There was an almost complete disconnect between the audio and the video. I don't think he referred to what was on screen for more than 20 seconds of the five minute video. What he said was perfectly reasonable (assuming there were earlier lessons on compression vs. limiting). But if you just looked at the screen and didn't listen you might think that mastering was a matter of leveling the frequency spectrum and mowing down the peaks. This is compounded by YouTube's filters and my crappy computer speakers which didn't exactly bring out the low frequency.

I know of only the most rudimentary techniques of mastering. But I would say that in the case of this song, it's a mixing problem, not a mastering problem. The ultra low freq should have been addressed during the mix session. LIkewise with the peaks. Much could have been solved with simple level control. Compression would have been my tool of choice to tame any vocal anomalies. Limiting would be reserved for mastering if needed.

BobRogers is correct, the first half of the video had really nothing to do with the audio. The lo freq will be quite pronounced in a quality playback environment especially if you have a subwoofer.

Again, I would send this back to the mix engineer and tell them to do their job before handing it off to the ME.

1. at 2:48 there is a dropout in the song ... ;-)
So back to the mixer..lol..

Compressing and limiting is usually always applied, unless Classic or some Jazz mixes.
Just the amount and the frequency range have to be set right to fit the song and style...
Good thing that we have multiband compressors and limiters, too.
With those you can tweak a lot without becomming too noticable, maybe not at all.

As so many, I am against this loudness craze, but in ALL cases when the customer wanted the tracks kept uncompressed and not ( beware ) limited, they have all happily chosen the version were I applied just a little ... this and that....

They don't have to know everything, do they ..?
;-)