"How influential is mastering over the final, released audio? "
Somehow I dropped into a rabbit hole on Discogs and stumbled upon Tom Coyne's credits list.
He was at work for almost 50 years. (he started in '72 and passed in 2017, if a post on his page is correct.)
What stood out was that many of the albums he worked on, specifically hip-hop albums, have amazing audio even though the producers and mixers varied among those albums.
I thought the mixing was the main technical aspect that determined audio fidelity but that must not be the case.
Jimi Hendrix Experience - "Electric ladyland" - Jimi had it mixed to sound I suppose "spacey" and whoever mastered it said it seemed "out of phase" - Phasing is an effect that makes stuff seem "trippy" - so "Electric Ladyland" was mastered to the point where it didn't seem as "trippy" as when Jimi had it mixed (the way Jimi wanted it to sound).
Nirvana "In Utero" - Steve Albini recorded and mixed it to sound very raw and the record company didn't like it and Kurt eventually didn't like it so the mastering of it supposedly "cleaned up" a lot of what Albini did.
2. "My understanding of Mastering" In response to Reply # 0
..is that the Mastering process is what helps to make all of the mixed songs sound cohesive as a project. A poorly mastered album sounds like a mixtape from back in the day. Some songs sound louder than others and the fidelity isn't was consistent.
Tape hiss and ambient noises from disparate recording locations are accounted for better with an ear tuned to the experience of the entire project instead of on a song by song basis.
3. "Making an album sound cohesive is part of it, but mastering also has" In response to Reply # 2
an impact on individual songs. The difference between mixing and mastering is that mixing has all of the originally recorded individual tracks/stems, while mastering is typically just two stereo tracks of a recording which has already been mixed. But all of the other editing tools are available for mastering - compression, limiting, EQ, noise reduction, fade in/out, etc.
Because of all this, many mastering engineers have a signature sound which can be easily heard regardless of who engineered the recording or the mix.
5. "RE: Making an album sound cohesive is part of it, but mastering also has" In response to Reply # 3
>Because of all this, many mastering engineers have a signature >sound which can be easily heard regardless of who engineered >the recording or the mix. >
This is the point I wanted to make but couldn't articulate.
Reading through Coyne's credit's list it seemed uncanny how so many of the albums that he worked on were albums which had really good sound quality, at least to my ears.
Say like the Native Tongue albums. Yes, Bob Power mixed a lot on all the albums during their heyday. But even songs Bob Power didn't mix still had the same 'sheen' as Power's songs.
And then even still songs like U+Ur Hand, by P!nk, had the same kind of fidelity as those Native Tongue albums.
Looking back on Coyne's credits, the link seems clear. But before I just thought all of these mixers must have worked together and simply exchanged technical knowledge.
Hussein ibn Malik "if he escaped on a horse he might be realest nigga ever, EVER..2013 Nat Turner with the burner" MaxPtah "Django is real homie.." PoppaGeorge "If you're a child of the 70's, Ye looks like a p
9. "RE: I just heard that Dre is Mastering Paak's Oxnard Album" In response to Reply # 6
> >And I was disappointed because I thought he was actually >producing it and I had the same question, how impactful will >Dre's mastering of the album be. >
You're right to be disappointed. Even tho his work on R&B has been spotty, he's still arguably the most significant producer in hip-hop in the last 20 years. So to not have his ear involved is something to miss.
I don't know how this take will go. But I think one of the more underrated aspect of The Chronic was how well that album was mixed and mastered. The level of sonic quality made that album seem like an R&B album. In the sense that R&B albums of that time had really good fidelity and just sounded lush, like The Chronic.
As high quality as the actual music on the albums Dre has produced, just getting lost in his mixes and noticing the details is enjoyable all to itself.
Obviously, if Dre were producing Paak's songs it would take those songs up another level, but at least Paak's songs will have that extra sheen.
11. "I feel you on The Chronic" In response to Reply # 9
I'm a DJ Premier guy all day, and at the time it was all about East Coast boom bap. While I didn't really get into The Chronic when it first dropped (but was on board with Doggystyle) I loved hoe clean it sounded. Like, yoru boom bap sounded good in your headphones. Dre's stuff sounded good EVERYWHERE: headphones, home stereo, boob box, rattling the trunk of your car, clock radio speakers....didn't matter.
You could hear where he was going sonicly (sp?) and musically on Niggaz4life (especially on, say, Always Into Something), but that still doesn't speak to how well The Chronic sounds, even today.
<-- Dave Thomas knows what's up... __________________________
Jay: Look here homie, any nigga can get a hit record. This here is about respect. Game: Like Gladys Knight. Jay: Aretha Franklin. Game: Word, I like her too. Jay: Nigga...
14. "Yeah I always thought that was the big deal about the Chronic" In response to Reply # 9
Like folks had been sampling Parliment and funk songs well before him, But Dre was the first to take it the level of Quincy Jones type of production quality for those type of records. In my humble, admittedly not informed, opinion.
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
15. "2001 is, IMO, the best "sounding" hip hop album of all time" In response to Reply # 6
Like even songs that I'm not into lyrically or maybe even production are still very listenable because of how well mixed/engineered/mastered they are, everything is just so clear and crisp, it's amazing. It's the biggest reason why it's my go-to album for testing headphones.
19. "This worries me, actually" In response to Reply # 6
I hated the mastering on Compton. Just way too bright and hissy. It's one reason why I never spun it a second time. I know Dre has always gone for strong bass and crisp highs, but I feel like he's jumped the shark recently.
Agree that Chronic 2001 sounded amazing. I hope he returns to that sound.
