What is the ultimate goal of "Mastering"?
 

If I send my mix to several different mastering houses it's likely that I would get several different products in return. There would be variations in dynamics, EQ, etc. as the particular ME at each house applies their style.

Now, if these houses were mastering to some universal reference standard it would make sense to me but the process seems a matter of opinion. What makes the mastered version more "right" than the original mix that I thought sounded "right"?

I guess what I am trying to understand is, what is the ultimate goal of mastering?

It's different today than it was 20 years ago.

But ultimately? A very wide explanation:
An ME is a final set of finely tuned ears to put on the music to identify issues if there are any...(sometimes that means not doing anything)
Then process all the audio to maximize the sound quality for whatever release format is the end product - these days that could be iTunes, CD's, Amazon, Spotify, Vinyl and so on.
Then transfer the audio to the master format - be that again Digital (Harddrive for distribution/uploading) CD etc...

Same as it ever was. To present the mix in the best possible light.

Of course it's a matter of personal opinion and individual taste.


DC

1. Get coherence amongst all tracks of the album. Some tracks might have been recorded/mixed/produced in different studios by different engineers/producers etc... Ii is therefore important to avoid the album sounding like a compilation.
2. Removing all possible cause of bad reproduction on several systems/ tuning the track to be played in clubs/radio/TV
3. Every engineer deals with these issues in different ways. It is just a matter of taste.

AB

You guys are all giving the definition of mastering as it was over a decade ago. Everybody knows the purpose of mastering now is to get the levels as hot as possible so that nothing but square waves are visible on monitors regardless of how it sounds or what the destination medium is.

not to mention to clip this square in ad and da:)
to make it even more louder

The goal? Simply to adjust or alter the stereo image, frequency content, acoustic resonance and dynamic range of an individual composition in a way that is most pleasurable to the human ear and harmonious with modern reproduction systems, in my very humble opinion.

Possibly another "best thread evah" in the making here. One to watch. : )

Maybe give comfort to the listener hear what the artist wants to display.

Hi Nonlinear,
You are understandably confused, since the terminology has migrated in usage to the point of incorrectness. The word, "mastering," means making the disc-shaped object which will directly be used in the creation of parts for pressing copies. The lacquer master and the glass master are such discs. The CD-R, DDPi, or .zip of Cue Wavs are premasters.

The process of processing the audio signals that go on a master is called, mastering, only when cutting grooves into a lacquer master disc and using the eq or limiting or whatever in real time as the disc is cut. If the lacquer master program is prepared in an earlier session - even by the same chick - this, too, would be premastering. By the way, to make a quadrophonic master, the clerk would want to use 16 channels of the identical EQ and limiters, since she would need one for each channel, times 2, for the preview path, and, times 2, again, for A and B switching (during banding). Even a stereo monogroove signal should be mastered with 8 channels of eq and such, unless a manually adjusted feed is used, and/or Global EQ settings. The "hit" to the lacquer cutting studio's acoustic footprint that is presented by an 8-channel console is enough to warrant considering doing premastering, even for lacquer. Compatibility processing can be applied in a more svelte setup.

Finally, since the glass master is used to make the parts for compact disc manufacture, the session before it, which is the one where these guys used their Foote compressors and their Inward Connections EQ, etc..., therefore, is called premastering. In premastering, anything goes. Ok. If making CD, you must put at least 4 seconds between tracks - even if the song is 3 seconds long. You must not exceed 79 minutes program. Etc... Artistically, you are free to explore... But to do it well, you would probably do as little as possible to make the song sound the way you can tell that it's trying to ;), in the luxury of a revealing sound stage. Then again, if the mix is really sketchy, you might have to do quite a lot - provided no remix would be available...

Mastering, on the other hand, has a lot of requirements that are not subject to opinion. Is there just too much out of phase low frequency content to cut at 0 ref and not risk liftout of the pickup? Does the record have cutover grooves? Did the starting groove and lead-in happen well enough inside the outer diameter to leave room for holding with tongs (during metal mastering), but far enough towards the outer edge to allow an automatic tone arm deployer to drop the repro stylus in the correct spot (on the pressing)? Is the radius of curvature of the highest recorded frequency small enough that, at its recorded level, it risks that a playback stylus on a bent tone arm might skate across? Does the tracing distortion become objectionable by song 4? etc... Yes, there are real guidelines for this and a little bit of "wiggle room." heh For premastering, it's all opinion, man. Apparently, there is a good amount of consensus over what sounds really good, so, stay thirsty, my friend. bumpkin



Cheersø,
Laarsø

To make my record louder than yours.

