of trying to make something sound its best...and which can be done well, poorly, or somewhere in between.

 

BTW if you want a complete bio that will tell you more about me than you ever wanted to know, there's one posted at www.craiganderton.com -- click on the "About" tab.

[Soundscape Studios.]

FWIW, I subscribe to the idea that a properly recorded and mixed project should not not need "mastering" (aside from relative track level differences).

 

I belive I've seen quite a few respected engineers voice this "concept" as well.

 

Why fix it if it ain't broke?

[the stranger]

get this book

[Teahead]

I have Cubasis 4 vst and a Tascam USB-122 interface. Can anyone recommend a good book to get me started with some home recording on my laptop?

 

Craigs "Beginners Guide" that's being slaughtered as the inspiration for this thread sounds perfect fro me! I have no idea about plug-ins, or getting the most from my software, and I would dearly love to learn how to use it.

[Anderton]

<

 

True, it may not NEED mastering. But I've never met a track that couldn't be improved, even if only by 1%, in the hands of a good mastering engineer.

 

Case in point: My own Forward Motion. I had it mastered by Randy Kling in Nashville, who has walls filled with gold and platinum records. He felt everything was fine as is, but removed some hiss on two intros, added a tiny bit of limiting (REALLY tiny), and boosted a bit at 10kHz on one song. Did it improve the CD? Yup, even those relatively small changes made a difference.

 

But in many ways, the real value to me was having someone like that do a reality check. I mean, I thought the recording was done well, but it meant a lot to have him think so too.

[Anderton]

Stranger speaks truth..."Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science" by Bob Katz gets a big thumbs-up from me. It is not for beginners, though.

[Soundscape Studios.]

Originally posted by Anderton:

<

 

True, it may not NEED mastering. But I've never met a track that couldn't be improved, even if only by 1%, in the hands of a good mastering engineer.

 

Case in point: My own Forward Motion. I had it mastered by Randy Kling in Nashville, who has walls filled with gold and platinum records. He felt everything was fine as is, but removed some hiss on two intros, added a tiny bit of limiting (REALLY tiny), and boosted a bit at 10kHz on one song. Did it improve the CD? Yup, even those relatively small changes made a difference.

 

But in many ways, the real value to me was having someone like that do a reality check. I mean, I thought the recording was done well, but it meant a lot to have him think so too.

There you go - if there would have been no hiss in the first place, it wouldn't need "mastering".

 

As for the 10 khz boost, that really could have been corrected in the mixing stage, right? I guess it's easier to correct it globally, but my point stands.

[Anderton]

There's an interaction that occurs among combinations of tracks that is very difficult to emulate during the mixing process. For example, the people who like mastering to analog tape -- it would really not be possible to do that while mixing, unless you run the master out through an analog deck. I suppose it's a fine point, but the only difference in this case between adding a processor while "mixing" and adding it while "mastering" is the time at which the processing is added to the stereo master.

 

If someone comes out of a mix into a good mastering compressor and equalizer to get a two track master, would that be an example of fixing something while mixing, or an example of mastering done at the same time as mixing?

 

Perhaps more importantly, who cares? If you mix something and you don't think it needs mastering, so much the better. But if it needs a slight lift at 10 kHz, it sure is easier to add it globally than get the exact right amount of boost on every track. And then if you decide you want to drop the boost 1/4 dB, it's a lot easier to do that to the final mix than to individual tracks as well.

 

Another example of using mastering to do something I can't really do when mixing is that I very rarely use compression anymore on individual tracks. I record with as much dynamic range as possible, and rely on multiband limiting while mastering to trim the dynamics just the way I want. At least to my ears, the end result sounds more natural than adding compression to individual tracks.

 

Another anomaly that occurs during mixing is what I call "rogue peaks." Sometimes certain tracks interact in a certain way to create a spike in level that limits the overall available dynamic range. Often times, it's possible to reduce these spikes to get a louder sound without compromising dynamics. Doing this while mixing is possible, but it's time-consuming. You have to locate the tracks, decide which ones to reduce to bring down the peak, then engage in micro-editing with envelopes to just bring down one or two cycles of the waveforms in various tracks. Using a slight amount of limiting can do the same thing in a fraction of the time, with equally good results in terms of sound. So technically speaking, yeah, you could do it while mixing. But why bother when there's an easier way?

[Soundscape Studios.]

Yea, I guess I would have to agree with that.

 

But I think we are in agreement that Mastering should really be a "cherry on the top", not a fix for bad mixing. 99% of the job should really be done in the mix stage.

[John57386]

Craig

 

All I can say is wow..Im impressed at your attitude. its very refreshing to someone with the self control to not bite back at that post.

 

your next book...How to Master the art of self control without plugins

[Anderton]

<>

 

ABSOLUTELY. It was bad enough when the "fix it in the mix" mentality started to prevail, but the "fix it in the mastering" mentality is even more of a problem, because your options are far more limited.

 

<>

 

I think legitimate issues were brought up that needed to be addressed. I'd much rather have an opportunity to hear someone's complaints so I can address them. Clearly, the original post was by someone who was NOT the intended audience for the book. That's unfortunate, but that's also the way things go sometimes.

[ViLo]

I already learned a whole bunch from this thread

[Duddits]

Originally posted by Soundscape Studios.:

But I think we are in agreement that Mastering should really be a "cherry on the top", not a fix for bad mixing. 99% of the job should really be done in the mix stage.

Yeah but don't most mastering engineers prefer to get clean tracks that haven't been messed up by the tracking engineer stepping on the mastering engineer's turf?

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by Duddits:

Originally posted by Soundscape Studios.:

But I think we are in agreement that Mastering should really be a "cherry on the top", not a fix for bad mixing. 99% of the job should really be done in the mix stage.

Yeah but don't most mastering engineers prefer to get clean tracks that haven't been messed up by the tracking engineer stepping on the mastering engineer's turf?

I believe so. That's the case with the mastering engineers that I speak to, also. They usually tell me to try not to do too much processing, and keep the heads and tails (before and after the song), and not do too much limiting/compressing of the total overall mix. Oh, yeah, and they also say to do a good mix!

[Anderton]

<

 

Yes indeed. That's why I made the distinction between mixing and mastering, and asked the questions about adding "mastering processors" while mixing.

 

Ideally, you should create the best mix possible WITHOUT the use of traditional mastering tools, which then goes to the mastering engineer, who probably has better mastering tools than you do . I'm assuming that if someone is going to do all the mastering processes while mixing (e.g., overall EQ, multiband compression, etc.), they're likely not planning on taking the mix to a mastering engineer for subsequent work.