Goals of Mastering ?

[bringmewater]

I have a finished mix that sounds great on my near fields, far fields, in my car, on pc speakers etc.... All the instruments sound balanced, in their proper place, it's 13 on the K-meter and overall sounds very commercial.

So......what would be the goals of a world class Mastering Engineer having received this mix ? What else is left to be done ?

Thanks for the insight.

[aivoryuk]

Originally Posted by bringmewater

So......what would be the goals of a world class Mastering Engineer having received this mix ? What else is left to be done ?

Thanks for the insight.

The goals of the mastering engineer are whatever your goals are
We are here to serve you.

It seems like you are obviously happy with the mix and that it seems to be translating on various systems but there are always things that you may not pick up on and the mastering engineer can because of the high class monitoring that they use example low end.

Ultimately the little thing called loudness could come into play to which most responses would be just to turn the volume up on your stereo but thats not always the case depending on the artist.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

If your stuff is indeed as good as you say it is then any professional mastering engineer should be able to listen to your stuff and confirm your appraisal. They may also be able to offer you some suggestions as to ways to make it even better.

One problem is that if you are the only one listening to your material you may not hear what someone else is hearing and it is always better to have a second trained set of ears listening to your material before it goes to "press"

One thing that is always amazing to witness is when an artist brings in a mix that he or she says is PRIMO and when we play it back on my monitoring setup they hear things that they never even imagined were in the recording. Things like HVAC noise, traffic noises outside and clicks buzzes and hum. This is because they were listening on studio monitors that did not have the listening environment that my studio affords them.

Best to have someone with a really good monitoring setup listen to your material before you have it duplicated if only to confirm your appraisal of the material.

Best of luck!

[Boomshanka]

What else is left to be done ?

Not necessarily anything in terms of processing, other than to ensure it works well sonically with any other tracks as a whole. I've done albums whereby a 0.5dB EQ made all the difference... with the right choice of equalizer.
That doesn't mean to say that it doesn't require the professional service of mastering... an objective, experienced pair of ears in an excellent (accurate, unflattering) monitoring environment in which to judge, with care taken to convert the audio to the required format and compile the final Production Master.

[jdg]

someone's gotta burn the CDs.

i do "flat transfers" all the time.
that way, they get a replication ready "red book" CDR, all checked, QC'd etc etc.
im sure almost all mastering places do this, and its rather cheep, as it only takes an few hours at most.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by bringmewater

I have a finished mix that sounds great on my near fields, far fields, in my car, on pc speakers etc.... All the instruments sound balanced, in their proper place, it's 13 on the K-meter and overall sounds very commercial.

So......what would be the goals of a world class Mastering Engineer having received this mix ? What else is left to be done ?

Thanks for the insight.

Hmmm... might be perfect as it is! If the mastering engineer agrees that there is nothing he can suggest there is still the job of making sure the tunes for the album go together with the right spacing and relative levels. Also there is the mechanical/technical process of preparing and PQ coding the master, error checking it and placing it on the medium for replication. If it's in 24 bit or at a different rate than 4416, a good mastering engineer will also help to choose the best method for translating that to 4416 with minimal losses. Maybe there's no other "polish" than that. Go to a good mastering engineer who knows enough when it's better to leave something alone but is outspoken enough to present his experienced opinion as well.

BK

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by bringmewater

I have a finished mix that sounds great on my near fields, far fields, in my car, on pc speakers etc.... All the instruments sound balanced, in their proper place, it's 13 on the K-meter and overall sounds very commercial.

So......what would be the goals of a world class Mastering Engineer having received this mix ? What else is left to be done ?

Thanks for the insight.

A single mix or multiple mixes?

For multiple mixes getting them to sound like they belong together on an album, are well balanced in frequency and level, noise is at a minimum, are edited/arranged/QCed on the final media properly, and getting the opinion of an experienced audio pro, an ME may be useful.

For a single mix that is going to be downloaded, less of the above may be needed.

[Peakly]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Hmmm... might be perfect as it is!

