True to say in the past I've had more mixes "ruined" rather than "enhanced" by "award winning" mastering engineers that we or the client chose to hire. Most cases they felt the need to add more compression and it added mud, some proceed to scoop back the lo-mids, then fry the highs with "analog saturation" to a degree far too obvious to be tasteful. A recent case I mixed had vocals the artist described as too "crunchy" highs and had to be dialed back (tube distortion present from the recording brought out by high boosts), only for the mastering engineer to push it off the stratosphere of crunchiness, to the point that the entire team (producer, label, arrangers) agrees that it's far too crunchy but ultimately the artist approved it cause he trusted the "award winning" mastering engineer. So much time we as producers/mixers spend trailing the fine line between loudness vs distortion, fullness vs definition, clarity vs harshness, dynamics vs glue, to dial in the perfect sound just for them to come in and scramble it all together, and in all cases the masters were less than a dB louder but noticeably more distorted even to untrained ears. There are certainly great mastering engineers out there but it truly does bring the question of, if you're someone that micro manages all the details in your mix, cause you're able to hear them, and place them exactly where you want it, and artists & labels are happy with the limited versions, does a mastering engineer really do good for the project?
Having recently retired from a 27 year career in sound, both in music and film, one other important factor in mastering is the ability to understand and execute multiple delivery formats. As an artist, if you want your music to get placed in commercials or film/tv, especially regarding any kind of surround format and/or conversion, it is a highly technical hurdle to jump. And, in today's world especially, this is a very successful avenue for sales. As far as the central debate, I see good reason for both and have done both with music/projects I mixed. A mastering engineer can elevate a project for sure, but sometimes, given the schedule or nuance of the project, having someone who doesn't have time to get deeply attached to the emotional narrative of the project can lead to problems at the all important final stage.
Mastering is no more of a technical skill than producing and mixing. I would argue anybody who can use EQ, compression, clipping, and saturation has the skills needed to master a track, that they probably also produced and mixed. Also AI tools will absolutely take the mastering engineers job first, then next on the chopping block is the mixing engineers job.
He is right about the technical issues when mastering for film. If your music ever gets that break, you NEED to send it to a pro , dedicated mastering person, or your music could be rejected or decimated by the compression algorithms
For what I'd call the serious hobbyist market, Mastering has never been external - we learn to do our own. As tools have gotten better, it's been made easier. But it's still a very important process.
Interesting video mate. I was questioning the value of a mastering-engineer until I met one quite by chance here in rural France. This engineer who has NEVER seen my set up listened to my latest 'masterpiece' and instead of hugging me in disbelief declaring my genius through tears of joy (which is what I expected)... He just frowned and said: "It's sounds like you recorded the vocals with the wrong microphone in your kitchen!" He was right on both counts! I have made so many changes since then and James from Pig Shed has now earned my loyalty. Best wishes, stay creative, but at the same time make it your OWN sound. 👍⚒️🎶
Yeah, I agree with all of this! I’m a professional mixing and mastering engineer, and I’ve been mastering all my own mixes for years. It’s to the point that it’s extremely rare anymore that a client asks for a pre-master to send someone else to get mastered. They are usually so happy with the mix in the end that they’re confident enough with me just putting the final touches on it and I’ve never had any complaints! I’ve noticed that this has been the trend for the last four or five years at this point. You start to form a relationship with your client through the mixing process, and as long as that goes as it should, in the end, there is a level of trust. As long as you are experienced enough to know what you’re doing I don’t see any harm in it. I’ve been working this way for years. Great video Wyste!
In my view, you can't master your own mix because once the mix is finished (including mix bus processing) and you're satisfied, the mastering engineer comes in and takes it to the next level (assuming they're a competent mastering engineer) they won't change the mix.
My opinion is - if you have very good hearing and the right tools and good listening conditions (room), you do not need anyone for mastering, because you will do it yourself.
This is what mastering is: the optimisation of the approved mix for the medium you intend to distribute your music. Thus the advantage of hiring a mastering engineer is you access to the room, the equipment and the personal experience. It’s also very helpful if you want to distribute your music on vinyl records, which 1) has very particular considerations and 2) there is currently not a DIY lathe cutting. But all that said, I can’t see the issue of doing your mastering as long as you understand what is involved, can do the best you can do with the setup and be prepared to except the consequences, good and bad =].
Great thoughts and comments. Fully agree. These days I end up doing a lot of work on sub-mixes and that handles a good chunk of what a mastering chain would haven taken care of. Then the mastering chain ends up being quite a bit lighter. I've also found it quite valuable to mix into my mastering chain. There are things in the mix that sometimes don't become obvious until you're pushing into a mastering chain. It has a capacity to expose issues and allows me to solve them quickly. I also greatly value being in control of the final sound. I like how you highlighted the reasons why someone would want to work with a mastering engineer still though. I used to before I learned the craft. The monitoring and acoustics issue is a big part of that. Many people are working in rooms that have terrible acoustics or lack full-range monitoring and that leads them astray. Although, some of those issues can't be solved with mastering and must be addressed in the mix. Your room looks great and I'm sure it sounds great too. There's nothing quite like flush mounted full-range monitors with a properly acoustically treated control room. Who did the room design and did you create a video on the room design or build? Here's the room we've just built: th-cam.com/video/5VrG2K_E7qI/w-d-xo.html.
Interesting as I often do that too. Although I am facing one issue : As a mixing engineer, it’s easy to get used the song. To the point that mastering the song will require a few days of rest at least. Which is not always possible on projects with tight deadline (and some mastering engineers can sometimes provide a master in one day).
As a mastering engineer I want to add another reason why to go to work with us and is something that clients really doesn’t realise and it is the fact that we are most of us in fact mixing engineers too, the only difference between us and a regular mixing engineer is that we know how the mastering process should go for many music genres and we mixing optimising the mix with the final mastering in mind…I mean most of mixing engineers go for find the tone, find the emotion and the colour but they completely ignore if this balance and this frequency curve they create in a mix suits well to the mastering process for this specific genre, one example, imagine that you as a mastering engineer have to mixing an electronic music song, we starting for take in mind what is the perfect balance that a electronic music track needs to achieve-5 LUFS or dB of RMS in the mastering and we starting to mixing the song with this balance we know that works great for the mastering purposes of this genre and this makes a huge difference to the mix…normally when a mastering engineer mixing a track if is a good one the mastered version of that mixing is way superior to a mixing done by a regular mixing engineer…in fact are excellent mixes that just doesn’t work in the mastering process because the engineer mixing at levels that are way quiet and lower than a mastering level and it is literally impossible pull up the mixing with the limiters and it is because the mixing engineer doesn’t optimised the mix for the correct balance for that genre…happens a lot in electronic music genres and modern pop and urban music, the mixes sound great at low levels but just can’t work on the mastering…so a mixing engineer working hand by hand with a mastering engineer really makes a huge difference…:)
I agree, it is almost impossible for a mix engineer to achieve the highest level of mixing in all genres of music, one way or another you have to choose what you are closest to. While a mastering engineer can achieve the highest level of mastering in any genre of music. I will not explain why it is possible in mastering and not in mixing, mix engineers and mastering engineers will understand what I am talking about. So, if you go to a mix engineer who predominantly works with pop/hip-hop/rnb genres for mastering an ambient release, it's unlikely that he'll give you a suitable mastering, as a good mastering engineer. Despite the fact that he can claim to have vast experience in mastering and a great control room. Still, his experience with mastering different genres is probably less than that of a good mastering engineer.
Best advice I could've heard. Total autonomy, from laying tracks or inputting midi to channel edits and mastering. With the staggering number of tools available exploration and experimentation are damn near limitless. We're talking total immersion. Never considered myself a producer. Always had a strong idea of how the basic rhythm section should feel tho'. You spend sometime with it. You make the mistakes and learn from them. For me it became addicting. Your sense of what works evolves. You begin to see in a very practical way how mastering might not be so intimidating. How it could be a natural progression of having a clear sense of what you want and being at the board endless hours discovering ways to achieve it. The tell tale is when even rudimentary channel edits begin to sound like slightly more than an amateur hand has been at them. Nothing beats independence. Damn fine channel. I'm glad I found it.
I really agree with all of the points in this video. I master about 95% of the projects I record and/or mix for my clients. Workflow and budget are definitely on the top of the list as far as reasons. But for me, when I am mixing, I am basically mixing "into the master." So, I feel like by the end of a mix, I have pretty much finalized everything, and it makes mastering that much easier, if that makes any sense! BTW, I LOVE your videos! You are awesome!!!! 🙏🙏🙏
Having a mastering done by someone else is also a great way to have some sort of "closure" with a project, especially if you're independant without any deadline. If you produce/mix/master your own music, you can always find something to fix (because we learn everyday) and so you could never release anything because you always come back on old project to make it sound better. A mastering engineer will be the deadline you need to move on and let go a track. That doesn't mean you can't learn to do it yourself, it can really help to see what someone else can do and use that as a training reference.
Thanks for the interesting video and I appreciate the honesty. Many times a mix isn't even worthy of being mastered because of poor arrangements, sloppy tracks, etc. Naive people think that mastering will be some kind of magic that will save their crappy production. I think most independent artists should learn how to mix and constantly reference their work to professional releases. As one mixing engineer told me "If you wanna piss with the big dogs, then you better sound as good as them."
