to master or not

[shmo]

anybody out there that leans towards not mastering your recordings despite any downsides like radio stations won't take it, and what ever else. I'll be the first to admit that i don't fully understand mastering, and that i'm paranoid that it is just an up-sell. ( it's the underbody protection of the music industry). but we just got our album back from mastering, and besides it playing louder i didn't really notice much difference. if i can tell a difference i think i like the raw better. OR is that because i've been listening to the raw for 2 weeks and now the mastered is here, and it is not what i'm used to?

[G. Wood]

Yeah, good question. Mastering consists mainly of setting EQ, and making it consistent throughout the album, applying compression, and setting master volume. At 58, my ears are pretty much unreliable. What sounds good to me is a lot of highs, but this sounds too brash to most people with better hearing. Compression is a tricky thing, the right amount sort of glues everything together, too much makes everything sound kind of muffled. 

Garage fans like a rawer sound than regular humans, so we're sort of disabled in that way. In the end, I'd say, Mastering: Yes. Then there's the little issue of finding someone who knows what they're doing. Different people will produce a different sound. Your mileage may vary!

[Larabee]

I generally agree with G. Wood's comments.  Mastering does affect the overall volume level but it also can shape the sound of each track.  Shmo, I can't tell from your post whether you attended the mastering session, or whether you sent the tracks to someone to master and they sent them back to you.   I recommend that if you get the opportunity to attend a mastering session, that you do it.  And while you are there, ask all of the questions you have about the mastering process.  I also recommend that you have the tracks mastered by someone other than the person who mixed (and/or recorded) the tracks.

[THEE DIRTYBEATS]

Great comments! I would add that there is much debate regarding how "hot" one's mastered tracks should be relative to other people's music, vs preserving the dynamic range of one's own music (i.e. the "loudness war").   There is definitely a tradeoff, and you'll want to hear the difference.   Luckily, most mastering engineers will for the same price give you a set of hot masters for the web / broadcast / iTunes (where dynamic range is less important than impact), and another full-range set for mastering to CD or vinyl. 

IMHO, mastering is most useful in making tracks hang together as a collection.  So, if your tracks a) all come from the same recording/mixing session, or b) aren't destined to be released as a CD or LP, one could argue that mastering just offers a final opportunity to tweak the eq, compression and loudness of your tracks.  If that is indeed the case, and the untweaked versions sound just fine to you, heck, save your money.

In the end you have to trust your ears.  When THEE DIRTYBEATS mastered its debut, we went with light compression (ie broader dynamic range) mastering for everything.  That just seemed to sound more like the vintage garage rock records we loved. 

THEE DIRTYBEATS - maximum vintage garage
Free download at http://theedirtybeats.bandcamp.com

[shmo]

yeah we sent them out.... i would have been a pain in the guys butt if i had been there. trying to control everything. i was a different guy than mixed it too. i wanted to be there for the mixing, but that part turned out really well.

the mastered version sounded mufffled to me on two different sets of speakers. but then i got it home, and it was crisp. i almost couldn't tell any difference between the mastered and unmastered. so maybe g wood is right, garage fans like it more raw, right to the point that my home speakers are more thin than other peoples....

maybe, i don't know.

Larabee said:

I generally agree with G. Wood's comments.  Mastering does affect the overall volume level but it also can shape the sound of each track.  Shmo, I can't tell from your post whether you attended the mastering session, or whether you sent the tracks to someone to master and they sent them back to you.   I recommend that if you get the opportunity to attend a mastering session, that you do it.  And while you are there, ask all of the questions you have about the mastering process.  I also recommend that you have the tracks mastered by someone other than the person who mixed (and/or recorded) the tracks.

[dublÉ]

The one-dimensional concept of "louder is better" has already been mentioned; most mixes nowadays are "pushed" pretty hard (compressionwise) even before the mastering stage – maybe that can explain why the difference is minimal... there's simply not always a lot of headroom for a mastering engineer to work with (although a good mastering engineer should care enough to tell you if this is the case!).

Also, regarding different speakers; remember that different rooms (and speaker placement for that matter) also affect what comes out of those speakers, and in turn what your ears register (muffled/crisp/?..).  In my experience there's always a difference when comparing mixes in the studio and in my living room, even with the same speakers.

(e)

[THEE DIRTYBEATS]

Good point about speakers. 

It probably makes sense to skew the master mix slightly toward the kind of speakers one's target audience will most likely be using. 

I heard Elvis was a stickler for this approach, at least in the early days (see photos from '56 below). He'd preview his acetates on an inexpensive battery-operated record player, and if he didn't think they sounded good there, he have the master mix adjusted accordingly. I understand the Stones did something similar, rushing down to their limo during sessions with a cassette to see whether or not the latest tweak still sounded good on a car system. 

The holy grail, of course, is a master mix that sounds great on both low and high fidelity systems.

I always thought that if one could afford the cost of multiple mastering mixes, this would be a great strategy, ie shoot for a master that sounds decent on, say, laptop PC speakers, iPod/iPhone headphones, car stereos, AND high end audio systems.  

Difficult, yes; but if old timers could do it with analog equipment, clearly not impossible.

THEE DIRTYBEATS - maximum vintage garage
http://theedirtybeats.bandcamp.com

[G. Wood]

Yeah, but why do really good recordings, I'm thinking Nirvana, Rancid, DKM, sound good everywhere? Answer: Every stage of the recording process is done on top of the line equipment by talented experts. It transcends the shortcomings of various playback systems. If you're recording with so-so stuff and medium-skilled people (like most of us), mastering isn't going to make you sound like them. Er... I guess that's why they call it Garage.

[Greg Prevost]

Mastering is as important as any other step in the recording process-and by all means-BE THERE WHEN YOU MASTER IT-if you can...or send it to someone who understands the music you're playing and won't fuck with the vibe...mastering just takes whatever you did-that you like-makes it EVEN-each song-as every song-even though you recorded for instance 12 songs the same way-same sessions-each song is at a slightly different level, because when you mix each song, you may get a great vibe, but then notice that some songs aren't as loud -which is normal-then mastering just levels it all out-brings out the best tonal quality. I remember when a friend didn't master his album-and you had to turn up certain songs-this way you don't have to do that-