You're the painter, and it sounds like the painting looks good in all kinds of different light. Nice job getting it to translate well on all those different systems.

Different musicians, mix engineers, mastering engineers, etc, will all have different opinions on how it sounds. But would their opinions be more valuable than your own? You're the artist - it's your piece of art. If you like how it sounds, go with it.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by Peakly

You're the painter, and it sounds like the painting looks good in all kinds of different light. Nice job getting it to translate well on all those different systems.

Different musicians, mix engineers, mastering engineers, etc, will all have different opinions on how it sounds. But would their opinions be more valuable than your own? You're the artist - it's your piece of art. If you like how it sounds, go with it.

Many people today DON'T know how to properly self critique their own work and tend to think everything they produce is a work of art.

I can say that a mastering job I just did for a client is GREAT! but unless some of my peers also agree it is GREAT! or it becomes a million seller, it is just my opinion.

To use your analogy when a painter finishes his "masterpiece" he may think it is GREAT! but until someone else offers to purchase it or writes a favorable review of the art it is still his or her opinion and nothing more.

To many "artists" today work in a vacuum and don't seek the advice or consul of others. Collaboration is the name of the game if you want your material to be of interest to more than yourself. I cannot tell you the amount of work I get in to master that is being heard for the first time and no one, up until it gets played here has heard the music or has given any suggestion about the overall quality of the material. The artist has written the music, played the music, recorded the music and mixed the music all without any input from another human being. They may think their stuff is top drawer material but in reality what they have created is bargain basement junque that is pleasing only to themselves. If you say anything about the quality of the playing or the mixing or the recording they get defensive and say it is their artistic vision and they are more than happy with it. So be it. Just remember that like in computers garbage in - garbage out.

If you are creating music for your own pleasure then everything is GREAT! no matter what you do, if you are creating music that will be enjoyed by the masses then you should do everything possible to make sure what you are doing is really the best and that includes getting someone to master your material that really knows what he or she is doing and has the ears, the monitoring setup and the equipment to do your material justice.

FWIW

[Bob Olhsson]

The goal of mastering is to not have an important reviewer or music director throw my client's CD in the wastebasket because of something about the presentation of the mixes that got overlooked due to a monitoring problem or everybody becoming too close to the project to remain objective.

The sound of the CD has to sell the various gatekeepers and taste makers on the idea that this recording and artist deserve exposure as much or more than the others being considered.

[lucey]

"I have a finished mix that sounds great on my near fields, far fields, in my car, on pc speakers etc.... All the instruments sound balanced, in their proper place, it's 13 on the K-meter and overall sounds very commercial."

I often get this line from mixers ... and after they hear what can be done, the mixes are suddenly not as great as they were last week. Perspective and potential, it's part of the service we offer.

Then again, maybe you're one of those rare projects where your mixes cannot be topped by processing them further, and are so even as to not need to be adjusted to work with each other, or the world. Cool.

[twwalsh]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The goal of mastering is to not have an important reviewer or music director throw my client's CD in the wastebasket because of something about the presentation of the mixes that got overlooked due to a monitoring problem or everybody becoming too close to the project to remain objective.

The sound of the CD has to sell the various gatekeepers and taste makers on the idea that this recording and artist deserve exposure as much or more than the others being considered.

With all due respect Bob, this is not really how the music industry works anymore. I'm sure at the level that you work (major labels) this is still largely the case, but this is the end of an era. The internet, blogs, and social networking drive new music and there isn't a "gatekeeper oligarchy" anymore. There are thousands of mini-gatekeepers...and it's not a few guys in an office going through a stack of CDs, deciding who's going to get their shot at the "big time". It's a whole new "even playing field" music world out there.

[arf]

Originally Posted by twwalsh

It's a whole new "even playing field" music world out there.

Maybe so, but the principle is the same - you want your music to have the best shot. When it's working right, mastering results in the recording sounding its best. Admittedly, there are "mastering" engineers doing more harm than good, but if you've found the right people, the investment is more than worth it.

[Bob Olhsson]

I keep forgetting that today everybody just clicks around myspace for ten hours a day and finds a song they like every week or so...

