Mono?!? Who cares about mono? Well, I do, and you should too.

I periodically switch the audio output of what I’m mastering to mono, to check for mono compatibility. Some effects alter the phase of one channel compared to other, and when combined in mono, there may be filtering or partial cancellation effects. The same problem can happen when an acoustic instrument was miked with two separate microphones; while complete cancellation is unlikely, there can often be partial cancellation and this needs to be addressed before a track is considered ready for release.

Another reason is that maybe a cut will be picked up for television, or played on the radio through a single speaker. And while I can’t really prove it, I feel that a lack of mono compatibility affects stereo playback through speakers, because the output of the speakers is mixed in the air—the only time you’ll hear totally true stereo is with earbuds.

Speaking of which, before signing off on a master, I always check it on earbuds as well as a variety of speakers, because more and more people listen to music through headphones these days. A master should sound good regardless of the playback medium—of course that’s a very tough goal to reach, but it’s a great goal to aim for. If a cut sounds good in stereo or mono, on a boombox or an audiophile system, on earbuds or headphones, then it’s ready to release.

Recently, a Broadjam subscriber wanted an acoustic song mastered. He complained of a “muddy” sound that lacked clarity and air, and that the song didn’t have the “live in the studio” feel he wanted.

When he sent me the music, I took a look at it and saw the following waveform:

Ouch! Part of the problem he was hearing with his music was that it apparently had already been “faux” mastered – someone squashed the dynamics, which is a major reason for the lack of clarity he was hearing. It’s also why the music didn’t have a more “live” feel, because all the dynamics had been sucked out of it.

With a file like this, mastering can definitely improve the sound, but the mastering process can only take it so far because of the distortion added through the dynamics squashing process. Mastering can’t make that distortion any less once it’s been “baked” into the cut, although it can be made less problematic. There are processing algorithms in programs like Sequoia and Wavelab that can reduce distortion, but the results are hit-and-miss at best because they’re really trying to overturn the laws of physics. Today’s software engineers are really good, but in a bar fight with the laws of physics, physics usually wins.

In this kind of situation, there are two options. By far the best option is to generate a new mix with the dynamics processing bypassed, then mastering that mix. With many Broadjam clients, I’ve asked if this is possible and much of the time, it is. While this delays the mastering process a bit while the artist generates a new mix, the improvement in sound quality is worth it.

But unfortunately, in some cases the stereo mix might be all the artist has, with no possibility to generate a new mix. So, the other option is to work with what I have and do everything I can to improve the sound. When I receive files like this I’ve always warned the artists that there are limits as to how much I can do, yet in every case (at least so far!) they’ve been thrilled with the results because the music ended up sounding much better than what they sent me.

I understand that a lot of musicians (and engineers) want to hear that “loud, punchy” sound when they mix, so they stick a dynamics processor across the final output and squash the dynamics. That’s fine, but before you export the final mix, bypass any processing applied to the overall mix – not just dynamics, but EQ as well. Remember, most mastering engineers have made a major investment in the finest mastering tools possible, so take advantage of that investment. You’ll make the mastering engineer’s life much easier, and end up with a song that sounds as good as it possibly can.

One of the biggest mistakes when submitting cuts for mastering is to have already inserted equalization or dynamics in the master bus in order to process the entire mix. No!!! When I get a cut that’s been highly compressed, there’s little I can do with it because all the parts are “glued” together, and it’s very difficult to work with the track.

Given that, I must say that I have received some tracks for mastering that were already, as one engineer called them, “faux mastered.” When I wrote back to the client and explained that my hands were basically tied as to what I could do, she said to go ahead anyway and do the best I could. Well, I was able to improve the EQ and separate the instruments out a bit for better imaging, and she was very happy with the results. In a way I was too, but I’ll always wonder how much better it could have sounded if I’d been able to have the original mixes, without the “faux mastering.”

However, it’s equally important to realize that mastering can change the apparent mix somewhat. For example, It’s not uncommon to do a mix, take it to a mastering engineer who adds compression, and then find out that compression changes the mix subtly, requiring you to go back and do a quick remix to compensate. As a result, I’ve worked with some engineers whom I’ve advised to add mastering-type processors in the master bus as they mix, thus giving them a rough idea of what the cut will sound like when mastered. After the mix is finished, it’s easy to remove the mastering effects, export the file to stereo, then hand the file over to me so I can take advantage of my collection of mastering tools and techniques.

So what exactly does mastering involve? The process addresses several issues.

