Whats your definition of mastering?

[PhilE]

I track and mix or just mix... then as far as I'm concerned someone else should do the mastering.

My question is this... what do you expect to have to do and what is your aim when a mixed track comes to you for mastering?
I have my ideas of what I want and sometimes it comes back and I'm pleased and for various reasons sometimes not.

So what do you guys who do mastering consider to be your responsibility and what not?

P.

[carlsaff]

I like to say that it's akin to framing.

You have to think about delivery format, the limitations of that format, and how you can ensure that what you've been handed reaches the listener in the same or better shape than it arrived. (Most clients want it made "better"... but not all!)

In short, it's about making sure that the presentation of the mix is as good as it can be in the delivery format for which it is intended. (I stole some of that wording from Bob Ohlsson... sorry, Bob!)

Of course, in addition to EQ, compression, etc., there are less exciting things like error checking, ISRC codes, and CD-TEXT wrapped up in that process.

[PhilE]

So for you it's maintain the mix and make sure it still sounds like that from the CD?

Sounds like an aproach that most mixers would apreciate to me!!

[carlsaff]

I don't like to "re-imagine" the mixes. I prefer to fix problems if they exist, and sweeten when it makes sense. The best compliment I can get is "that sounds like my mixes, only better".

Then again, every now and then, a client wants their mixes "transformed." The client gets what the client wants.

[PhilE]

Originally Posted by carlsaff

I don't like to "re-imagine" the mixes. I prefer to fix problems if they exist, and sweeten when it makes sense. The best compliment I can get is "that sounds like my mixes, only better".

Then again, every now and then, a client wants their mixes "transformed." The client gets what the clients wants.

Makes you sick doesn't it!!

The times I've had to sit and ruin a good song cos a client insists on this cool effect or another!

[Bob Olhsson]

I'd add adjusting the presentation of the mix to be appropriate to its position within the album, the genre, the contemporary marketplace and possibly even history.

[PhilE]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I'd add adjusting the presentation of the mix to be appropriate to its position within the album, the genre, the contemporary marketplace and possibly even history.

OK- can you expand? To me that sounds like the producer (and mixers) jobs. I think this has caused some of the masters I've hated or had redone elsewhere to fail for me... some are just badly done but others have been bizarre.

Bob, would you do this on an unattended session or only with the producers agreement?

[Bob Olhsson]

The presentation of a mix should never be confused with the presentation of the music and the recording which is what mixing is all about. Obviously the producer plays a key role and must approve anything that affects the mix. The presentation of the mix must always support the producer's, artist's and client's goals.

It's never a matter of homogenizing the sound to fit some genre but rather one of understanding the context within which the song is going to be listened to. You don't treat a Broadway musical the same way you treat a hip hop record unless the musical is about hip hop. Even then I'd want to discuss the goals of that kind of special situation with the producer. Mastering to me is always a collaboration and not "playing god."

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Mastering to me is always a collaboration and not "playing god."

Nice! I think I found another Bob O. quote to steal.

[Brad Blackwood]

Simply put, mastering is the craft of helping the artists achieve their goals, whatever they may be.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Brad Blackwood

Simply put, mastering is the craft of helping the artists achieve their goals, whatever they may be.

I like it, but liked your other def regarding objective listening more. This is a little too general I think. Many artists goals are to make tons of money and get laid as much as possible. Mastering can only help slightly there if at all.

[Brad Blackwood]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

I like it, but liked your other def regarding objective listening more. This is a little too general I think. Many artists goals are to make tons of money and get laid as much as possible. Mastering can only help slightly there if at all.

You mean this one (stripped down to the essence)?

Mastering is listening without prejudice - the processing that happens in mastering is a result of the objective listen.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Brad Blackwood

You mean this one (stripped down to the essence)?

Mastering is listening without prejudice - the processing that happens in mastering is a result of the objective listen.

Yep, there's a lot said in those few words.

Predjudice includes not only those of the engineer (which is why it's a good idea to use an ME over a mix engineer) but of the equipment/room used as well. "Mastering is listening without prejudice" could be a thread alone.

[chrisj]

Hm...

Mastering is translating better.

(good luck doing that without listening, understanding, and having a sonic/cultural/etc context for the result! :D )

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Brad Blackwood

Simply put, mastering is the craft of helping the artists achieve their goals, whatever they may be.

As is producing, engineering. album design, publicity, management and every other part of the process.

The artist really has to be the leader in order to be successful as much as others love to jump in and try to take credit.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

As is producing, engineering. album design, publicity, management and every other part of the process.

The artist really has to be the leader in order to be successful as much as others love to jump in and try to take credit.

I'm curious, what sort of input do you think artists like Christine Aguilera, Britney Spears, and others of this ilk have in the above?

[Bob Olhsson]

A lot more than many people assume.

They have to be able to "own" it in order to stand up, and sell themselves to a crowd. The artist is always where the buck stops. It's also not uncommon for artists to freak out when they realize this truth.

[PhilE]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The presentation of a mix should never be confused with the presentation of the music and the recording which is what mixing is all about. Obviously the producer plays a key role and must approve anything that affects the mix. The presentation of the mix must always support the producer's, artist's and client's goals.

It's never a matter of homogenizing the sound to fit some genre but rather one of understanding the context within which the song is going to be listened to. You don't treat a Broadway musical the same way you treat a hip hop record unless the musical is about hip hop. Even then I'd want to discuss the goals of that kind of special situation with the producer. Mastering to me is always a collaboration and not "playing god."

