If Mixing & Mastering are separate professions and skills, why do so many individuals offer both services?

[Scotty]

I’ll be in my studio later this morning, Vurt. Looking forward to it.

[jamcat]

Here are some real mastering engineers at Abbey Road talking about what real mastering engineers actually do. This is why all the mythology exists. This is where the real skill comes in.

https://youtu.be/rc2LA9kC-4U

[imrae]

A simplification of reality. You tend to find most people mastering music as a dedicated profession using the same identical very high quality sound system takes around 10 years before you really start hitting the nails on the head for 90pct of your work throughput (of all genres) at approximately the 10 year mark.

At a mere 5 years you have plenty of work to be doing to continue to get really good at mastering.

That sounds like a goalpost move. Previously you were arguing that part-time mastering engineers should be avoided, do you now suggest that even full-time MEs with less than 10 years experience should be avoided?

[Scotty]

I'm enjoying the overly long bits. Went to bed last night with Jamuary 23 2023. Soothing, took away the last remaining bits of angst from my day. Fascinating to me the range of relatable human expression people can coax out of complex machinery. I have a modest System 100 / Moog module rig which is trying to be a true stereo 6 voice polyphonic subtractive synth but the experimental side remains untapped. It seems I only visit that place and you live there. We are getting off topic now. I'll comment on your videos on youtube and send you a PM when I have questions if you don't mind. A pleasure. - Scotty

I appreciate your comments Vurt. I'd enjoy listening to your music and seeing your youttube videos. If you are inclined to share, send me a PM or post links here if you are comfortable in doing so. I've read your posts for years. I've been on this platform since 2002. Cheers!

https://youtube.com/@vurttv6415

it's pretty much all live recording.
some overly long bits too

[vurt]

of course, happy to answer any questions

[jamcat]

I just got a marketing email from Waves that says, in part:

Hey ,

The process of mixing and production has changed a TON over the past few decades.

Within our mixing world of producers and engineers, the younger generation who grew up in home studios and with DAWs tend to view the start-to-finish process a bit differently than the older generation who was raised in the age of analog.

One way you can usually tell where the generational fault lines are is by how someone views the processing of mastering.

Gen Xers and Boomers tend to see it as a separate stage from mixing, meant for a separate engineer.

Millennials and Gen Z tend to see it as just another part of the mixing process they do themselves.

I swear they are reading KVR.

[Synthman2000]

Firstly I cannot agree with that as I have quite a few younger clients, some with real talent as well and so that kind of bucks the last post suggestion in reality, as opposed to uhmmm... a marketing email of a company selling plug ins.

In fact, in general I would in some cases suggest they are the people who need the most help and not just with mastering. Often they have high aspirations which is great, good on people for that, we all need to aim high. However, there is often an issue when it meets reality and falls short.

Know it all's ? For some it seems, not all though and it explains why a lot of music sounds terrible. Almost as if they would not know sound quality if it slapped them in the face. Some of it sounds demo level. If you are ok with it, what more can I say really.

[jamcat]

Almost as if they would not know sound quality if it slapped them in the face. Some of it sounds demo level. If you are ok with it, what more can I say really.

1. Sound quality is part of an album's aesthetic.
2. For some genres, "demo level" = authenticity.
3. You can't fix demo level production in post.

Most music sounds terrible because of the songwriting or the performance.
Get those right, and the rest doesn't matter so much.

[Synthman2000]

I put my points across as I know, it's my job. Rather than.. for an arguments sake ?

You can sound bad for a lot of reasons, mainly it comes down to lack of knowledge about the fundamentals of sound engineering in my experience. Not a choice through knowledge applied for an aesthetic or authenticity.

If I received such music from even a top level mix engineer I would double check.

It is mainly often down to people not knowing about fundamental sound quality, right at the start, loading a synth or placing a mic or how to achieve sound quality (and I am speaking about fidelity, clarity, dynamics, cleanliness of the recording) depending on what they are doing and planning.. at pretty much any budget.

I can tell you one thing certain, it is better to find out in post than never at all.

