Interview with a master mastering engineer

This link came in the iZotope newsletter, and I thought it was worth passing on to those who are not Ozone users or who aren't on the mailing list. It's advice for DIY masterers from Adam Ayan. He's an accomplished pro, padawan to the legendary Bob Ludwig, and I am certain the guy's a frickin' genius because I agree heartily with everything he says, so he must be.

His #1 piece of advice is something I'm always harping on: "Listen to as many great recordings as you can, because it helps you learn what a good record sounds like in your listening environment." As Floyd Toole explains in his epiphany-packed book "Sound Reproduction", there is solid science behind that advice.

The article also lists some recommendations for reference material, including some that I've never heard, such as Rascal Flatts' Me and My Gang. I'll be looking into getting a copy of that one. 

One minor nitpick: in the article Ayan is quoted as saying he really likes Ozone. Not hard to believe, we all do. But the implication is that it's his primary mastering tool, which I seriously doubt.  

The newsletter also contained links to a two-part Ozone tips video, which I have not watched yet. Here's part one, and part two.

I got that email too but didn't get around to reading it yet... now I have a jump on it. 

Good stuff.

Thank you sir.  I'm always exceeding grateful for your presence and excellent help!!!

Jeff Evans


I agree with this guy and I have been saying it for years. You don't have to be a famous mastering engineer to know this information. Even a mere mortal can take this on. Yes listening to stuff is very important and not only that keep listening to great recordings while you are mixing and mastering as well to keep you on track. If you do this the speakers and the room acoustics become less important in the equation. (It is interesting to note here that the people that say speakers and acoustics are just SO important don't actually listen to reference tracks very much)

Once you start listening to great things in your own monitoring environment you can really get a handle how those great things sound in your situation. Then you build a really strong frame of reference making it much easier to mix and master your own work. I agree with him also that today we have some great active monitors and even in a reasonable room you are 90% there in terms of a reasonably accurate monitoring situation.

Someone in that thread on the three most important aspects to mixing and mastering said the monitoring environment was the most important thing. Wrong! There are a million other things that can effect your final outcome long before the monitoring environment really comes into play. People can get too carried away with all this detailed monitoring accuracy stuff. I find I can mix well no matter where I am and on any speaker system. I spend a lot of time mixing on a mono 3" speaker at low volume and yet I can still pull a great mix on that. Explain that..The speaker is not that important. I am listening to something else not the speaker.

I also agree that compression and limiting is not just what mastering is about. That all important EQ stage right at the start of the mastering process is just vital. This is where many go wrong. They don't know how to EQ an overall mix. It is not easy actually. This is another reason why you cannot master at the same time as you mix. You need to leave it a week before you attempt that all important EQ phase. But listening to great reference material also makes this process much easier.

I'm so glad you chimed.  I was thinking of you when Bit mentioned the importance of listening to references.  Also great to hear you validate the importance of 'other things' besides monitoring .. though you don't demean any of it.
-- Well spoken, IMHO.

Yeah, but the Adam S4X-H's really do sound AMAZING... Mmmm, gonna be dreaming about them tonight haha

I just popped into SoundCorp the other day and they had a pair of these $20,000 monitors sitting there for a short demo! They were gone the next day :(

I think ultimately the whole issue of monitors can be significantly reduced by listening to reference material AND checking on multiple systems in different locations WITH your reference tracks as well. I really like hearing my stuff on systems I don't know as well, like friend's stereo systems. Real world set-ups and you can see how other non-audiophiles set up their systems and make sure it's gonna work for the average listener too!

mattplaysguitar


I think ultimately the whole issue of monitors can be significantly reduced by listening to reference material AND checking on multiple systems in different locations WITH your reference tracks as well. I really like hearing my stuff on systems I don't know as well, like friend's stereo systems. Real world set-ups and you can see how other non-audiophiles set up their systems and make sure it's gonna work for the average listener too!

 
 
This is actually a grey area....or a black area if you're me. LOL! I've heard guys do some awesome mixes using cans or even Altec Lansing or Logitech speakers. Me, I'm useless unless I'm working on something with room correction, eq correction or ARC. So though there are cases where monitor environment may not be important to those who are just gifted or end up with a set up or monitors that may have some truth to them, I'm like a fish out of water without some sort of corrected monitors or room correction.
 
