The F.A.Q... Always a mystery, always under construction. This one in particular. :-) What is mastering anyway?
In short, mastering is the creation of the production master. The "final destination" of all the files, assembled to a compliant format from which all "on the shelf" copies will be made.
"Way back when" the whole point of the process was to affect the audio as little as possible while creating that production master. Over the last couple decades, it's "grown" to some extent to be the "handshake" between the production process and the replication process. The mastering engineer is generally charged with taking the original mixes and "tweaking" them into sounding like they all belong on the same record. Creating a master with a cohesive sound that has the right "flow" to fit the mixes.
A lot of people mistakenly think that mastering is al about "making it really loud" -- While the mastering phase is the "right time" for such things, it's pretty low on the list of priorities. The first is to bring out the best qualities and minimize the worst qualities of the recordings. Getting them "loud" is an afterthought.
"Way back when" the whole point of the process was to affect the audio as little as possible while creating that production master. Over the last couple decades, it's "grown" to some extent to be the "handshake" between the production process and the replication process. The mastering engineer is generally charged with taking the original mixes and "tweaking" them into sounding like they all belong on the same record. Creating a master with a cohesive sound that has the right "flow" to fit the mixes.
A lot of people mistakenly think that mastering is al about "making it really loud" -- While the mastering phase is the "right time" for such things, it's pretty low on the list of priorities. The first is to bring out the best qualities and minimize the worst qualities of the recordings. Getting them "loud" is an afterthought.
Does MASSIVE offer free samples like (some other places)?
How do I put this… Generally, no. Although the occasional exception is made here and there.
We advertised the "free sample" thing once - Somewhere around three dozen requests came in by the time I had a minute to quickly take it down. It was up for less than 24 hours.
No one can keep up with that sort of demand for sample / speculative work if there's a reasonably steady workload.**
We still get plenty of requests -- As the "in thing" at the moment seems to be the "free sample" master. Many of us call it "cattle-calls" (from the general term for theater and modeling auditions where hundreds show up for one part in a production). Some web sites and forums actually add fuel to the fire -- I know more than a few occasions where a "sample request" was made and dozens and dozens responded. I used to respond to a couple here and there myself, "getting the gig" more times than not.
One time, a client said "We had 63 samples sent and decided on using you." On one hand, sure, that was nice. On the other hand, 62 other engineers didn't get that gig. That seemed like an incredible waste of time. I don't go into a restaurant looking for a steak and asking for free samples of steak from a dozen different places before I decide where to eat. WIth the occasional recording project, I don't even go to a dozen different studios to find a place to record. I do a little basic research, find a few places that seem like they might be the "right" place and work from there. Check the gear lists, check the client lists, contact the chief engineer, choose a studio.
One colleague likens the "free sample" craze as "Going downtown and asking h**kers for a sample b**w-job" (which I found absolutely hilarious - and unnervingly relevant).
** I'm not trying to 'diss' the places that offer free samples - If they have enough time to do them, that's great. MASSIVE isn't the biggest shop in the world, but we aren't exactly an unknown quantity either -- We have a solid reputation of quality work above all else. Believe me - We're absolutely grateful that we're busy enough to not need to do a lot of "sample" work.
So here's the final word --- If you've done your research - If you've listened to samples, looked at gear lists, checked references, rates and all that nifty stuff and you're torn between here and some other place, let me know and I'll see if we can set you up with some sort of sample. On the filp-side, if you're sending a file (or a bunch of files, as it happens occasionally) to 25 different studios without even bothering to seriously check any information on them, you should probably do a little research first.
Communication and research are key in this business -- And "blind samples" are rarely the way to find the best facility for you.
We advertised the "free sample" thing once - Somewhere around three dozen requests came in by the time I had a minute to quickly take it down. It was up for less than 24 hours.
No one can keep up with that sort of demand for sample / speculative work if there's a reasonably steady workload.**
We still get plenty of requests -- As the "in thing" at the moment seems to be the "free sample" master. Many of us call it "cattle-calls" (from the general term for theater and modeling auditions where hundreds show up for one part in a production). Some web sites and forums actually add fuel to the fire -- I know more than a few occasions where a "sample request" was made and dozens and dozens responded. I used to respond to a couple here and there myself, "getting the gig" more times than not.