I think I get where you're coming from.

Please don't think I'm trying to start a fight or critisize anyone's way of working- I just want to understand what is in the minds of the people who do the next step.
I believe in the theory of the objective listen.
However, if artistic decisions are taken in the tracking and mixing stages it does anoy me when they get squashed in mastering- or the dynamics get removed!

[crabtwins]

My definition in terms of how i want to use it: that its like audio painting. But im not an established industry living off of this cause im the bomb type of expert by any means. make sense?

[ashdef]

in my eyes the basic qualification for acting as a mastering engineer is to understand the intention and achievements of a mix. this includes the sound design, the narration etc. basically you have to understand where the mix is aiming at and if it arrived there, if not, you might be able to help. that might be a gentle operation or a massive invasion on the mix. nowadays -as many people spare out a mixing room- sometimes the amount of treatment can be radical and more and more people adress mastering for a certain sound rather than mixing (which i am not an advocat for). in my opinion all considerations regarding media and format should not supersede mastering as a basically musical operation on the source material, as 'consistency' of an album or 'proper sound on vinyl' are just too variable significants in today's musical world to set up a framework for the achievements of mastering.
--another important role i think of mastering is helping musicians // producers with learning to listen to their mixes and helping them to be more decisive and sensitive, ideally achieving more of what they had in mind for future productions, having possible media limitations in mind. mastering is very much about trust and should ideally be a long -term relationship

[Threshold]

Part fresh perspective, part sample rate unifying, part level, & EQ unifying, of course editing, fading, inserting markers, & codes. And, etc..

[lucey]

Mastering is the 3rd step in the process. It's "making it better" ... the disciplined use of processing to make the maximum positive change based on both the clients vision and the needs of the playback world.

Originally Posted by PhilE

I have my ideas of what I want and sometimes it comes back and I'm pleased and for various reasons sometimes not.

So what do you guys who do mastering consider to be your responsibility and what not?

Creative responsibility? To complete their vision, as best anyone can. This takes communication, skill and yes gear.
Technically? To present a ready master.

[Sid Viscous]

Mastering is everything from screwing up a great project to making a screwed up one great.

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by Sid Viscous

Mastering is everything from screwing up a great project to making a screwed up one great.

The first is possible but rare unless a good ME is forced to do it (volume wars).
The latter not possible as in polishing a turd.

As a mix engineer and/or producer I think it's important to know what mastering can do and what not. I really like not having to worry about level matching and exact sonic continuity of the individual mixes and thus being able to work with one song at a time.

I see mastering as the process of making an album out of individual mixes but naturally it's up to the musicians and mixer/producer to come up with songs and a general sonic presentation that makes sense as a whole.

I think mastering is also a kind of 'sharpening' process. More clarity, more punch, more dimension but again you can only enhance what's already there.

[Sid Viscous]

Originally Posted by doorknocker

The first is possible but rare unless a good ME is forced to do it (volume wars).
The latter not possible as in polishing a turd.

As a mix engineer and/or producer I think it's important to know what mastering can do and what not. I really like not having to worry about level matching and exact sonic continuity of the individual mixes and thus being able to work with one song at a time.

I see mastering as the process of making an album out of individual mixes but naturally it's up to the musicians and mixer/producer to come up with songs and a general sonic presentation that makes sense as a whole.

I think mastering is also a kind of 'sharpening' process. More clarity, more punch, more dimension but again you can only enhance what's already there.

My favorite part of all of this is where everyone can screw up but the ME. MEs are given way more credit than they deserve in the process, and if they disappeared only the MEs would notice. As a matter of fact, all that would happen is that we would go back to the kind of records that were made before the 90s. I think that would be great.

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by Sid Viscous

My favorite part of all of this is where everyone can screw up but the ME. MEs are given way more credit than they deserve in the process, and if they disappeared only the MEs would notice. As a matter of fact, all that would happen is that we would go back to the kind of records that were made before the 90s. I think that would be great.

I absolutely DON'T think that MEs are given too much credit, rather the opposite.
Maybe you had a bad experience, I dunno. Nobody forces you to master your record, you might do it yourself if you feel that confident.

A lot of the 'old' records were superior to what's out today because there were clearly defined tasks: Musicians playing, engineers recording and producers producing. Today everybody is a Michelangeloesque genius not needing outside help and trying to save a buck. THAT'S what led to mediocricy being so predominent.

I'm also multi-tasking but very aware of the pitfalls. That's one reason I would never produce myself and why I think MEs are important. A set of objective ears can be very useful.

[Masterer]

Originally Posted by doorknocker

Maybe you had a bad experience, I dunno. Nobody forces you to master your record, you might do it yourself if you feel that confident.

Maybe he has no experience.

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by Masterer

Maybe he has no experience.

LOL

[Coyoteous]

Originally Posted by lucey

Mastering is the 3rd step in the process. It's "making it better" ... the disciplined use of processing to make the maximum positive change based on both the clients vision and the needs of the playback world.

When I first read this I saw "change" as "charge" (as in $) yielding:

[mastering is] the disciplined use of processing to make the maximum positive "charge."

- funny (to me), yet sometimes true!

Your definition is quite good without my misinterpretation, though.

[Sid Viscous]

Originally Posted by Masterer

Maybe he has no experience.

That would make you feel better, wouldn't it?