Adventures in Mastering

[Anderton]

In case anyone wonders why I haven't posted any new songs since December, I'm culling the best ones, making some tweaks, and doing the mastering, all with the idea of creating an album. What inspired me to do an album is because I was at New Music Seminar and a guy giving career advice said "Don't do albums, it's a singles world." Having been around long enough to realize that when something becomes conventional wisdom it's time to go the other way, I started creating a continuous album where there are no breaks between songs, only transitions.

 

Having not mastered an album that wasn't just a collection of singles in quite a while, I'd forgotten that it can get pretty complicated and this is where the fun began. The songs were all recorded in SONAR, and I do album assembly in Studio One. However, Studio One is designed for a very specific method of album assembly, and isn't a big fan of overlapping intros/outros beyond simple crossfades.

 

So I thought about assembling in SONAR, creating a giant wav file, and then bringing it into SOP to add markers and create a DDP master. But SOP makes it really easy to shift song orders around, much easier than "drag/drop/close hole" in SONAR. So, each program did something the other one didn't do, but I needed each program's functionality.

 

I ended up doing assembly in SOP, then switching back to SONAR to create the transitions. Some of these were somewhat complex, like having it start off at the tempo or key of the song fading out, then change slowly to the tempo or key of the next song fading in. So I'd create the transition in SONAR, go back to SOP, try it, see whether it worked or not, go back to SONAR if necessary, etc. And of course, if I changed the song order I usually had to do a little re-thinking...nor did SOP particular like it when the length of a transition changed...

 

Anyway, I'm getting there! When it's done, as a thank-you to the forum and particularly the SSS Production Squad whose comments helped improve the songs tremendously, I'll be posting a link to download the entire album as a 320 kbps MP3 file.

[MikeRivers]

What lathe are you using?

[AlamoJoe]

I'll be looking forward to it Maestro!

[dboomer]

What lathe are you using?

 

 

 

I'm with Mike here (I think). "Mastering" doesn't have the same meaning as it did years ago when you mastered so that your recording could be printed on vinyl. There were things that had to be changed from the "mixed" 2 track to allow it to be transferred to vinyl. But now days mastering basically just means "mixing" as whatever your mix is can be transferred to a digital format with the only real restriction being level.

 

 

[Anderton]

Mastering was about much more than just transferring to vinyl. With albums, that was the stage where you finalized song order, created crossfades if needed, made tweaks to adjust track-to-track consistency, and sometimes, bumped up the speed of a cut by a per cent or two if the song was perceived to be "dragging." You didn't just hire a mastering engineer for the ears required to do a vinyl transfer, but also because presumably those ears had insights on how to assemble an album.

 

Furthermore, mastering was always about matching the mix to the medium, which was not just vinyl. We did separate masters for vinyl and cassette, and during the transition to digital in the 80s, some albums had separate masters for duplication to vinyl, cassette, and CD.

 

These days, you might be mastering for primarily MP3 playback, dance mixes on a club floor, or making a track so it's compatible with vinyl if the client ends up wanting to press a limited run. I master my mixes to try and hit the sweet spot between dynamic range, but with enough level consistency to work in a club mix. I

 

I've never met a mix that couldn't benefit from a little final tweakage, even including classical music where I often adjust spacing between cuts during assembly. 2 seconds is not always optimum by any means.

 

Album assembly is a lost art...hence my posting this thread.

[blue2blue]

In case anyone wonders why I haven't posted any new songs since December, I'm culling the best ones, making some tweaks, and doing the mastering, all with the idea of creating an album. What inspired me to do an album is because I was at New Music Seminar and a guy giving career advice said "Don't do albums, it's a singles world." Having been around long enough to realize that when something becomes conventional wisdom it's time to go the other way, I started creating a continuous album where there are no breaks between songs, only transitions.

 

Having not mastered an album that wasn't just a collection of singles in quite a while, I'd forgotten that it can get pretty complicated and this is where the fun began. The songs were all recorded in SONAR, and I do album assembly in Studio One. However, Studio One is designed for a very specific method of album assembly, and isn't a big fan of overlapping intros/outros beyond simple crossfades.

