On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:31:45 -0700
Ken Restivo wrote:
> So far, it seems like what is today called "mastering", is what back in
As I've been fond of saying for years, quoting someone whose name I have
forgotten (but is probably either Brian Eno or Mitch Easter), mastering
is what makes a record sound like a record.
If the mixing was brilliantly done, it's likely to be little more than
some light compression to make the entire recording sound consistent, but
it also brings EQing and other sonic treatments into the mix when needed.
Side note: when my son's band took their album to the mastering studio,
they got tremendously excited when the engineer decided that what it
needed was a dump to an Ampex reel-to-reel to add some of that good old
fashioned tape compression. Damned if he wasn't right, too. They spent
around a grand to get it mastered, and the engineer also helped them
work in the connecting sounds they use to "glue" the tracks together.
They were skeptical going into the process that the mastering would make
a real audible difference besides more compression, but they left feeling
it was $1000 well-spent. It sounds fantastic now.
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - email@example.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
Linux-audio-user mailing list