Mastering
Re: Mastering
So you master for people. Do artists ever master their own tracks or is it traditionally sent to mastering engineers (whatever they're called).
Re: Mastering
I can't find my click key.Tarekith wrote:Anyone? My CMD+V is broken....
In my life
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
Re: Mastering
tarekith
https://tarekith.com
https://tarekith.com
Re: Mastering
Thanks man. Appreciate the file.
-
chrissobo13
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:40 pm
Re: Mastering
That article was EXTREMELY helpful, both assuring me of good habits and exposing the bad. Thanks for posting it!
Now I have a question and would love to hear your input. To what extent do you think this applies to the total sum of electronic styles out there? I'm asking because I've been stressing over this issue for years, undergoing painful trial and error, to achieve a sound I didn't know how to get. Now that I'm starting to develop a style for myself, I feel like a raw, gritty, unpolished sound actually works for me. I like the DIY sound, as I've grown up listening to underground metal and such. Now I know the "do what you like" answer is impending, but I still want to do what OTHER people like too! Can my tracks be respected if they blatantly sound like they were not mastered?
Sorry for the long question! Just an issue that's been weighing on my mind lately.
Now I have a question and would love to hear your input. To what extent do you think this applies to the total sum of electronic styles out there? I'm asking because I've been stressing over this issue for years, undergoing painful trial and error, to achieve a sound I didn't know how to get. Now that I'm starting to develop a style for myself, I feel like a raw, gritty, unpolished sound actually works for me. I like the DIY sound, as I've grown up listening to underground metal and such. Now I know the "do what you like" answer is impending, but I still want to do what OTHER people like too! Can my tracks be respected if they blatantly sound like they were not mastered?
Sorry for the long question! Just an issue that's been weighing on my mind lately.
Re: Mastering
Honestly I don't think there's such a thing as a "mastered" sound, so it's kind of hard for me to answer. Especially when it comes to electronic music. The point of mastering (IMVHO) is not to impose a certain sound on an artist's work, but to really get rid of any unknown impediments that keep the artist's unique sound from being expressed the way they want.
Now, I know that sounds cheesy, but really the mastering engineer should not (again, IMVHO) not be doing anything but enhancing what's there already. As a musician myself, I don't want ANYONE changing the sound of what I do, so I get where you're coming from. I hate when people recommend that new musicians use a 'reference track' to aim for when mastering or mixing their own work, because it sort of implies that developing your own sound is bad, which I totally disagree with. It just leads to stagnation in how our music sounds, and is more or less the state of pop music today. It all gets a bit samey sounding, regardless of how unique the original idea was. Look at someone like Burial for instance, incredibly catchy songs and very unique in how they sound.
That said, there's definitely a point where an unbiased opinion and experience can help the artist hear things that might be problematic in their songs that they just weren't aware of. Either through lack of experience, lack of technique, or maybe just poor monitoring. To me that's what mastering is about today, helping the artist troubelshoot things that they just might not have thought of otherwise.
Not saying people can't do it on thier own, but it definitely takes a lot longer and ultimately costs more money in my experience. The whole "do what you like" thing is fine, but often times there's a huge gap between doing what you like, and doing what other people like to listen to that many people struggle with. With enough time and trial and error, anyone can learn to bridge that gap, but some people would just rather focus on the creation aspect of making music.
Make sense?
Again, this is just the way I think of it too, not trying to speak for all mastering engineers.
Now, I know that sounds cheesy, but really the mastering engineer should not (again, IMVHO) not be doing anything but enhancing what's there already. As a musician myself, I don't want ANYONE changing the sound of what I do, so I get where you're coming from. I hate when people recommend that new musicians use a 'reference track' to aim for when mastering or mixing their own work, because it sort of implies that developing your own sound is bad, which I totally disagree with. It just leads to stagnation in how our music sounds, and is more or less the state of pop music today. It all gets a bit samey sounding, regardless of how unique the original idea was. Look at someone like Burial for instance, incredibly catchy songs and very unique in how they sound.