Cleanup. Mastering is your last chance to remove any re¬maining noise, hum, pops, clicks, crackles, etc. On one cut I mastered recently, there was a click when the song transitioned from the verse to the outro. The artist didn’t even know it was there until I mentioned that I removed it, and when he went back to his original mix, he noticed that there indeed was a click.

Equalization. This balances out a track’s overall frequency re-sponse. EQ can even affect the apparent mix by emphasizing the frequency range of particular instruments. For example, if the bass wasn’t mixed loudly enough, EQ can raise the level of the bass to where it will sound like it was mixed louder. As far as I’m concerned, proper equalization is the most important factor when mastering music.
Fade ins and fade outs. I always ask clients not to add fade ins or fade outs, but to just let the track play through, and note where they want the fade to begin and end. We’ll get into why this is important in a future post.

Noise Reduction. Removing any system hiss, even if the level is really low, can add clarity to the mastered track.
Compression/limiting/level maximizing. These are all variations on the same basic process, which is to even out the dy¬namic range, resulting in more apparent loudness.
Occasional effects. Adding a bit of reverb, stereo imaging alteration, or harmonic enhancement can help add more character to a track. However, these types of processes are used very rarely—when I do use them, I make sure the artist is aware of these changes, and approves.
Assembly. For album projects, this is the process of putting cuts in the right order, balancing the levels so that there’s a consistent listening experience, adding crossfades if necessary, and the like.

For processing, I have a huge collection of plug-ins so it’s always possible to find the right tool for the right job. For example, I have one EQ that has a “warm” sound, and is ideal for adding depth to tracks that have a brittle quality. On the other hand, I have some other EQ plug-ins that are very transparent and clean; they’re well-suited to cuts that are a little dull, as the “warm” EQ would emphasize any dullness.

I also have outboard hardware units that sometimes get pressed into service. However, whenever possible, I try to use plug-ins and stay “in the box.” Using outboard hardware requires another stage of A/D and D/A conversion, which is something I want to avoid during these final stages of working with a piece of music, where it’s crucial to maintain the highest possible quality.

One of the common questions I get is “If a mix is really good, then why would mastering be necessary?” And that’s a valid question, because if the mix sounds good, then that’s all you should need…right?

In theory, doing a great mix would eliminate the need for mastering. But this is rarely the case; the analogy I’d use is putting dressing on a salad. You could put a certain amount of dressing on each piece of lettuce, tomato, etc.; when combined, you should have the same results as putting dressing on the entire salad. This would be like optimizing every track, and assuming that when put together, something would sound “mastered.” But in my experience, salads are best when tossed, and I’ve never heard a mix—no matter how good—that couldn’t benefit in some way from quality mastering.

The main reason for this is that when you mix, you’re working on individual tracks to create the best possible blend of all the sounds. But when you master, you’re listening to that blend, and determining what needs to be done to make the composite sound better—not just the sounds of the individual tracks.

For example, suppose the overall sound is just a tiny bit dull. When mixing, you’d have to listen to each track and increase the brightness a little bit on each one to produce the desired result—and even then, you might make one track too bright or one not bright enough. When mastering, you can add a little brightness to the overall stereo (or surround) mix, thus influencing all instruments. If you add a slight high-frequency boost, you’re doing the equivalent of adding that boost to all tracks in the music.

Then again, it’s also true that the better the mix, the more likely it is that the mastering will turn out better as well. It won’t be necessary to add as much processing or do “salvage job” mastering, where the task of compensating for problems in the mix fall on the mastering engineer. In one tune I mastered, the guitar was slightly out of tune, and I was asked if that’s something I could fix in mastering. Sorry! I can’t just magically extract a single instrument from a stereo mix and then fix the tuning. Well, at least not with today’s technology.

No matter how good your mix is, there’s always room for improvement. Many years ago, before I started doing my own mastering, I had a CD mastered by ace Nashville mastering engineer Randy Kling. He said the CD hardly needed anything, but he was able to pull back the highs in a few places to reduce some hiss, and added a bit of limiting to make the tracks jump out a little bit more. Were the results radically different? No. Was it worth it? Absolutely—those subtle touches added just the right amount of “seasoning.””

However, do remember that mastering is not intended to salvage a recording, but enhance an already solid mix. If there’s a problem with the mix, remix the tune—don’t count on mastering to solve the problem (although I’ll certainly give it my best shot!).

The response to Broadjam offering mastering services has exceeded our expectations, to say the least. It’s incredibly gratifying to get comments from musicians who feel that mastering has truly taken their music to the next level (and sometimes beyond), but we’ve also found out that quite a few musicians don’t really understand what mastering is all about—to them, it’s just some magic process that, when done right, makes music sound better.

