1. Doing it yourself (repeat for the next nine answers)

1. 99% the DIY option is a wrong choice. No serious monitoring, acoustics, equipment, nor knowledge... But the feeling.
2. Expecting poor mix to be fixed at the mastering stage.
3. "I always set a HPF to gain headroom (because I've read this on the GS forum)"
4. "I'm "monoing" all the low frequencies (because I've read this on the FL studio forum)"
5. "I want to be louder than the last release of my preferred artist"
6. "I put almost all the possible plug-ins on the master section to improve the sound"
7. "I always add some reverb for the "glue" (from the Reason forum)"
8. "Multiband compressors are so good to improve the sound, that I put three in series"
9. "The limiter is my secret weapon to achieve competitive loudness"
10. "My car audio system is a world class reference"

1. Thinking you can do it yourself and get professional results.
2. Thinking that just because you have several plug-ins that are categorized (by their manufacturer) as "mastering" plug-ins, you'll achieve professional results.
3. Putting a compressor on the master bus just because someone said that would make it sound better, while you really do not have a firm grasp on what a compressor does or how it works.
4. Believing that the main goal of mastering is to make your finished track louder.
5. Believing that your DIY mastered tracks actually sound better than they did before you screwed them up with over-used "mastering" plug-ins and compression.
6. Making no attempt to balance the sonic character and apparent loudness between all of the tracks in your project.
7. Thinking you can achieve professional results using headphones as your monitor.
8. Thinking that your bedroom is a perfectly good acoustic environment for mastering.
9. Checking your results on your laptop using it's built-in speakers.
10. Not believing enough in the quality and importance of your music enough to give it the professional treatment it deserves!

1- Not knowing the meaning of Mastering
2- Not having the objectivity if you recorded and/or mix the project yourself.
3- By doing it yourself, why didn't you fix it in the mix before ''mastering'' it?
4- Same person.
5- Same room.
6- Same ears.
7- Same monitors.
8- Same judgement.
9- Same mistakes.
10- Not fixing or doing within the mix and believing that you will be better on the 2-bus.

1. Thinking you can master your own work
2. Not understanding that there are actual specifications for signal norms and maximums (Red Book)
3. Thinking you can master your own work
4. Not looking at IM distortion levels
5. Thinking you can master your own work
6. Not editing the data fields correctly to include all pertinent data including images and ISRC
7. Thinking you can master your own work
8. Amateur/prosumer listening and monitoring environment
9 Thinking you can master your own work
10. Believing you can actually master a project in 30 minutes

When you're a bedroom engineer who cares what your mistakes are? You have fun with the process, do the best you can, learn from your mistakes and go back and fix them because...you can smoke

People at home engineer for themselves because they can, and they want to. It's a hobby, it's an artistic process that some people are simply drawn to. Your listening and monitoring environment is "amateur/prosumer" because, guess what (?), you are an amateur/prosumer.

One of the biggest mistakes you can make in the DIY mastering process as a bedroom engineer IMO is "not having fun with it".

The second biggest mistake is not reading about mastering. There's plenty of material out there written specifically for the bedroom engineer about DIY mastering and those resources are available because there is a demand for it. There is a market for it. It's kind of stupid to tell people not to master their own material.

If you're a pro obviously you're not going to go there in the first place - usually.

Yes, that's a very valid point. What I think it brings up is that there are two separate processes or levels here, leaving aside what they might be called for the moment.

The one that you describe is that of an engineer improving his mix by listening, reading and learning about what further processes could be applied. The other is that of a separate engineer in a different acoustic environment operating on a two-track mix that has been brought in, and using his/her experience to add something to it that turns it into a track fit for the shark-infested commercial world.

Whether both these processes should be called "mastering" or should have different names misses the point that both the processes have a separate valid existence.

Boswell, post: 389899 wrote:

Whether both these processes should be called "mastering" or should have different names misses the point that both the processes have a separate valid existence.

Precisely.

Well-said.

1) I'm an experienced professional mastering engineer because I "mastered" my own CD and actually sold 8 copies.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)...repeat 1).

11) I just realized I am NOT a "mastering engineer" because I lack the facilities, experience and equipment, but I have fun making fairly good stereo mixes that my friends are kind enough to say are good. (All 8 of them sold their copies I gave to them to their friends for a dollar each...because, they said, they "liked it so much and wanted to spread my music"!facepalm) I now humbly realize the huge difference between "professional mastering" and home-brew "mixdown".

Kapt.Krunchdiddlydoo

It's also funny how many professional ME's out there send their work back to the studio for review and everyone hates it - even the mix engineer. I've seen that time and time again. I've sent my own final mixes to ME's only to be very dissatisfied with the result.

An analogy that can be applied in many cases is: You don't always have to be an ASE certified mechanic to do an oil change and tune up on a great many vehicles we drive.

And much of what we hear these days anyway are complaints about how ruff-hewn/distorted the mastering sounds these days on average, or how the final product is too glassy or even plastic. Even if you can afford an inexpensive ME, how many times is the final product actually worth the price?

I was lucky enough to be let in on a mastering training session with a rather well-known ME once and was so unimpressed I left the session after only 30 minutes. The friend I was with is a professional ME and he was so disappointed he didn't know what to say.

Titles and credentials are something one can achieve through dedication and diligence. Dedication and diligence don't always necessarily equate to useful mastery of your chosen discipline.

CoyoteTrax.

