The player is loading ...
Struggling to set your rates? Follow the link below to get your FREE Rate Calculator Worksheet and watch the episode about how to confidently define your value as a music freelancer.
Travis discusses how the democratization of technology and an oversimplified view of the mastering process is threatening to ruin it all together.
In this episode you'll learn,
📺 WATCH THE SHOW ON YOUTUBE 📺
https://www.youtube.com/@progressionspod
Connect with Me:
📬 Newsletter: https://www.travisference.com/subscribe
📸 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/progressionspod
🎵TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@progressionspod
🐦 Twitter: https://twitter.com/progressionspod
🌐 Website: https://www.travisference.com/
🙏 Leave a Review or Rating 🙏
Apple: https://www.progressionspodcast.com/apple
Spotify: https://www.progressionspodcast.com/spotify
📢 Our Sponsors 📢
Listen to Secret Sonics!
Sign Up for Complete Producer Network!
Credits:
Guest:
Host: Travis Ference
Editor: Travis Ference
Theme Music: inter.ference
Speaker:
The music tech industry has been taking aim at mastering engineers for years.
Speaker:
With tools like ozone, online, platforms like Lander, and what seems to
Speaker:
be daily advancements in AI. Is the battle finally coming to an
Speaker:
end? Is mastering dead?
Speaker:
My name is Travis Farrants, a Grammy nominated recording engineer and mixer. And I started
Speaker:
this show to help equip music professionals like yourself with the
Speaker:
tools and mindsets you need to build a career in this business. Now, I might
Speaker:
not be a household name like Manny or ClA, but I do make my
Speaker:
living mixing records and have well over a quarter billion streams to my credit. And
Speaker:
because I'm not one of those household names, and because I'm not mixing label
Speaker:
projects every day, when it comes to mastering, budgets can
Speaker:
vary wildly. And so my mixes are being mastered by a wide range of
Speaker:
engineers. Now, I obviously have my preferences for favorite
Speaker:
engineers, but I'm not always gonna be involved in the decision. And over
Speaker:
the last few years, I've noticed an increasing trend in just
Speaker:
plain bad mastering. If a project is not done by
Speaker:
one of the top mastering houses or by one of my preferred engineers,
Speaker:
then it's starting to become more likely that I just don't really like the end
Speaker:
result. And it's made me start to wonder, why is mastering seem
Speaker:
like it's no longer playing the role that it once did? What's
Speaker:
different about now? Well, for one, technology is
Speaker:
different. Like I mentioned, the tools are being democratized. But
Speaker:
that's. That's not the only thing. It's also the perception of
Speaker:
mastering in 2024. So if you're a musician wondering if mastering is
Speaker:
necessary, or a mix engineer that feels like you just maybe want to
Speaker:
start mastering your own mixes, I've got a few hot takes that I think you're
Speaker:
going to want to hear. If you're a mastery engineer, you probably currently hate
Speaker:
me, but you're not going to feel that way at the end. Trust me now,
Speaker:
because I know there is at least one person asking, what is mastering? And I
Speaker:
also think the backstory is important. To my point, here is the world's fastest
Speaker:
breakdown of the history of audio mastering. If you want to skip ahead, there are
Speaker:
chapter markers down below. So, up until about 1948, recording was done in
Speaker:
what was called direct to disc recording. The engineer would mic the band with
Speaker:
a very limited number of inputs. That band would then balance themselves while
Speaker:
playing live in the room because there were no overdubs and there were very few
Speaker:
microphones. The engineer would then capture that recording, cutting it
Speaker:
directly to vinyl with a lathe as the band played.
Speaker:
This all began to change when Ampex released the Model 200 tape machine,
Speaker:
which provided the ability to record to magnetic tape, resulting in an increase in
Speaker:
sonic fidelity. And now, because that tape machine would never be a
Speaker:
consumer playback device, that recording eventually had to make it
Speaker:
back to the medium of choice. At the time, which was vinyl, this was
Speaker:
the advent of a new type of engineer called the transfer engineer, whose job
Speaker:
would transform over the years to what we now think of as a mastering
Speaker:
engineer. The transfer engineers would apply corrective EQ to a recording to be
Speaker:
sure that the needle would not pop out of the record because of too much
Speaker:
low end. They would also adjust levels to be sure that all the program material
Speaker:
that needed to be fit on a side was able to do so. As
Speaker:
technology progressed, so did the job of the master engine. They began to
Speaker:
take a more creative role in the process, adding dynamic
Speaker:
processing and additional EQ to enhance the choices already made
Speaker:
by the mixing engineer. Then, when digital came on the scene in the eighties,
Speaker:
the increased headroom opened the door for masters to become louder
Speaker:
and louder. And anybody that has ever listened to music knows that
Speaker:
louder is always better. So, with that in mind, every artist
Speaker:
wanted their CD to be the loudest, most exciting CD on the
Speaker:
desk of the local radio dj. This was the dawn of the loudness wars,
Speaker:
which would continue into the digital and streaming era, despite the fact that
Speaker:
the DSPs employ loudness normalization. So that's how we got here.
