What is "Well Mastered"?

"Mastering, a form of audio post-production, is the process of preparing and transferring recorded audio from a source containing the final mix to a data storage device (the master); the source from which all copies will be produced (via methods such as pressing, duplication or replication). Recently digital masters have become usual although analog masters, such as audio tapes, are still being used by the manufacturing industry, notably by a few engineers who have chosen to specialize in analog mastering."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cd_mastering

My best guess would be changing the audio to CD would cause loss from the original record and the CD master's job is to ensure as minimal loss as humanely possible while keeping the integrity of the audio, and also dealing with anything that might skew a decent recording.

though other cases is a master taking a previous defunct recording and repairing problems I am not totally sure how that is done maybe the recording is re done using specialist tools to recreate the instrument 'feel'... and that can sometimes be an older cd called 'remastering' and thats really up to the audio engineer to decide how they play each recording and decide whats best during remastering process.

There are quite a few audio professionals frequenting this stretch of the forums (read: not me), so if you have patience, you can wait for one of their responses and won't need to put up with my explanations and possible questionable accuracy.  Note that recording engineers and so on, many audio professionals doing all the good stuff / dirty work, don't really or necessarily have engineering degrees in the sense of the traditional mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, etc. (heavy math / physics / science-based technical background), so the answers may not be that obtuse.  You shouldn't need an engineering degree to understand, is what I'm saying.  In fact, it really shouldn't be that complicated, though there are a lot of skills involved by those who know what they're doing.

Anyway, I get the feeling like a lot of people when colloquially talking about the mastering, are really referring to the recording and mixing as well as the mastering.  What really counts is the quality and type of input capture—think mic placement and acoustics relating to the recording space, particularly for different instruments—and then how those inputs are processed and combined;  fading in and out, EQ, relative volumes, placement in the stereo image, and so on (and then the final touches on the product).  Also, note that when somebody refers to a good master (as opposed to good mastering), that's probably referring to the finalized product, which is a combination of all of the things mentioned already and not just the mastering process itself.

It is very common on a lot of modern recordings to aggressively compress the dynamic (volume) range and subsequently pushing up the average volume really high, so everything sounds cruddy and homogenized, tiresome, and so on.  That would count as bad mastering to most, at least for what we would consider decent sound quality.  It's all subjective, but generally people would say that good mastering makes the end product sound more natural.

The part of actually transferring the final mix to a format like CD for consumption really shouldn't change too much at all.  And these days, the operations are digital, so there's no issue there.

Ah, if only.  However, you're correct about it being subjective.  There is the possibility of HUGE changes between the final mix and the CD, and the fact that its digital has nothing to do with it.

"Well Mastered" is really a meaningless term, as typically used by those not involved in the process.  They are applying their own subjective filter to the final product, but by the time they get to hear it, it's no longer possible to tell if the actual mastering was done well or not.  What you can be sure of is, whatever you hear was intentional, not by accident.

Frankly, "well mastered", to someone in the industry, means that the mastering engineer did his job well.  However, his job was defined by his client, probably a producer, but certainly the one paying the bill.  He's the one with the vision, and its his vision that ultimately gets published.  If the world were ideal and geared toward the highest quality audio, then the definition of mastering would be very different.  But highest quality isn't always the goal.  It's marketability, or appropriately made for it's target venue, which may not dictate a highly dynamic presentation.  A good mastering engineer will also advise the client if he sees the project running amok.  But the client may not listen to the counsel, it's his option, he's paying the bill. 

It's like the home owner that hires an interior designer.  He might say, "I want this room done in day-glow orange and hot pink!"  The designer does his best, but the owner is going to get his day-glow orange and hot pink room.  Or, he might say, "I want this to be a comfortable room that is relaxing to be in.  Do your best." and let the designer us his/her skill to achieve that general goal.  We visit the house, see the day-glow room and say "Wow, that's bad interior design" or the relaxing room and say "Now that's excellent design".  But who are we really talking about?  The skill of the designer or the demands of the client?  The same is true of mastering.  It's a paid service, and the engineer has a highly developed skill set, but if he's told to make it loud, he's going to have to make it loud.  And, if he does, and the client is happy, that too is "good mastering" in the client's eyes.  

In a jazz project I engineered the producer wanted to appeal to the audiophile market, so when I supervised mastering for the CD and vinyl, that was well expressed, and the mastering engineer used no compression or limiting, and EQ only to compensate for certain deficiencies in the vinyl process.  We have a nice dynamic hifi project on our hands as a result. But I did ask him what he did for other projects, and the answer was basically, whatever the project demands.  And this guy was perhaps the best of the best of the best, which is why he got our work. 

Read http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/californication-reissue-cut-by-bernie-grundman.291679/

Most important bit:

I think that you can see that dynamic range wasn't used well by the official master, from the pov of sq.