If it is an attended session then there should be no problems later for the client. They are sitting in the same room with the same monitors the mastering engineer is listening to and they should be able to get the music to sound EXACTLY the way they want it to sound. Mastering is a service business and if the client asks to have their material smashed the mastering engineer will, usually after explaining the problems it may cause, do EXACTLY what the client wants.

If the client and the mastering engineer are not in the same room then things may get more confusing very quickly. In most cases the mastering engineer is only doing what the client requests and is not doing anything additional.

There seems to be a growing feeling on some forums that mastering engineers are somehow "messing with the music" for their own amusement or just because they can. I cannot speak for others but at least in my mastering operation nothing could be further from the truth. We work very closely with the client and are very attuned to their needs and wants if they are here or hundreds of miles away. I think some of this comes from people sending their stuff off to a "famous mastering engineer" and telling him or her to "make it sound good and/or loud" and not really communicating what they are really looking for from the mastering. The "famous mastering engineer" does "make it sound good and/or loud" (or at least as good as he/she can) but when the client gets it back, after paying big bucks, they are unimpressed or feel that they have not gotten what they wanted. It all boils down to good communications between the parties and sometimes people are unwilling or afraid to tell the "famous mastering engineer" what they really want. There is also the problem that when the artist gets his or her materials back they play it for their friends and get some negative feedback and jump to the conclusion that somehow they did not get what they paid for in the mastering phase. Even though a top rated mastering engineer worked on the material he or she can only do so much with what they are given. I don't mean this in a negative way but just like in computing it is still garbage in - garbage out and there are only so many ways you can make something that is not quite ready for prime time sound like it is. Some artists assume that just by mastering their stuff will be magically transformed from what it is to a perfectly recorded and mixed album. Unfortunately most mastering engineers are only human and cannot take lead and make it into gold.

I don't know what "training session" you sat in on but either the person did not really want to share their knowledge with you or there were other mitigating circumstance you are not sharing. I would love to sit in on a mastering session with Glenn Meadows, Bob Katz, Bob Ludwig or anyone else who I consider to be at the top of their profession if I had the chance. I am sure I could learn a lot and I have been doing this for 17 + years.

MTCW and YMMV

FWIW this topic is about DIY mastering and not about sending things off to a mastering engineer.

Thomas W. Bethel, post: 389988 wrote: FWIW this topic is about DIY mastering and not about sending things off to a mastering engineer.

Thus my point, that just as a lawyer who represents himself, has a fool for a client, I have the understanding that I cannot do do as good of a job mastering my own work as I can someone else's work.

The more accurate your room and your equipment, the better the work will turn out... IF you goal is to meet or exceed industry standards.

Anyone can make something sound good, given that even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then. But, the fact of the matter is that gear is made to operate inside a set limit. Outside that limit... there is probable failure. The goal is really to stay inside that limit.

Doing it consistently takes the knowledge of learning those standards.

I've been reading a lot on this forum lately and found a lot of useful info regarding the different aspects of mastering. There seems to be a prevailing attitude from the professionals of the industry that the two biggest mistakes are 1.) to think you can master your own material, and 2.) to think that just because you downloaded a few "mastering plugins" to your Garageband app you can now make your laughable songs sound like they've been mastered by Bob Ludwig.

But to me it seems obvious that many truly professional mastering houses today are creating masters that everyone in the industry knows are actually ruined by all sorts of sonic defects, like clipping, overly squashed mixes, sonic imbalances etc. Recently I read about how Katy Perry's latest release was a total mastering disaster, and the sonic problems with Metallica's "Death Magnetic" are by now infamous and legendary. I assume these masters were done by the best and most experienced mastering houses in the business. Then really, the top mastering mistake by far is this:

The professional mastering engineer with decades of experience and knowledge, unlimited access to all the professional and expensive equipment he could ever want and the know-how to use them properly, who still decides to knowingly ruin a recording, only because he's getting paid to do it. Isn't this the worst kind of double treachery? Double, because he really is supposed to be the guardian of his profession and should guarantee his and the industry's professional and artistic integrity, so that no corruption, degeneration and general decline enters into the process under his watch. Not only is he neglecting his professional duty, but he is doing so knowingly and willingly because he is paid to do it. Now what profession does this actually remind one of? His excuse then is that "the customer is always right", when clearly this is just a meaningless phrase. Obviously, the customer is not always right.
Such a mastering engineer is actually causing the same decline in sound quality—and the music consumer's worsening knowledge of said sound quality and his declining listening habits—he himself is bemoaning.

Serpentarius, post: 390571 wrote: I've been reading a lot on this forum lately and found a lot of useful info regarding the different aspects of mastering. There seems to be a prevailing attitude from the professionals of the industry that the two biggest mistakes are 1.) to think you can master your own material, and 2.) to think that just because you downloaded a few "mastering plugins" to your Garageband app you can now make your laughable songs sound like they've been mastered by Bob Ludwig.

But to me it seems obvious that many truly professional mastering houses today are creating masters that everyone in the industry knows are actually ruined by all sorts of sonic defects, like clipping, overly squashed mixes, sonic imbalances etc. Recently I read about how Katy Perry's latest release was a total mastering disaster, and the sonic problems with Metallica's "Death Magnetic" are by now infamous and legendary. I assume these masters were done by the best and most experienced mastering houses in the business. Then really, the top mastering mistake by far is this:

The professional mastering engineer with decades of experience and knowledge, unlimited access to all the professional and expensive equipment he could ever want and the know-how to use them properly, who still decides to knowingly ruin a recording, only because he's getting paid to do it. Isn't this the worst kind of double treachery? Double, because he really is supposed to be the guardian of his profession and should guarantee his and the industry's professional and artistic integrity, so that no corruption, degeneration and general decline enters into the process under his watch. Not only is he neglecting his professional duty, but he is doing so knowingly and willingly because he is paid to do it. Now what profession does this actually remind one of? His excuse then is that "the customer is always right", when clearly this is just a meaningless phrase. Obviously, the customer is not always right.
Such a mastering engineer is actually causing the same decline in sound quality—and the music consumer's worsening knowledge of said sound quality and his declining listening habits—he himself is bemoaning.