I will say, having White Sea Studio master my latest single brought it to a level I could not have achieved on my own. But my monitoring, ears, and gear all needed a little extra help, and it was worth it! Campari and Soda streaming everywhere ❤
I have always done everything myself. Granted, I am not a pro (sort of retired, I guess) but I have done a lot of recording, mixing and mastering my whole life, for myself and clients , even before I knew what the things were by definition. It came natural to me.
I agree with every word you said 100%. I do exactly the same with reliable friends. I was at Abbey Road on the Jaycen Joshua mixing summit in July. Jaycen does it as well. He said many times his mix is the final as it’s mastered already by him. He said even when clients compared his version with other mastered versions, his clients always prefered his. 🤷♂️ So he just includes it too.
I agree in part as you've come up with some great comments here. That's why I setup the Mastering In The Box channel to teach others how to Master. That being said I would still recommend getting to know a Mastering Engineer, that you can get along with and can trust, that will provide honest feedback on your mixes. Like Wytse mentions his skills he developed over time, and as such it's not realistic to think that from day one you're going to be able to get the best sound ever without building up that knowledge and skillset. Half the battle is not necessarily using a Mastering Engineer, but finding one that will help you develop as an Artist/Engineer.
I remember I watched a Q&A with Lawrence Mackrory where he said that he realized this whole thing about separating mixing and mastering is nonsense. He said he kept getting masters back from others that he wasn't satisfied with and decided he would just work on getting good at mastering. He also said he would take his original mix that he had and compare with one that he bounced and put into a new session to "master" and the original was always better. He mixed and mastered the new Bloodbath and Darkane records and they sound incredible. People will defiantly tell you that all real mixers have their stuff sent out for mastering but there are world class engineers who are doing both so they are just wrong.
I mix, deliver premaster and master. If they like the master, they can pay for it. Thats the real test, that way they can always go to another engineer and compare.
I'm very precious with my mixes and I found out that alot of mastering engineers out there simply send the track through a pre-made chain, turn 2-3 knobs and done. Thanks, but no thanks. Being beyond the beginner-stage myself when it comes to mastering I'd rather take 2-3 hours (instead of the 15 minutes most mastering-engeneers put in) and get it done myself. Making volume automations, listening back on different devices and letting the track sit for a few days before putting on the final touches is - to me - a million times more important than having a studio full of vintage equipment that you half-heartedly use to shit out thirty masters a day.
Great video! I absolutely agree. I mostly work with urban genres wherer mastering can have such a dramatic impact on the end product that, put simply, you just have to mix into a limiter
I'm a producer. In Hip-Hop that primarily means I'm a "beatmaker". When you produce, you're already mixing and hiring a mastering engineer for every beat would be insane. Not every beat generates money, paying 100-200 Bucks for a mastering would simply not be wise. There are not many producers that don't master themselves in my genre. My reason for an external mastering engineer would primarily be their experience. I don't think the monitoring situation is that important considering what the clients and their clients listen on, unless it's for a major release (that gets played in clubs, etc) - but in that case they purchase a full trackout anyway and have it mixed and mastered to taste. I don't have the issue that I need a second set of ears for an objective perspective, but I am still improving a lot when it comes to mastering, thus I need the second set of ears for their experience. So what I'm thinking about is paying a mastering engineer to master a track (that I've already mastered) and then comparing the masters and talking about it. But obviously, I'd have to find a mastering engineer that is open, sharing and honest enough to basically give me his knowledge like that.
I have a friend who loves the sound of emastered. I think it sounds horrible, but he loves the horrible quality. Very sad. I am trying this Masterdesk Pro plugin and see if it can get things sounding decent.
Just for fun, I master my songs myself, and they sound great. Then, when I get those same songs back from Wytse (who I use EXCLUSIVELY for my mastering), and compare them, mine sound like they are in a tin can and his sound amazing. This is reason #1 why I don't master my songs myself.
I recently tried mastering my own mix recently. I compared with LANDR (free mp3, I know it's compressed) and I was happy with my version. I found it helpful to switch context when mastering ... work only on the .wav file rather than the master bus of the mix; a separate session ... maybe even use different software for mastering.
Your monitoring setup looks very impressive. I use tube port dampened Adam A5Xs and a Sub 7, and as good as they sound when used in normal bedroom sized room (well acoustically dampened, bass traps, the works) for their price, that's all I can afford, one decent set. When I had my own first commercially released track professionally mastered by Bob Katz, who is very well known here, he said it was a good mix but yet he made it sound so much better. The point? True mastering engineers are experts at their craft and he was worth every penny. He was even able to dial in some imaging correction and so on (mistakes I would not make now lol). This was exactly 20 years ago now (wow time flies), and I am so much better at my own craft now, even though I started around 1990 (just bedroom composition and ended up owning a larger professional studio to mix for others), but I would STILL send final mixes to a good M.E. I sold the studio off some years back, we did have dual monitoring there (Mackie HR824 and a small Genelec pair that I forget the model of), then I fell ill and am now well "enough" to at least enjoy music again, but yeah as said am now in a bedroom. I think I might open it up to online mixing for others at some point.
So in summary you don’t need a mastering Engineer because you are one! 👍
ปีที่แล้ว
If it’s solely for streaming purposes, unless you personally have a mastering engineer who you fully trust by heart, I believe that mastering (by third party) will be obsolete in this day and age when loudness normalization has become commonplace. In my work I often receive both Premaster and Mastered files from both major-labels and individuals, and when I compare them with the same loudness I find only about 10% of the time, the latter is an improvement over the former. 90% of the time they “sacrifice” something in order only to get more loudness, which is just unnecessary imho today. By the way, still, I firmly believe the demand of real tape mastering will increase more and more in future.
I do my own Finalizing (mastering) because a) I can and b) where my music has been put under someone else's hands, they try to turn my thing into their thing, essentially breaking my thing. Sure this indicates that they are the wrong people for me and not really very experienced as they should a) be asking what my thing is and b) declining if they are not that thing. If I were being released by Sony, I would send my work over to Bob Ludwig as I would expect it to be a positive thing for me and my message as I doubt he (or his equivalent) would try to convert my music into their fave genre. I will very much say that Experience is the thing. Just because one can find the Play button in a DAW and put a Limiter on a mix, doesn't mean that one is ready to Master (let alone mix). I got to where I am by NOT overdoing the "Mastering" phase with 17,001 Plugiz deessing the sample conversion of the oversampled clipper sidechaining the diterationinator... Like you, my client Mix price includes the Master as I will not send over a mix that isn't ready-to-go on the ray-dee-i-o as otherwise, people tend to think the mix is brokded seeing it is un-loud. :-)
i'm a sound engineer from india who does mixing and mastering for local clients, artist here don't even know that there are separte engineers for mixing and mastering loll. they liked what i was doing and were very satisfied with the end result so who cares about it, but often if it's a high budget song i would send to my fellow engineer friends and ask for their feedback but do the mastering myself because it feels wierd to send it to a another engineer who doesn't know what the artist or client needs
Great perspective. What's the difference between a master and a pre-master? Do you just take off the limiter and any heavy clipping/compression, or do you remove all master bus processing?
Another thing along the times of “mastering engineers tend to ruin my mixes” is that when I master my music I’m not looking to make my tracks the loudest. I’m trying to retain the character & dynamics of my mix/music. I particularly don’t care to reach high LUFS and would rather participate in trying to be someone who doesn’t subscribe to “competing” against others. Any time I try to explain this to an ME it’s always an argument of logic vs respecting my artistic intent. So I ended up learning the “dark art” of touching up a 2-track stereo file. In the days of the 80s when CDs came out most of those albums only applied slight EQ and MAYBE some compression and not even a limiter (maybe a tad).
I think this actually demonstrates that having a Mastering Engineer is an essential part of the process. All that's happening here is that Wytse and the others have chosen to hire themselves as the Mastering Engineer, rather than someone else, because they've got the gear, the ear and the experience to do the job properly. If you don't, then you should get someone who does. (I'm not an ME looking for work, just making an observation.)
Great advice all round, I just purchased Bobby Owsinski’s book ‘The mastering engineers handbook’ really looking forward to getting into like his other books
As someone with over 30 years professionally producing, writing, mastering, etc., I am starting to audibly notice the difference when people don't use a professional mastering engineer. It may be a 10% difference for some but 30-40% difference for others but it definitely matters to have another set of ears, experience and expertise in all formats IMO. YMMV.
I’m mastering my mixes for clients way more now days, but I always suggest hiring a mastering engineer if they can afford it. The element of collaboration is essential. Yes we can do it all ourselves but having a team and collaborating usually gets the best results.
You open with the line 'if your not open minded'. Then proceed not to be. You have been mastering for almost ten years, not that long and ,I'm not sure how you find the time for all this work with the massive amount of time you spend on social media, let alone editing videos. But maybe that's what this really is. Touting for work.Nothing at all wrong with that, but the best art is honest art. You mention something about not wanting the projects you mix mastered by an external source which is 1/ not very open minded and 2/ not your decision, that's for the artist without whom there would be nothing. Good mastering engineers are gold [Emily LAzar, John Greenham, Bob Ludwig and 1000's more], none of which had youtube tutorials but turned mistakes into non mistakes by doing it for decades. Classic records often engineered, mixed and mastered by totally different people who rarely even meet each other. Looking at some of the comments you yourself have mastered stuff mixed by others soooooooo. My point? There is no right or wrong way to write songs, record them, eq, compress. If the creator is happy it's them who live with it forever. So be it. Zero offence is embedded in this response, totally the opposite. It's written with an open mind and honesty.
