The Future of Mastering

[q3cpma]

This is not about Billie, it's about the fact that music is a form and a medium for expression. and that you don't need 'experience' to express yourself.
It's art, not engineering.[

That's one way of seeing it, not the universal way. "Some" view it as art in the classical sense, with some (or even a majority of) objective facets.

being technically impressive =/= good music.

Very true, but it's at best naïve to think that technicality (and other things like originality, "substance", etc...) doesn't play a role.

it's up to every individual to decide whether a piece of music is good or not.

Relativism is a false god.

I agree that some good albums have been produced in subpar conditions, but the typically high clarity production that suits pop is probably harder to do in your bedroom (mostly electronic music is a different animal, though). Anyway, Blumlein was just bantering about the "quality" of Eilish, not about the recording quality.

 

[Geert]

Very true, but it's at best naïve to think that technicality (and other things like originality, "substance", etc...) doesn't play a role.

Music for a part is a form of applied mathematics.

 

[restorer-john]

You can't listen to such recordings in your car, and everyone wants to be heard in people's cars.

Who seriously listens to music in their cars? Certainly not audiophiles, especially classical, acoustic or jazz aficionados. The environment/acoustics are putrid for such listening.

I listen to talkback radio, ocasionally. The rest of the time I listen to the engine, the transmission ,the road noise and the breeze (if the windows are down).

 

[Blumlein 88]

Who seriously listens to music in their cars? Certainly not audiophiles, especially classical, acoustic or jazz aficionados. The environment/acoustics are putrid for such listening.

I listen to talkback radio, ocasionally. The rest of the time I listen to the engine, the transmission ,the road noise and the breeze (if the windows are down).

I'm with you. However, many people have their best sound in the car. Most people are not audiophiles.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Good albums not from a studio might be Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska or that Eurythmics album (sorry the name escapes me at the moment).

 

[Moderate Dionysianism]

I listen to the engine, the transmission ,the road noise and the breeze

From 50mph upwards, I only listen to the rooftop bike rack, don't even bother to turn the stereo on

 

[pierre]

I have an impression that mastering engineers design their own gear, use rare in-house devices or analogue gear, and yet start from scratch all the time when thinking about how a particular project can be tweaked to sound as good as possible with the minimum of intervention.

Some mastering eng. did design tools. Most don't. Why: you don't need it at all. Most plugins are a lot better than analogue gear. There is a lot
of mystic/vodoo around analogue gear. The last years, the differences have vanished. Most fan of analogue stuff don't want to do blind tests which gives you an idea. Analogue tools adding distorsions are useful. Having a tube EQ or a tube compressor can be heard (this requires concentration).

Many of them have authored books. Online courses to impart some skills have been created.

In the past, recording studios were far more popular but my impression of recording and mixing is that it is difficult and complex, and seems far beyond the reach of many casual listeners.

Part of what made mastering (vinil, tape) has mostly vanished. The part which is left is tuning the sound which is part art part science.

At this point, automated mastering services are appearing but regardless of that, many content creators will also opt to 'master' audio on their own.

As always, differences between automatic mastering (to a target) and manual one are decreasing. The automatic mastering services will be very very good soon and the only part left would be to define the target that match the recording (more art than science).

Is it possible for any audiophile to practice what a mastering engineer does? Can a person, with or without studio working experience, set up a good studio environment according to the books, use smaller but well-performing studio monitor speakers e.g. Adam Audio etc, and such technology as mastering software, plugins, studio monitor headphones etc to master their own streaming content?

Yes and no. The science part is easy to learn. Calibrating your room, using oZone smartly is not hard. Creating a sound signature that someone will recognize is something different. Also often the mastering eng. is asked what he/she can do with a bad mix. That requires some knowledge or a lot of time.

Aren't the audiophiles who consider things to the highest and deepest levels those who are basically mastering engineers even if they don't work professionally as mastering engineers?

Mastering: make a sound pleasant to a maximum of people
Audiophile: tune to my ears in my room.
Not exactly the same objective.

If this is the case, mastering engineers will quickly become unnecessary, since AI and amateurs can easily replace the occupation.

They are dying slowly. The added value of a mastering eng. exists only if 1. you are famous 2. you are very good at what you do.
Life is much harder if you have medium skills since AI is catching up.

It is arguable that digital plugins, with much trial and error, is capable of recreating what was only possible with analogue gear.

Sure, for a long time now.

It seems it takes more than just an audiophile to make a mastering engineer. ...

Mastering is a profession. Like many of them you need to learn and practice, it takes some time. There are plenty of way to learn
http://www.atiam.ircam.fr/en/ is a good one for example. IRCAM by the way has plenty of excellent courses https://www.ircam.fr/transmission/formations-professionnelles/.