If you don't do what the client wants then they will find someone else who will and will never return to your studio. I don't know your background but it is very easy to point the finger at professional mastering engineers and say they should do such and such but when a client is in their room and wants things smashed beyond all reason you either do it or you lose a client. I try and dissuade clients from smashing their materials but most times that falls, literally, on deaf ears. They are sooooooooooo worried about being "fu$%ing louder" than everyone else that they want to take their stuff to the max. If you make your living mastering driving away too many clients by refusing to do what they want will so cause your business to go belly up. It is like the Democrat that has to do a lot of Republican TV spots. He doesn't necessarily like to do it but "business is business" and he either does them or goes out of business. YMMV

The professional mastering engineer with decades of experience and knowledge, unlimited access to all the professional and expensive equipment he could ever want and the know-how to use them properly, who still decides to knowingly ruin a recording, only because he's getting paid to do it. Isn't this the worst kind of double treachery? Double, because he really is supposed to be the guardian of his profession and should guarantee his and the industry's professional and artistic integrity, so that no corruption, degeneration and general decline enters into the process under his watch. Not only is he neglecting his professional duty, but he is doing so knowingly and willinglybecause he is paid to do it. Now what profession does this actually remind one of? His excuse then is that "the customer is always right", when clearly this is just a meaningless phrase. Obviously, the customer is not always right.
Such a mastering engineer is actually causing the same decline in sound quality—and the music consumer's worsening knowledge of said sound quality and his declining listening habits—he himself is bemoaning.

Let's also keep in mind that this is very centered around the whole "volume" thing -- Which is only a very small part of the process.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm as guilty as cranking out "Uh, are you sure you want it THAT loud...?" projects as the next guy (although I also tend to fight for every dB under what the client is looking for that I can muster) - But there's a lot that goes into ---- how do I put this... I can only imagine what some of those projects would sound like if they just slapped a limiter on them vs. the careful and thoughtful tweaking they go through.

There you go then, Thomas. If that's the way you look at your profession, then there's nothing I can add. If you're willing to ruin a good recording for money then you have to live with the consequences. Now, if you don't care about the recording—or if it's crap—and you do what you have to do because "business is business", then again, you have to live with the consequences. I consider it a crime to be an expert in one's field, to know what's good quality, to have the knowledge, and still produce an inferior product, just because you're paid for it. That's just giving up everything you've ever struggled to learn in the first place. You might as well not have spent the years learning it all, if you end up never using it. If you don't apply your expert knowledge, how then can anyone tell the difference between you—a knowledgeable professional—and an amateur beginner?

You might not know my background, but in this particular discussion that isn't really relevant, since we're talking about principles and not specific cases. I'm a professional opera singer and I have to deal with the exact same questions of quality and principles as any mastering or recording engineer on a daily basis. The only difference is the form in which those principles manifest. In fact, the reason I'm here at this forum is because I've become so disgusted with my chosen profession that I'm toying with the idea to try and learn to record, mix and master records. So what I'm criticizing in the mastering industry is the same thing I'm criticizing in my own profession: the fact that knowledgeable people are selling out to the ever lower demands of the industry, to the point where you're actually asked not to do your job, you're overqualified and a pain in the ass at work because you know what you're doing. Is it any wonder that more and more people are questioning the established mastering engineers' expertise and qualifications, when it's gotten to the point where they're getting paid to actually not do their job?

When I say the biggest mastering mistake is when professionals take money to not do their jobs, the reason is that that mistake affects millions of music listeners and contributes to the artistic corruption of a whole profession, whereas if an amateur musician masters their own music and botch it, it really only affects a handful of people.

it is very easy to point the finger at professional mastering engineers and say they should do such and such but when a client is in their room and wants things smashed beyond all reason you either do it or you lose a client

I'm only saying that the self-respecting mastering engineer with artistic integrity should do his education, experience and good taste justice by refusing to do a bad job. Surely, Katy Perry's mastering engineer could've managed without the money from that gig, no? Surely, Metallica's mastering engineer of "Death Magnetic" could've managed even if saying no to that gig? It's not as if they would've had trouble putting food on the table or paying their bills unless they took that job, right? I understand that smaller enterprises need to compromise, but what about those who produce albums for millions of listeners?

It's simply a question of artistic and professional integrity—do you have it or not? Do you even want to have artistic and professional integrity? You might not even care for such things, in which case you should not be bothered by my thoughts on the matter at all. After all, who am I? If money is all that matters, then that's fine. But when people who only care about money also start to talk about artistic and professional integrity, and sound quality, then it starts to smell hypocrisy to me. (Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily mean you, personally. I don't know you. I mean people in general.)

Bloggers last year singled out Mr. Ludwig, the veteran engineer, for the sound on Mr. Springsteen's "Magic," which some thought was tinny and loud.