Most of the money I've made in music has come from mastering, and I started out by mastering my own tracks. Eventually, people started asking me to master for them, but that was after 4 years of doing nothing but my own songs. Now, a few of my clients are asking me to mix their songs as well as master. At first, I didn't like it, but now I appreciate being able to control both sides, to give myself the ideal (to me) starting position in mastering and to have a pretty strong idea of what the finished song will sound like. However, I don't start mastering until the client and I are 100% happy with the mix. They could have a single note like "hihats down .2 db from 1:05 to 1:08" and I will tweak that in the mix and get it approved before I even create a master session. I keep the mix and master very separated like that because I don't want my clients to think the mix sounds bad if they just don't like the mastering, or think the mastering sounds terrible and they need another engineer but actually they don't like the mix and we should revise it.
Agree with you on this! Glad someone finally pushing back against the old "You cannot master yourself" mantra. It's just another aspect/skill set to learn and ahem master😁
It's all relationships. Audio mastering is a *service* after all, not a fixed thing. It's sooo much more than processing. A fresh set of ears, yes, but more than that: mastering is *a different way of listening* compared to mixing. Can't stress that enough. Listening like a fan, less like an engineer. While making a musical connection with the project, you have a distance from it. Mastering for 20+ years and no problem working ITB - as long the artist is happy with their mix (as they should be). And especially if the tone and tightness is already there. Most MEs are happy to give feedback or tips - if asked. They're not mindreaders. If you have concerns about what you're submitting - ask! If you're that unsure if your mix(es) are ready, you're probably better off seeking a producer first.
Im an audio engineer and actualy i produce and mix my tracks with mastering in mind to make the final adjustments also by myself to master the productions and play the tracks live or at least test them on the crowd. But a good mastering engineer his experience and the second set of ears is invaluable in my opinion. It is just important that the client and the mastering engineer can really talk about the process and know what to do to let it shine. If you want a proper release always take a mastering engineer for that part of work with experience on both sides of that process the result will be way better. Just my personal advice even if you know how to do it by yourself theres a reason why we work together and don´t do all by ourself all the time its worth it to have assistance 🤓
Mixes go to mastering when the client requests it. Most are fine with my masters. I'm sure I'm a bit biased, but honestly, I think I can count on one hand the amount of times masters have come back sounding better than mine. If your mixes translate it's not difficult to make your masters translate too.
Mastering is, I think, manipulating dynamics and frequency response for the biggest psychoacoustic impact. I’ve seen some mastered tracks where they restricted dynamic range to near-square wave on a quiet passage, but then left it more dynamic on a louder part, and it sounded perfect. Somebody really knew what they were doing there. I also expect a mastering engineer to be keenly aware of audio component limitations - maybe even someone involved directly in manufacturing- and who understands digitally, electronically, and physically what makes something sound a certain way. But yeah if you’re just talking about adding a saturator and limiter, most anyone can do that. I don’t consider that to be full blown mastering.
Mixing and mastering some tracks from a friend he was mad about not featuring a sample of a famous game, or watch(casio) or something that he put in this song. It was "nothing" to me and it told no story. He never called back.
Hello, I am French, I do not necessarily master the language of Shakespeare very well, you will forgive me I hope ... In short, it raises questions for me about the very activity of the sound engineer because anyone can declare himself a sound engineer without competence elsewhere. That is a problem. And does the latter have a technical or artistic activity, I personally lean towards the first because it is necessary to respect the work of the artist but it is still a debate open in my eyes, because the investment could then be different and a work of technical and artistic collaboration could grow the works and develop a new business model in the field. I hope to make myself understood because it is something that fascinates me and I agree that a third person is important, for the rest I have grown older and I have gained my own experience. musically yours Sylvain
Hello there and sorry for not asking this in a private message, but would you mix and master weirder alternative music, similar to what for example Flume makes (Palaces/HTIF mixtape)? I'm working on a little EP and it's kinda similar "genre". I would mix it myself but when it comes to more complex stuff like this my room/headphones don't really allow me to hear anything objectively. Thanks for the content and reply in advance
I stayed away from mastering my own mixes for a long time until I got masters back I didn’t like. So I started learning myself. While learning, my clients would be like “you gonna master my song right?” Lol because in their mind if I know how to mix I should know how to master. Makes sense to them, not to me however as long as tech keeps improving I’ll keep improving. Win win situation regardless of having a nice expensive mastering studio.
I disagree. In my definition, you can't master your own mix, because all mastering is about gaining a new perspective from a different person. Just as an author can't be their own editor, a mixing engineer can't be their own mastering engineer. While you can certainly enhance your mix's loudness, address issues in the low end, make EQ adjustments, or apply multiband processing, these actions still fall under the category of mixing unless executed by a different individual. Just as an author correcting their own text doesn't make them an editor, they remain the author. I acknowledge that this discussion revolves around semantics, but I believe this is an important difference.
Your definition is a 21st Century definition, though. The original role of the mastering engineer was to make the minimum amount of changes to ensure that there wouldn't be technical problems when the recording was played on consumer record and tape players. When CDs became the normal distribution format, many pre-CD era releases were "re-mastered" to take advantage of the fact that the technical limitations of vinyl discs and magnetic tape no longer applied. Over time, re-mastering came to encompass the adding of "loudness wars" compression, and the role of the mastering engineer changed from preserving (to the greatest possible extent) the characteristics of the production recording to altering them. Whether this is a good or bad thing is a matter of personal opinion.
I understand your definition. I like it. It's clean. However I'm struggling with defining the benefits of fresh ears (fresh eyes in case of author/editor). Is it about time effitiency / ear fatigue? Or is there assumption that more ears are better, because combined tastes of multiple people, make things sound better in the end?
I don't think there is any sort of consensus regarding your criteria for the mastering process. It seems nonsensical that you can do all the things that happen during mastering for the purpose of mastering and yet somehow still not be mastering.
Workflow is the most important aspect of, you know, work. Lots of goons who think they're a lot better than they are keep repeating platitudes about fresh sets of ears and perspective etc. The reality is, what makes you deliver better content with less stress and better flow is the correct decision. If you need someone else to finish your work, by all means, hire someone, but if not, pay no mind to memorised speeches by people who only know how to talk.
There is no answer to this. But, if I was a AAA artist, running between studio/PR/photo op/travelling, and the studio I spent a day in gave me a mix, and it sounded okay to my ears, I'd tell them to print it for the market (mastering), implying making all the technical requirements needed (ie, EQ, no intersample overshoot, various mixes (vox up/vox down, that 12inch, that radio edit, soundtrack version...) while I sat down and wrote the next one. If, however I am a writer/player/engineer/producer/enthusiast/studio gearhead armed with a PC/Mac, thinking I can do it all these days because I know two RH triads on keys, and have OmniSphere, a condenser mic, and some s/h monitors I saw behind an artist I admire in a video two years ago... Then sure, Ozone it to death ten times already and put it on TH-cam (who will can crush it again for you, for free). Why not, it's a hobby right? If you're in the middle? Pays yer money, takes yer choice. Involving others is... human, and reassuring. I'd go with that, if you can afford it. Saves you time to do what you are good at. YMMV...
> human, and reassuring. It's not always reassuring. Other humans can often cause problems due to egos and/or simply not understanding the requirements/aesthetics of the genre they were presented with.
Im so glad you said all this! Im a newbie to the recording world, but have been studying it like crazy for 3 years now… I am always discovering that many parts of “conventional wisdom” in recording and even music broadly is holding people back. So much of how the music industry operates is illogical. Thanks for bringing some logic to it. Who needs a 2nd set of ears when you can just use reference tracks? Im sure mastering engineers rely on references also.
If by "holding people back" you mean, "making their music sound way better than they can on their own" then yes, 100%. Having your music mastered by a professional mastering engineer is not "illogical" or some archaic oddity of the industry, and not everything can be DIY'd. It all depends on your ears, your equipment, and your experience. Like he said in the video, there's the insanely expensive/accurate monitoring and room treatment, there's the mastering equipment itself, and there's the years of experience/perspective on audio. If you're happy with the results you're getting, more power to you. If you want the best quality audio you can get, consider sending it to a trusted professional mastering engineer and check out the difference in results. If you can't hear the difference you're either a magical prodigy or your ears need more training.