One time, a client said "We had 63 samples sent and decided on using you." On one hand, sure, that was nice. On the other hand, 62 other engineers didn't get that gig. That seemed like an incredible waste of time. I don't go into a restaurant looking for a steak and asking for free samples of steak from a dozen different places before I decide where to eat. WIth the occasional recording project, I don't even go to a dozen different studios to find a place to record. I do a little basic research, find a few places that seem like they might be the "right" place and work from there. Check the gear lists, check the client lists, contact the chief engineer, choose a studio.
One colleague likens the "free sample" craze as "Going downtown and asking h**kers for a sample b**w-job" (which I found absolutely hilarious - and unnervingly relevant).
** I'm not trying to 'diss' the places that offer free samples - If they have enough time to do them, that's great. MASSIVE isn't the biggest shop in the world, but we aren't exactly an unknown quantity either -- We have a solid reputation of quality work above all else. Believe me - We're absolutely grateful that we're busy enough to not need to do a lot of "sample" work.
So here's the final word --- If you've done your research - If you've listened to samples, looked at gear lists, checked references, rates and all that nifty stuff and you're torn between here and some other place, let me know and I'll see if we can set you up with some sort of sample. On the filp-side, if you're sending a file (or a bunch of files, as it happens occasionally) to 25 different studios without even bothering to seriously check any information on them, you should probably do a little research first.
Communication and research are key in this business -- And "blind samples" are rarely the way to find the best facility for you.
What tools are used in mastering?
The general tools are compression and equalization. A "normal" (for lack of a better term) chain may consist of a collection of transparent and colored EQ's, compressors and converters. Perhaps the odd limiter here or there.
Occasionally, more "radical" tools may be employed -- De-essing, multi-band (a.k.a. "maul-the-band") compression, noise reduction units, pop, click, hum removal, etc.
Occasionally, more "radical" tools may be employed -- De-essing, multi-band (a.k.a. "maul-the-band") compression, noise reduction units, pop, click, hum removal, etc.
And then what?
Every mix asks for whatever it needs. To get a collection of mixes to sound cohesive, the dynamic range of each mix is adjusted to fit in with the rest - Or perhaps just the one before it - or after it - or both - What's good for a particular mix might not be the best thing for the project. It's a holistic approach, but at the micro-level.
Why no limiting or buss compression on my mixes?
Good question - A lot of people think that it's because the mastering engineer wants to "take credit" for volume (and the misconception leads a lot of people to think that mastering is only about volume).
But the truth, of course, is something completely different -- The reason that nothing should be done for the sake of volume is that it can limit (no pun intended) what the mastering engineer can do during the session. For example - A steady state noise which might be very easy to minimize while it is a steady-state noise might be nearly impossible to attack if the overall levels in the mix are fluctuating. Sibilance (which should really be taken care of in the mix anyway) can go from a simple nuisance that might be lessened considerably can "flat-top" into uncorrectable distortion, making any effort during the mastering phase more or less futile.
If you want to hear how your mix might handle the eventual "abuse" during the mastering phase, then by all means, throw a limiter on it and squash it to mush. It can actually be an ear-opening experience, as some elements that may have gone under the radar are obvious and obnoxious.
Fix those things and try it again. But make sure the rendered files sent to the mastering facility don't have that limiter in place.
A little buss compression is an entirely different thing -- Mixing into a buss compressor (not the same as adding it later, which can very easily lead to over-compression) can be just what a mix needs to "glue it together" somewhat. A dB or two can make a fairly dramatic difference. But again, don't overdo it - If the mix is asking for more than a dB or two, find out what is too dynamic in the mix before subjecting the whole mix to compression it might very well not need.
But the truth, of course, is something completely different -- The reason that nothing should be done for the sake of volume is that it can limit (no pun intended) what the mastering engineer can do during the session. For example - A steady state noise which might be very easy to minimize while it is a steady-state noise might be nearly impossible to attack if the overall levels in the mix are fluctuating. Sibilance (which should really be taken care of in the mix anyway) can go from a simple nuisance that might be lessened considerably can "flat-top" into uncorrectable distortion, making any effort during the mastering phase more or less futile.
If you want to hear how your mix might handle the eventual "abuse" during the mastering phase, then by all means, throw a limiter on it and squash it to mush. It can actually be an ear-opening experience, as some elements that may have gone under the radar are obvious and obnoxious.
Fix those things and try it again. But make sure the rendered files sent to the mastering facility don't have that limiter in place.
