Is Mastering, Mastering. Or ?

Couldn't get the whole question in the title so here it is.

When looking to get songs mastered, is it wiser to have someone who works in the particular musical "style" of the song?

I was in a discussion about this the other day, and although logic suggests that mastering is about the technical side of the songs sound, I really didn't know if there is an advantage for the engineer to be well versed in the type of song.

Love to hear some opinions.

Yes, it's better to have someone who is experimented in the genre you're working in. A mastering engineer who's mastered classical orchestras his whole life may not be your best choice to master a dance music track.

I've noticed that different MEs have different technical approaches to how they do their job. I know a guy who runs everything through a real tape machine. Another guy never uses mid-side processing. A different guy almost always does. One guy has six sets of speakers. Here at LPH, Lagerfeldt says he likes to use just one set that he trusts. And so on.

 

Given these kind of variations of approach, it also makes sense to me that some guys are going to have different musical tastes and preferences which will affect which kind of material they do best. There's so many kinds of music in the world today; I'd find it hard to believe that any one ME would be good at mastering them all.

Thanks Guys for the reply's.

200 years ago when I was in Art School, I went to a lecture given by Aurthur Paul. Paul was hired by Hugh Hefner and virtually together they created Playboy Magazine. Paul was solely responsible for the look of the magazine, and in particular his the photography and artwork in his spreads or ads involving clothing, shoes, and well virtually anything, were always refreshing and out of the box. (Of course I was only studying the ads and never looked at those other pictures....... honest)

Anyway, I ramble.

Paul said that he would never chose someone familiar with the products he was featuring, so instead of for instance hiring a shoe person, for a shoe spread, he would engage a sculptor who would bring a whole new perspective to his project.

This has always stuck with me, and hence the question, because I wondered if a "fresh ear" might actually add something unique.

I also confess to know very little about mastering, so perhaps I am being naive.

The mastering really should not make any musical difference - mastering happens when everything else is ready, completed, recorded, tweaked, mixed, finished, done; to get this 'fresh perspective' thing going you should already let somebody in at the creation stages.

If we are going with the photoshoot metaphor, the mastering engineer is not really doing the job of the stylist. That's more likely to be the job of a producer, or engineer working in collaboration with the artist, or even a dedicated arranger. In this metaphor, the mastering engineer is more like the person who processes the film (or photoshops the images).

If we are going with the photoshoot metaphor, the mastering engineer is not really doing the job of the stylist. That's more likely to be the job of a producer, or engineer working in collaboration with the artist, or even a dedicated arranger. In this metaphor, the mastering engineer is more like the person who processes the film (or photoshops the images).

 

As a life long photographer I like to see the photo metaphor more like this.

 

Once you have a perfect print, you frame it, hang it on the wall at the proper height and light it properly for optimum viewing.

 

The mastering engineer could be compared to the framer. Making the piece shine beyond its current state. The "lighting" could be compared to the source that the music is played back on and the proper "height" could be compared to positioning yourself perfectly in the stereo field (i.e. the peak of the triangle). And of course, playing the music at an appropriate volume for the space that you are in.

It is best to find someone in that particular musical "style." However, finding a qualified engineer is another story.

Once you have a perfect print, you frame it, hang it on the wall at the proper height and light it properly for optimum viewing.

 

The mastering engineer could be compared to the framer. Making the piece shine beyond its current state. The "lighting" could be compared to the source that the music is played back on and the proper "height" could be compared to positioning yourself perfectly in the stereo field (i.e. the peak of the triangle). And of course, playing the music at an appropriate volume for the space that you are in.

Really? But that doesn't change the product at all. Just the presentation of it.

 

I see "framing" and "lightning" more like "picking the type of speakers" and designing the listening room. Because a great system with great speakers in an acoustically well treated room will actually make a properly mastered track shine beyond its current state.

 

In reality, most of current masters work on cheaper systems, but only the best masters shine on professional or audiophile equipment

 

Mastering engineer cannot pull from the track what wasn't there in the first place, but what he can is emphasise the nuances if he sees fit, he can re-arrange the spectral balance a little and of course prepares the track for the actual print. Perhaps he won't do anything but the last part, but in most cases mastering change the track a little. At least dynamically. But mastering engineer can also ruin it.

