|
pre/post mastered works (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Pjotr G |
| quote: | Originally posted by johncannons1
if noone never needed mastering why the hell would people and labels get there stuff mastered? Dumb comment IMO |
Historically, to make sure the needle doesn't skip out of the groove because of your crazy mixes? To make sure that frequencies that exist in the recording are actually transferrable to the medium it will be replicated and distributed on?
Nowadays it's just a somewhat strange mutated artifact of old times, where it is used to make everything sound comparable, instead of making it sound exactly the way the musician/producer intended to, in his studio. |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pjotr G
Historically, to make sure the needle doesn't skip out of the groove because of your crazy mixes? |
This is right. A large part of mastering was due to the limitations of vinyl, making sure there wasn't too much bass content, and that the bass was kept fairly mono.
Mastering is still important these days, to get an experienced second pair of ears listening to your song through great speakers.
Some people still misunderstand it though - they think "I'll create the song, mix it, and it'll sound pretty good. Then I'll get it mastered, and it will sound great!" They look to mastering to get the song to sound noticeably better. They'd be much better served with the focus "I can make this song sound like the professionally mastered songs myself", (because they can), and take full responsibility for the sound in it's totality. Then they'll be sending something which is a heap better to the mastering engineer for that final listening session. |
|
|
| meDina |
| quote: | Originally posted by PutBoy
You don't need mastering, no one ever does. What you need to do is learn to get better at mixing. |
Tell that to Bernie Grundman |
|
|
| BshidoHEAT |
| quote: | Originally posted by PutBoy
You don't need mastering, no one ever does. What you need to do is learn to get better at mixing. |
I often hear this, but I see mastering (or the ability to master record) as I see music theory.
Both are not totally neccesary, but people want to know how to do it to be better producer. I know I want too. |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by BshidoHEAT
I often hear this, but I see mastering (or the ability to master record) as I see music theory.
Both are not totally neccesary, but people want to know how to do it to be better producer. I know I want too. |
Getting your songs mastered is about having a professional objective second pair of ears.
Unless you grow a second head, you can't master your own songs.
You can learn how use tools like compressors, limiters and EQs on the master channel of your song, and use similar settings to a mastering engineer, but to me this isn't mastering. I don't believe you can master your own songs, unless you take a break of a year or so between finishing the song, then mastering it from a freash perspective. |
|
|
| PutBoy |
| quote: | Originally posted by BshidoHEAT
but people want to know how to do it to be better producer. I know I want too. |
You don't need to learn mastering to be a better producer, you need to learn mastering to become a better mastering engineer. But if that's what you strive for then go ahead.
But the original thread starter wanted to use mastering to make his music sound better, and that's the wrong way to go. It's kind of like that expression 'you can't polish a turd' (although apperantly you can, according to Myth Busters).
See, the track is your turd, and the mastering is your polish. What I mean by "noone ever needs mastering" is that if you can make a marble instead of a turd, there's no need to polish it, because you don't polish marble (and yes, I am aware that they do polish marble, but I'm trying some allegory here damnit!)
Sure, you might not be able to make a marble, but you should strive for it, so much so that you won't need to polish it.
In the end, trying to make your track sound better using mastering is kind of like swatting a fly with a bazooka. Mastering is a hard trade to master (pun intended), mixing is easier to learn.
Or: Proffesionally mixed tracks sounds better premaster than yours would postmaster. |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| quote: | Originally posted by derail
Getting your songs mastered is about having a professional objective second pair of ears.
Unless you grow a second head, you can't master your own songs.
You can learn how use tools like compressors, limiters and EQs on the master channel of your song, and use similar settings to a mastering engineer, but to me this isn't mastering. I don't believe you can master your own songs, unless you take a break of a year or so between finishing the song, then mastering it from a freash perspective. |
lots of ppl master their own tracks... pryda, deadma5.... |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
lots of ppl master their own tracks... pryda, deadma5.... |
We're using different definitions for what mastering involves.
Yes, a lot of artists do very similar (or the same) processing to a mastering engineer, as I said in my previous post. There's no need to go to an external mastering engineer if the song already sounds great.
For me, a crucial aspect of what makes mastering mastering is the second set of objective ears. pryda and deadmau5 only have two ears each, not four. |
|
|
| johncannons1 |
| isnt it also to make sure it sounds great through all speakers ? |
|
|
| johncannons1 |
| but if you make a VERY good sounding track. mix it down well. (not putting compressors and all that on the master) will the mastering engineer make it sound better? |
|
|
| derail |
You don't NEED a mastering engineer to ensure it sounds great on all speakers, with enough mixing experience it's possible to achieve this yourself.
Also, a mastering engineer will not necessarily make a very good sounding song sound even better. Some songs sound fantastic after they've been mixed, and mastering may make them sound "different", but not better. In some cases (depending on the mastering engineer) mastering could even make a song sound worse.
In the end, the responsibility for the final sound of the song (in my view) should rest with the artist. They should know what they're aiming to end up with, and convey that to the mastering engineer, rather than saying "well, it sounds different, but they're a professional and it cost me a lot of money, so they must have done the right thing. It'll grow on me".
Whether the artist/producer does everything themselves or not, they are responsible for signing off on the finished version and saying "yes, this is how I intended it, I'm happy for the world to see this as my art the way I intended it to be". |
|
|
| palm |
| quote: | Originally posted by johncannons1
if noone never needed mastering why the hell would people and labels get there stuff mastered? Dumb comment IMO |
so it will sound loud on your 15w car-audio or tv |
|
|
|
|
