New ideas from the online mastering world

The online mastering solution is widely diffused today, and it is certainly the most popular way to do mastering in 2017. The traditional, attended mastering sessions, in which the client is physically there during the mastering session, is quiet uncommon today.

Sending and receiving the audio files is definitely easier. This solution is used not only by small studios, but also by very big and famous studios like, for example, Metropolis.

But in years in which everything changes soon, also the mastering world evolves...

There are in fact some mastering studios which offer a new solution, a compromise between online and attended mastering. We are speaking about the "shared" mastering solution. How it works? Basically, while the mastering engineer does the mastering sessions, the client is video connected with the studio (for example using Skype). Moreover, the mastered tracks are sent to the client as soon as the mastering is completed, for example using a shared folder (Dropbox, FTP...).

This solution allows the client to assist to the mastering session both with the video connection and by listening to the mastered tracks almost in real time. This service has generally an higher cost than the standard online mastering solution. But the question is: the shared mastering is really useful?

Apparently, the client has a better control over the mastering session; but if we study this practice, we have to admit that this control is not so useful...let's see why.

We have said that the advantages of the shared mastering session, for the client, are substantially:

1. The possibility to assist to the session in video
2. The possibility to listen to the mastered tracks as soon as they are mastered

Whit respect to the first point, I don't see why the video connection with the mastering engineer should be an advantage for the client. Of course this can be an enjoying experience for the client, who can satisfy some curiosity; but if the relevant information between the mastering engineer and the client have been already exchanged, than it is unlikely that the client can offer useful information to the mastering engineer during the session.

Let's examine the second point. The mastered tracks are shared with the client as soon as they are mastered. This allows the client to listen to the tracks almost in real time, with his own monitors. Now the point is, it is possible that some clients have a good audio system, with full range, linear monitors, in a big and acoustically treated room....but this of course is very unlikely!
What does this imply? There is a big risk behind this practice: the possibility that the client asks a revision of the track on the basis of a rushed, superficial listening of the track made with a bad audio system. In this case the mastering engineer will offer its revision on the basis of the client requests, and this will probably led to an unbalanced master.

I have to say that this risk is present also in the standard online mastering solution. In fact, even in this case the client can ask to the mastering engineer a revision of the track, but there are some differences:

• In the shared mastering session, the client will base its evaluation on a single, rushed, superficial listening of the mastered track, made with only an audio system
• In the standard online mastering solution, the client will have the time to listen to the mastered tracks with patience, using all the audio systems he have (car system, headphones, monitors and so on...). This will allow him to take a better decision

For these considerations, I personally don't like very much the shared mastering solution.
I think the standard online mastering practice remains better, if it is done with few and simple instructions.