4 ms·

Mastering is a subject about which a great deal of mumbo jumbo is talked, but a very important point that this article does put across well is the necessity of

Mastering is a subject about which a great deal of mumbo jumbo is talked, but a very important point that this article does put across well is the necessity of making sure the music sounds good across a wide variety of playback environments. Unfortunately, this kind of "optimizing for all cases" comes at the expense of how good the music can sound in any one environment. (For example, a lot of people will have heard recordings that produce incredibly detailed spacial perception, but only when listened to on headphones - and which sound pretty poor on loudspeakers.) We got into this situation because of the economies of mass produced physical media, but we largely don't have those constraints any more. Since the cost of digital distribution is basically a rounding error, we could be producing different releases optimized for different settings and letting the listener choose which is the most appropriate for them.

mbenjaminsmith 10y ago
> Unfortunately, this kind of "optimizing for all cases" comes at the expense of how good the music can sound in any one environment. Sorry, but that's not the case. The reason music gets mastered poorly today is because of poor mastering engineers. I've had this conversation numerous times with an engineer that has designed some of the most well-received studio equipment (including analog compressors) ever made. Listen to The Dark Side of the Moon. Regardless of your like or dislike of Pink Floyd that album sounds good regardless of how you're playing it (car stereo, single speaker boom box, headphones). Now why there aren't many good mastering engineers left (or properly equipped studios) is a separate, lengthy conversation.
- radiowave 10y ago
  I'm certainly not claiming it's the reason why music gets mastered poorly today, only that things like representation of space, dynamic range, audibility of fine detail vs. making the music sound too cluttered, are and always have been trade-offs. As far as why things are worse lately, mastering engineers are working for hire. If people think they're producing bad work, it's probably at their client's behest.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  Sounding good on many systems doesn't mean it couldn't have sounded better on any particular system had it been mastered with that particular setup in mind. The idea that there is some magic mastering ability that can overcome the pitfalls of the vast array of listening environments and equipment is exactly the type mumbojumbo the OP mentions. The audio world depends on it.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  I don't think today's professional mastering engineers are "poor" necessarily; some of this I think is marketing pressure. The Loudness War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war) is a real thing and a large part of the decrease in modern mastering quality, in my opinion. The thing is, this mastering technique has some upsides for both casual listening (it will stand out more from the rest of the pack) and also will sound "louder" on poor equipment without necessarily exceeding the equipment's capabilities. The significant downside is that a lot of the detail is lost at best, and at worst you get very audible clipping / distortion or unnatural "pumping" effects. So not good at all for those that go deeper in their music. "Optimizing for all cases" might help end this loudness war though. Many of the online streaming services (Youtube, Spotify, iTunes, etc.) have some optimizing routines that aim for consistency in volume level. The net result is that extremely over-compressed music sound dull and flaccid. Many articles recommend more sensible overall loudness levels now... although I haven't seen a specific LUFS number to hit, like there is for European television (EBU R128), aiming for something like -16LUFS as this article mentions is a much better situation than before. See: https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb14/articles/loudness-war.htm https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb14/articles/loudness-war...
- Kiro 10y ago
  I think you are wrong. Due to the rise of the bedroom producer and available software we've never before had so many talented sound engineers. The production value on electronic music today is through the roof.
  - fuzzfactor 10y ago
    Also, due to the rise of the bedroom producer and available software we've never before had so many UNtalented sound engineers.
    - Kiro 10y ago
      Of course, but the competition is fierce.

mbenjaminsmith 10y ago

> Unfortunately, this kind of "optimizing for all cases" comes at the expense of how good the music can sound in any one environment. Sorry, but that's not the case. The reason music gets mastered poorly today is because of poor mastering engineers. I've had this conversation numerous times with an engineer that has designed some of the most well-received studio equipment (including analog compressors) ever made. Listen to The Dark Side of the Moon. Regardless of your like or dislike of Pink Floyd that album sounds good regardless of how you're playing it (car stereo, single speaker boom box, headphones). Now why there aren't many good mastering engineers left (or properly equipped studios) is a separate, lengthy conversation.

radiowave 10y ago
I'm certainly not claiming it's the reason why music gets mastered poorly today, only that things like representation of space, dynamic range, audibility of fine detail vs. making the music sound too cluttered, are and always have been trade-offs. As far as why things are worse lately, mastering engineers are working for hire. If people think they're producing bad work, it's probably at their client's behest.
forgetsusername 10y ago
Sounding good on many systems doesn't mean it couldn't have sounded better on any particular system had it been mastered with that particular setup in mind. The idea that there is some magic mastering ability that can overcome the pitfalls of the vast array of listening environments and equipment is exactly the type mumbojumbo the OP mentions. The audio world depends on it.
soundwave106 10y ago
I don't think today's professional mastering engineers are "poor" necessarily; some of this I think is marketing pressure. The Loudness War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war) is a real thing and a large part of the decrease in modern mastering quality, in my opinion. The thing is, this mastering technique has some upsides for both casual listening (it will stand out more from the rest of the pack) and also will sound "louder" on poor equipment without necessarily exceeding the equipment's capabilities. The significant downside is that a lot of the detail is lost at best, and at worst you get very audible clipping / distortion or unnatural "pumping" effects. So not good at all for those that go deeper in their music. "Optimizing for all cases" might help end this loudness war though. Many of the online streaming services (Youtube, Spotify, iTunes, etc.) have some optimizing routines that aim for consistency in volume level. The net result is that extremely over-compressed music sound dull and flaccid. Many articles recommend more sensible overall loudness levels now... although I haven't seen a specific LUFS number to hit, like there is for European television (EBU R128), aiming for something like -16LUFS as this article mentions is a much better situation than before. See: https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb14/articles/loudness-war.htm https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb14/articles/loudness-war...
Kiro 10y ago
I think you are wrong. Due to the rise of the bedroom producer and available software we've never before had so many talented sound engineers. The production value on electronic music today is through the roof.
- fuzzfactor 10y ago
  Also, due to the rise of the bedroom producer and available software we've never before had so many UNtalented sound engineers.
  - Kiro 10y ago
    Of course, but the competition is fierce.