brconflict: Most books don't show you how, they take your money feeding your need to buy more books. Interviews teach you 0.....name dropping gives you 0 credibility. I could drop 34 names of famous people I worked with while showing you proof...none of it would mean a thing. So you don't have to play that card with me bro. :)
No one named you. If I covered a topic you started or covered...others did too. No reason to assume. I do this for a living. I came into a deep discussion about mastering that started with a basic question. I felt some of it was misleading so I spoke my mind like I hope you would if people were talking about something you do for a living. There are enough people misled on this forum. I try to stop that when I see it. Trust me, my forum participation has been less and less. I'm leaving the place to people that know-it-all to corrupt the place further.
Us seeing eye to eye: We don't need to...you could care less what I think I'm sure and I'm cool with that. However, we actually are on the same page. You are just looking at it from one point of view where *I* look at it differently. Let me show you what I mean.
There are 3 mixes that get passed around. One, I won't even waste time on. It's the one you get from hobby guys or studio guys that aren't quite up to snuff with how things work. They try to give you something that is mastered before it's even mixed. You know the ones....these don't even count to me. I'm not bashing them...no one is perfect including me. But these types of mixes aren't what an ME enjoys because these guys infringe on the ME's territory all too often. They should just do the job themselves. Anyway...
1. Great mix: (this is what *I* meant) The master is not drastically different from the mix no matter who does it. Why? Because real engineers know how to mix and real mastering guys know when to make the "polish" call when they hear a good mix. You mention fighting with your kick drum and others mentioned bass etc. They don't have those problems. You don't get a mix from a dude that has a clue that needs to be high passed drastically at 45 Hz because the rumble is so insane it sounds like a tuba under water. That's what I hear on the mixes people post up on forums. You don't get over-compression unless the song calls for it as an effect and the producer made that call or someone knows how to use a compressor. You don't fight with doing surgery on a master. A great mix = a master that doesn't need much other than polishing here and there and of course, the whole album suite thing. What I mean is, you won't go ballistic with eq and extreme alterations. All the stuff most of the people post on forums and music sites are not what you would get from a major label or a real engineer that knows his/her stuff in terms on the eq use on the mix.
Personal pick-up note here: I personally don't want my mix coming back to me sounding way different, do you? Bob Katz mastered my last album. I mastered it myself before I sent it to him. When I got his back and compared, I didn't notice much difference and liked my master a little better in some ways. I went with his because I paid for it and he did all the coding etc....but I could have easily used mine. The reason being? The mixing was so good (imo), no one could have jacked up that album unless they didn't know what they were doing. The mixes of that album were fine just the way they were without any mastering. It didn't need extensive mastering and that's the point I'm trying to make. There are times when you perform surgery...and there are times when you enhance/polish as an ME. I prefer not to perform surgery unless I have to. A mix that's bad should be remixed unless it's gone and can't be fixed or someone is under the gun or they just don't want to fix it. All acceptable reasons. But I prefer to tell them to fix the mix if it's possible.
Now back to your regularly scheduled sermon... 2. Balanced mixes: (This is where you and I agree) A balanced mix is just that. It's luke-warm. It doesn't kick you in the face with bass....it doesn't have all the mids it may need, it doesn't have highs that sparkle. And...in this situation the mix is soo well balanced, you can literally enhance it like a ME is supposed to do. This is where the producer fine tunes everything with the ME. This is where 40-50 Hz may get pushed....this is where the mids will improve/round-out the tonality and increase sound size and have a bit more girth....this is where the right highs add sparkle. The mix engineer/producer have left all this open so you and the producer can fine tune things the right way while mastering the entire album. This is a mastering engineer's dream. Especially when you are given a mix like this and there is no producer to where YOU create the curve and are responsible for the sound. THIS is real mastering and this is where the mastered version will sound different than the mix. This is also what you get from a major label 90% of the time unless they have a different agenda.
These mixes are thin so we have the power to add in the right low end and low mids. The mix is not congested with mids so we can add the correct mid mids and high mids. There are no sibs or harsh highs...so we can add them correctly and cut those that are just adding noise. You don't have that luxury when working with hobby guys. A pro that masters a bad mix polished a turd. There's nothing wrong with that...but I've heard as many before and after's where the after was worse than the before, so a lot of this stuff will always be subjective. Just because something is louder, right away people think it's better. I invite them to grab some of these dudes that provide before and after mixes....and lower the loud one to the other and compare. You'll be quite astonished at how sometimes, the "after" actually sounds worse. UAD has that problem. They try to sell their plugs based on extreme volume or eq differences...lol...that's a topic for another time though. :)
I've always said "when someone mixes something, there was a reason for them to export. They liked that mix. If that mix comes back sounding drastically different, it better be because they were told to do it to the extreme." If the mix sucked and was improved, sure....that's a plus and that's how you can tell a real pro mastering job. BUT.....the point is, a mix is not supposed to be drastically mastered to the point of not sounding like what was exported unless you receive specific instructions to do so.
As for loudness stuff, yes I know all about it and how it works. I've walked away from more jobs than I care to tell you about. I don't need the money that bad to contribute to the demise of fidelity. I master as loud as I feel something should be, or the client can go elsewhere. MY name has to go on this album too. As soon as you lose your snare drum crack and kick snap, you've lost. There are ways to go loud while keeping dynamics. I do it all the time. But there is a difference between loud vs. degraded audio. I never take on any of those jobs, though they WOULD be simple enough to make money from.
See man, I do this first and foremost for the love of music and to make a difference for the better for people. It's not just for the money though my time and experience are definitely worth something. I share enough on here for free to compensate. :) I'm happy to be in the position to decline jobs on a weekly basis and I've worked hard enough to have created those choices for myself.
Not directed at anyone in particular: You guys should master in any way you see fit using whatever tools you choose. I just gave the opinion of someone that does this every day that read this thread and felt some of it was wrong. Just remember, it doesn't have to be a dark art or something that is so technical, it loses you. The right knowledge is key and I try to give you all just that whenever I can. :)
-Danny