 

So I thought about assembling in SONAR, creating a giant wav file, and then bringing it into SOP to add markers and create a DDP master. But SOP makes it really easy to shift song orders around, much easier than "drag/drop/close hole" in SONAR. So, each program did something the other one didn't do, but I needed each program's functionality.

 

I ended up doing assembly in SOP, then switching back to SONAR to create the transitions. Some of these were somewhat complex, like having it start off at the tempo or key of the song fading out, then change slowly to the tempo or key of the next song fading in. So I'd create the transition in SONAR, go back to SOP, try it, see whether it worked or not, go back to SONAR if necessary, etc. And of course, if I changed the song order I usually had to do a little re-thinking...nor did SOP particular like it when the length of a transition changed...

 

Anyway, I'm getting there! When it's done, as a thank-you to the forum and particularly the SSS Production Squad whose comments helped improve the songs tremendously, I'll be posting a link to download the entire album as a 320 kbps MP3 file.

Assuming it was for Redbook, did you consider CD Architect? It's got a similar drag and drop interface to Vegas, auto-crossfades with overridable defaults, etc, would seem very familiar from your time with Vegas. (Or Sonar, for the most part.)

 

[Anderton]

I have both, and I much prefer SOP to CD Architect. It will be for Red Book, but last time I checked, CDA didn't have DDP or upgraded diagnostics.

[dboomer]

Mastering was about much more than just transferring to vinyl. With albums, that was the stage where you finalized song order, created crossfades if needed, made tweaks to adjust track-to-track consistency, and sometimes, bumped up the speed of a cut by a per cent or two if the song was perceived to be "dragging." You didn't just hire a mastering engineer for the ears required to do a vinyl transfer, but also because presumably those ears had insights on how to assemble an album.

 

 

 

 

Not to split hairs... But I was trying to point out ( for those too young to remember😉) that mastering for vinyl had an objective element while mixing is a subjective one. With vinyl mastering you had to do certain things to make certain that the disk could play back with a needle in the groove. It is possible to record to tape or digital material that would produce a peak rather than a groove which of course cannot be left to stand. You also likely have to manipulate levels to be able to include a certain amount of time per side (assuming you are printing to 2 sides) and apply RIAA curves. None of this is mandatory when going to digital.

 

 

 

Song order, levels, crossfades are a preference thing and there is a lot of latitude. So in this case the mastering engineer is mainly just another guy with an opinion. So in my mind "mastering" is just a subset of "mixing" these days.

 

 

 

Arent you you glad you are not in my mind? 😄

[MikeRivers]

 

Not to split hairs... But I was trying to point out ( for those too young to remember😉) that mastering for vinyl had an objective element while mixing is a subjective one. With vinyl mastering you had to do certain things to make certain that the disk could play back with a needle in the groove. It is possible to record to tape or digital material that would produce a peak rather than a groove which of course cannot be left to stand. You also likely have to manipulate levels to be able to include a certain amount of time per side (assuming you are printing to 2 sides) and apply RIAA curves. None of this is mandatory when going to digital.

 

The difference between mastering then and now, other than the obvious mechanical concerns and differences, is that while we often gave instructions to the mastering house like level adjustments, occasionally do a little EQ to make the transistions between songs smoother, or maybe add a little overall reverb (since mastering studios often had better reverbs than smaller recording studios). Since delivery for vinyl mastering was almost always on analog tape, adjusting song-to-song level and EQ at the mastering stage saved a generation in the studio, But it was rare that the mastering house was given instructions to do whatever they thought was necessary to make the whole record sound better (or sound like Led Zepplin).

 

Initially, CD mastering was limited to preparing the glass master (or the tape used to make it) and inserting P and Q codes. The 1980s were still days when most recording was done in professional studios and the goal was to have the record sound as close as possible to the tape delivered for mastering, even on CD. It wasn't until more recordings were coming from studios with not very accurate monitoring, and made by people without a lot of experience - in other words, recordings with correctable flaws that the studio wasn't able to hear. That's when the first step in "mastering" became to correct the basic flaws in the recording and get it to sound like a good recording when heard in an accurate listening environment.

 

Then the tweaks like levels and crossfades could be done, it could be made louder, and whatever else the client wanted. Song order was easier to change when it didn't involve splicing tape so that decision could be postponed until near the end of the process. The client may have supplied alternate mixes and ask the mastering engineer which one worked best once all the faults were fized and the recording was heard in an accurate envornment. And it could me made louder.

