Comments on: Why You Don't Need Mastering Software

By: Brandon Drury

Brandon Drury — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:44:07 +0000

There's no doubt that going with a real mastering dude is always preferred.

There's no doubt that there are sonic advantages to high end gear particularly when we get into mastering stage. I played around for some time with 2bus compression with the UAD plugins (which I do consider to be excellent) and my mid-grade Chameleon Labs 7802. The 7802 delivered superior results every time. (For the record, I mixed through the 7802 so maybe this is isn't a totally fair test.)

I do think the really good plugins get the "general idea" right, but when it comes down to the ultra-details, the plugins begin to get a little.....fuzzy. While I have no problem using a plugin on just about anything while mixing, the 2bus/mastering stage is an area where I'd be extra careful.

Brandon

By: Tory

Tory — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:31:43 +0000

As a mastering engineer who has had the opportunity both working in a studio with Manley, Avalon, Sonic Solutions, etc and has been only able to afford plug-ins, I say that you can get decent results with plug-ins. However, when I started using the Manley Massive Passive eq and Vari-Mu, I found that I got the results I wanted SO much quicker. The trick with plug-ins is to try not to over do it. If you are finding that you are EQ-ing frequencies over 3-4dB range, either something is wrong with the mix or you don't have a grasp on what mastering is. Also, don't over do it with the compression; 1:1.5. The Vari-Mu is set at that (as a compressor) anyway. I find what I'm doing has a greater impact than the particular plug-in. One of the best lessons I had was sending my own work out to Steve Hall ($1000 for a few songs... sshhh.., I've paid lawyer and doctors less). I learned SO much by A/B-ing my own work, which I mixed, against his mastering. It wasn't what he did, it's what he didn't do. The bottom line is, after a certain point (beyond crap) it's subjective. Audiophiles just like to seem like they know it all. A GREAT song with mediocre quality beats a perfectly recorded bad song in my opinion.

By: UHhhh GUISE REALLY?

UHhhh GUISE REALLY? — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 22:40:08 +0000

Uhmmm, well, mastering also raises the volume of a song... you don't want a song that is quiet as f***. And even if you do a 100% job mixing, that doesn't mean it's 100% perfect, even the best equipment has it's limitations and you can't just go back and rerecord everything to be perfect... I mean, you could, but that's a bit anal. Thanks for the rant anyways.

By: Lyric

Lyric — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:45:37 +0000

I totally agree with the article, personally i have used alot of these recording softwares that claim to master. one situation where a friend of mine was using the same software ( adobe audition ) as mine but i was getting better results. one thing we should know about plug-ins is that many of them are modeled after hardware components. they try to imitate the actual hardware piece. But what's interesting is that guys will use the same software but get really different results that are easy to tell apart.

So for me it's useless if you get a software but can't maximize it.

By: Cory Barnes

Cory Barnes — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:43:31 +0000

Most of the plug ins that get the "Mastering" description are described so because they work at higher resolutions and use more DSP. It is assumed you will be using less instances than you would be in a mix situation.
I have the Uaudio precision mastering bundle and it sounds fantastic. Anyone who masters at home and only uses 1 set of speakers in one room to reference deserves the poor result they will get.
If your mastering at home the trick is to find several situations you can test your masters in- a car, a stereo with big flubby speakers, a stereo with crystal clear flat speakers and make adjustments until you get a result that translates well across many different systems.
I've been in several world class mastering situations and they all have multiband compressors. Often times the reason for this is because they like to very tightly control the top end and keep it very present, while leaving a little more dynamic range in the mids.
There is no "automatic" anything that works all that well, however the Dynamic Spectrum Mapper has yielded great results for me before. On other projects, it didn't work.

By: kecs

kecs — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:39:01 +0000

well there is a reasonable amount of truth in dis but i tink we should give mastering softwares a chance, for crying out loud the programmers are not dumb. mastering softwares can help if you know the know how.

By: david deaton

david deaton — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:13:46 +0000

Contrary to some peoples obvious disbelief,I have found some of the mastering programs/plug ins useful in many ways for the not so perfect crowd.
If a perfect world,everyone's mix would sound like it came directly from the hand of the almighty,but as everyone knows....that's never going to happen.

Have you ever tried to tame a snare drum that takes up 6db of headroom above the actual mix?
Or manipulate a weak vocal into something passable as tracked well?
Or tighten a bass track that has a focused 110hz peak to a kick drum that is centered at 100hz?
Those guys in the super high end realm of mastering only use what they need for the project,no matter what.That is the proper way,it's all about purity,and I totally agree,that is when you are working on a properly produced track.
If your mix is good enough to run through a few really nice pieces of hardware,then you should be honored.
In the working mans world,things are a little bit different.
I take it as a challenge to bring something that was dead to life,and for major reconstructive work,software is the only thing that will work.
I even sometimes (usually) do both...I'll do everything applicable(phase correction,mulitband,stereo-mono correlation..) Then hit it with my hardware,back in and finish the editing...
Bam,you got a brand new animal.
Not arguing the point,just thought another look at this might shed some light on this perspective.
Thank you
David Deaton
mastering room at EEG dallas

By: wtfwtfwtf

wtfwtfwtf — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:23:01 +0000

Well the thing is a good Mastering Professional costs A LOT. They charge more than most lawyers per hour. The good ones deserve it but if you don't have the cash you're left at home. If you do it yourself you'll end up learning over time which is great. Maybe you can be the next Bob Ludwig if you stick with it.

I actually heard plug-ins in Sound Forge improve a recordings' sound. Plug-ins can have a positive impact. Things change quickly. Many top producers switched to Pro Tools from tape very quickly and they could switch to software at some point.

I think experimenting at home great fun. Maybe get a used Aural Exciter or a TC Finalizer and see what happens. Cheaper that way.

By: brandondrury

brandondrury — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:44:33 +0000

This is one of the wierdest articles I have ever read. Someone show me a song they produced without mastering that made it mainstream.

Before you comment on an article, please read it. Nowhere did this article ever imply that mastering wasn't important. It's clear that you read the title and started writing. This is fine if you just want to watch yourself type, but please don't contaminate the general public with comments if you aren't going to read the article first. The entire theme of this article was you don't need to run out and buy software with "mastering" in the title to master your own music. The big boy mastering engineers are not using software with "mastering" in the title. Most of them aren't using software at all.

By: Garlan

Garlan — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:20:32 +0000

I believe that to say that mastering is not important is to say that you can get a song at 0DB using your ears alone. To say that mastering is not necessary is like saying that chocalate chip cookies don't need the chips. Someone show me a top ten CD on the charts or a professional singer or band that didn't have their CD mastered AT ALL. Sure YouTube music is crap and that's ok. It's not supposed to be high fidelity anything. There are industry standards concerning loudness and volume that the human ear fails miserably at measuring. This is one of the wierdest articles I have ever read. Someone show me a song they produced without mastering that made it mainstream. 90% of all YouTube music is played on a computer....thereby fidelity is not important. If I were to play a YouTube song on my 5.1 M&K surround system, it would sound like 50 year old transistor radio under water.