Otoh - it did sell!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaddie 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Ah, if only.  However, you're correct about it being subjective.  There is the possibility of HUGE changes between the final mix and the CD, and the fact that its digital has nothing to do with it.

 

"Well Mastered" is really a meaningless term, as typically used by those not involved in the process.  They are applying their own subjective filter to the final product, but by the time they get to hear it, it's no longer possible to tell if the actual mastering was done well or not.  What you can be sure of is, whatever you hear was intentional, not by accident.

 

Frankly, "well mastered", to someone in the industry, means that the mastering engineer did his job well.  However, his job was defined by his client, probably a producer, but certainly the one paying the bill.  He's the one with the vision, and its his vision that ultimately gets published.  If the world were ideal and geared toward the highest quality audio, then the definition of mastering would be very different.  But highest quality isn't always the goal.  It's marketability, or appropriately made for it's target venue, which may not dictate a highly dynamic presentation.  A good mastering engineer will also advise the client if he sees the project running amok.  But the client may not listen to the counsel, it's his option, he's paying the bill. 

 

It's like the home owner that hires an interior designer.  He might say, "I want this room done in day-glow orange and hot pink!"  The designer does his best, but the owner is going to get his day-glow orange and hot pink room.  Or, he might say, "I want this to be a comfortable room that is relaxing to be in.  Do your best." and let the designer us his/her skill to achieve that general goal.  We visit the house, see the day-glow room and say "Wow, that's bad interior design" or the relaxing room and say "Now that's excellent design".  But who are we really talking about?  The skill of the designer or the demands of the client?  The same is true of mastering.  It's a paid service, and the engineer has a highly developed skill set, but if he's told to make it loud, he's going to have to make it loud.  And, if he does, and the client is happy, that too is "good mastering" in the client's eyes.  

 

In a jazz project I engineered the producer wanted to appeal to the audiophile market, so when I supervised mastering for the CD and vinyl, that was well expressed, and the mastering engineer used no compression or limiting, and EQ only to compensate for certain deficiencies in the vinyl process.  We have a nice dynamic hifi project on our hands as a result. But I did ask him what he did for other projects, and the answer was basically, whatever the project demands.  And this guy was perhaps the best of the best of the best, which is why he got our work. 

 

Thanks for the explanation and filling in a lot of holes, but whoops.  I meant to say the process of pressing / exporting the finalized audio data (the master?— not the "final mix" as I said earlier) to the distribution format, also maybe including any required downsampling or whatever else.  Downsampling or whatever digitally should have little effect.  It was implied by a previous response that actually changing the data to CD format was the process that was of concern.  That part is easy.

Everything involved in the mastering of course can be butchered in various ways, regardless of what kind of technology is being used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeaj 

 

Thanks for the explanation and filling in a lot of holes, but whoops.  I meant to say the process of pressing / exporting the finalized audio data (the master?— not the "final mix" as I said earlier) to the distribution format, also maybe including any required downsampling or whatever else.  Downsampling or whatever digitally should have little effect.  It was implied by a previous response that actually changing the data to CD format was the process that was of concern.  That part is easy.

 

Everything involved in the mastering of course can be butchered in various ways, regardless of what kind of technology is being used.

Right, making 16/44.1 out of 24/96 or whatever isn't a problem, it's all that other subjective junk in-between.  Getting the data onto an actual CD glass master is not really considered "mastering", it's part of manufacturing, and not that tough these days.  Mostly, making a commercial CD is a print job, literally.  Getting the wrap and booklet designed and printed is much harder to do than making the discs.  When I did my first CD project there were no CD pressing plants in the USA, well actually Terre Haute had just opened, but I didn't want to be the guinea pig, so we sent it to Japan.  The vinyl was done at premium pressing plant in California.  The agony was, I had to approve test pressings, and there were lots of problems, bad vinyl ingots, bad plating, etc.  Had to carefully listen to several copies each time to match up where the the ticks to see if they were pressed in or random, check surface noise, etc.  Short story is, the vinyl process was iterative, and took weeks.  The CD was a once-and-done, also took weeks, but the entire run was perfect the first time out.  

Ready for the punch line?  If you matched the vinyl and CD up for A/B comparison (level match, careful RIAA eq check, and timing match), they sounded exactly the same, except for surface noise.  Two projects, same results.  And in doing so I got to prove to myself first hand that the so-called vinyl sound has nothing to do with vinyl itself.  Of course after 10 plays you could pick out the vinyl as it was wearing.  

Sorry for the ramble off topic, or sort of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaddie 

... The vinyl was done at premium pressing plant in California.  The agony was, I had to approve test pressings, and there were lots of problems, bad vinyl ingots, bad plating, etc.  Had to carefully listen to several copies each time to match up where the the ticks to see if they were pressed in or random, check surface noise, etc.  Short story is, the vinyl process was iterative, and took weeks.  The CD was a once-and-done, also took weeks, but the entire run was perfect the first time out.  