 

There are probably more mastering engineers working today than ever before since the major investment is in monitors and acoustics rather than a cutting lathe and mechanical and electronic maintenance.

 

 

[blue2blue]

I have both' date=' and I much prefer SOP to CD Architect. It will be for Red Book, but last time I checked, CDA didn't have DDP or upgraded diagnostics.[/quote']

 

That's true, about the DDP, at least as far as CDA 5.2, which is the latest, far as I know.

 

I was mostly just thinking of how easy the crossfades are in it.

[Anderton]

 

 

 

Not to split hairs... But I was trying to point out ( for those too young to remember😉) that mastering for vinyl had an objective element while mixing is a subjective one. With vinyl mastering you had to do certain things to make certain that the disk could play back with a needle in the groove. It is possible to record to tape or digital material that would produce a peak rather than a groove which of course cannot be left to stand. You also likely have to manipulate levels to be able to include a certain amount of time per side (assuming you are printing to 2 sides) and apply RIAA curves. None of this is mandatory when going to digital.

 

Song order, levels, crossfades are a preference thing and there is a lot of latitude. So in this case the mastering engineer is mainly just another guy with an opinion. So in my mind "mastering" is just a subset of "mixing" these days.

 

Maybe it's time to re-define what "mastering" is if you want it to pertain only to the elements involved in matching the music to the distribution medium. But traditionally, mastering was considered a procedure separate from mixing, and including artistic as well as technical elements that applied only to the final stereo or surround mix.

 

 

[blue2blue]

 

Maybe it's time to re-define what "mastering" is if you want it to pertain only to the elements involved in matching the music to the distribution medium. But traditionally, mastering was considered a procedure separate from mixing, and including artistic as well as technical elements that applied only to the final stereo or surround mix.

 

 

I think that's a nicely narrowed definition that certainly fits 'mastering' as I learned its role in the last days before the introduction of the CD.

 

I'm sure some situations saw ME's -- or cutting engineers as they were also often called -- performing fairly extensive last minute fixes -- but that was what they were seen to be, last minute fixes. You'd submit your track lists and such, along with notes on any little EQ or compression fixes you'd want. That said, on one project, at the urging of the (very experienced) ME running the cutting lathe, we added just a micro-touch of reverb to one troubled track. The track in question had originally been from a demo and pulled forward and remixed on the cheap when it was decided to expand the EP for marketing reasons. (In this case, because of the importance of the project to the band, me and the my fellow co-producer were at the cutting session. Otherwise, he would have just followed our track list notes, of course.)

 

 

But practice shifts and we now see a very fragmented process: tracking engineers; overdub engineers; mix engineers, mastering engineers.

 

And then you get things like the move among some ME's to get deeper in the mixing process by preferring stemmed submixes to conventional stereo mixes...

[MikeRivers]

 

Maybe it's time to re-define what "mastering" is if you want it to pertain only to the elements involved in matching the music to the distribution medium.

 

I've been trying to do that for years. It doesn't work. Today, those who release music independently (and that's most of the releases, though not where most of the money is) only know "mastering" as it's commonly interpreted today - that is, make this a better recording than I could make.

 

But traditionally, mastering was considered a procedure separate from mixing, and including artistic as well as technical elements that applied only to the final stereo or surround mix.

 

There were, traditionally, pretty clear areas where the mastering engineer could act independently and where he acted based on guidance or specific requests from the client (more specific than "make it sould better/louder"). It was the mastering engineer who knew how to fit the grooves on the record and was aware of certain losses for which there could be at least partial compensation, and it was his job to do that. When CDs came along, tweaks that were necessary for cutting the lacquer were replaced by tweaks necessary for making the CD master. Instead of using compression to keep the low level program material above the noise floor of the lacquer, compression or limiting was used to assure that there were no peaks that tried to exceed full scale, and often the lowest levels were boosted to get above the noise floor of the listening environment.