@@CT-ho6si Just use a reference track, the mastering engineers use them anyhow… the idea that you personally will never be able to have the skills to master a track, after coming this far, is quite unbelievable… you’re better then you realise, and its not all about having the “mandated gear”
@@personalfreedom2700 The reference track alone will not make it works for you if you don't have that 10 or more years of experience mixing and mastering. It will not make you hear micro details and show you the dozens, hundreds of smart steps you objectively have to make to get there. You will just turn around in circle scratching your head (if at least you can hear the difference and care). Yes, you will personally be able to have the high prestine skills if you continue to practice and being analytic (3 years is very short for developping the ears to mix let alone master at a professional level). I would replace the (you're better than you realize) by: (I can yet do better) if you want to go forward and not stay in place. To go there you will need to work always harder, be objective, honest, analytic, passionate.. You cannot jump steps and try to convaince yourself and others that this or that is not necessary anyway. This is backward and not looking for excellence. You have no idea the difference of skills we get from years to years if we practice persistently. This is day and night. Replace the denial/easy way by the objectivity/hard work thinking. Good luck! :)
Sorry…this is a long read. Years ago, I tried using a mastering engineer three times when the online services were just becoming popular. The first time was with a guy whose end results were less than what I expected, but more on that later. The second time was with Universal Mastering (yes, THE Universal, part of UMG). The master was too hot and had audible and obvious clipping in spots. I contacted the engineer and told him of my extreme dissatisfaction, especially coming from a so-called reputable company. He was embarrassed, apologized profusely and redid the master properly. Being an instrumental Detroit techno track, I guess he figured all I cared about was it being really loud. He probably slapped his standard “dance” chain on it, ran it through once, and never listened to the result. The third time was with Abbey Road online mastering. Again, I wasn’t pleased with the end result. It was overly compressed and they almost completely removed the low end on one song (as a compromise…but still. More on that below). So, to be fair to the first guy and Abbey Road, the mixes I sent them were less than stellar. They were done when my mixing skills were a little more miss than hit and before my monitoring situation was where it should’ve been. The first guy actually asked for stems because the mix was just too compromised. But, even with stems, his master didn’t really fix fixable issues and the final master was too shy on the low end and too upper midrangey. The Abbey Road mastering engineer also had a compromised mix that was exacerbated by an issue with the composition itself. There was a very heavy delay on a busy bassline that interfered with the kick. Basically, the arrangement was shit and the low end was a mess so he just took most of it out. So, I was partially to blame for not removing that unnecessary delay on the bass when I had the chance. I was trying to keep the composer’s original intent. I eventually almost completely removed it. After evaluating the results from those three experiences, I thought I should just do it myself. I didn’t need to pay someone else for disappointing masters when I was totally capable of mediocre work myself. As my mixing skills improved and I invested in room correction software and acoustic treatment, I tried my hand at mastering the songs I sent out to those services. I produced WAY better results than what I got back. BUT, that was due in part by my ability to “cheat” the process. I don’t like to master as I go. I mix a song to the point where, as a mixing engineer, I think it’s done. I make a stereo pre-master and then load that into a new project for mastering. It may sound weird but, when I listen like a mastering engineer, I hear things I didn’t hear when I was mixing, even though it’s the same room and speakers. I then try to address them through the mastering process. If I can tweak them there, fine. But, if I can’t, that’s where I can “cheat” and easily go back to the mix and fix the issue. It’s even more of a cheat because I’m usually mixing and mastering songs my band composed so I have access to the original patches for the sounds. Sometimes, the best way to fix the issue is tweak the actual sound. I’m still improving my mixing and mastering but I feel comfortable and confident enough to have my work out there among some really great sounding recordings and feel like it competes on that level.
As a mixing engineer I feel objected to say I 'master' a song. However, my clients come to me for a one-stop-shop solution. They simply want to hand over the stems and get the final product back. I really dislike saying I master songs, but in the eyes of my clients I do :)
I think I'm in George's camp, being at every stage of the game, it just wouldn't feel right to hand the keys to the music over to someone else at the very end of the process. Also, Fika has an uncanny resemblance to Natalie Merchant, in both her look and her speaking manner.
I love your Music is Love Forever rack... I also think music is about spreading love and kindness! Love your channel mate! Please keep it up, i have specifcally logged in to another account so that I can subscribe to you twiceee that's how good you are !
I am really tired of the snobbiest of comments like "if they say they do mixing and mastering, they are prob bad at both". Get over yourself lol. Love this video.
i was mastering everything i worked on for a long time. Tried out a few different mastering guys for a specific project, my pre masters sounded better.... yup. no thanks haha. I know how its supposed to sound, i'll do it.
There are a couple of guys on TH-cam that I really respect when it comes to mixing, Wytse being one. But when it comes to "Mastering", with all due respect, I've never heard anyone on TH-cam that even comes close to the guys over at Sterling Sound or Bernie Grundman.
OMG I had the same reflection. I think they more often than not decrease the quality of a previously good mix. They alienated my ears in the late 90's/ early 2000's with their loudness war. I'm an amateur but I know two things are unnecessary : Mastering engineers and compressors. The latter I can accept for purely artistic purposes in specific cases but with parcimony but the former I consider them a bit of a fraud.
Hello there. I have been commercially mastering for about 15 years now. I can totally validate the importance of mastering even if you are the most experienced engineer! You can paint the best on a canvas, however till a specialist designer frame it and position it properly in a gallery, you are not justifying your own work. Also i wanted to point out that such huge console in the room is totally obstruction to a good mastering setup. There are comments from people here who said they don’t even know what mastering is. I have nothing to say to them at all, but till music exists, the art of Mastering engineers will. I am a producer myself and i mix too sometimes, however I’ve witnessed the power of good Mastering since vinyl days as a small kid, and i say that however good you are with your abilities, you need to specialise. And your clients should know this as well! Shine on superstar 😇
i think people think mastering is this magical thing that takes a meh mix, and makes it explode from your speakers. the reality is, the mix is everything. mastering can make it sparkle slightly more, but in my experience, the only people who can tell the difference between a good mix with a limiter on it, vs a pro master, are people who are mastering engineers haha
Part of the issue/question here is how one defines "mastering". To me, and historically, mastering is about translation - making sure all the songs on an album are leveled in comparison to each other an have an overall tonal balance that's consistent, adding ISRC codes, and transferring and archiving to the required consumer formats for delivery. What it's NOT "supposed" to be is 'finishing' a mix. When I bring my mix to Sterling Sound (who've been mastering my records for 40 years no, whenever I have control over that aspect), my HOPE is that, ifI've done my mixing job correctly, it "needs" no alteration. If we can muster it flat I consider it a win. SO what this leads to is the question as to, if you're "mastering yourself", presumably in the same room on the same speakers as you mixed, then what exactly are you doing and why didn't you already do it in the mix? I think people (especially home recordists) put too much stock in HOPING that mastering is somewhat going to be the magic finisher that makes an unexciting or unsatisfying mix into something brilliant.
The definition of mastering is "transfering the final mix to the media of distribution". The sound and artistic vision is done in the mixing process. No pro level engineer expects sonically anything different from the mastering house than what he/she gave them to begin with. Mastering in the analog age was (and still is) a very dedicated and difficult craft, cutting the disk and so forth but in the digital age it has attracted much attention mainly due to the poor quality of average mixing abilities. I agree with your approach and find the "necessity" of mastering (unless producing for vinyl) a bit overrated
The only people that say you shouldn’t master your own mixes, are the same people who make way more than enough money with just doing mixes, usually “professionals” I mix and master mainly because I need the funds for both services lol if I was getting paid 10k for a mix I’d hand it off to someone too
I agree with you i want and love control all the process cause we are only 2 in Shining miniature .il take time but we are proud to be indépendant.if in the future we can pay à specialist we Will mâle it for sûre.
i watch most of your videos and many are enjoyable but this one? I thought: what is the issue here? people sending their mix to the manufacturer (and skipping the (external) mastering phase) is hardly something that has come up only recently.
There's a record by Billy Strings, "Home," that was recorded, mixed, and mastered by the same guy and I think it sounds pretty bad for a professional bluegrass record. In that case I think they definitely should have handed it off.
The only way i can imagine your videos getting dislikes, is that it happens by accident when somebody clicks the dislike instead of the like button. You are just speaking your mind and the truth you have within you and i cant get my mind around people, that write bad comments regarding you or trying to make you feel down. I for myself can say that you are a great thinker, a great sound engineer and somebody that actually for once says an unfiltered and independant opinion. Your opinion counts for me and i really like what you talk about! Much love, Mario!
Hi i never thought that my mixes will sound that good mastered by you Wytse :) Keep pushing and btw. I love your vlogs
Thank you so much 🙏🏻
True to say in the past I've had more mixes "ruined" rather than "enhanced" by "award winning" mastering engineers that we or the client chose to hire.
Most cases they felt the need to add more compression and it added mud, some proceed to scoop back the lo-mids, then fry the highs with "analog saturation" to a degree far too obvious to be tasteful.
A recent case I mixed had vocals the artist described as too "crunchy" highs and had to be dialed back (tube distortion present from the recording brought out by high boosts), only for the mastering engineer to push it off the stratosphere of crunchiness, to the point that the entire team (producer, label, arrangers) agrees that it's far too crunchy but ultimately the artist approved it cause he trusted the "award winning" mastering engineer.
So much time we as producers/mixers spend trailing the fine line between loudness vs distortion, fullness vs definition, clarity vs harshness, dynamics vs glue, to dial in the perfect sound just for them to come in and scramble it all together, and in all cases the masters were less than a dB louder but noticeably more distorted even to untrained ears.
There are certainly great mastering engineers out there but it truly does bring the question of, if you're someone that micro manages all the details in your mix, cause you're able to hear them, and place them exactly where you want it, and artists & labels are happy with the limited versions, does a mastering engineer really do good for the project?