Mr. Ludwig wouldn't discuss the instructions he was given, but said, "Bruce doesn't let anything out unless it's exactly the way he wants it to be." Mr. Springsteen and his manager, Jon Landau, declined through a spokeswoman to comment.
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://online.wsj.c…"]SOURCE[/]="http://online.wsj.c…"]SOURCE[/]

Surely, Ludwig could've said no. That's all I'm saying. "Bruce" might not let anything out unless it's exactly the way he want it to be, but what about Ludwig? "Oh, I was just following 'instructions'." Surely, he should have more clout than to follow "instructions". He can afford to say no occasionally, and with his position in the industry he should ​say no much more often than a small-time rural mastering engineer can, with his limited business opportunities.

Massive Mastering, post: 390577 wrote: Let's also keep in mind that this is very centered around the whole "volume" thing -- Which is only a very small part of the process.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm as guilty as cranking out "Uh, are you sure you want it THAT loud...?" projects as the next guy (although I also tend to fight for every dB under what the client is looking for that I can muster) - But there's a lot that goes into ---- how do I put this... I can only imagine what some of those projects would sound like if they just slapped a limiter on them vs. the careful and thoughtful tweaking they go through.

I appreciate your response, John. Of course there's more to mastering than volume. That's the problem: mastering has become almost entirely about volume when it should be about so many other things. You guys know much better than me. That's why I'm here. I want to learn. Imagine though if my reference for optimal quality mastering was Katy Perry's latest album or Metallica's "Death Magnetic"! You would all be screaming "are you crazy?!?! That's all crap!" Well, how would I know? I'm just an amateur consumer. You mastered those records. Not you personally of course, but you, the industry. You are actually part of it, you know. Just like I have to apologize everytime someone asks me what I think of Paul Potts: "I'm sorry if you've been led to believe that's opera, but it's not." Believe me, I'm trying to do as much as I can to make people understand what good singing is, what good opera is, but when my profession is undermining itself for money, that's when I feel like quitting and going into the recording business. Maybe I shouldn't then, considering you guys fight the exact same fight, and we're all seem to be losing...

Serpentarius, post: 390579 wrote: There you go then, Thomas. If that's the way you look at your profession, then there's nothing I can add. If you're willing to ruin a good recording for money then you have to live with the consequences. Now, if you don't care about the recording—or if it's crap—and you do what you have to do because "business is business", then again, you have to live with the consequences. I consider it a crime to be an expert in one's field, to know what's good quality, to have the knowledge, and still produce an inferior product, just because you're paid for it. That's just giving up everything you've ever struggled to learn in the first place. You might as well not have spent the years learning it all, if you end up never using it. If you don't apply your expert knowledge, how then can anyone tell the difference between you—a knowledgeable professional—and an amateur beginner?

You might not know my background, but in this particular discussion that isn't really relevant, since we're talking about principles and not specific cases. I'm a professional opera singer and I have to deal with the exact same questions of quality and principles as any mastering or recording engineer on a daily basis. The only difference is the form in which those principles manifest. In fact, the reason I'm here at this forum is because I've become so disgusted with my chosen profession that I'm toying with the idea to try and learn to record, mix and master records. So what I'm criticizing in the mastering industry is the same thing I'm criticizing in my own profession: the fact that knowledgeable people are selling out to the ever lower demands of the industry, to the point where you're actually asked not to do your job, you're overqualified and a pain in the ass at work because you know what you're doing. Is it any wonder that more and more people are questioning the established mastering engineers' expertise and qualifications, when it's gotten to the point where they're getting paid to actually not do their job?

When I say the biggest mastering mistake is when professionals take money to not do their jobs, the reason is that that mistake affects millions of music listeners and contributes to the artistic corruption of a whole profession, whereas if an amateur musician masters their own music and botch it, it really only affects a handful of people.

I'm only saying that the self-respecting mastering engineer with artistic integrity should do his education, experience and good taste justice by refusing to do a bad job. Surely, Katy Perry's mastering engineer could've managed without the money from that gig, no? Surely, Metallica's mastering engineer of "Death Magnetic" could've managed even if saying no to that gig? It's not as if they would've had trouble putting food on the table or paying their bills unless they took that job, right? I understand that smaller enterprises need to compromise, but what about those who produce albums for millions of listeners?

It's simply a question of artistic and professional integrity—do you have it or not? Do you even want to have artistic and professional integrity? You might not even care for such things, in which case you should not be bothered by my thoughts on the matter at all. After all, who am I? If money is all that matters, then that's fine. But when people who only care about money also start to talk about artistic and professional integrity, and sound quality, then it starts to smell hypocrisy to me. (Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily mean you, personally. I don't know you. I mean people in general.)

Surely, Ludwig could've said no. That's all I'm saying. "Bruce" might not let anything out unless it's exactly the way he want it to be, but what about Ludwig? "Oh, I was just following 'instructions'." Surely, he should have more clout than to follow "instructions". He can afford to say no occasionally, and with his position in the industry he should ​say no much more often than a small-time rural mastering engineer can, with his limited business opportunities.

I don't enjoy smashing things especially music. I love the "olde days" when the client was more concerned about how their music sounded and less about how loud it was.

Mastering has changed. No one seems to need mastering anymore since all the artist say they go to the WWW directly with one song at a time and figure they can use their cracked DAW software and pirated plugins to DIY the mastering of their music. The people that go to a mastering engineer read too many articles in MIX or EQ or do too much surfing on the WWW and think that everything they do has to do with loudness. When you try and "reason" with them they get upset that you are "messing with my music" and they also want you to do the mastering for $5.00 a song since that is what they see on the WWW. Mastering use to be a GREAT profession and still is in many cases but sometimes I feel like a hoar selling myself to the client so they can tell me what to do and how to do it. I just had a client who brought in "bricks" of mixed songs. There was not much I could do but he wanted everything much louder. The laws of physics say I can only push things to 0dBFS but he wanted it louder.

