What makes a good mastering "sound"

[V0RT3X]

I'm just asking out of curiosity because I want to learn what's a good "master" for my own stuff. If you have any examples of what you think is a good mixing and mastering job lemme know. I need to up my game a bit so I can learn to maintain a bit of consistency between my own stuff.

I've been listening to a few CD rips that I have on my computer with my Sennheiser MDR-7506 and trying to really listen to the tonal characteristics between each album.

I need recommendations.

[enroe]

... with my Sennheiser MDR-7506.

You mean: Sony MDR-7506?

[imrae]

You could do worse than looking at George Marino's discography: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_ ... iscography

But hopefully that's also enough to show you that a good mastering engineer doesn't really have a "sound", they work with the mix they're given. He didn't try to save ...And Justice For All, and did Bleach and Appetite for Destruction around the same time.

So the mixing is really the key thing and if the mastering is heavy-handed it suggests there was a problem with the mix. For a recent-ish album with exquisite mixing I'd recommend Steven Wilson's "Hand Cannot Erase".

[ATS]

I can tell you what isn't a good master. Where someone slaps a limiter on something, cranks it up, and calls that mastering.

[ramseysounds]

Starting with a great mix

[zeep]

Mixing is like 95% of the production, if not more. Mastering is to get that last bit of amazing on top.
Really, if you're after great mixes / productions, look at the mixing engineers first and learn from them.

If you want to learn from your own productions, then bounce to stems and try one of the many Stem mixing & mastering services. That way you can A / B your version and the pro mixed version, lots to learn from that.

[V0RT3X]

... with my Sennheiser MDR-7506.

You mean: Sony MDR-7506?

Actually I did mean Sony

For some reason I was thinking Sennheiser, because those are the cans I want to upgrade to eventually.

[V0RT3X]

I can tell you what isn't a good master. Where someone slaps a limiter on something, cranks it up, and calls that mastering.

Yah me too

I know there is a lot more to a mastering process than just that.

[Jake_xms3]

I can tell you what isn't a good master. Where someone slaps a limiter on something, cranks it up, and calls that mastering.

Yah me too

I know there is a lot more to a mastering process than just that.

Not necessarily.
Sometimes all that’s needed is limiting (if the mix is right)
Using unnecessary processing for the sake of it will ruin a master.

[enroe]

Mixing is like 95% of the production, if not more. Mastering is to get that last bit of amazing on top.

Exactly this!

I think mixing is 99% of it. If your mix is good you only need a slight
limiting at the master stage.

[DJ Warmonger]

I think mixing is 99% of it. If your mix is good

If your mix is good, then you can use all that plugins you get at KVR. Otherwise they're just kind of waste

I master tracks myself (and get them signed), but the "mastering" stage is more like a reality check than some arcane magic. If the mix is good, you just need to tweak the EQ, scope and dynamic range values.

And to answer the original question: Check your reference tracks with scpetrum analyser and oscilloscope. Also, use a variety of saturation plugins to reduce the nasty peaks and clicks.

[imrae]

What are you looking at on reference tracks using an oscilloscope?

[Tj Shredder]

mono compatibility...

[DJ Warmonger]

What are you looking at on reference tracks using an oscilloscope?

Dynamics and peaks. In particular, the shape of kick but also the open hat. Where the sound is smashed and where are the quiet gaps. How to make the most of available headroom.
This makes more sense if your scope also shows colour-coded spectrum.

[imrae]

Ah that makes more sense. I thought you meant you were looking at waveforms! Could be very useful on a slow setting to see where headroom is going.