[Peakly]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

To use your analogy when a painter finishes his "masterpiece" he may think it is GREAT! but until someone else offers to purchase it or writes a favorable review of the art it is still his or her opinion and nothing more.

To many "artists" today work in a vacuum and don't seek the advice or consul of others. Collaboration is the name of the game if you want your material to be of interest to more than yourself.

Beethoven worked in a "vacuum," and so did Van Gogh.

Are you serious when you say that a work of art has no value unless money changes hands, or someone writes something favorable about it? How can that be? It doesn't change in any way just because someone pays to listen to it or writes about it.

A work of art simply exists. If someone notices it and wants to throw money at it or write about it, that's fine. It may remain completely obscure, or become hugely famous. That's incidental, and after the fact. Fame or money won't improve art in any way.

You might say something has musical value, and I might think it's comically bad. Or the reverse could be true, and most likely is. I might point at a passage in Mozart's Requiem, or Miles Davis' Footprints, or one of Pete Seeger's songs, and say that it's flat out brilliant. But is it? Me and 100,000 other people might spend our hard earned money going to a concert by the new band XYZ. But that doesn't mean they're musically any good. They might be making a lot of money, but so what? If I sell a lot of records and make a lot of money and buy a lot of stuff, does that mean my music has artistic value, and is no longer just an opinion?

The value of art will always remain subjective, and be people's opinions, no matter how many or how few people share those opinions. Art should never be created with any material objective in mind, or pander after the latest fashion. It should able to stand on it's own, without needing to "fit in" or be part of some current trend.

Of course, these are all just my opinions...

[masteringhouse]

Great sound enhances art (unless the intent is to be ugly) it doesn't create it.

With less experienced hands in the audio production process it's even more important to have the opinion of a professional, not less. The work that I get from bigger name engineers requires consistently less effort in mastering than that from indie artists, and usually sounds better since less processing needs to be done. If you want your music to compete with major label artists it doesn't hurt to have the opinion of someone who's had a few years and albums under their belt. Especially when it's the last part of the chain where you can correct any issues.

[hackenslash]

Originally Posted by Peakly

Beethoven worked in a "vacuum," and so did Van Gogh.

But Van Gogh only sold one painting in his lifetime and, while Beethoven may have written in a vacuum, he attended all his first performances and was very careful to gauge the response of the audience, always willinig to rewrite based on those responses. Your analogy is thin.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by Peakly

Beethoven worked in a "vacuum," and so did Van Gogh.

Are you serious when you say that a work of art has no value unless money changes hands, or someone writes something favorable about it? How can that be? It doesn't change in any way just because someone pays to listen to it or writes about it.

A work of art simply exists. If someone notices it and wants to throw money at it or write about it, that's fine. It may remain completely obscure, or become hugely famous. That's incidental, and after the fact. Fame or money won't improve art in any way.

You might say something has musical value, and I might think it's comically bad. Or the reverse could be true, and most likely is. I might point at a passage in Mozart's Requiem, or Miles Davis' Footprints, or one of Pete Seeger's songs, and say that it's flat out brilliant. But is it? Me and 100,000 other people might spend our hard earned money going to a concert by the new band XYZ. But that doesn't mean they're musically any good. They might be making a lot of money, but so what? If I sell a lot of records and make a lot of money and buy a lot of stuff, does that mean my music has artistic value, and is no longer just an opinion?

The value of art will always remain subjective, and be people's opinions, no matter how many or how few people share those opinions. Art should never be created with any material objective in mind, or pander after the latest fashion. It should able to stand on it's own, without needing to "fit in" or be part of some current trend.

Of course, these are all just my opinions...

I remember very well an art appreciation class I had in college. We looked at a lot of great art works and we discussed them ad nauseam. My instructor said basically what you are saying that great art simply exists but he also said that art is something to be appreciated in the mind of the beholder and what is someones masterpiece is another's trash. We talked a lot about how art is bought and sold and how some pieces of art have reached the summit while others languish at the bottom of the pile. This does not make one painting or sculpture "better" than another but the ones that stand out are also the ones that are worth more in the market place.

