What is Mastering ?

The art of mastering for CD and DVD evolved directly from the process of "cutting" a lacquer for vinyl pressing, and involves many of the same concepts. But what actually is it ?

Here are some possible definitions of mastering:

• Creating a production master for replication
• Achieving an optimal balance of tone and level
  
• Gaining the benefit of an experienced, impartial ear
• Top/tailing and sequencing
  
• Fixing any outstanding problems from a mix
  
• Making your music sound the best it can be
  
• Making it f-ing loud !
  

So, which one is right? Well, all of them, to varying degrees - except the last one. My favourite explanation is this one:

Mastering is the art of making a collection of tracks into an album (*)

(*) or single, or compilation, or podcast, or catalogue...

This is achieved by one or more of several techniques. As well as technical tasks like ensuring the best transfer from the source and creation of a suitable master, these may include:

• Level adjustments, often using a limiter or compressor
• Equalisation (EQ) to achieve a natural, balanced sound - broadly speaking the right amount of bass and treble, but also much more detailed adjustments, for example to remove unnatural resonance or build-up at certain frequencies, or perceptually improve limitations of the mix. Common examples might include adding "air", or "punch", or adding "edge" to guitars, for example
• Correction of faults - for example removal of clicks, pops or thumps, buzz, hum etc.
  
• Detailed sound restoration - usually only necessary on "vintage" sources, can include removal of vinyl clicks, hiss & distortion etc.
• Stereo image adjustments - this is less common, but may involve widening the stereo image, or (occasionally) adding reverb

Exactly which of these is needed varies from album to album, and even track to track. Some jobs need major surgery, a very few I've ended copying flat from the source. In the later case, did I actually master them? Yes - because I listened carefully, in a dedicated studio using exceptional monitoring, and used my ears and experience to determine that nothing extra was needed. (Actually, more often than not we can spot a source this good within a few minutes of beginning to listen, in which case we contact the artist and offer them the chance of a Direct Transfer instead, so they don't pay for something they don't need.) Deciding to do nothing at all on one or two tracks is just as valid a mastering decision as any other.

However there is still lots of room for confusion and debate. Should mastering engineers:

• Use the minimum possible processing, and keep everything as close as possible to the original material
• Preserve the artist's original vision
• Pull out all the stops to transform a source into what it always "should have been"
• Preserve the original's dynamic range and impact
• Use EQ and compression to achieve major increases in level
• Make everything fit their "trademark sound" ?

Once again my answer is "all of the above" except the last one. This may seem contradictory - surely some of them are in direct opposition to each other ? Not really - because an element of the mastering engineer's skill-set which doesn't often get talked about is intuition. With almost every source I play, I can hear where the artist or engineer was "trying to get" within minutes or seconds. I can hear what they're trying to achieve, and I see my job as trying to help them get there. Using minimal processing, if possible but if not by throwing the kitchen sink at it, and all combinations in between - always staying true to the original mix.

The issue of levels and compression is a good example of this - there are lots of easily available limiter and compressor plugins now, but many of people complain that they ruin the sound. Mastering engineers use very similar tools to achieve their results, and claim that they make things sound better. How can both be true? Partly because there is still a distinction between the tools - mastering studios typically spend thousands of pounds on a single compressor, whereas for the same money you can buy an entire suite of plugins - but also because we are constantly honing our skills to use the tools transparently, and our listening environment to be able to hear when it's working. To some extent, the skill of a mastering engineer is to achieve an appropriate level for every track , sometimes reducing the dynamic range in the process, but make it sound as if the final result is actually more dynamic. Or to make major EQ adjustments, without changing the essential qualities of the original.

So, you might ask - what's the point of paying for something that can be so subtle ? There are several answers to this:

• Often it's not that subtle ! If I'm doing my job, the mastered version will simply be better than the original, while retaining everything that was good about it.
• Where the difference is less obvious, it will only be difficult to hear when level-matched. The importance of increasing the level of a track to it's own particular "sweet spot", without pushing it over the top, is hard to over-emphasise. Doing this for all of the tracks in an album, and getting them balanced perfectly against each other in their final sequence is even more important and valuable. This needs to be done with great care and skill though - it's almost impossible to achieve this simply by pushing the level up into a plugin.
• Ideally, the differences should be subtle. A truly great mix only needs the slightest of tweaks, but even these minor adjustments, over the course of a whole album, add up until the sum is greater than the parts.