7. "RE: How influential is mastering over the final, released audio? " In response to Reply # 0
short answer: usually, very influential
long answer: It depends on the style of music and what the mastering engineer is being asked to do. if you were mastering classical music, the job is most likely to leave the mix as intact as possible, while ensuring a consistent overall loudness level and preserving dynamics. Mastering classical is attempting to be as UN-influential as possible. If you were mastering a beat tape by Knxwledge or Flying Lotus, you'd probably be focusing on making the songs loud (usually in relation to a reference track) by reducing dynamic range, while preserving punch and not squashing the drums or compressing too much. Some styles of music (lofi hip hop) may even specifically create mixes with odd choices with the intention of having the mastering engineer glue it together (mixing the kick intentionally too loud, so that the heavy compression applied to the master creates a thick pumping sound, usually used in conjunction with sidechaining on individual channels). Another common function of mastering is fixing mistakes made in the mix, which is where multi-band compression and dynamic eq comes in. This all sounds like mumbo jumbo until you consider the net effects of addressing these problems. Imagine what Gang Starr's Mass Appeal would sound like if the low end wasn't controlled and caused you to turn it down at high volumes? That song is good example because there is such strong low-mid range in the sample. I am sure the compression made it very loud during the mix. Eddie Sancho probably took care of it prior to mastering, but if he didn't I am sure the mastering EQ carved out a few slices in the 200-400hz range. That lets the kick punch, which make s that shit knock. one wrong move would've made that song a muddy mess.
One thing almost all genres do in the mastering stage is fixing resonant peaks, which basically are annoying frequencies that ringing and negatively impacting the listening experience, usually the result of clashing instruments in the mix. Removing resonant peaks has an enormous effect on the overall sound. Could be the difference between you turning a song off because it hurts your ears or listening on repeat because you love the song.
Then there are the technical things... like rolling off inaudible frequencies in the low end to avoid mud. Especially in hip hop where the compression makes mud very loud. Another technical thing is avoiding inter sample peaks, which is why a diy producer's beat sounds okay in their bedroom but distorted in the club.
i can talk about this for days... i'll shut up now
A great producer is a great producer and their music will shine no matter what. But for whatever reason, songs which have great production quality really stand out to me. Sometimes songs that aren't really that good, I'll give another shot if only because the experience of taking in the audio is special all to itself.
I like your deep dive into the technical details of audio. Learning about the 'behind the scenes' of music, more so mixing even though I've never made music. It's always interested me to learn about the people and technology behind film especially and to a lesser extent music.
Aafter seeing who produced what, I often scan down to see who mixed the song or album.
Mastering was a quality to an album that didn't mean much to me until I went on this deep run into discogs.com. My interest into music engineering didn't go that deep for whatever reason. Like you said, when the song is mastered well, no one thinks about the work. Maybe someone who masters an album is like a film editor. Often the only one who notices their work is when there's an obvious error.
I'll have to dig into this subject more when I find time.
13. "RE: How influential is mastering over the final, released audio? " In response to Reply # 7 Sat Oct-20-18 05:28 AM by howardlloyd
there’s no way gang starr’s approach was to fix it at the mastering stage.
why would they EQ the whole song to fix one track that can be treated all by itself at the mix stage. if you EQ 400hz at the mastering stage it affects that frequency on all tracks.
the voice the snare the horn the high hat etc
until recently artists would do mixes over and over until it was right. trying to fix anything other than very small enhancements would always been done at the level of the mix
nowadays it’s very different. cats aren’t producing/mixing at the level of previous eras. many times these days the songs are recorded in less than stellar rooms and mixed in less than stellar rooms and the mastering engineer will have to fix more. but from 72-2000 that was definitely not the case for major label releases
16. "RE: How influential is mastering over the final, released audio? " In response to Reply # 13
>there’s no way gang starr’s approach was to fix it at the >mastering stage. > >why would they EQ the whole song to fix one track that can be >treated all by itself at the mix stage. if you EQ 400hz at the >mastering stage it affects that frequency on all tracks. >
I agree, which is why i stated sancho probably eq'd it at the mixing stage. my only point was to offer an example of a sample with a strong low-mid range that sounds like it was carved out around 200 and probably 500. i wasn't there and your probably right.... but IF it was sent to mastering with too much resonance, which is possible because i can tell it was compressed heavily enough to bring out that strong low-mid, a carve in the low-mid at mastering would make sense and is an example of something a mastering engineer would do... and yes mastering engineers fixed mixing mistakes with eq prior to the year 2000... agreed that engineering has gotten less pro over recent years, but that doesn't mean older engineers were perfect.
17. "Question about the Gone Diggin 12"......" In response to Reply # 13
.....whats the differences you could hear between your recording, Eddie's mix, then K-Def's mastering ??? I'm clueless about the whole process other than I realize the final result sounds the best. Do the person who does the mastering ever have to go back to the person who mixed something and re-do things? Do they collaborate on the mastering?
18. "eddie's mix was " In response to Reply # 17 Sun Oct-28-18 09:41 AM by howardlloyd
incredible.
K-Def made it louder... but eddie is largely responsible for how the record sounds.
when dealing with a pro mixer like eddie... i'd be surprised if something sent was ever so wrong that a ME would have to ask for something to be done. I would also think the artist would probably ask for an adjustment to the mix for such a blatant offense.
I'm in the camp that the mixer has the majority of input into the final sound. The Mastering Engineer counts and will greatly affect the sound, but all of his decisions are based upon what the mix engineer did.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
The Lesson