Getting mixes back in a ruined state rather than enhanced is something I’ve had happen a lot as well 😅
Had the same happend a couple of times, funny how people just assume that merited people are constantly right.
get a few people that you really like the albums they mastered, for me people like Greg Calbi and Mike Bozzi just have great taste
Having recently retired from a 27 year career in sound, both in music and film, one other important factor in mastering is the ability to understand and execute multiple delivery formats. As an artist, if you want your music to get placed in commercials or film/tv, especially regarding any kind of surround format and/or conversion, it is a highly technical hurdle to jump. And, in today's world especially, this is a very successful avenue for sales. As far as the central debate, I see good reason for both and have done both with music/projects I mixed. A mastering engineer can elevate a project for sure, but sometimes, given the schedule or nuance of the project, having someone who doesn't have time to get deeply attached to the emotional narrative of the project can lead to problems at the all important final stage.
Mastering is no more of a technical skill than producing and mixing. I would argue anybody who can use EQ, compression, clipping, and saturation has the skills needed to master a track, that they probably also produced and mixed.
Also AI tools will absolutely take the mastering engineers job first, then next on the chopping block is the mixing engineers job.
27 years and still have complaining about. You can try use your ears lol
Thats assuming your mastering engineer treats ur song like its a valuable thing
You could try saying something useful.@@tosho23
He is right about the technical issues when mastering for film. If your music ever gets that break, you NEED to send it to a pro , dedicated mastering person, or your music could be rejected or decimated by the compression algorithms
For what I'd call the serious hobbyist market, Mastering has never been external - we learn to do our own. As tools have gotten better, it's been made easier. But it's still a very important process.
Interesting video mate. I was questioning the value of a mastering-engineer until I met one quite by chance here in rural France.
This engineer who has NEVER seen my set up listened to my latest 'masterpiece' and instead of hugging me in disbelief declaring my genius through tears of joy (which is what I expected)... He just frowned and said: "It's sounds like you recorded the vocals with the wrong microphone in your kitchen!"
He was right on both counts! I have made so many changes since then and James from Pig Shed has now earned my loyalty.
Best wishes, stay creative, but at the same time make it your OWN sound. 👍⚒️🎶
As a producer (Keyboard player)I believe mixing and mastering are a part of what the end result is.
Yeah, I agree with all of this! I’m a professional mixing and mastering engineer, and I’ve been mastering all my own mixes for years. It’s to the point that it’s extremely rare anymore that a client asks for a pre-master to send someone else to get mastered. They are usually so happy with the mix in the end that they’re confident enough with me just putting the final touches on it and I’ve never had any complaints! I’ve noticed that this has been the trend for the last four or five years at this point. You start to form a relationship with your client through the mixing process, and as long as that goes as it should, in the end, there is a level of trust. As long as you are experienced enough to know what you’re doing I don’t see any harm in it. I’ve been working this way for years. Great video Wyste!
In my view, you can't master your own mix because once the mix is finished (including mix bus processing) and you're satisfied, the mastering engineer comes in and takes it to the next level (assuming they're a competent mastering engineer) they won't change the mix.
My opinion is - if you have very good hearing and the right tools and good listening conditions (room), you do not need anyone for mastering, because you will do it yourself.
This is what mastering is: the optimisation of the approved mix for the medium you intend to distribute your music.
Thus the advantage of hiring a mastering engineer is you access to the room, the equipment and the personal experience. It’s also very helpful if you want to distribute your music on vinyl records, which 1) has very particular considerations and 2) there is currently not a DIY lathe cutting.
But all that said, I can’t see the issue of doing your mastering as long as you understand what is involved, can do the best you can do with the setup and be prepared to except the consequences, good and bad =].
Great thoughts and comments. Fully agree. These days I end up doing a lot of work on sub-mixes and that handles a good chunk of what a mastering chain would haven taken care of. Then the mastering chain ends up being quite a bit lighter. I've also found it quite valuable to mix into my mastering chain. There are things in the mix that sometimes don't become obvious until you're pushing into a mastering chain. It has a capacity to expose issues and allows me to solve them quickly. I also greatly value being in control of the final sound.
I like how you highlighted the reasons why someone would want to work with a mastering engineer still though. I used to before I learned the craft. The monitoring and acoustics issue is a big part of that. Many people are working in rooms that have terrible acoustics or lack full-range monitoring and that leads them astray. Although, some of those issues can't be solved with mastering and must be addressed in the mix.
Your room looks great and I'm sure it sounds great too. There's nothing quite like flush mounted full-range monitors with a properly acoustically treated control room. Who did the room design and did you create a video on the room design or build? Here's the room we've just built: th-cam.com/video/5VrG2K_E7qI/w-d-xo.html.
Interesting as I often do that too.
Although I am facing one issue :
As a mixing engineer, it’s easy to get used the song. To the point that mastering the song will require a few days of rest at least. Which is not always possible on projects with tight deadline (and some mastering engineers can sometimes provide a master in one day).
As a mastering engineer I want to add another reason why to go to work with us and is something that clients really doesn’t realise and it is the fact that we are most of us in fact mixing engineers too, the only difference between us and a regular mixing engineer is that we know how the mastering process should go for many music genres and we mixing optimising the mix with the final mastering in mind…I mean most of mixing engineers go for find the tone, find the emotion and the colour but they completely ignore if this balance and this frequency curve they create in a mix suits well to the mastering process for this specific genre, one example, imagine that you as a mastering engineer have to mixing an electronic music song, we starting for take in mind what is the perfect balance that a electronic music track needs to achieve-5 LUFS or dB of RMS in the mastering and we starting to mixing the song with this balance we know that works great for the mastering purposes of this genre and this makes a huge difference to the mix…normally when a mastering engineer mixing a track if is a good one the mastered version of that mixing is way superior to a mixing done by a regular mixing engineer…in fact are excellent mixes that just doesn’t work in the mastering process because the engineer mixing at levels that are way quiet and lower than a mastering level and it is literally impossible pull up the mixing with the limiters and it is because the mixing engineer doesn’t optimised the mix for the correct balance for that genre…happens a lot in electronic music genres and modern pop and urban music, the mixes sound great at low levels but just can’t work on the mastering…so a mixing engineer working hand by hand with a mastering engineer really makes a huge difference…:)
I agree, it is almost impossible for a mix engineer to achieve the highest level of mixing in all genres of music, one way or another you have to choose what you are closest to. While a mastering engineer can achieve the highest level of mastering in any genre of music. I will not explain why it is possible in mastering and not in mixing, mix engineers and mastering engineers will understand what I am talking about. So, if you go to a mix engineer who predominantly works with pop/hip-hop/rnb genres for mastering an ambient release, it's unlikely that he'll give you a suitable mastering, as a good mastering engineer. Despite the fact that he can claim to have vast experience in mastering and a great control room. Still, his experience with mastering different genres is probably less than that of a good mastering engineer.
Best advice I could've heard. Total autonomy, from laying tracks or inputting midi to channel edits and mastering. With the staggering number of tools available exploration and experimentation are damn near limitless. We're talking total immersion. Never considered myself a producer. Always had a strong idea of how the basic rhythm section should feel tho'. You spend sometime with it. You make the mistakes and learn from them. For me it became addicting. Your sense of what works evolves. You begin to see in a very practical way how mastering might not be so intimidating. How it could be a natural progression of having a clear sense of what you want and being at the board endless hours discovering ways to achieve it. The tell tale is when even rudimentary channel edits begin to sound like slightly more than an amateur hand has been at them. Nothing beats independence. Damn fine channel. I'm glad I found it.
I really agree with all of the points in this video. I master about 95% of the projects I record and/or mix for my clients. Workflow and budget are definitely on the top of the list as far as reasons. But for me, when I am mixing, I am basically mixing "into the master." So, I feel like by the end of a mix, I have pretty much finalized everything, and it makes mastering that much easier, if that makes any sense!
BTW, I LOVE your videos! You are awesome!!!! 🙏🙏🙏
Having a mastering done by someone else is also a great way to have some sort of "closure" with a project, especially if you're independant without any deadline. If you produce/mix/master your own music, you can always find something to fix (because we learn everyday) and so you could never release anything because you always come back on old project to make it sound better.
A mastering engineer will be the deadline you need to move on and let go a track.
That doesn't mean you can't learn to do it yourself, it can really help to see what someone else can do and use that as a training reference.
Thanks for the interesting video and I appreciate the honesty. Many times a mix isn't even worthy of being mastered because of poor arrangements, sloppy tracks, etc. Naive people think that mastering will be some kind of magic that will save their crappy production. I think most independent artists should learn how to mix and constantly reference their work to professional releases. As one mixing engineer told me "If you wanna piss with the big dogs, then you better sound as good as them."
I will say, having White Sea Studio master my latest single brought it to a level I could not have achieved on my own. But my monitoring, ears, and gear all needed a little extra help, and it was worth it!
Campari and Soda streaming everywhere ❤
Used to do mastering on my own stuff. These days I send it over to my mastering engineer and the results are excellent! Could not be happier!
I have always done everything myself. Granted, I am not a pro (sort of retired, I guess) but I have done a lot of recording, mixing and mastering my whole life, for myself and clients , even before I knew what the things were by definition. It came natural to me.
Thanks bro this is authentic and appreciated because your are both mixing & mastering SME (Subject Matter Expert).
I agree with every word you said 100%. I do exactly the same with reliable friends. I was at Abbey Road on the Jaycen Joshua mixing summit in July. Jaycen does it as well. He said many times his mix is the final as it’s mastered already by him. He said even when clients compared his version with other mastered versions, his clients always prefered his. 🤷♂️ So he just includes it too.
