Small Moves…

Big Results.

More cuts than boosts as well.

Cheers, JT

Yeah, that.

Pretty much verbatim.

The only "hesitation" I have with it is that if I'm doing a "big" overall curve change, it implies to me that the mix is out of whack because of the mixer's monitor setup.

But, if the stereo image, transient/compression balance, automation, instrument balance, etc. are all good/close, then they obviously know what they're doing even if the frequency response is lopsided or backwards from what I want to hear (e.g., needing big tilts, big smiles or frowns, etc.).

The problem with that...is that if the mixer is also the artist/producer, they're probably going to evaluate my master on the same playback system...and it's going to sound drastically wrong to them.

Or, even if not, whoever approved the mix is likely to have to approve the master...and it's going to sound drastically different to them if they use the same monitors.

It creates the need for a "touchy" conversation that veers very close to me insulting their monitoring if I'm not careful.

I don't like that feeling or that idea.

But, I really don't like the idea of delivering a master that sounds drastically different from what I think my client actually wants.

ETA: I've also just been drastically wrong about what a client wanted before. Fortunately, they've mostly given me a shot at a revision. The most drastic one started out with pretty huge EQ moves...and they actually did want what struck me as an "odd" sound for artistic reasons. That wound up a nip & tuck job with only <2dB moves. And, at least in that case, it wasn't their monitoring - I was just flat-out wrong about the sound I thought they wanted until I got the revision notes. But, in the end, she was totally happy and paid her invoice in <5 minutes.

So, imho, do what you gotta do...be ready to have the weird conversations...and accept that you can also just be wrong.

Man, that's a lot.

I try to keep it simpler.

Claim V1 completely; this is what I think this song/performance/recording/mix wants to be. No second guessing no "but what if they listen in a Camry with a busted left door speaker?", just the shape I think it wants to take.

And then absolutely zero pushback from me on notes, they've heard my version fully realized and without apology and can have anything they want on V2.

Something I see way too often (not saying you do this) is Mastering Engineers hedging on V1, overthinking/referencing past work etc, but then pushing back on notes from the client on revisions.

I like to own V1 entirely, and then it's "how high?" from V2 on...

Wisdom!!

I find these kind of anecdotes about mindset so much more inspiring than ones about gear choices or settings. *Like*

If I understand correct.
It can be times were you go "strictly" by there wishes and might end up with a track that you self really dont feel is the best for the track?

Can It be that you have stuff out there that you dont like your work on and feels off to stand up for?
How do you relate to this?

The only blanket statement I consider is there are not any blanket statements to be made with mastering.

Job by job, if something is wrong, I let people know, otherwise I feel I have not done my best work and this is part of my daily work.

I always dig in and try with all my tools first and consider the results.

However, if I am more than 50pct certain that the people involved behind the song/track can go 50pct or more in the right direction with clear, skilled tagetted instruction, in the opposite direction of that which is failing their track and causing me a headache, with my advice, then that is absolutely worthwhile.

2 days I went back on 2-3 spots of vocal distortion, it was suggested it was in the recording but what came back was still improved and there is less spot distortion as a result in the mix which I was surprised at but it freed me up a little. And that person now knows about leaving more headroom in their vocal chain. The vocal sounded very good otherwise.

Yesterday, ear burning percussion in 1 of 5 mixes, resolved perfectly once directed to by a very skilled mix engineer who I team very well with, we both respect each other highly.

People miss things all the time, hard working studios are often working so hard it is very easy to miss something.

Targetted pro advice goes a long way to helping people improve what they love doing. Maybe some people just don't have the confidence or ability to feedback in an accurate and articulated way. That's fine, we are all indivuduals and have our ways of working and specific skillsets and knowledge.

Do it the way that works for you and client and how you both feel comfortable, that's it really.

I think it's important not to conflate our roles with those of artists. It's them who have to stand up for their work, not us.

I too would like to hear Ruairi's take on this, but the way I see it is that I am a service provider first and foremost. So I have zero problem making revisions that I wouldn't agree with if it were my own project. Once the album is out, how well these choices are going to be received is totally beyond my control anyway.

I never watch the dbs. I barely see the screen.
When I ask for where am I, I always have surprises.

So I eq until I cannot stop listenning to the tracks/projet for next 2 days, on every positions/systems possible, because I like it.

I never ask or wait for permission/autorisation.
I do, if I do wrong, I apologize, then I redo to have a better version 2 than version 1.

Easy. Results are what people connect to not the gear or amount of it.

I think this is a really good approach.

Also when mixing isn´t your main work there can be a lot effecting projects, Its easy that mixes sometimes are sent away a little to fast and then Its good to have someone beside the artist that can spot things and you have a chance to correct It in the mix.

I think we agree almost completely...the monitoring conversation is more something I'm afraid of than something that's actually common.

And, yes, I agree...do what I think is right on V1 with no reservations and they can have anything they want starting with v2. That's a very good way to put it.

Are there records out there that sounded different on V1? Of course! Often I come to realize the client was right, sometimes not. That's ok.

My work is showing up for the music, and showing up for the client. So when a record comes out that sounds different to what I had at V1 I'm proud of my part in it and will stand up for the client and the work all day. They heard my V1 and decided they wanted or needed something different, and I helped them get it there.

Your observations seems to come from much higher than the average kite.

I do not like the term "Observations" anymore.

It does not work for any visualy deficient animal.

My assistante does the observations for me.

But that is not the discussion.

Observing is so 80's.

I think observing dates back a lot farther than that. Galileo got in trouble for it hundreds of years ago.

Galileo didn’t really like the term “observer. I think he preferred to call himself an accidental looky-loo.

Thank you. I think it is important that we learn and use the correct scientific and historical descriptors.

BTW, don’t use “accidental looky-Lou” as a defense in sexual misconduct cases.

Nothing wastes time and slows productivity in the studio like chasing numbers. LUFS, dB, RMS, gain reduction are all meaningless if it doesn't sound good.

Have you ever tried using stem separating for use as a side-chain trigger or to add or reduce volume with phase?
I’m not a mastering guy but I’ve had some success doing this with my two tracks. Things off my tape machine.
For instance if I need more kick I can stem separate, remove everything except the kick and add in a little to boost the volume or flip the phase to reduce the volume a bit or use it to trigger a compressor.
Also cool if I want to add verb to a snare.
Only so much can be done this way as the artifacts can come out pretty quickly but when I use sparingly it’s been quite helpful.

Nope. That is a very extreme approach in my opinion. I am not trying to run the clients mix through such destructive processing, and I have zero interest in AI assistance with mastering. I just listen, and use normal plug ins and hardware to change things subtly.

On a certain level I think one needs to accept what the client sends them as representative of the overall balance and feeling that the client wants back in return. The mix is a guide to how the master should sound. I don't need to tear the whole thing apart to artificially boost the kick level, or add reverb to a snare-- if they wanted reverb on the snare, they would have done it in the mix. And spectral processing is just way too destructive for mastering IMO. For restoration, acceptable, but for modern mixes, no way.

Yeah I get that and like I said I’m not a ME. I’m only working on my own stuff so the finished product is what I decide it is, but as with anything it’s only as destructive as you let it be. Maybe youre not fully understanding what I was saying and I’ll take the heat for that. i wouldn’t call it ai assistance by any stretch of the imagination.

I gave this a like, which would be OK if it were not a mastering thread. But it is a mastering thread, and the post doesn’t deserve a like.
If the mix “sounds good”, but has peaks all over the place that prevent it from being loud enough to get noticed, the numbers will have been very important, and improving the loudness without trashing the “sounds good” is usually considered an important part of mastering.