Shouldn't the goal of mastering be a flat transfer?

We all listen on different systems from a $49 ipod mini to $100,000 + systems. My thought is we "color" the sound ourselves (through equipment, speaker placement, room treatments, etc) that a flat transfer of master source should be the goal. If we want more bottom/top end, we usually make our own adjustments. Some systems are warmer some are neutral. No two mastered sources are the same....so we are really more tuned to how our systems sound. You may like Bob Ludwig's masterings out of the box on your McIntosh system. But you may think his masterings sound thin through your headphones. Now, I realize the goal of record companies is to get their music heard (compression, loudness, trendy sound signatures). So when we look at a remastering, are we just asking an engineer to tweak the tone controls at the source level vs ourselves at the output level (stereo systems). Once a flat transfer is made for CD, that should be it until a better resolution medium (ex: BD) is available.

I'm not wanting to start a war with anyone...I'm just asking with all the equipment varieties...is mastering beyond a flat transfer really less relevant?

 

There are master sources (e.g. tapes) which are unevenly balanced or badly mastered...by that I read 'way off'. Steve himself has relayed a few such stories. Also from what I've read, master reels may have a collection of tracks on them from different sessions / recordings, that if played back flat, would sound inconsistent or uneven.

 

That would be the goal if the master tape did not have any flaw or mistakes or something that pretty much everyone believes was an oversight (no bass, etc...). Seeing how this is not always the case the goal for me would be to improve upon those mistakes.

 

If I had to choose a "flat" transfer, or some goosed up piece of sonic garbage (most bad "remasters"...) I will take the flat transfer. At least then I can choose how loud I want to hear it.

 

It's not so much flaws or mistakes as much as it is slight tonal anomalities often caused by compensation for monitoring issues. For example if the mix engineer mixed at a extremely high level, or with speakers with bright or forward sounding mid range horns, or other variations, the mastering engineer may feel the need to futz with the tonality.

Back in my day, I got a lot of calls to equalize studio monitors. That was always a compromise. I generally asked my clients what they were going for. Some wanted flat monitors so they could hear exactly what was hapenning. Others wanted dull monitors as a way to end up with brighter recordings. Some wanted bright monitors to end up with duller recordings Often inexperienced engineers didn't know what they wanted.

I remember one studio had me tune their monitors flat. When they did their next mastering project it was totally different sounding than their previous project. The mastering engineer asked them if they had changed anything, and of course they mentioned that I had tuned their speakers flat. He told them that was a problem, and I got chewed out.

Consequently, I did a survey of many top studios and I found no consensus on this what so ever. Of course I had asked my clients what they wanted, and that was the reason I asked. When I did, they asked me what I would want were I mixing there. I told them that I would want a accurate a response as possible with no hype one way or the other but that there were many opinions on this. Most would automatically assume that flat monitors was the goal, but that was not always the case according to my survey. It was pretty much split across the board.

Back to mastering, it's fairly easy to change the contours of the extreme frequencies if and when needed, but IMO the real trick is getting the midrange frequencies right. Often this equalization is minor. Changing mid range frequenies by a half db or so actually can make a large difference in the overall presentation.

As I've mentioned many times, just changing the mix speakers can change the perception of the mix, and often times it's slight. For example, with one set of speakers the guitar and vocals may be in balance, but switch to a different pair and they're not in balance. Which sets are right? Well it's hard to tell.

That's where the mastering engineer comes in to play. The premise is that the ME has enough experience to know how to make these slight changes in order to make the product sound as good as possible to as many end users as possible.

Once again, often these changes are very slight. Yes, I've heard people say that most of us can't hear changes of less than a db, but IMO that's just not true. While many may not be able to notice the difference in overall level changes of that degree, when it's mid range eq this is not necessarily the case.

The bottom line is that the project engineers may be more able to hear these often slight differences because they created the balance. If it's changed, even slightly, it can be noticed. Now from the perspective of the end user there would be no easy way for them to tell unless they had some way to compare various mixes or masterings.

Most of the complaints about mastering here, with the exception of overly compressed brick wall messes, are the result of people comparing various masterings. Of course having various examples to compare makes it pretty easy to notice the differences. Without that comparision, it's hard to know whether the sonic character of the product is from the studio or altered by the mastering process.

I do think that in a perfect world all masterings would be flat transfers. That said, every studio is different, and every engineer is different as well. Heck, even different tape, or NR if used, can have an effect on the ovearll sound of the project. The mastering engineer has the final opportunity to contour the sound.

Heck, even different mastering engineers have different philosophies and sounds, and often they are chosen for their signature sounds. Often these signature sounds are distinctive colorizations and not true to the master tapes. Johnny Golden comes to mine here. Of course there is nothing wrong with this at all. Once again the goal is to make the best overall presentation and there are no real rules.

It's easy to assume that the mastering engineer is more clinical than artistic, but that's not usually the case. When it is, it is the experienced mastering engineer who makes that determination. Just like artists or labels choose a producer for his signature sound, the same holds true for mastering engineers.

If mastering was done with flat transfers with minimal signal paths then the differences between various mastering engineers would be less noticeable.