I agree in part as you've come up with some great comments here. That's why I setup the Mastering In The Box channel to teach others how to Master. That being said I would still recommend getting to know a Mastering Engineer, that you can get along with and can trust, that will provide honest feedback on your mixes. Like Wytse mentions his skills he developed over time, and as such it's not realistic to think that from day one you're going to be able to get the best sound ever without building up that knowledge and skillset. Half the battle is not necessarily using a Mastering Engineer, but finding one that will help you develop as an Artist/Engineer.
When I was starting to mix, a mastering engineer and his frankness on my weaknesses helped me 1000 fold. Was the best thing that ever happened to me.
I remember I watched a Q&A with Lawrence Mackrory where he said that he realized this whole thing about separating mixing and mastering is nonsense. He said he kept getting masters back from others that he wasn't satisfied with and decided he would just work on getting good at mastering. He also said he would take his original mix that he had and compare with one that he bounced and put into a new session to "master" and the original was always better. He mixed and mastered the new Bloodbath and Darkane records and they sound incredible. People will defiantly tell you that all real mixers have their stuff sent out for mastering but there are world class engineers who are doing both so they are just wrong.
I mix, deliver premaster and master. If they like the master, they can pay for it. Thats the real test, that way they can always go to another engineer and compare.
I'm very precious with my mixes and I found out that alot of mastering engineers out there simply send the track through a pre-made chain, turn 2-3 knobs and done. Thanks, but no thanks. Being beyond the beginner-stage myself when it comes to mastering I'd rather take 2-3 hours (instead of the 15 minutes most mastering-engeneers put in) and get it done myself. Making volume automations, listening back on different devices and letting the track sit for a few days before putting on the final touches is - to me - a million times more important than having a studio full of vintage equipment that you half-heartedly use to shit out thirty masters a day.
Great video! I absolutely agree. I mostly work with urban genres wherer mastering can have such a dramatic impact on the end product that, put simply, you just have to mix into a limiter
I'm a producer. In Hip-Hop that primarily means I'm a "beatmaker". When you produce, you're already mixing and hiring a mastering engineer for every beat would be insane. Not every beat generates money, paying 100-200 Bucks for a mastering would simply not be wise. There are not many producers that don't master themselves in my genre. My reason for an external mastering engineer would primarily be their experience. I don't think the monitoring situation is that important considering what the clients and their clients listen on, unless it's for a major release (that gets played in clubs, etc) - but in that case they purchase a full trackout anyway and have it mixed and mastered to taste.
I don't have the issue that I need a second set of ears for an objective perspective, but I am still improving a lot when it comes to mastering, thus I need the second set of ears for their experience. So what I'm thinking about is paying a mastering engineer to master a track (that I've already mastered) and then comparing the masters and talking about it. But obviously, I'd have to find a mastering engineer that is open, sharing and honest enough to basically give me his knowledge like that.
I have a friend who loves the sound of emastered. I think it sounds horrible, but he loves the horrible quality. Very sad. I am trying this Masterdesk Pro plugin and see if it can get things sounding decent.
Just for fun, I master my songs myself, and they sound great. Then, when I get those same songs back from Wytse (who I use EXCLUSIVELY for my mastering), and compare them, mine sound like they are in a tin can and his sound amazing.
This is reason #1 why I don't master my songs myself.
I agree with everything everyone said! THANK YOU ALL!!!
Excellent, balanced perspective. There's a lot of different approaches to achieving great results. 👍
I recently tried mastering my own mix recently. I compared with LANDR (free mp3, I know it's compressed) and I was happy with my version. I found it helpful to switch context when mastering ... work only on the .wav file rather than the master bus of the mix; a separate session ... maybe even use different software for mastering.
I've been mixing and mastering my songs and videos for more than 20 years. And just by doing that, even without knowing it, today I learned.
"the best mixes don't need mastering" - Bob Katz
Your monitoring setup looks very impressive. I use tube port dampened Adam A5Xs and a Sub 7, and as good as they sound when used in normal bedroom sized room (well acoustically dampened, bass traps, the works) for their price, that's all I can afford, one decent set. When I had my own first commercially released track professionally mastered by Bob Katz, who is very well known here, he said it was a good mix but yet he made it sound so much better. The point? True mastering engineers are experts at their craft and he was worth every penny. He was even able to dial in some imaging correction and so on (mistakes I would not make now lol). This was exactly 20 years ago now (wow time flies), and I am so much better at my own craft now, even though I started around 1990 (just bedroom composition and ended up owning a larger professional studio to mix for others), but I would STILL send final mixes to a good M.E.
I sold the studio off some years back, we did have dual monitoring there (Mackie HR824 and a small Genelec pair that I forget the model of), then I fell ill and am now well "enough" to at least enjoy music again, but yeah as said am now in a bedroom. I think I might open it up to online mixing for others at some point.
So in summary you don’t need a mastering Engineer because you are one! 👍
If it’s solely for streaming purposes, unless you personally have a mastering engineer who you fully trust by heart, I believe that mastering (by third party) will be obsolete in this day and age when loudness normalization has become commonplace. In my work I often receive both Premaster and Mastered files from both major-labels and individuals, and when I compare them with the same loudness I find only about 10% of the time, the latter is an improvement over the former. 90% of the time they “sacrifice” something in order only to get more loudness, which is just unnecessary imho today.
By the way, still, I firmly believe the demand of real tape mastering will increase more and more in future.
I do my own Finalizing (mastering) because a) I can and b) where my music has been put under someone else's hands, they try to turn my thing into their thing, essentially breaking my thing. Sure this indicates that they are the wrong people for me and not really very experienced as they should a) be asking what my thing is and b) declining if they are not that thing. If I were being released by Sony, I would send my work over to Bob Ludwig as I would expect it to be a positive thing for me and my message as I doubt he (or his equivalent) would try to convert my music into their fave genre.
I will very much say that Experience is the thing. Just because one can find the Play button in a DAW and put a Limiter on a mix, doesn't mean that one is ready to Master (let alone mix). I got to where I am by NOT overdoing the "Mastering" phase with 17,001 Plugiz deessing the sample conversion of the oversampled clipper sidechaining the diterationinator...
Like you, my client Mix price includes the Master as I will not send over a mix that isn't ready-to-go on the ray-dee-i-o as otherwise, people tend to think the mix is brokded seeing it is un-loud.
:-)
i'm a sound engineer from india who does mixing and mastering for local clients,
artist here don't even know that there are separte engineers for mixing and mastering loll.
they liked what i was doing and were very satisfied with the end result so who cares about it, but often if it's a high budget song i would send to my fellow engineer friends and ask for their feedback but do the mastering myself because it feels wierd to send it to a another engineer who doesn't know what the artist or client needs
Great perspective. What's the difference between a master and a pre-master? Do you just take off the limiter and any heavy clipping/compression, or do you remove all master bus processing?
Another thing along the times of “mastering engineers tend to ruin my mixes” is that when I master my music I’m not looking to make my tracks the loudest. I’m trying to retain the character & dynamics of my mix/music. I particularly don’t care to reach high LUFS and would rather participate in trying to be someone who doesn’t subscribe to “competing” against others.
Any time I try to explain this to an ME it’s always an argument of logic vs respecting my artistic intent. So I ended up learning the “dark art” of touching up a 2-track stereo file. In the days of the 80s when CDs came out most of those albums only applied slight EQ and MAYBE some compression and not even a limiter (maybe a tad).
I think this actually demonstrates that having a Mastering Engineer is an essential part of the process. All that's happening here is that Wytse and the others have chosen to hire themselves as the Mastering Engineer, rather than someone else, because they've got the gear, the ear and the experience to do the job properly. If you don't, then you should get someone who does. (I'm not an ME looking for work, just making an observation.)
Great advice all round, I just purchased Bobby Owsinski’s book ‘The mastering engineers handbook’ really looking forward to getting into like his other books
As someone with over 30 years professionally producing, writing, mastering, etc., I am starting to audibly notice the difference when people don't use a professional mastering engineer. It may be a 10% difference for some but 30-40% difference for others but it definitely matters to have another set of ears, experience and expertise in all formats IMO. YMMV.
I’m mastering my mixes for clients way more now days, but I always suggest hiring a mastering engineer if they can afford it. The element of collaboration is essential. Yes we can do it all ourselves but having a team and collaborating usually gets the best results.
You open with the line 'if your not open minded'. Then proceed not to be. You have been mastering for almost ten years, not that long and ,I'm not sure how you find the time for all this work with the massive amount of time you spend on social media, let alone editing videos. But maybe that's what this really is. Touting for work.Nothing at all wrong with that, but the best art is honest art. You mention something about not wanting the projects you mix mastered by an external source which is 1/ not very open minded and 2/ not your decision, that's for the artist without whom there would be nothing. Good mastering engineers are gold [Emily LAzar, John Greenham, Bob Ludwig and 1000's more], none of which had youtube tutorials but turned mistakes into non mistakes by doing it for decades. Classic records often engineered, mixed and mastered by totally different people who rarely even meet each other. Looking at some of the comments you yourself have mastered stuff mixed by others soooooooo. My point? There is no right or wrong way to write songs, record them, eq, compress. If the creator is happy it's them who live with it forever. So be it. Zero offence is embedded in this response, totally the opposite. It's written with an open mind and honesty.