Speaker:
But where is here? Here is that, unfortunately, the
Speaker:
average musician's understanding of what mastering does is summed up into
Speaker:
two louder, brighter. And while
Speaker:
there may be a lot of truth to that statement, I think it's also the
Speaker:
reason that there's a lot of lackluster mastering going around. And this is where
Speaker:
technology comes into play. As I mentioned earlier, the tools of mastering are
Speaker:
becoming more democratized by the day. A process that was once
Speaker:
as analog as it could possibly be has become almost
Speaker:
entirely digital. Even for some of the top engineers. Emulations of
Speaker:
high end gear have become so good that people are selling their analog and going
Speaker:
digital. And plugins like isotope ozone have gone from what a producer
Speaker:
might throw on to make a rough mix to being the actual mastering
Speaker:
processor for a final release. And then there's a whole new set of tools
Speaker:
that I'm just going to call algorithmic tone shapers, things like golf offs, which
Speaker:
are applying thousands of little EQ changes to a mix so that a frequency response
Speaker:
more closely resembles some predetermined curve, for better or
Speaker:
for worse. And so the increase of access to mastering grade tools,
Speaker:
combined with this oversimplified assumption of what mastering is,
Speaker:
I think is actually threatening to ruin mastering altogether.
Speaker:
Why do I think that? I think that because we're defining
Speaker:
what we will buy as mastering. We buy louder and
Speaker:
we buy brighter. I can take ozone eleven, throw it on my mix bus, and
Speaker:
hit master assistant, and I will get something that is for sure louder and
Speaker:
for sure brighter. But will it be better? Or would I consider it
Speaker:
mastered? So far? In my experience, definitely
Speaker:
not. And don't get me wrong, the individual tools within ozone are
Speaker:
amazing, and I use them every day. But I've yet to hit that button. And
Speaker:
here's something I would consider keeping. I actually think it was more useful years ago
Speaker:
when it did less. There'd always be like a couple dynamic EQ points I
Speaker:
might keep. But now it sounds like an inexperienced master engineer that's
Speaker:
just doing something because they think they have to. So what about the
Speaker:
fully AI side of this? Before filming this video, I tossed a mix into
Speaker:
lander as well as the waves online mastering platform. Both
Speaker:
came back, you guessed it, louder and brighter. But
Speaker:
neither came close to to the human master that had been done previously.
Speaker:
Now, all three were competitively loud. All three
Speaker:
were brighter than the mix was. But the human master was changed
Speaker:
thoughtfully. There was vocal clarity without harshness. There
Speaker:
was a glue in like a life, but there was minimal compression or
Speaker:
limiting artifacts. It's clear that the human master was done in
Speaker:
support of what was already there. And that's what mastering
Speaker:
is about. Mastering has never been about making changes, been about making
Speaker:
the right changes. A transfer engineer in 1948 did
Speaker:
not EQ the low end unless they had to. That's the spirit of mastering
Speaker:
that engineers have carried for the last 80 years, and that's what should
Speaker:
continue to carry for the next 80. Every step of the record making
Speaker:
process has always been, or should always be about honoring the
Speaker:
previous steps, taking the vision of everybody that touched
Speaker:
a project before you, and supporting it. And that's why this
Speaker:
technology driven era of matching a specific EQ
Speaker:
curve or doing something for the sake of doing something, is, in my
Speaker:
opinion, hurting mastering as a whole. So to answer the question is
Speaker:
mastering dead? Do you still need to pay for mastering? The answer
Speaker:
is simple. If you are price shopping for the most economical
Speaker:
way to make something louder and brighter, then to you,
Speaker:
mastering is kind of dead. You can easily use a one click
Speaker:
mastering plugin or any AI platform, and likely be
Speaker:
satisfied. But if you're looking for one last collaborator,
Speaker:
if you are willing to search for a mastering engineer that fits your sonic
Speaker:
tastes and wants to support your vision, then to you, mastering
Speaker:
is very much still alive and very much worth it. The
Speaker:
more technology improves and continues to democratize, the more important
Speaker:
each person's individual sonic taste is going to become. You'll be able to get
Speaker:
a technically great mix or a master from plenty of people, or maybe
Speaker:
even plenty of machines. But what is the X Factor that
Speaker:
makes a collaboration really click? That's what you should be looking for in a
Speaker:
mastering engineer, or for anybody that's going to work on your project.
Speaker:
Because the reality is, what's happening in mastering at the moment is going to
Speaker:
happen in every aspect of the music industry. The advancement of
Speaker:
tools is going to even the playing field pretty much
Speaker:
everywhere. The thing that will separate you from others in the industry is
Speaker:
no longer going to be your specific skills. It's going to be your taste
Speaker:
and your sonic identity. That's what we're ultimately going
Speaker:
to all get hired for. And when you do get hired, if you feel like
Speaker:
you're struggling to figure out what the best rate to charge for your services is,
Speaker:
then you'll probably want to check out this video next.
Here are some great episodes to start with.