That said, there's definitely a point where an unbiased opinion and experience can help the artist hear things that might be problematic in their songs that they just weren't aware of. Either through lack of experience, lack of technique, or maybe just poor monitoring. To me that's what mastering is about today, helping the artist troubelshoot things that they just might not have thought of otherwise.
Not saying people can't do it on thier own, but it definitely takes a lot longer and ultimately costs more money in my experience. The whole "do what you like" thing is fine, but often times there's a huge gap between doing what you like, and doing what other people like to listen to that many people struggle with. With enough time and trial and error, anyone can learn to bridge that gap, but some people would just rather focus on the creation aspect of making music.
Make sense?
Again, this is just the way I think of it too, not trying to speak for all mastering engineers.
tarekith
https://tarekith.com
https://tarekith.com
-
chrissobo13
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:40 pm
Re: Mastering
Yes, thanks for the reply. I've heard and read similar points from different people, but its always good to get another opinion.
Re: Mastering
@ Tarekith aka. Resident Mastering Engineer. I have yet to actually send a track out to get mastered but I'm to the point now where I think it's the best thing to do. It takes a certain kind of brain (and ears, and monitors, room and experience) to properly master a song. I am more into writing music and by the time I finish a track I feel like I've heard it too much and my ears are a bit bit fatigued in respect to the song. I've heard it said the average "artist" is too close to his own song to be able to master it properly. I can definitely say this is true for me.chrissobo13 wrote:Yes, thanks for the reply. I've heard and read similar points from different people, but its always good to get another opinion.
To be completely honest my mastering process is this: bounce 24 bit .wav file of master, load 24 bit .wav file into new live set, find a good Ozone pre-set that sounds loud and decent, bounce down 16 bit wav. I realize this is a shitty process but honestly, aside from a song being louder, making sure the low end is tight and not muddy, and maybe adding a bit of "sparkle " to the high end I don\'t seem to have the ears for mastering.
I have some tracks posted on Soundcloud, and I know they're not "commercial quality but I have played them live and they held up OK with other commercial releases.
IDK, I might be sending some stuff out soon to get mastered just to see what happens. Is it cheaper in bulk usually or......
Re: Mastering
I have yet to actually send a track out to get mastered but I'm to the point now where I think it's the best thing to do. It takes a certain kind of brain (and ears, and monitors, room and experience) to properly master a song.
>>> It's definitely a different way of looking at things, that's for sure. Or maybe I should say listening to things
<<<
To be completely honest my mastering process is this: bounce 24 bit .wav file of master, load 24 bit .wav file into new live set, find a good Ozone pre-set that sounds loud and decent, bounce down 16 bit wav. I realize this is a shitty process but honestly, aside from a song being louder, making sure the low end is tight and not muddy, and maybe adding a bit of "sparkle " to the high end I don\'t seem to have the ears for mastering.
>>> You're not the only person doing this, that's why Ozone has so many presets I guess. <<<
Is it cheaper in bulk usually or......
>>> Not at my studio, I have the same flat rate for everyone, regardless of who they are or how many tracks they are having mastered. But maybe other people operate differently. <<<
>>> It's definitely a different way of looking at things, that's for sure. Or maybe I should say listening to things
To be completely honest my mastering process is this: bounce 24 bit .wav file of master, load 24 bit .wav file into new live set, find a good Ozone pre-set that sounds loud and decent, bounce down 16 bit wav. I realize this is a shitty process but honestly, aside from a song being louder, making sure the low end is tight and not muddy, and maybe adding a bit of "sparkle " to the high end I don\'t seem to have the ears for mastering.
>>> You're not the only person doing this, that's why Ozone has so many presets I guess. <<<
Is it cheaper in bulk usually or......
>>> Not at my studio, I have the same flat rate for everyone, regardless of who they are or how many tracks they are having mastered. But maybe other people operate differently. <<<
tarekith
https://tarekith.com
https://tarekith.com