I think until you can be a fly on the wall at some of these mastering sessions and see what REALLY goes on you should stop imagining why people do what they do.

MTCW and YMMV

Fair enough, Thomas. I appreciate that. I guess that the only thing one can really successfully glean from the web is the purely technical stuff, while musicality and good taste is a little harder to learn off the web.:wink: I really do wish I could sit in on a mastering session and who knows, one day I will. Chances are though that I might have the same experience as CoyoteTrax. Personally, I'm confident I have a good ear and I know I have a solid professional education in music. I know quality in music when I hear it. What I don't have is the technical expertise and the know-how regarding how certain pieces of equipment actually work. But since I believe that's actually gleanable off the net and from studying professional textbooks—and by becoming a member of a forum of professionals and asking them silly questionsthumb—I think I'll be OK. Of course, I'm very well aware that nothing can substitute long experience but just having decades of experience without the most important quality, namely musicality, only makes one very experienced in producing mediocre products. That reminds me of a couple of really mediocre opera stage directors I've worked with; they suffer exactly from this: loads of experience but no talent...

Thomas W. Bethel, post: 390584 wrote: I don't enjoy smashing things especially music. I love the "olde days" when the client was more concerned about how their music sounded and less about how loud it was.

The more I think about this, the more I wonder if it isn't because people don't have a nice stereo anymore. Seems like we're trying to put all the energy (volume) into the song to compensate for amplification. We need to be promoting stereo's again. Who's in charge, we need to call them lol?

audiokid, post: 390588 wrote: The more I think about this, the more I wonder if it isn't because people don't have a nice stereo anymore. Seems like we're trying to put all the energy (volume) into the song to compensate for amplification. We need to be promoting stereo's again. Who's in charge, we need to call them lol?

Oh jeeze... you had to go there, huh?

I agree that the loudness wars are, in large part, to compensate for poor amplification... but not just on empty3 players w/earbuds... but crappy computer speakers delivering poorly encoded audio and video... that is unfairly compensated to the content creator, by the content distributors... Which I also see as part of the equation of why so few people actually understand that the Mastering process is not just a plug-in with some mocked up preset.

Mastering engineers always complain about the average poor quality of the final customer audio systems. Of course most of the initial quality, obtained on a 100K$ equipment, is lost once translated on a ear-bud via a mp3 player. That's a frustrating situation when knowledge on acoustics, digital audio, speaker design has been largely improved in the last decades. But the same track on the same final system, would be even worse without the mastering stage. The mastering challenge is finding the best compromise for a correct translation on every possible sound system from mp3 ear-bud to arena line array. DIY mastering simply can't compete in this game.

I know a former ballet company artistic director whose motto is: "Backwards is the new forwards!" Just like people who got tired and annoyed with everything having to be fast all the time and started the slowfood idea, I'm sure there is mileage in the idea to promote your mastering service by saying it's going to be "complex, slow and expensive—but worth every penny!", or "for those of you who are willing to pay a little more...", or "be a true rebel—refuse conformism!" Personally, when I see commercial posters trying to get me to buy their product with phrases like "the most popular xxx — join over 2 000 000 satisfied customers!" or similar, I usually run the opposite way as fast as I can. You can be sure that whatever it is, it's manufactured in China. It's akin to the joke: "Millions of flies cannot be wrong: eat shit!"

I don't think mastering engineers actually need to be concerned with those listening to music on inferior mp3 players with earbuds, because such people are not concerned with sound quality, as evidenced by their choice of sound system. Such people will buy the record anyway for reasons other than sound quality. To them, mp3 players are "good enough for rock'n roll". Those who do have an audiophile system, however, are the ones who will hear whether you've done your job or not. Sure, they are in the minority but they are nevertheless the people who will really know whether you are a true professional or not. They are the ones obviously concerned with sound quality and probably have the musical/artistic knowledge and the good taste, too. Quantity will never equal Quality...

Serpentarius, post: 390603 wrote: Quantity will never equal Quality...

You're right, but the quality has still to find its unit for quantification. Physical values are much more easier to evaluate than subjective ones.
Note also that loud (reasonably) doesn't mean bad. Being a rebel may be the ultimate conformism...

I've just got to post an image of Katy Perry's track for you all to see. Its shocking anyone with an ear would do that to audio. I wish I could post the audio, its so terrible and so disappointing. After I bought the album, I've changed my outlook on the industry. I'm doing music for myself now, high end that is. But I'm studying it all more than ever because I know there is a secret to be found in every fad. I'm looking into small speaker mastering more than ever now.

Laurend, post: 390605 wrote: You're right, but the quality has still to find its unit for quantification. Physical values are much more easier to evaluate than subjective ones.
Note also that loud (reasonably) doesn't mean bad.

My position is you can't put a price tag on everything. This is my point: I'm not interested in "easy". "Easy" never taught anyone anything.

Laurend, post: 390605 wrote: Being a rebel may be the ultimate conformism...

I know that feels good to say, but have a look at my signature. Who today is really willing to go against the majority, on all levels, and willingly accept the consequences? And yet, that is what's needed if we are to save Quality from extinction.

Serpentarius, post: 390609 wrote: My position is you can't put a price tag on everything.

I agree. Correlating price and quality is a pure marketing scam. In a free market, prices only reflect what people are ready to pay for a service or an object. Who knows the real value of the quality?

Serpentarius, post: 390609 wrote: This is my point: I'm not interested in "easy". "Easy" never taught anyone anything.

