Questions on mixing and mastering

[rcat]

The most natural reproduction of recorded sound that I ever heard, even to this day, came out of an old 8 track tape deck with a muli-speaker system that a friend had installed in his VW bug. It always made me feel that I was sitting in the recording studio listening to the musicians live. I'm not sure what this means. Maybe that I'm fu*kin' nuts!

[A.M. Gold]

Mastering is foremost, from the word glass master, the process of making a record ready for duplication and release. A great mix doesn't need any further processing, and so the mastering in this case is about breaks between tracks, PQ-coding and such stuff.

I'm not sure I really agree with this. Reason being, if mastering (in the modern sense) were all about the last few things you listed, there would be no reason at all to send tracks to a mastering house and pay a (sometimes hefty) extra fee to have utility work like that done when it could be done by a mixing assistant.

Whether or not it fits into the concept of what an "ideal" mix should sound like, the real-world reality is that mastering engineers almost always make processing adjustments to tracks, even very well mixed ones.

They are simply the last link in a complex chain that would be hard for a smaller group of people to handle alone. They also have exceedingly deeply designed and tuned rooms and are trained to be super-detail oriented listeners. Apart from the room, most mastering engineers prefer very high end monitors/amps/converters, whereas mix engineers can be attached to quirky things like NS10 monitors, so the mixer and the mastering engineer are going to tend to hear different things in the same finished mix.

[Kim Lajoie]

http://blog.kimlajoie.com/the-differenc ... mastering/

Sorry I'm late to the party!

-Kim.

[SASonlinemastering]

What you need is plenty of audio engineering experience, flawless monitoring arrangements plus some great tools, it's that easy.

[Flandersh]

Mastering is foremost, from the word glass master, the process of making a record ready for duplication and release. A great mix doesn't need any further processing, and so the mastering in this case is about breaks between tracks, PQ-coding and such stuff.

I'm not sure I really agree with this. Reason being, if mastering (in the modern sense) were all about the last few things you listed, there would be no reason at all to send tracks to a mastering house and pay a (sometimes hefty) extra fee to have utility work like that done when it could be done by a mixing assistant.

Whether or not it fits into the concept of what an "ideal" mix should sound like, the real-world reality is that mastering engineers almost always make processing adjustments to tracks, even very well mixed ones.

They are simply the last link in a complex chain that would be hard for a smaller group of people to handle alone. They also have exceedingly deeply designed and tuned rooms and are trained to be super-detail oriented listeners. Apart from the room, most mastering engineers prefer very high end monitors/amps/converters, whereas mix engineers can be attached to quirky things like NS10 monitors, so the mixer and the mastering engineer are going to tend to hear different things in the same finished mix.

Before, tools for cutting the master was of a bit more advanced and costly nature, and it was understandable that the mix engineer didn't do that part. Today, with digital mediums and relative cheap softwares that supports PQ Coding etc. it sure is something a mix engineer can do, and so the nature of the mastering process is in change. The role of mastering change to be more of the role of a second, skilled, listener.

[publicradio]

I think I've realized part of what it is that's setting me back in this process. When I listen to old demos for classic records, either on blogs, or as bonus tracks on albums, the demo is recorded on a little multitrack recorder, with some low-grade or older effects units, and it sounds muddier than the finished process. However, if it's a good demo, you can hear what the artist is going for, and imagine what a finished recording would sound like.

The process of going from demo to finished record was one that involved cleaning up the song, bringing it to light. This was likely how songwriting and recording went for decades: lo-fi to hi-fi.

Now, though, with DAW laptop production, it feels like the opposite. I'm starting with a static, dry, high-fidelity sound and then trying to color it.

I think that a blank canvas can be pretty intimidating, and this seems even more so when the environment I'm starting with sounds so naked.

I wonder if anyone agrees with this, and if you have any personal techniques that help you either start from a sketchy, demo-y place, or start with sends and busses set up so you have a familiar-sounding recording environment while you're still building your track.

[SASonlinemastering]

Mixing and mastering are often seen together on the internet. Fact is they are not related to each other, other than the fact that you need a good mix to create a great master.

Mastering is a highly specialized audio production task. The engineer listens in a different way than when mixing and on a system that is rarely changed and set up to perfection. Long experience in recording and mixing usually gives a good grounding to be able to have the hearing acuity and understand the change of listening required. It is a different discipline altogether.

Mastering relies on very high definition loudspeakers and amplification. Highly treated rooms and experienced ears. It is a place where harm should not be done and many things have to be in place for that to be the case. Guesswork is not an option in mastering. This is why NS-10 are ok for mixing but something of much greater quality and scale is required for any final adjustment.

If you cannot hear it you cannot improve it.

It is so much more than obtaining level which is the common assumption.
In real mastering there are no short cuts.

cheers

---
SafeandSound

[publicradio]

I think it would be interesting to learn music production from a 'history of music production' perspective -- like, 'this is why records from the 20s sound like this; this is why stereo in the 60s sounded like that...' but I don't see a lot of resources like that online, at least.