I tried a mix the other day without ARC. I knew going into it that my Adams were a little bass heavy without ARC due to my sub. So I tried the first mix without the sub and no ARC. It came out bass heavy and it sounded like a n00b mixed it. Tried another mix with the sub and no ARC. It came out bass light...and I failed again. Maybe I'm just too used to them this way. I'm sure I could learn the system if I had to, but see that's the thing, I don't think we should really have to learn or compensate for anything or we're really not doing things the right way.
 
When you hear something, that *something* should tell you whether it needs to be fixed or not, ya know? If you know you have monitors that are a bit high endy because everywhere else you play your stuff tells you so...that to me is just a really hard way to work. Same if you have a system that lacks bass so you add it in and can't really tell what the deal is until you listen somewhere else. This is where a good set of monitors that are eq'd with some room correction can make a huge difference.
 
Another thing to keep in mind too is, sometimes we may choose reference material that may not be good reference material. Just because we may like a song or a particular mix doesn't mean it's a good mix to base your decisions off of. The longer you work in this field, the better you know when something is good or bad...even if you like that something bad. Without the monitors being up to par though...you may never know. Ever do that with older mixes you may have loved years ago? Listen to them on a good monitor system and decide "ok, what did I hear in this that made it so good?! I still dig the song, but this mix isn't all that!"
 
That happens to me a lot now. It's kinda sad. This could raise the question of "ok, so maybe your monitors are jacked Danny and you just think what you're hearing is correct." LOL! I've actually heard that one a few times. Fortunately, most of the mixes the majority of engineers rave about sound fantastic on my system just the way they've explained them to be. So I feel pretty safe there. I also think I'd have lots of "redo" work for my clients if my stuff wasn't working right and it's rare for me to get much of that. Maybe one every 2 months or so....but it's usually something subjective, not anything I've done wrong.
 
About the mastering interview....I actually thought it was pretty cool for the most part. You know going into it that there will be a plug for iZotope in there somewhere...you just hope it's not too over the top and seedy. I didn't feel it was. The guy claimed to use several limiters, so he wasn't tooting iZo's horn claiming to use their stuff exclusively.
 
What cracked me up was he couldn't share any secrets. People make this out to be some sort of dark art. I mean ok, there are a few things we may not like to share...but he could have given us a little bit. You can use the same gear and same settings as him and still not come up with the same results. What people talking about mastering forget to talk about, is the care that goes into the entire procedure. It has nothing to do with any dark arts or secrets. Each ME is going to handle things differently. Those that don't go through all the motions or don't give the proper care...can be heard in an instant. With those that do, well, their stuff will always sparkle a bit more and have all the right stuff in my opinion. :)
 
-Danny

I wouldn't put too much stock in the "same key" idea, although I understand why he'd say that and it certainly wouldn't hurt.

Say your reference song is in the key of G, and yours is a drop-D. Your room could theoretically have a noticeable resonance at 49Hz/G (actually, it'll more likely be a harmonic of that) but not at 36.7Hz/D. Consequently, a bass G note would sound boomier than your D, but reference songs with drop-D tuning would be more representative so you'd want to use a drop-D-tuned song as your reference.

But that's a worst-case scenario. The closer the two keys are, the less likely such a resonance is going to affect each differently. The reason is that low-frequency resonances in most rooms are typically broad-banded, as wide as half an octave or more. A resonance on E would have pretty much the same effect on G.

I'm still plowing my way through it...

dmbaer

Danny Danzi

Another thing to keep in mind too is, sometimes we may choose reference material that may not be good reference material. Just because we may like a song or a particular mix doesn't mean it's a good mix to base your decisions off of. The longer you work in this field, the better you know when something is good or bad...even if you like that something bad. Without the monitors being up to par though...you may never know. Ever do that with older mixes you may have loved years ago? Listen to them on a good monitor system and decide "ok, what did I hear in this that made it so good?! I still dig the song, but this mix isn't all that!"