 

That's as far as "traditional mastering" should go. Anything else is fixing problems and enhancing the final mix to make it sound more like a "professioinal" product. There's no reason why this shouldn't be another job, by another person, if he has the tools and skills to do it. It can be a good gig. The band doesn't cancel at the last minute, he doesn't have to wait for the guitarist to change strings or the drummer to tighten the heads, he doesn't have to find a polite way to tell the bass player that he's just not playing it right, he doesn't have to re-tune the singer's vocals, and he doesn't have to make coffee all day for half a dozen people.

 

Well, OK, so some vocals were re-tuned during lacquer mastering by putting the whole band out of tune (speeding up or slowing down the tape for an out of tune word). But those for for clients who could afford their own coffee.

 

 

 

 

[Anderton]

But if the only purpose of the mastering engineer is to follow directions and deal with technical issues, why would anyone care about hiring someone for their ears?

 

When I work with mastering engineers it's always a partnership. It's the same concept as why magazines have editors for their authors. It not just about trimming to fit word count...

[MikeRivers]

But if the only purpose of the mastering engineer is to follow directions and deal with technical issues' date=' why would anyone care about hiring someone for their ears? [/quote']

 

Because people need help getting the best sound on record. You do the best job you can with the tools and taste that you have, then you pass the job of improving on it to someone else. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think it's right to redefine "mastering" to mean that.

 

We need a more politically correct term for "turd polishing." If it has to be "mastering," then so be it. I can't fight culture change.

 

 

[dboomer]

But if the only purpose of the mastering engineer is to follow directions and deal with technical issues ...

 

 

 

 

So why didn't the mixing engineer do this in the first place?

 

 

 

 

[Anderton]

So why didn't the mixing engineer do this in the first place?

 

I dunno, maybe times have changed but do mixing engineers typically do album assembly? Often the credits I see on albums list numerous engineers in numerous studios. Does one of them get designated as the album assembly/timbre matching/level matching dude?

 

I know my most challenging mastering projects have been the ones involving compilations that were recorded at different times, or in different studios, or by different engineers, or some combination of the above.

[Anderton]

 

Because people need help getting the best sound on record. You do the best job you can with the tools and taste that you have, then you pass the job of improving on it to someone else. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think it's right to redefine "mastering" to mean that.

 

But isn't that what mastering has always meant? When we were mixing down for two-track to vinyl we knew enough to do things to make life easier for the mastering engineer...things like steep rolloffs below 50 Hz, and thinking ahead for our song selection so that we wouldn't be pounding the inner groove distortion. But that didn't make us mastering engineers. We still needed that final link in the chain before duplication, which involved more than just fitting grooves into plastic.

 

I guess I just find it hard to believe that an entire element of mastering that was crucial in the days of vinyl, album assembly, isn't considered "real" mastering any more because you don't have the constraints of vinyl.

[MikeRivers]

 

I dunno, maybe times have changed but do mixing engineers typically do album assembly?

 

We used to, or at least I used to. Splice the songs together with leader between them so the cutting lathe knows where to make bands. If it levels were a little bumpy or the channel balance was a little off, it wasn't unusual (or cheating) to give instructions for mastering to drop a particular song by 2 dB, or raise the right channel of a song by 1 dB. That's easy to do in real time mastering. But the instructions were rarely "do whatever you think will make it sound right."

 

I know my most challenging mastering projects have been the ones involving compilations that were recorded at different times, or in different studios, or by different engineers, or some combination of the above.

 

This is something relatively new (like within the last 25 years new) and it's why "mastering" has developed into what it is today.

 

Understand that I don't have any objection to there being someone not associated with the recording or mixing process to do these tweaks in accordance with either instructions (old school) or in accordiance with his taste and experience (new school). I just think it needs a better name than "mastering."

 

 

[MikeRivers]

 

But isn't that what mastering has always meant? When we were mixing down for two-track to vinyl we knew enough to do things to make life easier for the mastering engineer...things like steep rolloffs below 50 Hz, and thinking ahead for our song selection so that we wouldn't be pounding the inner groove distortion. But that didn't make us mastering engineers. We still needed that final link in the chain before duplication, which involved more than just fitting grooves into plastic.

 

Sometimes we did, sometimes we didn't. All of the major studios had mastering department and there was a certain understanding as to how much leeway the people in the mastering shop had in making decisions other than what was required to get a good cut. When mastering became an outside job, that's about the time that less "ready for mastering" recordings were coming out of studios, and they relied on the mastering studio, which had really good monitors and equalizers and compressors and reverbs, as well as good ears and good judgment, to clean up an unfinished recording.