 

Ready for the punch line?  If you matched the vinyl and CD up for A/B comparison (level match, careful RIAA eq check, and timing match), they sounded exactly the same, except for surface noise.  Two projects, same results.  And in doing so I got to prove to myself first hand that the so-called vinyl sound has nothing to do with vinyl itself.  Of course after 10 plays you could pick out the vinyl as it was wearing.  

 

This is exactly the sort of real world experience that would be very educational if posted in the dedicated sources forum  though true believers might come back with...

I'll have an order of analogicity...to go, with nothing on it.  You know what? Super-size it.

If anyone nobbled anything, it would have been this guy...our mastering engineer.

...I don't think so...

Of course, I might pick the second choice #3...what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeaj 

Anyway, I get the feeling like a lot of people when colloquially talking about the mastering, are really referring to the recording and mixing as well as the mastering.  What really counts is the quality and type of input capture—think mic placement and acoustics relating to the recording space, particularly for different instruments—and then how those inputs are processed and combined;  fading in and out, EQ, relative volumes, placement in the stereo image, and so on (and then the final touches on the product).  Also, note that when somebody refers to a good master (as opposed to good mastering), that's probably referring to the finalized product, which is a combination of all of the things mentioned already and not just the mastering process itself.

 

It is very common on a lot of modern recordings to aggressively compress the dynamic (volume) range and subsequently pushing up the average volume really high, so everything sounds cruddy and homogenized, tiresome, and so on.  That would count as bad mastering to most, at least for what we would consider decent sound quality.  It's all subjective, but generally people would say that good mastering makes the end product sound more natural.

 

The part of actually transferring the final mix to a format like CD for consumption really shouldn't change too much at all.  And these days, the operations are digital, so there's no issue there.

Well said. Bob Katz also has an excellent book on mastering but a well-recorded and well-mixed recording shouldn't need much mastering work.

Hmmm...I mostly look for ambience, instrument separation and 3D spacing. Each instrument sounds best if it has its own 'blob', and not a mix of flat sounds. What goes in the centre, on the sides, how far apart, echo, fade (fast/slow)...etc.

That said, I'm not an audio engineer, and don't know how these effects are preserved/added. There are some artists that consistently have well mastered recordings, and can be used as a reference. I'm listening to Emancipator-Dusk to Dawn as of now, and its one of the best recordings I've heard in a while.  Its also important to note this album is part electronic, part instrumental, so the mixing and mastering has been done rather well.

Perhaps it can give an idea of what "well mastered" sounds like.

Hmmm...I mostly look for ambience, instrument separation and 3D spacing. Each instrument sounds best if it has its own 'blob', and not a mix of flat sounds. What goes in the centre, on the sides, how far apart, echo, fade (fast/slow)...etc.

Generally I find that sounds need a certain rise/fall time in order to sound natural, otherwise they'll sound harsh.

That said, I'm not an audio engineer, and don't know how these effects are preserved/added. There are some artists that consistently have well mastered recordings, and can be used as a reference. I'm listening to Emancipator-Dusk to Dawn as of now, and its one of the best recordings I've heard in a while.  Its also important to note this album is part electronic, part instrumental, so the mixing and mastering has been done rather well.

Perhaps it can give an idea of what "well mastered" sounds like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by proton007 

Hmmm...I mostly look for ambience, instrument separation and 3D spacing. Each instrument sounds best if it has its own 'blob', and not a mix of flat sounds. What goes in the centre, on the sides, how far apart, echo, fade (fast/slow)...etc.

 

That said, I'm not an audio engineer, and don't know how these effects are preserved/added. There are some artists that consistently have well mastered recordings, and can be used as a reference. I'm listening to Emancipator-Dusk to Dawn as of now, and its one of the best recordings I've heard in a while.  Its also important to note this album is part electronic, part instrumental, so the mixing and mastering has been done rather well.

Perhaps it can give an idea of what "well mastered" sounds like.

All of those qualities are related to mixing and production.  If the ambience or 3D is bad in the original mix, "mastering" can't and won't fix it. 

The typical tools in a mastering studio are equalizers that can have their settings recorded and easily re-set, precision gain controls, again with repeatable settings, and a battery of dynamics processors, also resettable.  The material that is being worked with is already mixed down to stereo.  The need for repeatability in settings is very important when cutting a lacquer, because they'll have to cut several, but also useful for a digital master in case any re-release or re-mastering is possible in the future. 

What I think is "well mastered" might be very different from what someone else things.  The mastering engineer might define "well mastered" as a job on which he made his client happy enough to come back.  A producer might define it as achieving his vision.  An audiophile might define it as dynamic, clean, or the qualities mentioned above, not that they are related to the actual process of mastering.