A little buss compression is an entirely different thing -- Mixing into a buss compressor (not the same as adding it later, which can very easily lead to over-compression) can be just what a mix needs to "glue it together" somewhat. A dB or two can make a fairly dramatic difference. But again, don't overdo it - If the mix is asking for more than a dB or two, find out what is too dynamic in the mix before subjecting the whole mix to compression it might very well not need.
What exactly is "One Pass" mastering?
I can see why it could be confusing occasionally... I've seen some places that have "one pass" and "two pass" - - Even three pass mastering. I have no idea what it means. I guess they do an "okay" job with "one pass" and then a "nice" job with "two pass" and then a "really good" job with "three pass."
That freaks me out. We've called "one pass" mastering "one pass" mastering for a long time now. So to do away with any confusion:
ONE PASS MASTERING - At MASSIVE Mastering means:
Treating the entire recording as a single track.
Let me explain why you'd want to do something so odd...
Live recordings -- Orchestral, usually -- You make a recording of a concert and nothing changes from piece to piece. Or certain live-tracked "jam session" recordings where the tracking settings are made, the band does their thing, and then the same for the mixes. You wind up with a very consistent sound from track to track that can be processed with a single "global" setting.
During the mastering session, at the client's request, "one pass" mastering would entail finding a single setting that works for the entire recording and then process it in one pass from start to finish. It's not "corner cutting" -- It's not an "okay" job -- It's treating a very consistent recording very consistently.
Why does it cost less? Well, it takes less time to document 10 recall sheets than it does for one. It takes less time to process a collection of tracks if they're all using the same settings on the same gear.
"One Pass" mastering is NOT "I'll use the good gear on the next pass" -- And it's not for every project. It's very rare that it's used, very rare that it's asked for. But it's certainly a valid option for some projects.
That freaks me out. We've called "one pass" mastering "one pass" mastering for a long time now. So to do away with any confusion:
ONE PASS MASTERING - At MASSIVE Mastering means:
Treating the entire recording as a single track.
Let me explain why you'd want to do something so odd...
Live recordings -- Orchestral, usually -- You make a recording of a concert and nothing changes from piece to piece. Or certain live-tracked "jam session" recordings where the tracking settings are made, the band does their thing, and then the same for the mixes. You wind up with a very consistent sound from track to track that can be processed with a single "global" setting.
During the mastering session, at the client's request, "one pass" mastering would entail finding a single setting that works for the entire recording and then process it in one pass from start to finish. It's not "corner cutting" -- It's not an "okay" job -- It's treating a very consistent recording very consistently.
Why does it cost less? Well, it takes less time to document 10 recall sheets than it does for one. It takes less time to process a collection of tracks if they're all using the same settings on the same gear.
"One Pass" mastering is NOT "I'll use the good gear on the next pass" -- And it's not for every project. It's very rare that it's used, very rare that it's asked for. But it's certainly a valid option for some projects.
What is the world's fastest animal?
This is also a source of much confusion -- Many people would almost reflexively answer "the cheetah." And while the cheetah's 70 MPH bursts of speed are certainly impressive for any land animal, the Peregrine Falcon has been clocked at speeds in excess of 230 MPH in a downward swoop while chasing prey.
What does that have to do with mastering?
Nothing! I just thought it was cool. Hey, you do what you want on your blog. :-)
What does that have to do with mastering?
Nothing! I just thought it was cool. Hey, you do what you want on your blog. :-)
Why don't the track titles on my master disc show up on iTunes and other computer players?
Allow me to send you here: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93094
And here: http://www.gracenote.com/about/faqs/
And of course, here: http://www.freedb.org/en/faq.3.html#21
Many discs leaving MASSIVE Mastering have already been submitted to CDDB, FreeDB or both. Sometimes it takes quite a while for these discs to be readily indexed, sometimes only hours. Resubmitting your disc is fine - But use the same information used in the CD-TEXT data or you may wind up with confusing information.
And here: http://www.gracenote.com/about/faqs/
And of course, here: http://www.freedb.org/en/faq.3.html#21
Many discs leaving MASSIVE Mastering have already been submitted to CDDB, FreeDB or both. Sometimes it takes quite a while for these discs to be readily indexed, sometimes only hours. Resubmitting your disc is fine - But use the same information used in the CD-TEXT data or you may wind up with confusing information.