In this third and final installment of our series, Tom Volpicelli of The Mastering House answers four need-to-know questions about mastering.

7. How much of a role does gear play versus the talents of a mastering engineer?

As the saying goes, “It’s the driver not the car”. A good engineer can work around limitations while a bad engineer will likely produce poor results, great gear or not.

This does not entirely discount the aspect of the gear. Having gear which is made specifically for mastering makes a big difference, not only in the quality of the sound, but in how quickly and easily the engineer can perform his work.

This includes equalizers, compressors and the usual components that most associate with the term “gear” as well as quality converters, monitors, and the room where the mastering engineer works.

Any of these can skew the perception of what an engineer hears potentially causing them to make decisions that wouldn’t happen given better accuracy.

There are many hardware and software companies claiming the ability to allow anyone without prior experience to use a particular preset, match frequency curves with references, or use other methods which will allow them to master their own music.

These “cookbook” approaches really miss the point of what the mastering process should be about. This approach cannot replace the skill acquired by an experienced engineer.

The processing performed should bring out the elements of the mix that are most important to each song. This requires both an artistic and technical evaluation.

Using a generic EQ or compressor setting to try to achieve this doesn’t address the individual characteristics of the song that make it unique or the specific problems that it may have in translating those elements.

8. What is the best (fill in the blank) for mastering?

This is a question that is often asked within mastering forums. The simple answer is that there are no “best” or one-size-fits-all solutions.

If there were, mastering houses would look more like a chain of department stores with the same type of room, monitors, and gear.

Just as the processing chain used for a particular piece of music will vary according to the character of that track, the hardware and software chosen by an engineer is based on his workflow and tastes.

There are however some common characteristics among mastering studios. The following are what I would consider the universal set of tools ranked in order of importance.

     - A discriminating pair of ears. The ability to critically analyze issues that will
       interfere with the enjoyment and translation of a piece of music is the most
       fundamental tool of a mastering engineer.

     - Knowledge and taste. Having the technical knowledge to be able address the
       problems heard in a mix and the taste to know whether or not to use a given
       technique.

     - An accurate room and monitors. A good pair of monitors in a bad room can
       misrepresent a mix as much as a bad set of monitors in a good room.

       Both room and monitors work together to produce a listening environment which
       will not distort the presentation of a mix causing an engineer to potentially make
       bad decisions.

     - A transparent processing chain. As with physicians, one credo of the mastering
       profession is to “do no harm”. Mastering engineers go through great effort and
       expense to ensure that their processing chain is as distortion and noise-free as
       possible.

       Everything from the type of cables to the software and hardware used is analyzed
       and potentially modified to reduce any ill-effects caused by the processing chain.

     - Processing which provides additional “color”. What would seem like a
       contradiction to a transparent chain is the addition of hardware or software which
       actually adds distortion in order to enhance a track.

       This includes both new and vintage hardware which adds tube distortion,
       transformer or tape saturation, along with software based modeling algorithms.
       The intent of these effects is to add warmth, thickness and depth to mixes that
       would otherwise sound thin or too “digital.”

Page 1 of 2
1 2 >  Next