If you want your music to stand out in the market place then it is up to the artist to have it the best that it can be and part of that is having someone who is trained in the mastering art have a listen to it. With their years of experience and their listening space and equipment they can turn something that is great into something that is polished and ready for the marketplace. They cannot turn a sow's ear in to a silk purse but they can take something that sounds good and make it into something that sounds incredible and marketable.

Music is not only about money but it sure comes in handy to pay for a new guitar or a new studios filled with all kinds of goodies and if you are a professional musician it is a way to put bread on the table and a roof over your head. Money is the glue that holds the music BUSINESS together. The music business is the BUSINESS of music and the people that MAKE IT are the people that can sell the most CDs and thereby make the most money for the record company and conversely for themselves.

I am not saying that everything has to have a price tag associated with it but to write music that only you think is GREAT! is just fooling yourself. Music is a communicative medium and if there is only a transmitter and no receivers then there is not going to be a lot of communications going on.

IMHO and FWIW.

[Boomshanka]

It's true.. one problem with the music industry is that it's an industry.

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people can own it."
- John Lennon

Still, pro mastering is the service business(art) of marrying the subjective with the experienced objective. Without the latter, of course the music is no less an art. Still, more often than not a painting needs framing and to be correctly lit.

[twwalsh]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I keep forgetting that today everybody just clicks around myspace for ten hours a day and finds a song they like every week or so...

very close to the truth! bands "break" all the time with the crappiest sounding demos. i'm not saying that it wouldn't be cooler if they sounded better. but i am saying that it doesn't matter nearly as much as it used to when bands were trying to impress a&r men and radio programmers.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by twwalsh

very close to the truth! bands "break" all the time with the crappiest sounding demos. i'm not saying that it wouldn't be cooler if they sounded better. but i am saying that it doesn't matter nearly as much as it used to when bands were trying to impress a&r men and radio programmers.

MAYBE that is the problem with the music business today.....they don't want to impress anyone but themselves

[twwalsh]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

MAYBE that is the problem with the music business today.....they don't want to impress anyone but themselves

maybe they're more engaged with creating things and satisfying themselves than trying to impress a bunch of jerkoffs in suits.

i think there's NO problem with the music business right now. we're in a golden age.

[arf]

Originally Posted by twwalsh

maybe they're more engaged with creating things and satisfying themselves than trying to impress a bunch of jerkoffs in suits.

i think there's NO problem with the music business right now. we're in a golden age.

A large percentage of my work comes in because of exactly this reason. The bands, artists, writers, producers, or engineers are more satisfied with their creations after good mastering. They're willing to pay for the intrinsic value added even if it's entirely subjective.

[twwalsh]

Originally Posted by arf

A large percentage of my work comes in because of exactly this reason. The bands, artists, writers, producers, or engineers are more satisfied with their creations after good mastering. They're willing to pay for the intrinsic value added even if it's entirely subjective.

awesome. me too. high five.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by twwalsh

maybe they're more engaged with creating things and satisfying themselves than trying to impress a bunch of jerkoffs in suits.

i think there's NO problem with the music business right now. we're in a golden age.

??????????? Coulda have fooled me....

A brave new world: the music biz at the dawn of 2008: Page 1

I think you are confusing the MUSIC BUSINESS with PERFORMING AND LISTENING TO MUSIC, but that is only my opinion.

[twwalsh]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

???????????

what, besides some records being mastered too loud?

what else wrong with the music industry right now? now anyone can be heard. that's amazing.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by twwalsh

..now anyone can be heard. that's amazing.

When could anyone NOT be heard if they put their mind to being heard?

[twwalsh]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

When could anyone NOT be heard if they put their mind to being heard?

off the top of my head:

during the 25 years MTV was king. ugly and fat people couldn't get heard.

at the dawn of rock and roll in the 50s. black people couldn't get heard.

10 years ago - anyone whose music would appeal to less than 15,000 people. not even the smallest record label would invest in them.