Most of the money I've made in music has come from mastering, and I started out by mastering my own tracks. Eventually, people started asking me to master for them, but that was after 4 years of doing nothing but my own songs. Now, a few of my clients are asking me to mix their songs as well as master. At first, I didn't like it, but now I appreciate being able to control both sides, to give myself the ideal (to me) starting position in mastering and to have a pretty strong idea of what the finished song will sound like. However, I don't start mastering until the client and I are 100% happy with the mix. They could have a single note like "hihats down .2 db from 1:05 to 1:08" and I will tweak that in the mix and get it approved before I even create a master session. I keep the mix and master very separated like that because I don't want my clients to think the mix sounds bad if they just don't like the mastering, or think the mastering sounds terrible and they need another engineer but actually they don't like the mix and we should revise it.
Agree with you on this! Glad someone finally pushing back against the old "You cannot master yourself" mantra. It's just another aspect/skill set to learn and ahem master😁
It's all relationships. Audio mastering is a *service* after all, not a fixed thing. It's sooo much more than processing.
A fresh set of ears, yes, but more than that: mastering is *a different way of listening* compared to mixing. Can't stress that enough. Listening like a fan, less like an engineer. While making a musical connection with the project, you have a distance from it.
Mastering for 20+ years and no problem working ITB - as long the artist is happy with their mix (as they should be). And especially if the tone and tightness is already there.
Most MEs are happy to give feedback or tips - if asked. They're not mindreaders. If you have concerns about what you're submitting - ask!
If you're that unsure if your mix(es) are ready, you're probably better off seeking a producer first.
Whats your prices. And if enjoy feedback to see what I may be doing wrong or what I may be doing right and am just paranoid about
Im an audio engineer and actualy i produce and mix my tracks with mastering in mind to make the final adjustments also by myself to master the productions and play the tracks live or at least test them on the crowd. But a good mastering engineer his experience and the second set of ears is invaluable in my opinion. It is just important that the client and the mastering engineer can really talk about the process and know what to do to let it shine. If you want a proper release always take a mastering engineer for that part of work with experience on both sides of that process the result will be way better. Just my personal advice even if you know how to do it by yourself theres a reason why we work together and don´t do all by ourself all the time its worth it to have assistance 🤓
Thanks for this! ✊
Mixes go to mastering when the client requests it. Most are fine with my masters. I'm sure I'm a bit biased, but honestly, I think I can count on one hand the amount of times masters have come back sounding better than mine. If your mixes translate it's not difficult to make your masters translate too.
Mastering is, I think, manipulating dynamics and frequency response for the biggest psychoacoustic impact. I’ve seen some mastered tracks where they restricted dynamic range to near-square wave on a quiet passage, but then left it more dynamic on a louder part, and it sounded perfect. Somebody really knew what they were doing there. I also expect a mastering engineer to be keenly aware of audio component limitations - maybe even someone involved directly in manufacturing- and who understands digitally, electronically, and physically what makes something sound a certain way. But yeah if you’re just talking about adding a saturator and limiter, most anyone can do that. I don’t consider that to be full blown mastering.
Mixing and mastering some tracks from a friend he was mad about not featuring a sample of a famous game, or watch(casio) or something that he put in this song.
It was "nothing" to me and it told no story. He never called back.
Hello,
I am French, I do not necessarily master the language of Shakespeare very well, you will forgive me I hope ... In short, it raises questions for me about the very activity of the sound engineer because anyone can declare himself a sound engineer without competence elsewhere. That is a problem.
And does the latter have a technical or artistic activity, I personally lean towards the first because it is necessary to respect the work of the artist but it is still a debate open in my eyes, because the investment could then be different and a work of technical and artistic collaboration could grow the works and develop a new business model in the field.
I hope to make myself understood because it is something that fascinates me and I agree that a third person is important, for the rest I have grown older and I have gained my own experience.
musically yours
Sylvain
This was great. Thank you!
Hello there and sorry for not asking this in a private message, but would you mix and master weirder alternative music, similar to what for example Flume makes (Palaces/HTIF mixtape)?
I'm working on a little EP and it's kinda similar "genre".
I would mix it myself but when it comes to more complex stuff like this my room/headphones don't really allow me to hear anything objectively.
Thanks for the content and reply in advance
I would love to! Best is to contact me via my website, whiteseastudio.com/
Mixing and mastering are fairly easy these days and there's tons of resources on how to do it.
I stayed away from mastering my own mixes for a long time until I got masters back I didn’t like. So I started learning myself. While learning, my clients would be like “you gonna master my song right?” Lol because in their mind if I know how to mix I should know how to master. Makes sense to them, not to me however as long as tech keeps improving I’ll keep improving. Win win situation regardless of having a nice expensive mastering studio.
I disagree. In my definition, you can't master your own mix, because all mastering is about gaining a new perspective from a different person. Just as an author can't be their own editor, a mixing engineer can't be their own mastering engineer. While you can certainly enhance your mix's loudness, address issues in the low end, make EQ adjustments, or apply multiband processing, these actions still fall under the category of mixing unless executed by a different individual. Just as an author correcting their own text doesn't make them an editor, they remain the author. I acknowledge that this discussion revolves around semantics, but I believe this is an important difference.
And this is a golden example of what a good comment looks like!
@@Whiteseastudio thank you :)
Your definition is a 21st Century definition, though. The original role of the mastering engineer was to make the minimum amount of changes to ensure that there wouldn't be technical problems when the recording was played on consumer record and tape players. When CDs became the normal distribution format, many pre-CD era releases were "re-mastered" to take advantage of the fact that the technical limitations of vinyl discs and magnetic tape no longer applied. Over time, re-mastering came to encompass the adding of "loudness wars" compression, and the role of the mastering engineer changed from preserving (to the greatest possible extent) the characteristics of the production recording to altering them. Whether this is a good or bad thing is a matter of personal opinion.
I understand your definition. I like it. It's clean. However I'm struggling with defining the benefits of fresh ears (fresh eyes in case of author/editor). Is it about time effitiency / ear fatigue? Or is there assumption that more ears are better, because combined tastes of multiple people, make things sound better in the end?
I don't think there is any sort of consensus regarding your criteria for the mastering process. It seems nonsensical that you can do all the things that happen during mastering for the purpose of mastering and yet somehow still not be mastering.
Workflow is the most important aspect of, you know, work. Lots of goons who think they're a lot better than they are keep repeating platitudes about fresh sets of ears and perspective etc. The reality is, what makes you deliver better content with less stress and better flow is the correct decision. If you need someone else to finish your work, by all means, hire someone, but if not, pay no mind to memorised speeches by people who only know how to talk.
There is no answer to this. But, if I was a AAA artist, running between studio/PR/photo op/travelling, and the studio I spent a day in gave me a mix, and it sounded okay to my ears, I'd tell them to print it for the market (mastering), implying making all the technical requirements needed (ie, EQ, no intersample overshoot, various mixes (vox up/vox down, that 12inch, that radio edit, soundtrack version...) while I sat down and wrote the next one. If, however I am a writer/player/engineer/producer/enthusiast/studio gearhead armed with a PC/Mac, thinking I can do it all these days because I know two RH triads on keys, and have OmniSphere, a condenser mic, and some s/h monitors I saw behind an artist I admire in a video two years ago... Then sure, Ozone it to death ten times already and put it on TH-cam (who will can crush it again for you, for free). Why not, it's a hobby right? If you're in the middle? Pays yer money, takes yer choice. Involving others is... human, and reassuring. I'd go with that, if you can afford it. Saves you time to do what you are good at. YMMV...
> human, and reassuring.
It's not always reassuring. Other humans can often cause problems due to egos and/or simply not understanding the requirements/aesthetics of the genre they were presented with.
Im so glad you said all this! Im a newbie to the recording world, but have been studying it like crazy for 3 years now… I am always discovering that many parts of “conventional wisdom” in recording and even music broadly is holding people back. So much of how the music industry operates is illogical. Thanks for bringing some logic to it.
Who needs a 2nd set of ears when you can just use reference tracks? Im sure mastering engineers rely on references also.
If by "holding people back" you mean, "making their music sound way better than they can on their own" then yes, 100%. Having your music mastered by a professional mastering engineer is not "illogical" or some archaic oddity of the industry, and not everything can be DIY'd. It all depends on your ears, your equipment, and your experience. Like he said in the video, there's the insanely expensive/accurate monitoring and room treatment, there's the mastering equipment itself, and there's the years of experience/perspective on audio. If you're happy with the results you're getting, more power to you. If you want the best quality audio you can get, consider sending it to a trusted professional mastering engineer and check out the difference in results. If you can't hear the difference you're either a magical prodigy or your ears need more training.
@@CT-ho6si Just use a reference track, the mastering engineers use them anyhow… the idea that you personally will never be able to have the skills to master a track, after coming this far, is quite unbelievable… you’re better then you realise, and its not all about having the “mandated gear”
@@personalfreedom2700 The reference track alone will not make it works for you if you don't have that 10 or more years of experience mixing and mastering. It will not make you hear micro details and show you the dozens, hundreds of smart steps you objectively have to make to get there. You will just turn around in circle scratching your head (if at least you can hear the difference and care). Yes, you will personally be able to have the high prestine skills if you continue to practice and being analytic (3 years is very short for developping the ears to mix let alone master at a professional level). I would replace the (you're better than you realize) by: (I can yet do better) if you want to go forward and not stay in place. To go there you will need to work always harder, be objective, honest, analytic, passionate.. You cannot jump steps and try to convaince yourself and others that this or that is not necessary anyway. This is backward and not looking for excellence. You have no idea the difference of skills we get from years to years if we practice persistently. This is day and night. Replace the denial/easy way by the objectivity/hard work thinking. Good luck! :)
Hi thanks. Very interesting topic.
