And what you don't do is at least as important as what you do.Īs far as the tools themselves are concerned - As mentioned, it's all about the monitoring chain and the room. It's the mixes that would actually benefit the most from the mastering engineer that never make it to them. A little polish for the sake of cohesiveness is usually what's on the menu.
AAMS MASTERING REVIW PRO
Pro projects on pro gear tend to already sound fine and translate well.
AAMS MASTERING REVIW PROFESSIONAL
Keeping in mind that the professional mixes are those that benefit from the process the *LEAST* as the quality control from the very start is superior. Generally speaking, to go further than that is speculation at best, and damaging in many cases.Īnd this is why, in professional fields, the mastering stage is very, very rarely a "corner cutting" exercise. But that goes for the mixing *AND* mastering stages. If you *know* what you're hearing and you *know* what your tools do, you simply have to listen - And the mix will tell you the rest. The key point is that if you don't *KNOW* what the mix is lacking and therefore did *NOT* finish (for lack of a better term) the mix, you need more experience mixing and listening. When I'm finished, I send it out to the mastering engineer assigned to the project, or I pick one based on past experience or reputation and references. If the mix sounds the way I intended it to sound, I'm done. No matter what tools might be at my disposal, just arbitrarily running it through other processors, automated or not, is senseless. I do what the mix tells me to do until it's done. I don't mix much anymore - A few projects here and there. This is at the very core or why mastering your own mixes is little more than second-guessing yourself. I know I'm going to sound like a broken record, but the whole point of the processing portion of the mastering phase is listening objectively and *KNOWING* what to do.
0 kommentar(er)