 

I guess I just find it hard to believe that an entire element of mastering that was crucial in the days of vinyl, album assembly, isn't considered "real" mastering any more because you don't have the constraints of vinyl.

 

It depends on what you mean by "album assembly." Any studio that had a concept of the project delivered a master tape that had all the songs in sequence. They did this because they (and the clients and producers) needed to hear the songs in order to know if it works as an album. And once they do that, the can (or at least should be able to) make judgments about song-to-song level and EQ adjustments and give the mastering engineer specific directions for that. The decisions were made at the client/producer level and that's what they expected to hear when they dropped the needle on the test pressiong or played the reference CD.

 

I guess that my point is that leaving the turd polishing to an outside mastering engineer shouldn't be necessary, but today it is because recordings don't come out of the studio as good as they should, or that producrers have come to rely on someone outside the studio to put the final polish on the project.

 

[Anderton]

I guess that my point is that leaving the turd polishing to an outside mastering engineer shouldn't be necessary, but today it is because recordings don't come out of the studio as good as they should, or that producrers have come to rely on someone outside the studio to put the final polish on the project.

 

Why does it always have to be "turd polishing?" Why can't it be artists who don't want to compromise, and make something really good even better? People don't necessarily pay me to master recordings because there's anything wrong with the recording; in fact a lot of what I get is excellent and would have no problem being released as is. But I'm able to add that extra 5%, and for some people it's worth going to a specialist who can do that, whether it's me or someone else.

[MikeRivers]

 

Why does it always have to be "turd polishing?" Why can't it be artists who don't want to compromise, and make something really good even better?

 

OK, I say "turd polishing" and you say "burnish to a fine satin finish."

 

And why would an artist who didn't want to compromise leave the studio with something that they know could be even better?

 

People don't necessarily pay me to master recordings because there's anything wrong with the recording; in fact a lot of what I get is excellent and would have no problem being released as is. But I'm able to add that extra 5%, and for some people it's worth going to a specialist who can do that, whether it's me or someone else.

 

If that's what makes them happy, fine. It's good that there are people like you who can be trusted to do no harm and make improvements that the client didn't know could be made. And some may just want the experienced ear of Craig Anderton to listen to their music and bring it a little closer in line with your taste (which may be different than that of another mastering engineer).

 

[dboomer]

 

 

 

I dunno, maybe times have changed but do mixing engineers typically do album assembly?

 

 

 

I guess times have changed. What's an "album"? 😉

 

 

 

 

[dboomer]

 

 

 

As I said, just because something is excellent and release-ready doesn't mean it can't be made even better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My quandry always is ... Where does it end. Wouldn't 2 desserts be better?

 

 

[MikeRivers]

 

As I said, just because something is excellent and release-ready doesn't mean it can't be made even better.

 

True, sometimes, but that doesn't mean that it you're obligated to make it better. Now I know that technically "mastering" isn't an obligation, particularly if there won't be a vinyl or CD distribution, but anybody will tell you "your song doesn't sound like a commercial CD because it hasn't been mastered." This may be true in some instances, but mostlly these days it's because the project isn't release-ready and really needs some help from someone with different tools and skills in order to bring it closer to commercial quality.

 

Here's an analogy. You go to a restaurant, and have a fabulous meal. But you like the desserts at another restaurant better, so you go to that restaurant just for the dessert.

 

I don't think that's a very good analogy. It's like buying one record because you like the songs and buying another record because you like the drummer better.

 

A better analogy is that you hire a handyman to paint your house, then hire a real painter to look over the handyman's job carefully and paint the parts that your handyman missed, smooth out the ripples that he finds, clean the spattered paint off the windows, and re-paint the sign by the driveway with the house number on it. The difference between this and your restaurant analogy is that the product (the painted house) was protected from the weather by the first painter, but really made to look like a professional job by the second painter. .

 

Again, I'll repeat that I don't think that improvement is never necessary. I just think that what people expect to get out of a "mastering" job today goes beyond the classic description of the process. Just give it a new name, will ya?