I don't agree on this point. Almost all major technological breakthroughs have arisen because humans are lazy but imaginative: fire, wheelbarrow, cars, computers...

Serpentarius, post: 390609 wrote: I know that feels good to say, but have a look at my signature. Who today is really willing to go against the majority, on all levels, and willingly accept the consequences? And yet, that is what's needed if we are to save Quality from extinction.

Human knowledge never goes backward. Only its usage varies depending of the period and the society. The quest for audio quality will never extinguish. It will just never be mainstream.

I really tried to listen to Katy Perry's song "[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.youtube…"]Part Of Me[/]="http://www.youtube…"]Part Of Me[/]"—I couldn't stand it for more than 20 seconds. And in HD, too! Didn't help.facepalm I had a look at who the producers were she worked with: Max Martin, Tricky Stewart... As soon as I saw Max Martin's name, I knew what I could expect: nothing of quality. Producers such as he have obviously made a conscious decision to do whatever the pop industry asks for, no matter what. "You want me to make it sound like an mp3? Sure! You want it to distort? Of course! You want the listener's ears to bleed? Coming right up!" They are obviously in it for the money, nothing else. They value quantity, measured in the million albums sold and the million dollars made. They produce commercial products, and the whole point with that is to sell products and make money. It has nothing to do with music; in fact, I don't consider these people producers of music. Like Fab Dupont says in one of his Gearfest presentations: "That's good enough for Gaga and Spears, but for us who make music..."

Originally Posted by Serpentarius
This is my point: I'm not interested in "easy". "Easy" never taught anyone anything.

I don't agree on this point. Almost all major technological breakthroughs have arisen because humans are lazy but imaginative: fire, wheelbarrow, cars, computers...

OK, let me specify that: if every demand to live a comfortable life in luxury and excess was instantly satisfied, the end result would be that people would just lie in a comfortable bed, with food, drink, *** and entertainment at a push of a button, never move one muscle, never think an original thought—and thus, never learn or create anything. They would not have to invent brilliant things, because they wouldn't have to. It's kind of a Catch 22, because it's the desire to make life easier that inspires a genius to invent something that does that. As soon as life becomes easier the incentive to invent diminishes in direct proportion. So in the end the genius will be so comfortable that he will lose the desire to invent and make things even more comfortable.

Prince said once that he writes the music he wants to hear, implying that he's not satisfied by listening to other people's music. If he was he would have no inspiration or incentive to create his own. I can relate to that, because I'm the most creative when I've not listened to music for a long time. As soon as I listen to other people's music I lose much of my own creativity. Listening to other people's music makes lose my interest to create my own. Sure, you get inspired listening to good music, but only to a point. An important reason why people were generally more creative in the past is because they didn't have a nice stereo on which to listen to others' music, but had to create their own music if they wanted to have "entertainment". Today, we're flooded with all kinds of sensory impressions and it makes us passive. There's a reason for writers wanting to retire to a secluded house in the middle of nowhere, in order to find inspiration to write their next book...

Wow, automatic censorship of certain words...!

Maybe this is off topic but have a look at this cover of a Gaga track some Swedish music students made for fun:

Now, how much better is this on all levels than the original? Does it matter that the sound is not professional master quality?

I love one of the comments for this clip: "Lady Gaga just made an awful cover of this song..." :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

And here, embarrassing Justin Bieber:

Showing up Adele:

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.dirty-lo…"]Website[/]="http://www.dirty-lo…"]Website[/]

I'm sure the industry will eventually turn also this into a money-making mainstream machine. But so far I'm enjoying the complete reversal of the formula "Crap-Artist-Making-Terrible-Cover-Of-Great-Song". These guys operate according to the formula "Great-Musicians-Making-Great-Cover-Of-Crap-Song". Who the hell wants to listen to the original?

And here's what Steve Lukather had to say about Dirty Loops:

"This destroyed me. I LOVE it! THESE guys should be #1 across the world. Music would be a better place with cats at THIS level. I would LOVE to contact them just to say thanks for SOMEONE raising the bar as opposed to falling underneath it! haha"
Steve Lukather about Dirty Loops on his Facebook wall.

Serpentarius, post: 390612 wrote: hey value quantity, measured in the million albums sold and the million dollars made. They produce commercial products, and the whole point with that is to sell products and make money. It has nothing to do with music; in fact, I don't consider these people producers of music.

The serious question is how such bad products can make huge money? The mastering (absence of) quality is clearly not involved in this commercial success.

Laurend, post: 390615 wrote: The serious question is how such bad products can make huge money? The mastering (absence of) quality is clearly not involved in this commercial success.

The only answer I can think of is that the industry decides what sells and they deliberately sell crap to the masses, who lap it up because they don't know any better and are satisfied with what they get.

Before you counter that by saying "supply & demand", think about it: did the public really demand CDs in place of LPs? As far as I remember people were satisfied with LPs. The industry wasn't satisfied with LPs because they wanted to sell the same product all over again. (Check out the concept of [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.youtube…"]Planned Obsolescence[/]="http://www.youtube…"]Planned Obsolescence[/].) So they supplied the CD and made sure people believed it to be better than the LP, by spending millions in propaganda, i.e. "public relations". Once again, those sticking to LPs were in the absolute minority, but they were right.

CDs are also cheaper to manufacture and distribute than LPs. Selling new players was also a good business. The industry isn't quality driven, but money driven. Mp3 has won over SACD or any other high definition format. Because physical media are becoming obsolete, there is a place for high definition digital delivery. I hope so.