 

From a Mix magazine article featuring an interview with Bob Ludwig....

 

Seems to me, that the musician should have more to say about how the recorded music sounds. By not monitoring with "flat" speakers, the engineer is making decisions based on sound that is somewhat false. Maybe the artist is not interested in this issue.

 

This is why the Beeb had stringent loudspeaker specs, to have conformity.
The more I learn about mastering the more difficult it seems
Especially with digital and WorkStation products
Compressing a transient rich hi rez audio file to be hearable on a home system is a challenge, mostly lost, Im afraid.

 

Well yes and no. In audio, especially in the analog days, we often developed little tricks to make recordings sound better and this is just one of them. Like I said, every engineer was different. I've discoved that it's best to judge what I hear by the overall sound as opposed to the methodology used to create it.

I wouldn't nessesarily catagorize using 'non flat' monitors as false. All the sounds are there, there just in different proportions to each other. If a engineer is experienced he can often used these variations to his advantage.

As an example, back to Johnny Golden. He used 'Westlake' monitors in his mastering sessions back in the 70's and I had a hard time judging the process there. We worked on some compilation records there with each song coming from different studios, yet they all had a common sound there. That would seem to make it hard to work as you know these should have all sounded quite different, yet his stuff always sounded great, and usually had his 'signature' sound.

That's why it was important to trust his experience when paying him to master. After all, we chose him because of his sound and track record. For me, it was more of a learning experience. It would have made little sense to select him for his sound and then suggest he change it.

I should note, that I'm talking about analog mastering here. In analog mastering there were generally a lot of compromises and tricks involved to get the best results.

 

I think you're on to something here. My guess is that most artists don't care about these things as much as audiophiles here do.

 

If a flat transfer would always be the best option, there wouldn't be any mastering engineers. For me the goal would be getting the best possible quality from the original master to the final medium (CD, vinyl, SACD or whatever). A flat transfer does not always offer that.

 

My guess is that most artists consider performance in front of an audience more to the point than playing to Engineers, Producers and Studio Heads. There's a great deal of difference in the quantity and quality of the energy coming from musicians in a recording and the energy of musicians performing in front of an appreciative audience.

I've know a few audiophile recording musicians, but for the most part they look on recordings as learning tools or something fun to play in the usual domestic circumstances, but the focus isn't on sound quality as much as the energy coming across.

 

Well stated.

 

Great info Doug, I learned a lot from your post. I have heard productions that sound good on all formats I listen through (boombox, car, home, ipod, etc). I always thought Back in Black was one of those (I have not heard the remasters) and pretty much anything produced by Martin Birch. You can say what you want, but the early 60's Elvis recordings sound fantastic. So really when we say a record "sounds" crappy, it probably has more to do with the original recordings rather than the mastering

 

You are right that not all master tapes sound great flat as it has been mentioned here countless times. The Kinks' masters are by no means audiophile quality, but the music is great, IMO and a huge portion of us here. You can get well mastered material that the music isn't to your liking.

 

To me, mastering is all about making subjective decisions that bring the best out of each recording. Merely playing the tape back "flat" (whatever that is) isn't necessarily going to sound good, nor will it necessarily sound like what the artist and producer originally wanted.

I think this points to the need of having a good, experienced mastering engineer with a flat system that's revealing enough to show what the existing tapes really sound like. And don't forget: mastering is just as much about level and compression as it is about EQ. Plus, if the tapes are part of a compilation project, all bets are off -- they're never going to mesh together well, one after another, without some careful tweaking.

I would much, much rather hear an album mastered by a pro like Steve or Barry than simply a "straight across flat transfer." Only that way are you going to benefit by their judgement, skill, and experience.

 

Great post, but this one phrase really says it all.

 

Not only that, most tapes do not sound good flat. Just because they are mixed doesn't meant that those mixes are perfect. They are flawed. That's why they are sent to mastering engineers!

 

I prefer the Rhino Yes remasters because I think the mastering engineer's EQ choices serve the music best.

 

The simple answer is YES YES YES. A flat transfer would mean the master recording was perfectly done. And if you're talking about a CD or album (multiple songs), a flat transfer would also mean the timing of gaps between songs, the volume of songs relative to one another, fade outs, etc., would all be perfect. I can't remember ever having done a flat transfer of multiple songs, but some were close. I think the question would be better asked as shouldn't the goal of MIXING be a flat transfer? Mastering is just the final tweak in the process of getting the recording onto the ultimate medium.

 

The answer is no.

But, a flat transfer is often better than a heavily equalized and doctored mastering.

 

The only reason you guys think flat transfers are always preferable is because Steve has said that's how he did a few of his projects. Don't forget that even when he does those occasional "flat" transfers, he manipulates the sound with cables and tubes.

 

Agreed.

Hotel California is a prime example. Compare an original Target CD (flat master) with Steve's mastering for DCC. Night and day. Some things are not meant to be played back flat.

 

If I recall, the issue with Hotel California was the monitors they used when they mixed it. Steve EQ'ed the whole intro on the title track in segments to get it right. A lot of work, but it was worth it. I'm not sure how that worked logistically, though.