As I type this I'm struck again by the inherent contradictions of the job. It requires you to be entirely humble - I start every session by listening carefully to the source and thinking "what's good about this ?"; but also supremely arrogant, making changes to a mix that someone has sweated blood over for perhaps weeks or months. It requires deep technical knowledge, but many of the judgements made are largely aesthetic and artistic. It means knowing when something ain't broke and not trying to fix it, but also knowing when to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty...

What is mastering ? Has this post helped explain it at all ? Who knows...

DIY Mastering Part 4 - Mastering Speakers and Monitors

The most important tool a mastering engineer has (apart from his ears and expertise) is the monitoring, meaning the speakers, amps and converters. We debate all of these at great length between ourselves, in online forums and down the pub, but without question the speakers have the greatest impact on the sound. (They need to be well-placed in a decent treated room, but I already covered that in my third DIY post.)

This post won't enable you to choose a set of speakers by reading specifications or manufacturer's blurb, but hopefully it will give you an idea what you should be looking for, and why.

So, what are suitable speakers for mastering ? Well for example we have B&W Matrix 801s in Studio 1 at SRT, Genelec S30Ds in Studio 2 (In general I don't rate Genelecs, but the S30s have a ribbon tweeter and are in a class of their own). Other common names include ATC, PMC and Dunlavy. What all these monitors have in common (apart from costing at least as much as a large family car !) is that they have:

1. Flat, or neutral frequency response - meaning their response is very even over the whole audible range. So, for example, B&W 801s come with a graph measuring their response - it only varies by +/- 1 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
2. Acurate phase response - meaning that the stereo image is very detailed, giving an absolutely solid mono center image, but also a deep, convincing "three-dimensional" soundstage - at least, on a decent recording. The stereo imaging in our studios is so good that it's common for people to ask if some of the sound is coming out of the center speaker (used for surround work), even though they are listening to pure stereo. And on the occasions where a mix element is accidentally phase-reversed, it leaps out and draws attention to itself.
3. Clean, controlled dynamics - with only minimal distortion introduced, even at high listening levels. (Using a suitable amp is important for this, too, of course.)

Of course there are many other aspects of speaker's capabilities I could list, but it's almost more important to realise that these characteristics mean mastering speakers should be:

1. Revealing - allowing you to hear details you'll miss on other speakers - faults, like clicks, hiss and distortion; but also the positive sides of the recording - accurate stereo imaging, "depth" (meaning the impression of a three-dimensional sound field), impact and dynamics. Listening on a mastering system should almost be like wearing headphones, in this respect.
2. Clinical - Mastering speakers don't make things sound good. Unlike speakers for tracking or mixing, they shouldn't add "vibe", or "feel". Often they might be described as "bland", "boring", or at best "civilized". In fact, they are reliable and acurate. Only the very best recordings will sound good on them ! In fact that leads us neatly to:
3. Unforgiving - It's often shocking to hear how bad many recordings sound on a mastering rig - the uncompromising accuracy uncovers limitations masked by lesser reproduction systems. While this won't necessarily make for a very satisfying listening experience, it's essential for the mastering engineer to hear and correct any problems or limitations in the original mix.

Together, all these requirements add up to help the engineer achive translation - when it sounds it's best on the mastering system, it will sound great everywhere else, too.

So, if you've got this far, you're probably thinking "how the hell do I choose speakers which meet all those criteria ?". If you can't rely on printed specifications alone, this is a tough question. Until you're learnt exactly what a recording should sound like, it's hard to recognise a pair of speakers that make it sound that way.

