What IS Mastering?

cont' from PAGE 2

2) Ok, we've discussed the details you want addressed, you are generally happy with your mix, and now the mastering engineer is on his/or her own. Now comes EQing. This is where each of your songs is equalized using specialized equipment specifically made to alter the tonality of your work,

WITHOUT

adding noise or other sonic artifacts not present in the original recording. The bass, mids, and highs are carefully adjusted to sound balanced and not out of place.

Generally most mixes tend to have an excess of low end.

That particular region dominates the mix, and makes it sound boomy and flubby.

Consequently, since so much energy is wasted in the bottom end, getting a lot of volume out of your mix is nearly impossible.

Now don't panic. A good rule of thumb is, that it is better to have too much low end, than not enough. See, the mastering EQ can easily trim down a bass heavy mix with relatively no side effects. However, adding low end can introduce sonic artifacts and harmonics NOT present in the original recording, no matter how good the master EQ is.

So, relax if you have to much low end.

Remember most studios have these mega high powered monitors that can recreate these sub low frequencies that can really make you ''feel'' the music, but those are a far cry from what a balanced mix is supposed to sound like on consumer systems, even high end, high dollar audiophile systems. So, why do a lot of studios use those type of monitors? Well, a lot of clients really want to feel the air move when recording. Thus, megawatt monitors are employed.

However many enlightened engineers and producers like to mix on small to mid sized midfield monitors, to ensure more of a realistically EQed mix.

Those kinds of mixes practically EQ themselves during mastering.

So, another tip would be to mix with the consumer's average playback system in mind.

Yep, you guessed it. Those 100 watt midfield monitors might just be the ticket, as opposed to those 3000 watt soffit mounted behemoths. Also, the volume you mix at is crucial. To loud, and the volume is so overwhelming, that you under-emphasize lows and highs that your ear perceives at that high volume as being too much. However, play that mix on a normal consumer system, at an average listening volume, and all of a sudden the mix sounds anemic. Same thing if you mix too low. Your ear barely perceives the lows and highs at that low volume, so you over-emphasize them. Now, play that mix on the same consumer system, at the same average volume, and all of a sudden, your mix sounds boomy, bass heavy, and overly bright.

That whole set of circumstances described above is called the ''Fletcher-Munson curves''…

It's an audio phenomenon worth reading about.

Again check the Mastering Resources link for the scientific books on the topic. So, back to EQing. Even if all of the above criteria are met, there will still be inconsistencies from song to song. Those can range from a myriad of reasons.

Here's a few.

You might have recorded different songs in different studios, mixed at different studios, or used different engineers, or even different gear. Any of these factors can result in an inconsistent tonal curve between songs.

Mastering corrects this!

It gives all of the songs a smooth and consistent tonality, as if the whole project was recorded and mixed in one uninterrupted take.

Consequently, as a side note you might consider that at the dawn of multitracking a lot of artists, band leaders, and orchestras were reluctant to use overdubbing and multitracking (both staples of today's studios) for the above mentioned reason.

They wanted to record in one pass, and chose to provide the mix, or balance by themselves, to ensure that ''purity'' and continuous tonality was in no way compromised. Now, in no way am I trying to start a debate of live vs. multitracking. I'm simply giving some food for thought. So now that all the songs are EQed to sound consistent in tonality, we need to make them consistent in VOLUME !