People don't really sit and listen to music anymore. They use it as a wall paper for their lives. Here in a college town I see students walking down the sidewalks with an ear bud in one ear, a cell phone glued to the other ear and talking to their friends at the same time. Talk about multitasking. When I was growing up music was something you made time for. You listened to it on your stereo and you listened to the whole sides of records. Today people listen to a couple of bars of music on their IPODs and then go to the next song. In many cases music has become the background noise source for what else they are doing. It has also gotten so cheap (read free) it has lost all value. I have one friend that has about 200 gigs of MP3s on his hard drive. Even if he did nothing but listen to music for the rest of his life he probably would not be able to listen to all he has downloaded. When Albums cost $6.00 and you were making $.90 an hour you treasured that album and played it until it almost wore out. You knew every lick and every chord by heart. Today young people say they don't care how music sounds. They listen to "their" music for the emotions it brings them or the words or both. Listening to MP3 is like eating half cooked food or food that is beyond its prime but many young people living today don't really know what good sound is all about. They don't have a stereo system they listen on ear buds or their computer speakers to MP3s with the bass on the sub-woofer turned up to 11 and think they are listening to music.

My 18 year old niece listens to "her" music at earsplitting levels on her computer speaker or ear buds and with the bass and treble controls all the way to the right and she says that it sounds good to her. I have mentioned more than once the idea of hearing loss before she is 21 but she really doesn't seem to care what will happen to her down the road. A lot of kids live for the moment and music is only there to support what else they are doing.

Some of the stuff she listens to is so distorted and messed up me ears get tired with in 20 seconds of the start of the song. She doesn't seem to mind.

Oh well maybe I am showing my age and my bias towards badly played and recorded music.

FWIW

Well, if age and quality goes together then I'm happy going old!

Funny how this has gotten so far off topic... but not a surprise...

Lets get a few facts straight, then maybe we can get back on topic...

The CD wasn't created just to sell the same content over again, it was created as an off shoot of technology advancements and to compete with declining sales due to the advent of cassette tape. You couldn't copy a CD as it was a play only format when it was originally released, and there were no plans to release any systems that would allow a direct digital replication. You could make copies via analog only, and the expectation from within the industry was since it was digital, there would soon be copy protection in place that would be of lesser quality enough to make copies not worth listening to.

Soon after the release of CD's, the computer industry saw a very nice, and CHEAP, storage medium in optical storage and quickly adopted it... as well as companies such as Kodak who adopted the medium as another "proprietary" medium for the imaging industry.

But on the whole, CD's ended up replacing cassettes and eventually, the majority of LP's. The primary reason was not because they were cheaper... they weren't, remember? It was because the general public saw the advantage of portability. You could carry 20 CD's in far less space than even a single album. When writable CD's hit the market, people could easily create personalized music selections with them to listen to at any given time.

On whole, the general public is easily fooled and led like sheep. If you tell them long enough, and loud enough that XXX is better than YYY... guess what??? XXX becomes the truth in a society... even when it isn't. Goebles proved it, and modern advertising is absolute proof. (If it wasn't true, then we wouldn't have the likes of McDonald's, Demopublicans, Republicrats or Berhringer)

The loudness wars aren't the result of mastering engineers not caring. They are the result of a pretty sharp bunch of engineering minds teaming up with advertising types, who fully understand the limitations of FM and television broadcast bandwidth. They figured out that if audio is louder, ads gained more attention for the advertisers... and thus, if you compress the dynamic range of music, it garners the same attention as a hyper compressed advertisement.

If you are in business, your goal MUST be to create a profit. There is NOTHING wrong with that. Without profit, you cannot continue to invest in your business or put anything away for your retirement. So, the average ME (and by default; tracking AE, mixing AE / studio owner ) must, at times, satisfy the client with the checkbook... and at least attempt to comply with the demand to make a client's product as loud as possible... not just for radio and television... but to also be compatible with the same unfortunate situation of the majority of music consumers who are listening to poor quality playback systems... earbuds, empty3 players, computer speakers, and the like.

It used to be that people had limited access to music... you could only experience it if it was performed. Then it was discovered that through technology, there was a means to document that performance, whereby, it could be experienced in another time and place other than the performance venue. The quality was marginal at best, but it was a new and unique experience and strides were made to improve the quality of the recording to make it more believable. From there, we got stereo as an extension of attempting to improve the sonic reality/experience.

Once it was discovered that technology was available for mass communication, AM radio brought music and entertainment to many more people who could not afford to experience live performances, or quality recordings. Strides were taken to improve that technology... and FM was born. From there, technology brought us television, 8 track and cassette... then CD's, and now we have the advent of digital content in the "lossless" formats.

The latter formats being touted as cheaper, smaller and "just as good" as what used to be non-audiophile quality. I remember when it was the norm to anguish over every component in a stereo system to get as good quality gear as one could afford, so as to get as pristine reproduction of the recording as possible.

Now, we (collectively) have succumed to the "cheaper is better" Wal-Mart mentality... because the sheeple have come to believe it through the constant bombardment of the message.

The situation that the DIY musicians are facing, is the reality that quality really doesn't matter to the vast majority... but they are not facing up to the other half of this new paradigm also dictates that not only does the quality matter less, but the support of their music is by definition of "cheaper is better... namely free", that they should not expect to be respected for their creations... as anyone can do it.

So, how does one compensate for this new reality?? By all indications that I'm seeing, is to narrow your market to exposure to appeal to those who will appreciate the creation, and fairly compensate them for it. That little bit of insight should very quickly manifest itself in improving the quality of your finished product, to enhance the value of it... to make it as enjoyable and worthwhile to your supporters.