Probably the first piece of advice is to get some recommendations. This post was inspired by a thread on the Gearslutz mastering forum asking about mastering speakers, and places like this or the SOS forums are good places to start - perhaps less than £500 isn't really realistic, though! Several of the speakers I mention above are available second-hand for "reasonable" amounts of money. My personal favourites, B&W, have ~35 staff working constantly on research and development, and the advances they make for their most expensive speakers always filter down to the cheaper models. I have Series 2 601s at home and am frequently amazed by how good they sound. Not that I'm suggesting you use them for mastering, but considering the difference in size and price, there's almost certainly something in the 600 range to suit.

Next - listen ! Find a showroom where you can test a few different speakers, ideally in the same room, and listen to various different tracks you know well. Even better, get some on demo and try them in your room. Remember you're looking for accuracy, not excitement - mastering monitors reveal limitations that others don't. Choose a range of recordings and be objective. "Sledgehammer" by Peter Gabriel is a great-sounding track, but it has very tight, controlled bass, so if the speakers give it a thundering bottom end, they aren't flat. "Dummy" by Portishead is a classic album, but it's almost entirely in mono - that should leap out at you. Maybe even take a CD with a few test-tones on it - for example a sine wave sweeping up from 20Hz to 20kHz will not only give you an idea about the speakers frequency response, but may also reveal a few buzzes and rattles along the way. (Don't play it too loud, though, or you may find yourself paying for some blown tweeters...)

Finding the right speaker in your price-range is a major challenge for a would-be DIY mastering engineer, but once you've worked with truly acurate monitoring for a while, you won't want to go back.

DIY Mastering Part 3 - Room Acoustics, Treatment and Layout

This is too huge a subject to cover properly in a blog, but if your monitoring environment isn't working well, you'll never be able to make good mastering (or mixing) decisions, so before you start considering tools or techniques, you'll need to get the room working reasonably well. Here I'll try to give some short but useful pointers and links to good, more detailed information.

The Room:

1. Needs to be a decent size - at least 3m x 4m, say.
2. Needs to have good proportions. Square is bad, a rectangle is better unless it is twice as long as is wide. All shaped rooms have "nodes" - certain frequencies which are emphasised or minimised by reflections between the walls. The dimensions of the room determine which frequencies will be emphasised, and the goal is to spread these nodes out as much as possible, to give the most even response. There is a great free utility called ModeCalc which allows you to calculate the room nodes for a given room, and the same page has a great introduction to the subject. Ideally, you could build "splayed" plasterboard walls to give a wedge shape which reduces the nodes even further.
3. Needs acoustic treatment. Every room will benefit from some acoustic panels - you can make these quite simply yourself using high-density fibreglass ("rockwool") mounted in wooden frames, or buy them from a company like RealTraps, who run the site that the ModeCalc utility is hosted on. These "bass traps", or more accurately "broadband absorbers", will further even out the frequency response of the room, enabling you to make better mixing and mastering decisions. Foam panels may also be helpful but are far less effective, especially in the bass end, where rooms have the most problems. Egg-boxes are useless !
4. Needs the speakers in the right place. They should be on a shorter wall, not too tight into the corners, equally spaced from opposite walls. I've seen several very theoretical methods of determining this, but perhaps the best advice is to get a recording you know well, play it at your chosen reference level, and move them around till they sound "right".
5. Needs a good listening position - equally distanced from both speakers, obviously, but not in the middle of the room. Whatever the shape, some bass frequencies will cancel most strongly in the middle of the room, so it's almost always a bad mix position. If you are one third of the room length away from the speakers, you'll be off to a good start.
6. Needs the right materials. For example, Pro studios use very expensive acoustic panels to control the sound by reducing unwanted reflection from smooth plastered walls. A cheaper alternative is to put carpet on the walls, with the idea of "deadening" the sound. However this isn't always a good idea in a mastering room - since the idea is to get the best possible result for a "normal" listening environment, a certain amount of reflection in the room is important, otherwise you'll be tempted to add too much high frequency to everything. Heavy curtains are probably a better idea for controlling the "liveness" of the room, not least because you can easily change their arrangement and effect on the sound in the room.

All of the factors above affect the way your room sounds, hopefully for the better ! In a later DIY post I'll describe a few simple tests to help you check if your room sounds good.