The mix, before premastering, doesn't have to compete with any other recording's loudness. The way to make a mix play back loud as you please, even though the peak level is, say, -6.02 dBFSD, is to crank up the control room monitor gain knob. By allowing for louder peak levels, the mixist introduces more and more inharmonic distortion - not at all like the practice of slamming into tape for harmonic saturation-distortion. If the mix sounds fantastic as-is, all the premastering clerk has to do is apply clean gain. If the mix which peaks at -6.02 dBFSD doesn't sound quite fantastic (when played at a potentially-exciting monitor gain level), the clerk will be able to alter spectra without having needlessly to alter the SNR before hand (by attenuating) or risk more inharmonic distortion from being objectionably audible (by clippink).



Cheersø,
Laarsø

I guess what I am trying to understand is, what is the ultimate goal of mastering?

To make $$$$

but then again, that could be said for ANYONE'S goals.....

Other than QA of media before duplication I feel that the main goal of mastering is to add clarity, balance, and "musicality" to a project. All of which are subjective, but that's why it's a good idea to get another objective perspective from a professional.

Only if you want to survive on this earth!

I use this on my posters (it's also on the front page of my website I'm currently working on)...

"Mastering is the end of the artistic process and the beginning of the manufacturing process. It is truly the end of the recording chain—the last chance to affect your music in any way, shape or form artistically."
- Larry DeVivo

Hope the above statement makes sense to you... because that's "what it is".

3dB ? Try over 40 dB of usable headroom with 24 bit audio. So if we ask for 3dB to have "room" to do our processing we are asking for a lot???

Here is a good chart that might help some of you understand levels better...

Mastering does for the client what the CLIENT asks the mastering engineer to do for him or her. It is NOT, IMHO, up to the mastering engineer to make decisions on how the music ultimately sounds by imparting their particular ideas or "set of normal presets" on the musician's music. Every song is different, ever genre different, every person's ideas on what their music should sound like to them is different. A GREAT mastering engineer takes into account all of these factors as he or she masters the clients music while seeking guidance from the person who brought in the mastering job.

I think DC summed it up when he said "Same as it ever was. To present the mix in the best possible light. Of course it's a matter of personal opinion and individual taste."

The ultimate question is of course who's taste and who's opinion??? <GRIN>

To take the mixes and sequence them for CD duplication, for MP3 download etc. This might involve slight adjustments to level, tonality etc to get the tracks sounding like an album. To produce a finished CD master.

You have to remember mastering is an art as well as a science. So each ME will have a different take on the final outcome.
The main goal of mastering is to get a fresh set of highly trained ears to check over your mix and to make adjustments (if needed) to enhance the mix and also to make the mix play well on a wide variety of sound systems.

G

"To produce a finished master"

Thats the goal, one thats free from defects and delivered on time. This applied to all formats.

Thats the basis of it, in a nutshell, candy coat it as you wish, all of it is valid. All different roads arriving at the same end. Master...hence the title..kfhkh

And the result = happy clients

Great thread, keep it up!kfhkh

I was gonna' say it if you didn't. :)

If you don't want the mastering guy to dick with your sound AT ALL, don't send it to a mastering guy. Fade and dither it yourself and be done.

If you want the mastering guy to dick with your sound, even a little, even just to do some EQ, they need headroom or the signal will clip as soon as they turn a knob.

Ultimate goal of mastering? To work on a project that attracts more projects to master.

Technically? To create an error-free, reproducible product that conforms to multiple media formats; CD audio, MP3 being the most important right now.

Aesthetically? To preserve the artist's vision while crafting a coherent sonic signature spanning 2 seconds before the listener hears a single sound until 2 seconds after it ends. To pay attention to the overall picture of an album as a single work through an attention to the minutest details including the use of silence between tracks, pacing, length and style of fades or swells, to preserve dynamic range while conforming to current standards of depth, width, volume and response.

What? Dave are you feeling ok? load up that 8 band multiband cut that CD and quit spreading these audio myths........jeeez......

The mastering engineering can improve the understanding between the artists and listeners... Shouting is really not the way.. But vitality sounds good and make people pay attention. Same as a good coffee effect... Energy...Purity...Naturalism... or any other desirable effect for your client.. Someone here in GS said before: - If you pass the signal thru a dead fish and sounds like he would.. do it..

Thats what the goal of mastering is in my opinion. Experience to know what to do or not to do between tools and ideas.

Total awareness, and achieving the Zen concept of the oneness of all things............heh