mastering

[will kinsella]

hadnt seen Rob's vid before. Thanks for that man.

[MINIMALTECHNOHOUSE]

i think the problem with mastering is that when us home producers compare our tracks to a nicely mastered release, there is no contest in both the perceived volume and coherence of the mix; wacking a limiter on the master gets it sounding "something like".

Its generally because, not many people actually get the opportunity to send a track to a mastering engineer, and think to compete with all the final copy releases its the only way....

Id just say that, generally, your track is going to sound pretty shitty until it is mastered, so its not always best to do A/B comparisons in your sequencer.

[darzh liebek]

I've always aspired to be able to produce well enough that the final version can be considered mastered - maybe this is a bit too ambitious!

But the way I see it, the mastering engineers are applying FX to the master channel in the same way that we producers apply FX to channels while making the track. So it shouldnt be too much of a conceptual leap.

It also means you can gig your tracks as soon as you've finished, and you dont have to shell out a lot of money before releasing the track, which will only make you over $1000 if it's quality, and you're lucky these days.

I dont mean to devalue what the mastering engineers do, but I think it is probably possible to produce and master a track if you're willing to spend the time and effort to learn. Does anyone know why you couldnt do that? other than not being able to afford the equipment!

[steevio]

I've always aspired to be able to produce well enough that the final version can be considered mastered - maybe this is a bit too ambitious!

But the way I see it, the mastering engineers are applying FX to the master channel in the same way that we producers apply FX to channels while making the track. So it shouldnt be too much of a conceptual leap.

It also means you can gig your tracks as soon as you've finished, and you dont have to shell out a lot of money before releasing the track, which will only make you over $1000 if it's quality, and you're lucky these days.

I dont mean to devalue what the mastering engineers do, but I think it is probably possible to produce and master a track if you're willing to spend the time and effort to learn. Does anyone know why you couldnt do that? other than not being able to afford the equipment!

no its not too ambitious mate, you're totally right to think this way, i have always done exactly the same myself.
when i hit record, i am always as sure as i can be that my track is the best its ever going to sound.

if you work totally in the digital domain, then there is an advantage to be be gained from sending your material to an engineer, as long as that engineer has top of the range analogue mastering processors, and more because he will be able to add a sheen to your sound that you cant, but not everyone wants that sound.
in most of the mastering suites ive been in in the last couple of years, those expensive tube processors are standing idle while the engineer does most of the work in software !

i work as a mastering engineer in my spare time, and most of the work i have to do is to make VERY badly mixed and recorded music sound better and louder. (what i mean is there's not much to do if something is recorded well)
if the artist is more experienced, has a half decent monitoring setup, and has bothered to put in some time learning the really basic principles of how to combine musical elements effectively, and basic EQ, then there is virtually no work for the mastering engineer to do.

another inevitable response to these issues is 'but you need an independant, trained set of ears' well what about your friends ? do they not know this music inside out ? whenever i need an independant set of ears, i just ask a few of my friends oppinions.

its refreshing to read your post bro, its a shame more people dont think this way. imo we should be as self-sufficient as possible.

[ec50]

if the artist is more experienced, has a half decent monitoring setup, and has bothered to put in some time learning the really basic principles of how to combine musical elements effectively, and basic EQ, then there is virtually no work for the mastering engineer to do.

.

as you have experience on the other side of the process as well could you elaborate some more on the EQing part of the process - not sure if i understand this correctly

cheers
max

[steevio]

if the artist is more experienced, has a half decent monitoring setup, and has bothered to put in some time learning the really basic principles of how to combine musical elements effectively, and basic EQ, then there is virtually no work for the mastering engineer to do.

.

as you have experience on the other side of the process as well could you elaborate some more on the EQing part of the process - not sure if i understand this correctly

cheers
max

its not really the place to go into detail here, there is lots of information on the web.
Sound on Sound is a good resource.

i hope people dont get the impression that i'm saying there is no need for mastering engineers.
all i'm saying is its worth learning about the process yourself.
as with anything its really all about experience. you more you have the better the results.
rather than having a blinkered approach, presuming that it's all too complex to bother with, the sooner you start to learn and practice, the sooner you will no longer need to employ a mastering engineer.
it takes time. you have to train yourself to be your own mastering engineer.
most of the pitfalls happen in the tune writing and mixing process, if you understand mastering you'll avoid those pitfalls.

it's also worth remembering that minimal techno must be one of the easiest types of music to master yourself, you have so much control over the eq and levels of the individual sounds while you are writing and mixing, and you have so few of them to think about.

why not get together with your musician mates and buy a collective pro quality EQ and dynamics processor between you.

ok this may be ambitious but what about a collective mastering suite.
it might be worth it if youre all spending lots of money on mastering.

(the London underground acid techno boys did it, they have their own vinyl pressing plant, cutting room, everything !! )

[PsyTox]

i hope people dont get the impression that i'm saying there is no need for mastering engineers.
all i'm saying is its worth learning about the process yourself.
as with anything its really all about experience. you more you have the better the results.

as our mastering engineer always says: the better the product is before it arrives, the better he can make it.
Lots of people just think that LOUD is good. You hear it so much, even in very known productions such as the latest track of Royksopp with Robin: sounds very very loud... but also very very wrong. And that's done in a very expensive mastering studio.

About masterings having to cost $1000, that's not true. You can have some very very good mastering done for about 100 USD and the results are amazing. But the real problem is that these days, any wacko with high-end monitors and a compressor thinks he's a sound engineer. Just as looking for a good producer, the search for a good engineer is just as important imho.

[darzh liebek]

another inevitable response to these issues is 'but you need an independant, trained set of ears' well what about your friends ? do they not know this music inside out ? whenever i need an independant set of ears, i just ask a few of my friends oppinions.

its refreshing to read your post bro, its a shame more people dont think this way. imo we should be as self-sufficient as possible.

I agree, friends might not know the process in and out but they listen to the music and know what they like - chances are if they think it's $hit then it is!

I've PM'd you to ask a favour...