Hi !

Does a mix always need mastering ? And why : only to increase volume ?
If the song you are mixing sounds right for you and people around, even if you don't listen to it through Genelec speakers, isn't enough ? I thought mastering was really essential for old 33 rpm records to avoid phase problems and correct bass frequencies and others that couldn't be correctly written on the vinyl. Now, with digital recording, have we got the same problems ? Has a not mastered song can be compared with a mastered one if the mix is correct ?

I hope i didn't write too many mistakes. Thank you for your answers and advises.

I would say not to worry about it unless you are releasing the song. If you are releasing the song/songs, DO NOT SKIP THIS PROCESS. I will quote Jack Endino here, because he explaines it a hell of a lot better than I can.

"Lotsa people confuse this (mastering) with "mixing". Mixing is when you think you are "finishing" the record, creating the final two-track stereo versions from the multitrack masters... "mixing together" 24 tracks (or more) of sound into just the final two left/right tracks that people will be able to listen to on their stereos. Mastering, however, is when you actually finish the record. When mixing, your ears and perceptions will change slightly during the course of the project; songs mixed at different times may sound very different in tones or in relative volume from each other. Mixing is a kind of intense and subjective process, and it's hard to maintain absolute consistency through the entire project. Each song may sound fine by itself, but one may be subjectively louder than the next, making the following song seem "smaller" than it should; or your ears may get fatigued and the mixes slowly get brighter and brighter as your ears lose sensitivity to the high frequencies. Enter the elite mastering engineer. His job is to make your CD as loud as possible without changing the sound of the music too obviously: everyone wants to get as close as they can to the maximum digital output level (known as "digital zero") so their music will sound louder than everyone else's on the radio. (I'm not saying this is good, it's just the way it is.) This is a very tricky, exacting job requiring some very hi-powered digital processing gear and much care. Another job of the mastering engineer is to make things sound consistent if that is what is desired (it usually is), both tonally and volume-wise, so a rock song is not quieter than the preceding acoustic guitar song, to take an extreme example; or so one song is not "duller" sounding than the others. Imagine the tone controls on your stereo, but exaggerated into surgical instruments. The mastering engineer has to have a feel for the abstract "ideal average stereo" out there in the real world, and his most important job is to make sure that your record will sound great on the maximum number of stereo systems that exist, not just that crummy 70's-era Kenwood receiver in your bedroom.

Mastering engineers usually have their own control rooms, called "mastering suites", and never work anywhere else, because this allows them to really get to know how the sound in their room relates to the rest of the world. Once they know "how things should sound" in their room, they can make decisions quickly and with confidence. As an engineer working in many different rooms all the time, I know how hard it is to always be sure of the relationship of what I'm hearing to the, uh, "outside world", because just about the time I really "learn the room" I'm off to the next job! I deal with this by steering most of my mixing work to one or two studios I am very familiar with, whenever possible.


I have recently begun doing some mastering work for a few indy projects, using gear at my favorite mixing studio here in Seattle; but I can't make much money because I am much too slow and meticulous at it, and most of the money I charge ends up going to the studio. I will do this for friends on a limited budget, but I'm not efficient enough to want to make this my main gig. To really excel at mastering I would need my own room and would have to do it to the exclusion of all else. There are two professional mastering engineers I enjoy working with in LA (when the budget allows), who have been able to actually follow written instructions and seem to be on my wavelength: Eddie Schreyer at Oasis Mastering, and John Golden at John Golden Mastering. These men understand rock, and usually get it right the first time. I do not insist on attending distant mastering sessions; the travel and hotel expenses can be a significant addition to the budget (charged to the band's account, of course!) and unless there is a lot of tedious, exacting work for me to oversee, I've found my presence (or the band's presence) there has scant relationship to whether the work is done properly. Instead I prepare detailed, written song-by-song instructions, maintain phone contact, and receive reference CDs by FEDEX. Some mastering engineers I've worked with seem unable to follow the simplest written instructions; but these guys can. Others that I respect are Greg Calbi, George Marino and Bob Ludwig; but there's lots of great mastering engineers, and sometimes what they can do to your record is miraculous. Do not discount this final step."

Thank you Elvischrist for your complete reply.

A mastering engineer can correct mixes that are sometimes at different levels or tone. But if it seems obvious that non professional mixes may be thus, is it the same for professional mixes realized with sound engineers and professional equipment ?