DIY Mastering Part 2: Before You Start

Before getting into more detail, there are some ground rules to be covered. All of these are important guidelines for any mastering engineer. I'll spread them over a few posts, but we'll start with rules for before you start mastering.

1: Always use a fixed listening environment

Which means level, room, monitors - the whole thing. Mastering is the art of turning a collection of pieces, songs, tracks, into an album. (Or single, or EP...) We're trying to judge impact, pace, atmosphere, dynamics and timing ( amongst others ) - in fact, as a professional mastering engineer I'm almost trying to second-guess the artist. To make a fair and accurate judgement compared with all those other discs, we have to be 100% confident we know what we're listening to, which means eliminating variables in the listening environment. The same goes for any room used for mastering - it needs to be as good as possible.

I'm going to cover room acoustics and treatment in a later post, but the first and most significant thing to control is the level - ie. how loud you listen to the music. I have two levels I master at - one is 12 dB below the other, and I switch between them throughout a session. The exact level you use isn't critical, but it needs to be consistent. (For the technically minded, use an SPL meter and generate pink noise at -18 dBFS. In my room this corresponds to a C-weighted SPL of 79 dB SPL.)

Then listen long and hard to some good CDs. Figure out which ones you consider to sound perfect, which ones sound too loud, which too soft, which too bassy, which too bright. You might decide to use a slightly higher or lower level than I've suggested to suit your comfort or taste, but there are very good reasons for sticking close to this reference level.

You'll probably find that a large number of recently mastered "classic" albums sound absolutely fantastic at this level, and also that many of the newest sound uncomfortably loud - check out my first DIY post for more about loudness.

Once you've settled on a level - stick with it. If you work at it for long enough you'll develop an instinct for the perfect level for any piece of music, and more importantly you'll avoid being tricked by the Fletcher-Munsen effect; in a nutshell, quiet sounds appear duller and thinner - ie. if you master with your level too low the chances are you'll add too much bass or top, and vica versa.

2: Use full-range, FLAT monitors

A CD is capable of reproducing a frequency-range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Your monitors need to come close to this - anything they can't reproduce, you can't hear, and may misjudge. In a pro mastering room this generally means the monitors will be big, and expensive. (In most mastering-houses they may easily cost more than a family car !) So try to choose neutral, accurate speakers, with a flat frequency response - perhaps bland-sounding to some ears, because that way you know it's the music that sounds great, not the monitoring. B&W make some superb hi-fi speakers which could be suitable for DIY mastering.

Ideally you should master on different monitors than you mix on, and even in a different room. This is partly to get a fresh perspective on what you're listening to, but also it means that if there are problems or limitations with the monitors you mixed on, you are more likely to spot this. If you're going the DIY route obviously this won't be easy, but the next best thing is to listen to your mastered audio in as many different places as possible. If it consistently sounds boomy, it probably has too much bass. But problems that you only hear on one system are more likely to be to do with the setup of that system.

One good tip is to setup your home stereo speakers in the mastering room, assuming they're decent quality - since you listen to most of your music on these, you may be much more sensitive to mastering judgements listening to them. Even listening on a favourite pair of headphones can be useful. But remember the golden rule - pick two mastering levels (three at most) and only use these when mastering.

3. Use a loudness meter

As I said in my first DIY post, perhaps the most important thing a mastering engineer does (apart from put the right tracks on the CD, in the right order !) is to choose a consistent, musical level for each track. The most important tool for deciding this is your ears, but meters giving you an objective measurement of the level are invaluable. Most people will probably find it easier to use the digital metering offered by a piece of software, but I still have a soft spot for the analogue needle, or VU meter.

Whichever you decide on, the most important think to know is why bother to use a loudness meter ? Because the absolute and relative loudness' of tracks on an album have an immense effect on their perceived sound and a peak meter is virtually useless for judging loudness. The classic example is the human voice - a very quiet voice can have an extremely high peak level. It "looks" loud on a digital meter, but it sounds quiet. A VU or digital loudness meter looks much more as things sound in terms of level. If you learn how the meter relates to loudness it'll help you make good judgements in "mastering".

More guidelines in a later post...