WHATS THE BEST SIGNAL PATH FOR MASTERING??

[robot gigante]

Originally Posted by Riccardo

Ok, so we are back to the first response to the question.
We know every song is different...and choice depends on many factors but...do you guys (and hopefully gals hidden somewhere...) tend to use eq pre or post comp...?

Yes.

[Bob Yordan]

..

[tmcconnell]

The poster wants to master his own music? I have always regarded mastering as the last place where objectivity can enter the equation. Did Stevie Wonder master his own records, or Paul Mcartney? (Cases where they wrote all the songs and played most of the parts). I have to wonder if a listening audience is best served by someone unwilling to step outside their own vision and allow a bit of diversity, if only for the small task of rendering audio suitable for playback on a variety of reproduction systems. I could be wrong about some of that... but not very, very wrong.

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by tmcconnell

I have to wonder if a listening audience is best served by someone unwilling to step outside their own vision and allow a bit of diversity....

In my experience the true artist usually does that (stepping aside). It's a long ay to the top and therefore it takes time for the artist to understand how beneficial is to step aside a little bit sometimes........

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by tmcconnell

The poster wants to master his own music? I have always regarded mastering as the last place where objectivity can enter the equation. Did Stevie Wonder master his own records, or Paul Mcartney? (Cases where they wrote all the songs and played most of the parts). I have to wonder if a listening audience is best served by someone unwilling to step outside their own vision and allow a bit of diversity, if only for the small task of rendering audio suitable for playback on a variety of reproduction systems. I could be wrong about some of that... but not very, very wrong.

Very well said.

The issue of self-mastering always seems to be one of economics rather than getting the best result.

[Timecode]

I think one of the main ways in which computers have changed the way we make music is in drastically reducing the 'division of labour' required in the recording process. Nowadays it is possible and common for someone to write, perform, record, and mix their own material. Obviously this is generally a lot cheaper than having a big team of people involved - also it gives the musician much more control over how their final product sounds. I think many modern musicians have got used to and enjoy the control they get working on a DAW with infinite undo / redo, graphable automation, sample-accurate cutting and all that jazz - and they are unwilling to hand over control to someone else for the 'last stage'. Especially when that someone else is liable to squash the mix like crazy, seriously changing balances that the musician spent a long time getting the way they wanted. The final transfer to cd is also easily done at home, as opposed to cutting a vinyl master.

Specialized mastering engineers aren't the only ones loosing out to all-in-one productions, and are also not the only ones with good arguments for their existance. Surely it's possible to get a better vocal performance just concentrating on the delivery (ie. having someone else engineer the recording) rather than thinking about tracking as well? But then the engineer might get something wrong and mess up your perfectly good vocal take...

I suppose what I'm saying is that often (in my experience at least) the decision to do it oneself is based on a lack of trust in anothers abilities / fear that they will do something you don't like and can't control, rather than on a budgetting issue. People would rather trust themselves than someone else.

Having said all that I think single-man productions are generally inferior to team efforts, with the exception some technically simple or electronic productions where hearing one idiosyncratic genius at work is better than hearing a polished team do their thing.

Cheers
Matthew

[robot gigante]

Originally Posted by Timecode

Especially when that someone else is liable to squash the mix like crazy, seriously changing balances that the musician spent a long time getting the way they wanted.

Not if you ask them not to.

Originally Posted by Timecode

I suppose what I'm saying is that often (in my experience at least) the decision to do it oneself is based on a lack of trust in anothers abilities / fear that they will do something you don't like and can't control, rather than on a budgetting issue. People would rather trust themselves than someone else.

It's not that hard to find someone to trust- just find someone who has worked on a record that you like the sound of.

You have a good point though.

But I don't think that mastering engineers are losing all that much paying work to the do it all yourselfers.

[Kayo]

Originally Posted by Riccardo

Yes ears and experience, therefore time, long time, especially with today's standards where everybody seems to be wanting to get results in the shortest possible time.

The original poster asked about using a comp first or an eq first. I am sure we are all happy to give an answer and yes there is nothing misterious in mastering.
Moreover we have all been at one point "beginners"

Experience is build up, created, formed with time. The question about what goes first in a chain (we know there is no set rule....) is applicable to mixing as well as mastering.
I am not saying that a mastering engineer should train as a mixing engineer first but those notions are at the base of engineering itself.

What I am trying to say here is that yes all questions are welcome but also that you cannot miracolously become experienced in one day.
Also it takes a bit of effor on your side as well: ask ,think, ask again, agree, disagree, go on try it for yourself, ask again, listen, read, research, do, undo.............

Spoken like a true moderator

[the russian]

What is the best path for mastering...?

Into your car, down the freeway, into the hands of a mastering engineer.

[drundall]

Originally Posted by javahut

In general, you're right. If someone's only goal is to have a "professionally" mastered track, and they don't know what they're doing... sure.

But this idea that mastering is so mysteriously complicated that no one should try it unless you're a professional is ridiculous. I see this idea spread on numerous boards. What if your goal is to learn to master? How else does someone learn to master unless they start at the beginning? Contrary to popular belief, even professional mastering engineers had to start somewhere at some time with no "professional mastering" experience. Or else they wouldn't now be mastering engineers.

In short, "it ain't rocket science", so if you wanna have a go at it... have a go at it... there's nothing wrong with that. You might learn something. thumbsup

Well said.

Guys around here get a little touchy sometimes, but real professional mastering is a real talent, and it's not really that easy with standard tools. You can learn to make it sound OK but it ain't gonna sound like the majors, especially with rock/pop, the mids are difficult to get right. That's where your job security lies, guys.