Mastering - Before vs After

[Yashagoro]

Hey! A question is becoming more and more present to me: how big is the difference between a well mastered track and the pre mastered version that was sent to the label?

My focus is on electronic dance music. If someone here has a clip example of a pre vs post professionally mastered track that could post, would go a long way into elucidate me.

I've been reading an interview to Rashad Becker, who among others works, mastered Black Noise by Pantha Du Prince, which I consider to be a spectacular achievement, and also an interview with Robert Babicz were he talks about his studio and the process. I've been a Babicz fan for some years not only because of his unique musicality but also his records' remarkable sound quality.

Will a good mastering process make a decisive step into pushing that production into a really balanced result (considering the mixing is at least average)?

Also, in an average way I notice that most recent edm tracks that I buy are leveled at something like -15db / -13db. I wonder what were their volume level before being sent to mastering. Anyone has advices on a recommended pre master volume setting that manages the ME to take the most out of it?

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by Yashagoro

Anyone has advices on a recommended pre master volume setting that manages the ME to take the most out of it?

Levels peaking around -6, -8 dBFS are good. Levels peaking higher would most likely be attenuated to feed an analog chain. It's all workable as long as there's nothing clipping on the plugs, channels or the master fader.

[Greg Reierson]

It's impossible to generalize on a song by song basis. Your favorite song on a give album or in the club may have been mastered with three EQs and two compressors, or possibly no processing at all. How much it has been changed is irrelevant. It's all about how it sounds to the end listener next to everything else.

I tell clients I will do as little as possible to make their music sound as good as it can.


GR

[M2E]

You should Master it before you mix it, that way, when you mix it, it sounds mastered.

Just kidding.....

Marc

[SSMastering]

Originally Posted by Yashagoro

My focus is on electronic dance music. If someone here has a clip example of a pre vs post professionally mastered track that could post, would go a long way into elucidate me.

Any idea what type of work is being done here?

Saw this a while back, thought it might give you an idea...

[Yashagoro]

Originally Posted by SSMastering

Any idea what type of work is being done here?

Saw this a while back, thought it might give you an idea...

Thank you for the reply. From what I found on my searches, usually, a professional mastering process will make a track sound louder and more balanced. But in some cases I was also expecting that it could turn a cold sounding track into a warmer, a bit more processed one (even adding some analog noise and character due to it being run through certain hardware). Is this me being ignorant and expecting too much or there is some truth being it?

[Marando]

Originally Posted by Yashagoro

Hey! A question is becoming more and more present to me: how big is the difference between a well mastered track and the pre mastered version that was sent to the label?

There is not a simple answer for this question I'm affraid. I listened to some masters of tracks I have mixed, and when I compare them, most of the time not a lot has changed at all when listening in my studio, it's just a bit louder. However, when comparing the mix and the master in my car or on a cheap hifi set, the difference can be huge all of a sudden, and in all cases, it's the master version that translates best. So, I have a lot of respect for mastering engineers! (the good mastering engineers, not the bad ones!! tutt)

[Greg Reierson]

Originally Posted by Marando

There is not a simple answer for this question I'm affraid. I listened to some masters of tracks I have mixed, and when I compare them, most of the time not a lot has changed at all when listening in my studio, it's just a bit louder. However, when comparing the mix and the master in my car or on a cheap hifi set, the difference can be huge all of a sudden, and in all cases, it's the master version that translates best. So, I have a lot of respect for mastering engineers! (the good mastering engineers, not the bad ones!! tutt)

Good post.

A good mix will need very little in mastering. Maybe a dip here, a bump there. Certainly no warmers, enhancers, mid/side, parallel, multi-band anything like the magazines suggest. Just simple adjustments to make sure it translates well to other systems. An album's worth of good mixes will need subtle tweaks to make it all flow well and work together. That's what mastering is meant to do.

You need to be happy with your mixes. Really happy with them. Then a good ME will surprise you by making them better.

[Flying_Dutchman]

Originally Posted by M2E

You should Master it before you mix it, that way, when you mix it, it sounds mastered.

Just kidding.....

Marc

no kidding intended
imo it´s better to know how relations will change when you push the loudness
i always mix at a loudness level that is like a finished album
if i get records for mastering it´s often a problem of relations and wrong compression
i don´t run into this problems when i set up my loudness routing first

[johnpaul]

hi folks,

here a nice exemple (I guess) of a non mastered track on youtube :

YouTube - CRAVE FOR LOVE


If my infos are corrects, this band ask to Metropolis (or Exchange ?) for a

master but they didn't use it, strange ? Can it comes with a rumor to make

the difference on the web - hyped marketing attitude - let me you know

what you professionals guys think about it.


Cheers Johnny

[Greg Reierson]

Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman

if i get records for mastering it´s often a problem of relations and wrong compression
i don´t run into this problems when i set up my loudness routing first

There's no reason mastering will change those relationships if done well.

[gregor z]

Originally Posted by Yashagoro

Thank you for the reply. From what I found on my searches, usually, a professional mastering process will make a track sound louder and more balanced. But in some cases I was also expecting that it could turn a cold sounding track into a warmer, a bit more processed one (even adding some analog noise and character due to it being run through certain hardware). Is this me being ignorant and expecting too much or there is some truth being it?

There is truth in your words....some tracks may benefit a lot from the analog processing and may sound bigger, punchier and wider after the processing.

With club related genres, the goal is to make the track very loud, but still punchy and clean. I don't hesitate to use any tools to achieve that.

Majority of mixes that I receive can be improved radically if the client is open for that, I would say that 20% of them need more moderate approach as they are already sounding very good.

I daily use M/S processing, parallel compression, dynamic EQ and saturation generators besides the "usual" mastering techniques .

On occasion I may "build my own" multiband compressor and I run it in parallel.

On a recent album project we added an stereo analog tape noise recorded from Philips reel to reel, to all tracks to get more "vintage analog" sound. It came out great and it added a special character/dimension to all songs.

My 2c,

Best,

Gregor