 

Which is what photo post processing essentially is. You can't highlight what wasn't lit before, and you can't pull up shadows where they are too dark. You also cannot change the general balance of the photo, but you can emphasise (or soften) the contrast, colour and light balance. How the piece is present is then beyond your control, the moment your photo takes his own path beyond the gallery, which in the world of digital can happen really fast.

Really? But that doesn't change the product at all. Just the presentation of it.

 

Yes! Really.

 

It's a metaphor and that's how I see it.

 

I like to see the photo metaphor more like this.

Sorry to be so blatant and mean but, as romantic as it is - its seems like a false analogy, seemingly stemming from your lack of understanding of mastering engineers work.

 

Masterings engineer stamp is on the track no matter where you listen to it. Framing and lightning changes from space to space, unless these conditions are met:

- there is only one print in existence, or its a painting (but you said photography)

- the picture will be displayed in only one gallery/museum OR

- you have a professional framer on your payroll that constantly follows that photo wherever it goes

 

But you can't say thats a general rule with photography, you really can't;

so in this case, you are either glorifying the work of *one* curator in *one* gallery which directly doesn't affect the quality of the product, only the presentation of it, or diminishing the work of a mastering engineer, which has his stamp on the product permanently embedded. Forever.

 

And mastering engineer has absolutely no impact on where/what system his work will be presented on, nor how will the stereo field translate on that system and space.

Sorry to be so blatant and mean but, as romantic as it is - its seems like a false analogy, seemingly stemming from your lack of understanding of mastering engineers work.

 

Pay no attention to that Ploki behind the anonymous curtain of the internet Blue Monkey. These types are commonly known as trolls and are to be ignored. They possess no real power and have no good intentions. 8)

 

As a life long photographer I like to see the photo metaphor more like this.

 

Once you have a perfect print, you frame it, hang it on the wall at the proper height and light it properly for optimum viewing.

 

The mastering engineer could be compared to the framer. Making the piece shine beyond its current state. The "lighting" could be compared to the source that the music is played back on and the proper "height" could be compared to positioning yourself perfectly in the stereo field (i.e. the peak of the triangle). And of course, playing the music at an appropriate volume for the space that you are in.

 

Cool. BTW, I'm a photographer as well. Having exhibited as well & with a few of my prints around the place, I dig the metaphor.

 

I guess my question would be this - what about the photos which don't get framed but do get widely seen? There's a lot of photos I love, but I've never seen them in a gallery. And, a lot of photography is never even intended to be hung, or seen that way.

Cool. BTW, I'm a photographer as well. Having exhibited as well & with a few of my prints around the place, I dig the metaphor.

 

Cool!

 

I guess my question would be this - what about the photos which don't get framed but do get widely seen? There's a lot of photos I love, but I've never seen them in a gallery. And, a lot of photography is never even intended to be hung, or seen that way.

 

In that scenario I would look at it this way.

 

I'll speak in terms of hand printed black and white analog photographs (i.e. silver film/prints) which has been my primary focus in my photographic work for the last 30 years (digital would be a different story).

 

I would look at the negative as the initial composition with all of the necessary elements present to create a good mix. I would then see the fine print, after finessing the image with dodging, burning, contrast control, proper density and all other aspects that go into a fine print as a good mix. Then I tone the print. It could be blue toner, brown toner or in my case, most often Selenium toner which is the best example. I would compare that part of the process to the mastering process. Selenium toner when used properly and subtly deepens the blacks, enhances (helps separate) the gray tones and therefore also emphasizes the whites (highlights). This gives the print even more depth and can even make a print appear sharper.

 

Now if you don't tone your prints. You might consider a well balanced negative with a great composition and exposure to be the mix. And the final print to be the mastering of the negative.

 

Obviously, there are many ways to look at this metaphor which is why I said, "I like to see the photo metaphor more like this" in the scenario I described earlier in the thread.

Some people master themselves, some photographers prep their photos for print themselves. Some tracks go through many engineers, among them a mastering engineering. In your case, that seems completely legit, and your metaphor seems much more clear now.

 

But a photograph on the cover of a magazine is no less a photograph and the process involved is completely different, would you have explained your process as you did, it would be easier to understand it.