Thanks For the advice!!!
Could you do a review of Acustica Cherry EQ that has the new hyper technology they advertise?
What’s your opinion on AI mastering services like Landr?
This is the truth...Most engineers are scared to admit this!
Sorry…this is a long read.
Years ago, I tried using a mastering engineer three times when the online services were just becoming popular.
The first time was with a guy whose end results were less than what I expected, but more on that later.
The second time was with Universal Mastering (yes, THE Universal, part of UMG). The master was too hot and had audible and obvious clipping in spots. I contacted the engineer and told him of my extreme dissatisfaction, especially coming from a so-called reputable company. He was embarrassed, apologized profusely and redid the master properly. Being an instrumental Detroit techno track, I guess he figured all I cared about was it being really loud. He probably slapped his standard “dance” chain on it, ran it through once, and never listened to the result.
The third time was with Abbey Road online mastering. Again, I wasn’t pleased with the end result. It was overly compressed and they almost completely removed the low end on one song (as a compromise…but still. More on that below).
So, to be fair to the first guy and Abbey Road, the mixes I sent them were less than stellar. They were done when my mixing skills were a little more miss than hit and before my monitoring situation was where it should’ve been. The first guy actually asked for stems because the mix was just too compromised. But, even with stems, his master didn’t really fix fixable issues and the final master was too shy on the low end and too upper midrangey.
The Abbey Road mastering engineer also had a compromised mix that was exacerbated by an issue with the composition itself. There was a very heavy delay on a busy bassline that interfered with the kick. Basically, the arrangement was shit and the low end was a mess so he just took most of it out. So, I was partially to blame for not removing that unnecessary delay on the bass when I had the chance. I was trying to keep the composer’s original intent. I eventually almost completely removed it.
After evaluating the results from those three experiences, I thought I should just do it myself. I didn’t need to pay someone else for disappointing masters when I was totally capable of mediocre work myself. As my mixing skills improved and I invested in room correction software and acoustic treatment, I tried my hand at mastering the songs I sent out to those services. I produced WAY better results than what I got back. BUT, that was due in part by my ability to “cheat” the process.
I don’t like to master as I go. I mix a song to the point where, as a mixing engineer, I think it’s done. I make a stereo pre-master and then load that into a new project for mastering. It may sound weird but, when I listen like a mastering engineer, I hear things I didn’t hear when I was mixing, even though it’s the same room and speakers. I then try to address them through the mastering process. If I can tweak them there, fine. But, if I can’t, that’s where I can “cheat” and easily go back to the mix and fix the issue. It’s even more of a cheat because I’m usually mixing and mastering songs my band composed so I have access to the original patches for the sounds. Sometimes, the best way to fix the issue is tweak the actual sound.
I’m still improving my mixing and mastering but I feel comfortable and confident enough to have my work out there among some really great sounding recordings and feel like it competes on that level.
"I didn’t need to pay someone else for disappointing masters when I was totally capable of mediocre work myself" Good quote 👍 I felt the same
As a mixing engineer I feel objected to say I 'master' a song. However, my clients come to me for a one-stop-shop solution. They simply want to hand over the stems and get the final product back.
I really dislike saying I master songs, but in the eyes of my clients I do :)
I'm waiting for UAD to release their extra pair of ears. That would solve my problems 😅
Good idea! Maybe I’ll make a “grammy winning engineers ears plugin”? 🤔
I mix and master my own music. It’s part of the modern day process.
Great advice. Great video.
I think I'm in George's camp, being at every stage of the game, it just wouldn't feel right to hand the keys to the music over to someone else at the very end of the process. Also, Fika has an uncanny resemblance to Natalie Merchant, in both her look and her speaking manner.
What's your speedcube record? 😀
Never measured it, I'm not that quick 😅
I'm really happy whit Ozone 10👍 it's sounds werry good, maby if my music get a big, i wil use a top-end engineer, but for now O10 are good enough👍
I love your Music is Love Forever rack... I also think music is about spreading love and kindness! Love your channel mate! Please keep it up, i have specifcally logged in to another account so that I can subscribe to you twiceee that's how good you are !
I am really tired of the snobbiest of comments like "if they say they do mixing and mastering, they are prob bad at both". Get over yourself lol. Love this video.
she holds the key
i was mastering everything i worked on for a long time. Tried out a few different mastering guys for a specific project, my pre masters sounded better.... yup. no thanks haha. I know how its supposed to sound, i'll do it.
id rather master my own stuff i got pride i want it to be me alone and i only its just a better feeling
There are a couple of guys on TH-cam that I really respect when it comes to mixing, Wytse being one. But when it comes to "Mastering", with all due respect, I've never heard anyone on TH-cam that even comes close to the guys over at Sterling Sound or Bernie Grundman.
This is exactly how I do it too
Bro! How come you dont have a CL-1B? Love your vidz, thanks 🫶🏼
Waiting for the Karog avalon 747 review!!!
you really give the mix session project ?
Yes
@@Whiteseastudio i mean they're not "stealing ur sauce" or somethin ? or im not getting it
I’m not afraid of that, its just a bunch of audio and plugin settings
@@Whiteseastudio 🔥❤️
OMG I had the same reflection. I think they more often than not decrease the quality of a previously good mix. They alienated my ears in the late 90's/ early 2000's with their loudness war.
I'm an amateur but I know two things are unnecessary : Mastering engineers and compressors. The latter I can accept for purely artistic purposes in specific cases but with parcimony but the former I consider them a bit of a fraud.
Hello there. I have been commercially mastering for about 15 years now. I can totally validate the importance of mastering even if you are the most experienced engineer! You can paint the best on a canvas, however till a specialist designer frame it and position it properly in a gallery, you are not justifying your own work.
Also i wanted to point out that such huge console in the room is totally obstruction to a good mastering setup.
There are comments from people here who said they don’t even know what mastering is. I have nothing to say to them at all, but till music exists, the art of Mastering engineers will. I am a producer myself and i mix too sometimes, however I’ve witnessed the power of good Mastering since vinyl days as a small kid, and i say that however good you are with your abilities, you need to specialise. And your clients should know this as well!
Shine on superstar 😇
Bro you need to do Slate VSX. It's wild.
Been thinking about that
cheers dude!
i think people think mastering is this magical thing that takes a meh mix, and makes it explode from your speakers. the reality is, the mix is everything. mastering can make it sparkle slightly more, but in my experience, the only people who can tell the difference between a good mix with a limiter on it, vs a pro master, are people who are mastering engineers haha
Part of the issue/question here is how one defines "mastering".
To me, and historically, mastering is about translation - making sure all the songs on an album are leveled in comparison to each other an have an overall tonal balance that's consistent, adding ISRC codes, and transferring and archiving to the required consumer formats for delivery.
What it's NOT "supposed" to be is 'finishing' a mix.
When I bring my mix to Sterling Sound (who've been mastering my records for 40 years no, whenever I have control over that aspect), my HOPE is that, ifI've done my mixing job correctly, it "needs" no alteration. If we can muster it flat I consider it a win.
SO what this leads to is the question as to, if you're "mastering yourself", presumably in the same room on the same speakers as you mixed, then what exactly are you doing and why didn't you already do it in the mix?
I think people (especially home recordists) put too much stock in HOPING that mastering is somewhat going to be the magic finisher that makes an unexciting or unsatisfying mix into something brilliant.
The definition of mastering is "transfering the final mix to the media of distribution". The sound and artistic vision is done in the mixing process. No pro level engineer expects sonically anything different from the mastering house than what he/she gave them to begin with. Mastering in the analog age was (and still is) a very dedicated and difficult craft, cutting the disk and so forth but in the digital age it has attracted much attention mainly due to the poor quality of average mixing abilities. I agree with your approach and find the "necessity" of mastering (unless producing for vinyl) a bit overrated
The only people that say you shouldn’t master your own mixes, are the same people who make way more than enough money with just doing mixes, usually “professionals” I mix and master mainly because I need the funds for both services lol if I was getting paid 10k for a mix I’d hand it off to someone too
I agree with you i want and love control all the process cause we are only 2 in Shining miniature .il take time but we are proud to be indépendant.if in the future we can pay à specialist we Will mâle it for sûre.
i watch most of your videos and many are enjoyable but this one? I thought: what is the issue here? people sending their mix to the manufacturer (and skipping the (external) mastering phase) is hardly something that has come up only recently.
There's a record by Billy Strings, "Home," that was recorded, mixed, and mastered by the same guy and I think it sounds pretty bad for a professional bluegrass record. In that case I think they definitely should have handed it off.
The only way i can imagine your videos getting dislikes, is that it happens by accident when somebody clicks the dislike instead of the like button. You are just speaking your mind and the truth you have within you and i cant get my mind around people, that write bad comments regarding you or trying to make you feel down.
I for myself can say that you are a great thinker, a great sound engineer and somebody that actually for once says an unfiltered and independant opinion.
Your opinion counts for me and i really like what you talk about!
Much love, Mario!