So we’re starting this blog to help de-mystify the mastering process, describe some specific techniques, and give some real-world advice. The better a musician understands what mastering can and cannot do, the easier it is to create a mix that’s optimized to take full advantage of the mastering process.

Mastering is all about taking a mix and enhancing it in every way possible, giving it more impact, definition, and polish. What makes mastering such a difficult process is that it’s all about using very subtle processing to make a huge overall difference. For example, if a song lacks presence, sometimes only 0.5dB of boost in the upper midrange will provide that presence—while 1.0dB of boost makes it sound shrill.

I’ve been doing mastering for many years, both on music and narration. My specialty has been classical music, which is in some ways even more demanding than rock and pop music because any mastering has to be totally transparent. But I have to say that doing mastering for Broadjam’s members has been my most satisfying mastering experience yet.

First of all, I realize that music is very personal and important to the artist. When someone hands over a track to me for mastering, it’s an honor. Of course, we do guarantee satisfaction, so there’s no real risk; but nonetheless, I appreciate that people trust me to do what I think is best for their music. It’s a compliment, a privilege, and an obligation that I take very seriously.

But the rewards are considerable, too. When I download a file, it’s like getting a Christmas present and opening it up to find out what’s inside! I’ve gotten everything from Disney-girl-band power pop, to potential soundtrack material from England, to highly evocative music from Norway, and even one track I’m convinced could become a country-rock standard. Amazingly, among the huge variety of cuts I’ve mastered so far, there hasn’t been one dud. I enjoy listening to all types of music and hearing new talent, so as you can imagine, this is a pretty cool gig for someone like me.

The best part of mastering, though, is the satisfaction of taking a “good” piece of music and making it “great.” This is a competitive world, and a musician needs every break possible. My goal is to present the artist’s music in the best possible way, and help improve the odds of success. There was one song I mastered where there were great guitar parts in the background, but they were buried in the mix. With a little effort (well actually a lot of effort, but that’s what mastering is all about) I was able to isolate and bring up those guitars so that they could really power the song. It made all the difference in the world, and the song came alive…when it comes to mastering, I live for those moments.

Okay, that’s enough of an introduction. See you next post!

Craig Anderton’s Mastering Blog: Do You Really Need Mastering?

One of the common questions I get is “If a mix is really good, then why would mastering be necessary?” And that’s a valid question, because if the mix sounds good, then that’s all you should need…right?

In theory, doing a great mix would eliminate the need for mastering. But this is rarely the case; the analogy I’d use is putting dressing on a salad. You could put a certain amount of dressing on each piece of lettuce, tomato, etc.; when combined, you should have the same results as putting dressing on the entire salad. This would be like optimizing every track, and assuming that when put together, something would sound “mastered.” But in my experience, salads are best when tossed, and I’ve never heard a mix—no matter how good—that couldn’t benefit in some way from quality mastering.

The main reason for this is that when you mix, you’re working on individual tracks to create the best possible blend of all the sounds. But when you master, you’re listening to that blend, and determining what needs to be done to make the composite sound better—not just the sounds of the individual tracks.

For example, suppose the overall sound is just a tiny bit dull. When mixing, you’d have to listen to each track and increase the brightness a little bit on each one to produce the desired result—and even then, you might make one track too bright or one not bright enough. When mastering, you can add a little brightness to the overall stereo (or surround) mix, thus influencing all instruments. If you add a slight high-frequency boost, you’re doing the equivalent of adding that boost to all tracks in the music.

Then again, it’s also true that the better the mix, the more likely it is that the mastering will turn out better as well. It won’t be necessary to add as much processing or do “salvage job” mastering, where the task of compensating for problems in the mix fall on the mastering engineer. In one tune I mastered, the guitar was slightly out of tune, and I was asked if that’s something I could fix in mastering. Sorry! I can’t just magically extract a single instrument from a stereo mix and then fix the tuning. Well, at least not with today’s technology.

No matter how good your mix is, there’s always room for improvement. Many years ago, before I started doing my own mastering, I had a CD mastered by ace Nashville mastering engineer Randy Kling. He said the CD hardly needed anything, but he was able to pull back the highs in a few places to reduce some hiss, and added a bit of limiting to make the tracks jump out a little bit more. Were the results radically different? No. Was it worth it? Absolutely—those subtle touches added just the right amount of “seasoning.”

However, do remember that mastering is not intended to salvage a recording, but enhance an already solid mix. If there’s a problem with the mix, remix the tune—don’t count on mastering to solve the problem (although I’ll certainly give it my best shot!).