Example : if i mix my own songs with my PC and Edirol speakers, i must admit that the result will not be the same as if they were mixed by a sound engineer, even if he uses my low cost equipment. However i've already done mixes that sounded good for me (also for my wife and one friend) in my stereo car and headphones.
I heard people say that if it's good in stereo car, it's roughly good everywhere. Is that right ? Most of people listen to music with cheaper stereos or mp3 players.

As it's written in your reply : mixing is a subjective process. And maybe it makes the difference, because it seems to me that many FM productions have the same sound. So where does it come from ? Recording, mixing, or mastering ? And finally, can mastering destroy a mix instead of making it sound better ?

I think of mastering really for released music... if you have an albums worth of music and you want to make sure the levels are good from song to song and also to tame any wild frequencies or bass notes that may not be audible through your home speakers. Yes, mastering can squeeze the dynamics, thus making it easier to be 'louder'... but it can also be for many other things. I suggest you find a good masterer and ask to sit in and watch a session. I have been lucky enough to do this for a few records the last two years and it taught me a lot about what I want to have in my final mixes, etc. It was amazingly educational. Also, it is helpful to 'hear' it though the more objective ears of someone that did not record or play on it.

Yes, i'd really love watching and listening to a mastering session. But i live in a small village and the nearest studios are in Toulouse at about 120 miles away. But you're right, this is certainly the best way to learn and especially understand the work.

I've heard that none of the Flaming Lips records have been mastered.

Can anyone verify this?

i don't pretend to be an ingeneer of any type but i have my idea on this if you want to ear it :

if you are a indie band , playing indie music , you should see (i think) mastering as an artistic part in the final part of your project... and like each artistic part - because you are indie - you can choose to do it or not and this for several reason :

-because you like your sound already without the master (it might be the same thing without a mix in a way) and want to keep this sound untouched.

-because you are aware that mastering always (too me) have bad sides: most of the time it reduce the dynamic by using compression / limiting.... contribute to give your cd a "normal" sound (sorry my English language is very "limited" too). With the year I find that mastering as become one of the weapon of the major label, helping them to make a cd sound more "standard"... and easy listening for "standard people" (if I can say that).

if you are into "very special indie music" and the people that are listening to your music are in contact with this scene , i'm not sure that your cd "need" a mastering ... but it might ... lol

my case: i'm doing -mostly- records for hard core, emo, metal (sometimes indie) band . And most of that time they want their cd to be at the same level that other "commercial" cd.
when sometimes I've got a band who is very into Neurosis sound (for example) i'm very happy to deal with them cause i know they would prefer a good sound quality rather a powerfull sound (I know, I know Mr. Albini make very powerfull records without many sacrifice to dynamic reduction & sound quality reduction ... but you know what ? he's good lol).

Then you choose : you can also do a master but a "light master" that respect your sound. It all depend on what kind of sound you want finaly.

The questions : do you need a master or not ? If yes, what kind of master ?

Hope my little experience help. Nick.

full point wrote:I've heard that none of the Flaming Lips records have been mastered.

Can anyone verify this?

A very quick google search shows that Keith Cleversley, Scott Booker, and Dave Fridmann have mastered their records.

i thought i understood the process. i am likely a complete idiot about this, but isn't mastering simply the process of transferring the information from its current form (probably 1/4 inch two track) to the machines that will make multiple copies?

so, if you are mastering for vinyl, you have to set the riaa eq, and make whatever other eq adjustments or level matcihing or compresssion or whatever you want, and then you create (cut) a master. From which ismade records.

if you are mastering for CD, you do whatever eq, etc. you want and run the program into an A/D converter that creates a digital redbook master. From which is made CDs.

My point is: you have to "master" the program as part of the duplication process. Any audio tomfoolery beyond whatever is neccessary due to the medium (RIAA) is optional, although perhaps desireable.

or am i completely off the reservation here?

the$inmusicisallmine wrote:i thought i understood the process. i am likely a complete idiot about this, but isn't mastering simply the process of transferring the information from its current form (probably 1/4 inch two track) to the machines that will make multiple copies?

so, if you are mastering for vinyl, you have to set the riaa eq, and make whatever other eq adjustments or level matcihing or compresssion or whatever you want, and then you create (cut) a master. From which ismade records.

if you are mastering for CD, you do whatever eq, etc. you want and run the program into an A/D converter that creates a digital redbook master. From which is made CDs.

My point is: you have to "master" the program as part of the duplication process. Any audio tomfoolery beyond whatever is neccessary due to the medium (RIAA) is optional, although perhaps desireable.

or am i completely off the reservation here?

Yes, you are