 

If you compare art photography with mastering, you could compare art/academic music, where mastering engineer really could be akin to a framer, since the mastering processing usually doesn't intervene as much as in a commercial record... just a thought.

 

But at least I now understand what you mean.

Couldn't get the whole question in the title so here it is.

When looking to get songs mastered, is it wiser to have someone who works in the particular musical "style" of the song?

I was in a discussion about this the other day, and although logic suggests that mastering is about the technical side of the songs sound, I really didn't know if there is an advantage for the engineer to be well versed in the type of song.

Love to hear some opinions.

Mastering is part objective and part subjective.

 

The objective part of the job lies in fixing obvious deviations in the frequency spectrum or dynamics that will detract from the intended experience.

 

The subjective part lies in judging what that intended experience is. This is where the musical understanding of a mastering engineer comes into play. Communication with the client is another aspect, i.e. making sure that the artistic intentions of the artist are respected.

 

So mastering is neither purely technical, nor purely taste. And as always, good communication is paramount.

 

Most top mastering engineers have experience with a very wide range of music and will be able to master almost any type of music. Many end up working (either by choice or by popular demand) in a handful of genres most of the time.

 

Take Chris Athens for instance, he's doing a lot of the biggest hip hop/RnB artists in the world, but also pop/rock such as Coldplay or pop/electronic such as Pet Shop Boys. Quite a wide range right there, and it all sounds great.

 

Another example: Brad Blackwood does a lot of rock music, but one of his biggest tracks was a pop/dance track by Maroon 5. Won a Grammy for Alison Krauss, who is a bluegrass/country singer.

 

Personally, I've just mastered the number one radio pop hit in Denmark by Nik & Jay, yesterday I did a hard club project for the number one remixer in Spain (Albert Neve, for whom I also mastered the Play Hard remix by David Guetta), and then three orchestral pieces this morning. Tomorrow I'm doing a pop/rock project, a hip hop project on Friday, you get the picture.

 

There are very few full time mastering engineers who do classical music only, but that's an exception, i.e. if you've specialized in classical music, you probably won't be able to do other (rhythmical/vocal) genres quite as well.

 

Very nice post.

 

 

Also, I think its "and I'm all out of gum" (If its duke nukem)

Duke Nukem nicked it from Roddy Piper as Nada in "They Live" (1985) by John Carpenter.

He he, I was thinking that might be the case, but was too lazy to double check. I recently saw a video (

) that describes how Duke Nukem is actually completely unoriginal.

 

If, and I say IF, you can chew through the annoying video, its actually a pretty interesting collage.

...Selenium toner when used properly and subtly deepens the blacks, enhances (helps separate) the gray tones and therefore also emphasizes the whites (highlights). This gives the print even more depth and can even make a print appear sharper.

 

Now if you don't tone your prints. You might consider a well balanced negative with a great composition and exposure to be the mix. And the final print to be the mastering of the negative.

 

Obviously, there are many ways to look at this metaphor which is why I said, "I like to see the photo metaphor more like this" in the scenario I described earlier in the thread.

 

Thanks, I get where you are coming from, this is a great thread.

Thanks, I get where you are coming from, this is a great thread.

 

You're welcome.

 

Well having been offline for a bit, I really want to thank you all for your thoughts.

I know that, personally, I need to become more competent at mixing, which I am working very hard at, before sending work off to be mastered.

What this process is teaching me though is a great deal of respect for Mastering Engineers, and the training and self discipline it must take to hone your hearing.

My example would be.... I'll get a mix to where I am really happy with it, shelve it for a couple of days, and, when I pull it out again, usually pick faults, sometimes quite glaring.

I don't think ME's have this luxury. So they must have to be very confident in their gear, and ears.

I think it would be quite interesting to do a comparison between the outcome of a song given to an Engineer well versed in the song style, and one who works in different styles.

Perhaps if I ever get satisfied with a mix I'll have to try this.

Mixing engineers didn't have so much of this luxury either, "shelving a mix" meant you had to write down patch bay routes, exact fader values, exact outboard settings, exact mixer settings... A lot of values.

 

And that you need to set these values again when you re-set the mix.

 

Sometimes overdoing the mix doesn't do much, if you do more different mixes you'll experience a variety of different problems that you'll need to solve, that just don't appear in each track.