I just this morning read some advice in Ethan Winer's new book that was something I'd never seen mentioned before.  He said that it's important that any reference track should be in the same key.  Why?  Rooms can have specific hot spots and dead spots at various frequencies.  Where you have a dead spot at a low B-flat and that's the key your track is in, listening to a reference track that's in the key of D may have its bass notes sounding perfectly fine.  But if your reference track is in the same key, at least you'll get the same effect for both mix material and reference track.  Interesting!

Yeah it's all pretty interesting. I'm with bitflipper on this though...and it's not due to the info Ethan was trying to deliver. I think the whole "in key" reference thing is important, but there are variables that need to be considered that quite a few people reading something like that, may miss. Since I've not read what Ethan said about that, I'll assume that there's also something added there that makes a mention of "though referencing songs that are in the same key can be important in certain situations, you shouldn't try to cop the mix you're referencing. The reason being, even if you're in the same key your instrument prints/choices will not be the same. This changes the entire ballgame."
 
What I mean by that is, you have to listen for "elements" not the mix itself. Does your snare have the crack and top end that the reference has? Are your guitars mid-range congested or high endy compared to the reference? Does your vocal sound flat where the reference seems more lively? This is what I listen for. To me it would be pointless to try and cop a mix...so I go for elements within that mix. The one good thing about choosing material that is in the same key as yours is the way the kick and bass work together. Low tuning needs to be handled differently. Drop D, C, B etc with good reference material can teach us a lot about the relationship of kick and bass when dealing with those lower notes. But when referencing for "the mix" side of it, you have to have instruments that sound close. You can't have a Paul McCartney sounding bass and expect to get the sound of Victor Wooten....even if you're in the same key.
 
When we mix, if we keep "the key" in mind while working on frequencies in the mix, you can really lock in on some cool sounds. Bob Katz gives us an excellent frequency chart that comes with his book that I have used religiously. It's been especially helpful on drop tuning stuff as you know what frequencies can become problematic just by looking something up due to the tuning or key it's in. This is also good for high gain guitars using dropped tunings as they will resonate differently due to the drone notes being used.
 
To me, that's when I want to use a "same key" reference. Most of the other mixes that are more standard tuned, we can pick and choose the elements we want without having to really rely on things being in the same key in my opinion. I'm sure Ethan has lots more to say about this in the book but based on hearing the one sentence you shared David while knowing Ethan's intelligence, I'd think (and hope) he also included a bit of what I've said here somewhere in there. :)
 
-Danny

bitflipper

I am about to master a hip hop album and the client has given me a CD with 20 great ref tracks on it which I start listening to in the car.

Respect to you, Jeff. This is why I could never be a true pro. The thought of having a duty to listen to hip hop, presumably multiple times, is just too distasteful. Sorry for my musical narrow-mindedness and popularical incorrectness, but I'd sooner listen to Yoko Ono's greatest hits.

Man, I feel exactly the same way!  There are many reasons I won't turn pro, lack of talent being at the top of the list, having to listen to material I hate would definitely be in the top 3. 

bitflipper


BTW, I've been waiting for someone to post a review of Ethan's book, be it to rave or ravish. Is it because it's too thick and nobody's finished it yet?

Well, I'm only about 25% of the way through it, so here's a snapshot opinion.  It's immensely readable and at it's most entertaining when debunking audiophile mythology (no surprise there).  Anyone who's read a half-dozen books about audio, mixing, etc. will probably get very little out of the book that they hadn't read previously.  He states up front that it's not a beginners book ... more for intermediate students.  But I don't agree.  I think this would be the perfect book for someone just starting to learn about audio.  He does seem to have the intent of covering all the bases, even when that coverage isn't particularly deep.
 
He steers clear of any heavy mathematics, and 95% of the material is easily approachable.  He occassionally throws in some discussion that require a bit more than casual knowledge of electrical engineering, but never so much that one can't skim past those sections and quickly get back on solid ground.

mmmm...popularical incorrectness....good one!!!

Speaking of good reference materials to analyze and emulate, readers might really like this site / article.  It was referred to in a book I am reading and love it:
 
http://www.digido.com/honor-roll-of-dynamic-recordings.html