Overall, since mastering as a profession has become firmly established in the 20th century, the only way people can enter that field is by working at one of the already existing studios. Obviously such skills as vinyl authoring are only possible to gain there. In the digital realm, trial and error could get you to the same level perhaps, but that is limited by how much skill+experience you already have in working at a proper studio. Most mastering engineers would need to be in a studio affiliated with or directed by a larger corporation to remain in business without too much trouble.

vinyl authoring is dead (almost). post prod for movie is the future. Good time to learn ProTools or Resolve/Fairlight. Movies for example are done 100% in the box (ITB). 1 computer, 1 accelerator and you need nothing else.

But let's throw common sense out the window. Ignoring the need to have speakers which you understand deeply and can work by analogy to imagine even larger speakers, let me ask what DAC does a mastering studio use? Can Sonata HD Pro suffice? Can Audacity be mastering software? Can studio monitor headphones like Sony's M1ST, Yamaha's MT8 or Audio-technica's ATH-M series suffice? And ultimately, if most consumers use the most commonplace worthless gear to listen, isn't it proper for the mastering to take place using just a DAC and headphones? In most cases there'd likely be no issues with how it sounds on a radio, a TV, a car, or a high end setup, although one could simply test it out rather than rely on analogy and experience with professional studio speakers.

Most studio person I know obsessed about their gear. They will buy what magazine are pushing them to buy. Read a few threads on gearslutz and you will have an idea. This is very similar to audiophile behaviour.

Can every audiophile be a mastering engineer with only a Sonata HD Pro, a computer, and ATH-M40x?

People are limited by the time and motivation they want to put into mastering. If they really want to learn, you don't need the best tools.
Plus a 30$ dac is good enough if you are all in the box. Remember mastering you get a waw file, you produce a a CD or similar. Everything is digital. DAC is used once to listen to the music, no loop of AD/DA.

 

[richard12511]

Yes, Billie Eilish's first album was recorded and produced in her bedroom.

The mix was done in her bedroom, but I don't think the mastering was(though maybe that's not what you're saying).

Great sounding album, though.

 

[Soniclife]

Mastering is about translation, not just about sounding great in the mastering studio, though these days that last part seems to be almost forgotten be desire to make it sound loud in cars, kitchens and ear buds.

 

[dfuller]

But let's throw common sense out the window. Ignoring the need to have speakers which you understand deeply and can work by analogy to imagine even larger speakers, let me ask what DAC does a mastering studio use? Can Sonata HD Pro suffice? Can Audacity be mastering software? Can studio monitor headphones like Sony's M1ST, Yamaha's MT8 or Audio-technica's ATH-M series suffice? And ultimately, if most consumers use the most commonplace worthless gear to listen, isn't it proper for the mastering to take place using just a DAC and headphones? In most cases there'd likely be no issues with how it sounds on a radio, a TV, a car, or a high end setup, although one could simply test it out rather than rely on analogy and experience with professional studio speakers.

Okay, to answer this part...
1. What dacs... Common brands include Mytek, Lavry, Lynx, occasionally RME, Merging.
2. Can headphones... No. Headphones give a very, very different spatial interpretation than good speakers do, and what sounds good on headphones can often sound like hot trash on speakers.
3. If most consumers... Again, the answer is no. Mastering is first and foremost a quality control job. You are there to fix problems that got past the mixer and producer. If you cannot hear the problems, you cannot deal with them. Cheap headphones do not meet this standard. Even expensive ones do not. This is the realm of speakers, and very good ones. I would consider the Revel F328be as an acceptable mastering grade speaker. You need full range, very low distortion, and an even LW frequency response. Remember, mastering rooms are treated to within an inch of their lives and have extraordinarily low noise floors.

 

[dfuller]

EDIT: listened to "Bad Guy" to see what the hype was all about. God, it is mundane, even mediocre.

Bad Guy is far from her best work, even on that album.

Yes, Billie Eilish's first album was recorded and produced in her bedroom.

And mixed by Rob Kinelski and mastered by John Greenham. There was still quite a bit of cash thrown at it.

 

[Cbdb2]

So they didn't mix it? These days its pretty easy to do decent recording when you use a sampler a drum machine and a sequencer. You can get great samples (or even 4 bar loops) and fix every mistake. You can even fix the vocal tuning or other real instrument mistakes if you have to. Rick Beato says we've reached the age of "perfect recordings" even with mediocre performances because of the technologies. He also thinks many are boring because of it.

 

[H-713]

So they didn't mix it? These days its pretty easy to do decent recording when you use a sampler a drum machine and a sequencer. You can get great samples (or even 4 bar loops) and fix every mistake. You can even fix the vocal tuning or other real instrument mistakes if you have to. Rick Beato says we've reached the age of "perfect recordings" even with mediocre performances because of the technologies. He also thinks many are boring because of it.

I would probably tend to agree on this. Music is a form of art. Fixing every imperfection doesn't make it better, and in a lot of cases it does the opposite.