[vurt]

im not asking either of you for your own work, but can you at least give some examples when you discuss things?
which acts are sounding like demos?
or which would you suggest are of a decent quality? just to get some idea of where you sit in the spectrum of sound so to speak.

[jamcat]

I don't think the quality matters all that much. People listen because they like the music, not the production. A mastering engineer's job is to get the music onto the medium, and get out of the way.

Almost everything I listen to is heavily flawed. Anything recorded prior to the '90s is, for sure. But that's just part of the character. That never stopped anyone from listening to it, or enjoying it.

And (re)mastering can't—and shouldn't—fix those flaws. Even if it could.
Because music is about the artist's vision, not the mastering engineer's.

[enroe]

Tcha - and that's why a mastering discussion in which this or that
compressor from company xy is constantly being suggested seems all the
more crazy and misguided. Completely absurd!

As jamcat already explains: the expression of the artist is decisive. This is
expressed through the composition and the recording. Mastering is the
least important element there.

[jamcat]

im not asking either of you for your own work, but can you at least give some examples when you discuss things?
which acts are sounding like demos?
or which would you suggest are of a decent quality? just to get some idea of where you sit in the spectrum of sound so to speak.

Here is a song that illustrates my philosophy. It is "In Shreds" by the Chameleons. It was produced by Steve Lillywhite, who is of course one of the world's most elite producers, known for producing U2's most important albums, and Peter Gabriel's seminal third solo album, among others.

But, the Chameleons were not too cooperative during recording. They kept moving Steve's mics out of the way and turning up. They didn't care about production. They were punk rock. This goes back to what I was saying about production values and authenticity.

So the fruits of the Chameleons' relationship with Steve Lillywhite don't sound like U2 or Peter Gabriel. This is pretty raw. One take in the room. The drums and vocals clip the meters. There are phase issues and frequency masking all over the place. But it is absolutely jaw-dropping.

When you listen, you understand. Music is all about the song and above all, the performance. Sound quality means nothing, in the end. And if it had "better" sound quality, would it be as good? If the floor tom didn't overload the mics when it was smacked, and if Birdie's voice didn't distort when he wailed, would it be the same song, or would it actually lose something? This is what Synthmaster2000 doesn't seem to get.

This version is from the 2013 remaster. Sure, it sounds marginally better than the original wax master from 1981. But it's still the same song. It wasn't drastically altered during remastering, nor should it have been. Mastering couldn't have "saved" it. Nor did it need to be. And the original master is still just as enjoyable to listen to. But what's not enjoyable is a 128kbps mp3 rip of it. That's the sort of thing that actually matter to listeners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZijpXlFy18Q

[Scotty]

Jamcat, has it occurred to you that you are lecturing mastering engineers on their craft? Why not pose some questions and probe their understanding instead of defending your position? You might gain perspective or come away even more self-assured if that is possible. Some of your posts speak in absolutes and that puts the onus on you to prove. I have hired mastering engineers to impart a colour on my mixes. For you that is a non starter, for me it is an aesthetic that works on some tracks better than others. Some tracks, I want to be simply balanced and limited transparently. I have read of remastering where work was restored that had been recorded on tape with excessive wow and flutter. Those problems were corrected using tools that I don’t own. Capstan, I think it was called. Audio restoration can certainly be part of a mastering session. Why not?

I’ve had my mixes rebalanced to bring out the center, with bass that was out of phase and corrected by putting the low frequencies into mono below a certain frequency. I could have done it myself if I had heard it but I didn’t. The mix had better mono compatibility as a result. I have had the stereo width reduced to correct for improper speaker placement in my studio.

I pay mastering engineers to address things that I can’t hear properly in my space. In the process, they’ve given me feedback and my mixes have improved. That feedback is golden.

I don’t know why you want to assert this is not part of the process. Ask some questions, and be open to learning something. There are people here who have hired mastering engineers and there are people here who are mastering engineers. Why not humble yourself a bit and see where they are coming from. Most of us know we don’t have it all figured out. How about you?

[jamcat]

Jamcat, has it occurred to you that you are lecturing mastering engineers on their craft?

No comment.