Jeff Evans
Perhaps instead of reading articles trying to not explain how to master and to perpetuate the myth that it is a real dark art that only a few understand try reading an article that explains it instead. I found this:
http://www.emusician.com/how-to/1334/master-class--the-art-of-mastering/45065
Also the Bob Katz book on mastering is also an excellent read.
It is not hard nor impossible to do. I have mastered many CD's very successfully. Yes there are some tricks involved for sure like any other part of the process but they can be learned and practiced.
Mastering a track is different to mastering a whole album that is for sure. The good news is that if the mix is excellent very little mastering is actually required. Very slight EQ, compression and limiting will do the trick. It becomes much harder when the mix is bad though.
I find working with reference CD's is also important. It can save a lot of time and stop you from going down the wrong path. The client will have a very definite sound in mind that they are wanting you to achieve so it pays to find out what it is.
Also many great mastering engineers have also said that digital processing now is so good you do not have to come out into the analog world to do it either. That is a myth. With all the wonderful analog emulations we have around now it is very possible. I have mastered all my CD's for my clients digitally and they sound excellent. It is what you do with those processes that is far more important. The only caveat here though is it pays to spend some serious money on quality plugins. In some cases as much as what a DAW would cost but if you do it regularly and get paid for it then it is well worth it.
You do need a nice room with some nice speakers in it though. You can master your own music too but you just have to leave plenty of time between the mix and the mastering. I do like mastering other peoples mixes as well.
Hi Jeff,
Been a while....hope all is well, miss you brother....and I'm glad to see you still posting and helping people on here. :) I just wanted to share a few things which you'll probably have a laugh about.
Though you and I usually see eye to eye and you know my respect for you and your experience is second to none, I have to peacefully disagree with some of the stuff you mentioned above. I'll tell you why.
First, I think Katz book is over-rated and can lose a common person in 0.2 ms. LOL! I think you have to have a college degree to understand it, which I do not. However, though I am not a total idiot, I see his book as a smoke-screen that didn't teach me anything other than how eccentric Bob is as well as how he has the ability to sort of intimidate through intelligence while pushing his specialty gear. It's HE who has sort of made mastering more of a dark art than it needs to be.
I love the guy, have talked to him and even had him master one of my albums. I just don't think he is as good of a teacher as you or me when it comes to explaining things. I'm sure others will disagree with me since I'm a nobody and he is a Grammy winner. I give credit where it's due....he's a great mastering engineer. I just didn't get much out of his book or his teaching ability. Anytime you have to read and re-read something over and over only to come away with "huh? I don't quite get it?" it's not delivered correctly. I'll be the first to admit I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer.....but I don't see the need for wisdom and know-how to be masked behind big words and technical jargon that doesn't actually show cause, effect, or outcome. That's just me though.
You mentioned mastering not being hard to do/not impossible. Though this may be true in your realm and in mine, I do not think this is true for most of the home recording people of today. I've mentioned this several times, but when someone mixes a song and presses that export button, in their mind, they are done. Where do they even start if they don't know where to listen? How do you begin to master something that is already "done" in the ears of that particular beholder?
Most don't have the rooms or even the know-how to do this properly. Heck, if you get a chance to visit the songs forum, there are songs that are totally obliterated by people trying to master that over-master everything. That's not a bash, just an observation. Should people pay to have it done? Nah, only if they are releasing for sale. However, I just about always like hearing mixes that people DON'T attempt to master because they ALWAYS sound better. After a while, I get sick of loud mixes loaded with sub low end that just sound ruined.
And lastly, you mentioned reference CD's. I've never been more unhappy with reference material than I am today. I can't compare 70's classic rock to what I record in 2016 as much as I'd like to because I enjoy those mixes. I can't even compare mixes of today with the ones I create today because I simply don't like them, no matter WHO the grammy engineer is.
Today, we live in a world of no rules. I believe that mixes and masters are being done based on earbuds as quite a few do not sound good on real systems or in cars without extensive post mastering. I've stopped comparing and referencing mixes with what I do today simply because, if you listen to music today, everyone is doing their own thing. I hear hissy cymbals being acceptable, I hear loads of sub low bass, I still hear clipping and excessive loudness and a "who cares" type attitude from some music.
Also, referencing is difficult because we aren't using the same instrumentation. I know YOU know this, but others may not take it into consideration. I find it hard to even get a happy medium based on someone else's mix UNLESS you are working with similar material and instrumentation.
I'll never forget a client I had one time that insisted I master using a curve from another band. I told him that there was no way to reference that band let alone cop their curve with positive results. They made me do it using HAR-BAL. The results were beyond disappointing resulting in a new re-master. Even using the original band as a reference would have failed this band simply because their instrumentation was WAY different and so was their mix.
I sincerely believe this to be true with everything. I have gravitated towards "being me" and doing things until they sound right to my ears. I think I am a pretty good judge of mixing, mastering and making good decisions. Using reference material that has nothing to do with the instrumentation I am working with has done nothing but deter my performance past and present.
However, all of this is moot if someone doesn't know what a good mix is to begin with. But even there, a mastered work of a pro band has never really helped me. What HAS helped me is proper sound identification, flat monitors, and years of experience which includes loads of trial and error.
So in closing, I really don't think any of this is easy for people that aren't where guys like you and I are at this time. There are so many variables that contribute to this, it can make your head spin. Though in a sense, I DO agree with everything you have said being ME, (other than Katz) in the shoes of someone else not knowing what I know, I'd have to disagree. Hope you don't take any of this the wrong way as I have nothing but love and respect for you.
Speaking of mastering, I have quite a few things I have posted regarding it that I could share if anyone is interested. ;) You may not get any better at mastering, but I can assure you, you won't get lost with anything I say. LOL!
-Danny