Just as most profitable businesses are not one man operations, the business of delivering musical products are subject to the same reality. Toyota, Ford, Panasonic or Shure rely upon a team of folks to create their products. Musicians should take the same approach to bringing their product to market, if they intend to be profitable or any type of commercial success.

Sure, minimize your expenses, and attempt to maximize profits and you have a better chance at remaining viable. However, if you consistently deliver a poor live performance, poor quality recordings, etc... your profits will not exist, and just like any other business... you close your doors.

DIY mastering is the same as DIY mixing and tracking.

Until your skills meet the quality standards as set forth by such insignificant things as maximum voltages of a playback system, IM distortion, bandwidth and dynamic headroom, your are unfairly delivering sub par quality product to your clients.

There used to be (and still is for many artists) the reality that the labels didn't like to see the tracking engineer be the mixing engineer, or the mastering engineer or the cutting engineer... they were all different folks. This wasn't to run the cost up... this was to maximize the profits on the investment in the recording - as each new set of ears would have a better chance of keeping the goal of quality at the forefront... and deliver a product that the client would appreciate and support, by giving up some hard earned cash to own.

I recently took a project on, where I had to track, mix and master the project. The client had so little funding, that this was just the way it worked out. It ended up as a decent project and while I'm extremely pleased with the end result, I had to insist that the entire process was to take a much longer time to complete. I had to get away from it long enough between processes to "unlearn" the music... and even then, there was a situation that neither the artist nor I realized that was a problem, until an outside professional listened to the "final" product, and pointed it out to me... which HAD to be corrected before it went to market... all because the same poor SOD (me) ended up doing all of the processes and because of excessive exposure, just blindly overlooked.

So, yes...to get back on topic, IMHO, mastering your own work is the single biggest mistake you can make. That doesn't mean that in the low/no budget DIY world that you must send your work to one of the major ME's in the industry... it just means you'd be smart to not handle every single step of delivering finished product yourself.

MadMax, post: 390623 wrote: .... That doesn't mean that in the low/no budget DIY world that you must send your work to one of the major ME's in the industry... it just means you'd be smart to not handle every single step of delivering finished product yourself.

Playing devil's advocate, it also means you are stating flat out that no-one has the ability to master something that they were involved in during the recording process. That may be your opinion, and for the most part it may be true, but I doubt that it's a fact. Personally I take that as a challenge- there must be SOME people in this world with the ability to do that.

In my view if the mix is right then - in terms of improved audio - I don't see what mastering can bring to the table, in fact, for me, when the mix is finished, my expectation of the mastering process is to affect the recording in the least ways possible.

aj113, post: 390672 wrote: In my view if the mix is right then - in terms of improved audio - I don't see what mastering can bring to the table, in fact, for me, when the mix is finished, my expectation of the mastering process is to affect the recording in the least ways possible.

Mix is the keystone of the production quality. But mastering brings the final touch. It can vary from a subtle polish to massive steroid dose.

aj113, post: 390672 wrote: Playing devil's advocate, it also means you are stating flat out that no-one has the ability to master something that they were involved in during the recording process. That may be your opinion, and for the most part it may be true, but I doubt that it's a fact. Personally I take that as a challenge- there must be SOME people in this world with the ability to do that.

In my view if the mix is right then - in terms of improved audio - I don't see what mastering can bring to the table, in fact, for me, when the mix is finished, my expectation of the mastering process is to affect the recording in the least ways possible.

I'm glad you're playing devil's advocate, but you really should have read the preceding paragraph;

I recently took a project on, where I had to track, mix and master the project. The client had so little funding, that this was just the way it worked out. It ended up as a decent project and while I'm extremely pleased with the end result, I had to insist that the entire process was to take a much longer time to complete. I had to get away from it long enough between processes to "unlearn" the music... and even then, there was a situation that neither the artist nor I realized that was a problem, until an outside professional listened to the "final" product, and pointed it out to me... which HAD to be corrected before it went to market... all because the same poor SOD (me) ended up doing all of the processes and because of excessive exposure, just blindly overlooked.

So, you pull the summation sentence of my post, which states that while you can do every single step (of recording, mixing and mastering) yourself, but that it's usually a wise OPTION not to - to draw an entirely opposite meaning of my statement.

Now, it's MY turn to play... so... in your opinion, mastering is a needless step, and isn't anything to be concerned with... If that's the case, then why do software plug ins, and external hardware units even exist to perform this one task... and additionally, why are there mastering engineers and mastering shops... and why have they existed in the production chain since the virtual beginning of the recording industry, if it's some useless step?

I suppose everyone's had good arguments on both sides. I suppose my ultimate bottom line is this: if something sounds good to you, you will go with it no matter what someone else says. You hear and read all the time the truism: "if it sounds good, it is." This is probably a truth with some modification. However, let's say you've mastered a track and play it to another mastering professional who doesn't like what you've done. It all depends on whether you want it that way or not. If you do, then the other guy's criticism is only his opinion, albeit a professional one. You might be a professional as well, and you have your professional opinion. What matters in the end is whether you have good musical taste or not. And good taste in music cannot be learned—it can be cultivated if it's there to begin with, but not learned if it's not there. So the mastering engineers who mastered Katy Perry or Metallica certainly made their professional decisions, and obviously decided consciously to master their projects the way they did. Many professionals and amateurs on this forum rightly criticize them for their mastering decisions, and many amateurs have as much good musical taste and good ears as any professional, if not more, depending on the specific individual case.