The thing that makes recording / mixing / mastering difficult is that making it isn't just about making it technically perfect. In fact, learning the technical part of this isn't too hard. A big part of the job, however, is understanding how to help the artist achieve their vision and create something meaningful.

Sometimes computers make it too easy to do too much. The "sound of tape" probably has as much to do with the way it affects how people think and work as it does with the characteristics of the equipment. There's a whole lot more psychology in this than people realize.

 

[dfuller]

So they didn't mix it?

No, they did not mix it.

These days its pretty easy to do decent recording when you use a sampler a drum machine and a sequencer.

Can't program a vocal, though - and Billie's got freaking incredible control over her voice.

. You can even fix the vocal tuning or other real instrument mistakes if you have to.

Yeah... It doesn't go nearly as far as people think it does though. Pitch correction can't fix something wildly out of tune, not really - the artifacts start to pop up if you go too far.

He also thinks many are boring because of it.

Trust me, that's not why it's boring. I'm convinced people who go "music was better back in the day!" are wearing rose colored glasses. There was a lot of garbage then too.

 

[Inner Space]

These days its pretty easy to do decent recording when you use a sampler a drum machine and a sequencer.

I'm convinced people who go "music was better back in the day!" are wearing rose colored glasses.

I think old-style live drummers made a difference. I love a lot of new machine-based music, but it lacks the kind of human shuffle that was pop music, really. Tempos were changing all the time, even in a 2:30 track. I'm a musician, therefore it pains me to say so, but we owe drummers a lot.

 

[Geert]

I would probably tend to agree on this. Music is a form of art. Fixing every imperfection doesn't make it better, and in a lot of cases it does the opposite.

Mastering fixes the sound, not the music. If done right it always makes it better, unless in exceptional cases where you want a low fi sound.

The thing that makes recording / mixing / mastering difficult is that making it isn't just about making it technically perfect. In fact, learning the technical part of this isn't too hard.

Understanding the process and the tools involved isn't to hard, executing it is. Did you ever mix a complex pop hit?

 

[H-713]

Mastering fixes the sound, not the music. If done right it always makes it better, unless in exceptional cases where you want a low fi sound.

I was mostly referring to the mixing stage here, not the mastering stage.

Understanding the process and the tools involved isn't to hard, executing it is. Did you ever mix a complex pop hit?

That's essentially what I'm saying.

To apply a woodworking analogy...
Learning the technical aspect of mixing / mastering is much like learning how to use machines. There's a lot between knowing how to run a table saw and knowing how to build fine furniture. In the same way, there's a lot between knowing the technical aspects of mixing a record and knowing how to actually record and mix a successful album. In this case, the term "successful" can be left open to interpretation. There is the technical skills, the ability to apply those technical skills, and then the artistic / creative / psychological aspect.

 

[Saidera]

The background to this thread is summarised in the pictures below, featuring SonicStage Mastering Studio, its innovative use of Sonnox/OXF-R3, SBM, SBM Direct, DSD recording via CXD9872/ALC889DSD, which had people wondering whether studio gear such as ADA-7000R with its rubidium clock records DSD in a special way. Of course, all these myths were put forward in the DSD thread and debunked. Particularly, SBM is obsolete, DSD recording vs digital DSD conversion is inconclusive etc. But the drive for casual users to be their own mastering engineer is embodied in this software. That has shaped the way I framed things in my first post.

 

[Burning Sounds]

UB40's first album Signing Off was recorded in a bedsit in Birmingham. Bob Lamb knew what he was doing though. Not sure who mastered it, though. Great sounding album IMO.

From Wikipedia:
"Because we couldn't afford a studio and he was the only guy we knew who knew how to record music, we did the album in his bedsit. I remember he had his bed on stilts. So underneath the bed was a sofa and mixing desk. And so we recorded the album there on an eight track machine with the same 50p coin going through the electric meter continually because we'd booted the lock off it. And, with it being a bedsit and us being eight in the band, we'd record the saxophone in the kitchen—because there was a bit of resonance off the walls, a bit of reverb—before putting the machine effects on it. While the percussion—the tambourines, the congas, the drums—we'd do in the back yard. Which is why you can hear birds singing on some of the tracks! You know, because it was in the daytime we'd be shouting across the fences 'Keep it DOWN! We're RECORDING!'"

 

[Cbdb2]

No, they did not mix it.

Can't program a vocal, though - and Billie's got freaking incredible control over her voice.

Yeah... It doesn't go nearly as far as people think it does though. Pitch correction can't fix something wildly out of tune, not really - the artifacts start to pop up if you go too far.

Trust me, that's not why it's boring. I'm convinced people who go "music was better back in the day!" are wearing rose colored glasses. There was a lot of garbage then too.

A singer that far out of tune is not a singer. Perfect quantized drum machine drums, sampled instruments where every G chord from the guitar is identical. Or worse, loops where the same identical 4 bars repeats and repeats. You may as well be listening to music made by an algorithm. Theres no humanity left.