My mastering philosophy

Mastering is art, not science

A frequent question about audio mastering is: is it science or art? From my perspective, mastering is art for 90%and science for 10%...let's see why.

If mastering was completely science, then the greatest mastering engineers of the world would all have a very similar sound style. This is absolutely untrue. The biggest name in mastering have completely different styles. On the same track, and targeting the same output level, these mastering engineers would release completely different masters, each very pleasuring but in a different way.

Another consideration: if mastering was 100% science, then automated services like LANDR would be sufficient to always obtain great results in an objective way. This is not what happens in reality. The artists who really care about their music, don't rely on LANDR for mastering, but they send their tracks to their preferred mastering engineer, and this because of a simple reason: mastering is art, not science.

For a band or a singer, choosing the right mastering engineer is just like choosing the right painter. You don't choose a painter because his paintings are "exact" or "correct", you chose him because you like his paintings, his colors, his style, his imagines, his subjects. In the same way, a band or a singer choose their mastering engineer because of his style, because of the sound he obtains, which is his "sonic signature".

The style of some famous mastering engineers

If we examine the style of some of the biggest name in the mastering industry, and if we have a good critical listening capability, then we can define a particular style for each of them.

Let's make just some examples.

• Greg Calbi. He is my preferred mastering engineer (after myself of course!). He obtains always an extremely well balanced sound on all the spectrum, with a little emphasis on low mid frequencies from 100 to 200 Hz, and sometimes a little emphasis on high frequencies above 10 Khz. Sometimes he uses a marked pumping effect, like for example in Hand it over by Dinosaur jr. His sound is always characterized by smooth and soft transients in mid and high frequencies
• Tom Coyne. Another great mastering engineer from Sterling Sound. His sound is always a little poor of low mid frequencies between 200 and 300 Hz, to emphasize the "bump" of the kick around 100 Hz. Low frequencies below 120 Hz are always powerful and full. High frequencies above 10 Hz are bright, while high mid frequencies are well balanced. He often uses a pronounced pumping effect to underline the low frequencies movements. He maximizes the output level often with soft or even hard clipping, to preserve the low frequencies impact
• Howie Weinberg. The most known mastering engineer in rock genre: he has mastered a lot of rock masterpieces from 90' and 2000'. He obtains aggressive mid frequencies around 1.000 Hz, with very well balanced high and low frequencies. He almost never uses compression and it's very difficult to hear any pumping effect in his albums. He generally uses soft or hard clipping instead of limiting, and this allows him to obtain transients with a very strong impact, and a little distortion when the output level is high

Which is the best mastering engineer among these? Obviously, there isn't one objective answer! Like there isn't an objective answer for the question: "Which is better, Chagall or Picasso?". It's always a matter of taste. It's art, not science.

I've made this introduction to explain which is my personal mastering philosophy. I'll explain this by listing what I don't like and what I like to do in the audio mastering stage.

What I don't like

• "V" equalization at all costs. "V" equalization consists on emphasizing low and high frequencies, while cutting mid frequencies or leaving them flat. This kind of equalization is often used by customers who have speakers with poor low and high frequencies, to compensate the limited bandwidth. I don't like the use "at all costs" of this kind of equalization in the mastering stage: the risk is to obtain tracks which are so poor of mid frequencies that they sound boring, empty. The heart of the sound is in the mid frequencies, and so these frequencies have to be respected and enhanced!
• Always cut low mids to obtain a more defined sound. I don't suggest this practice. If you look at Youtube tutorials about audio mastering, many of them suggest to cut low mid frequencies from 100 to 300 Hz, to make the sound more defined and to reduce "muddiness". I definitely don't agree with this practice. That frequencies range is, in my opinion, maybe the most important, because it contains the fundamental impact and body of sound. Cutting mid low frequencies is good only if they are really too strong, don't do it always!
• Strong high mid frequencies to increase the perceived loudness. Everybody knows what is the loudness war: it is the tendency to master the tracks with a very high perceived output level, to compete with the output level of the "competitors". Loudness war has greatly damaged music in the last 20 years. There are many tactics used to increase the perceived output level; one of them is to emphasize the high mid frequencies, because the human ear is very sensitive in that region. This bad practice has the disadvantage to make the sound harsh and fatiguing
• Cutting low frequencies for loudness. This practice consists on cutting low frequencies to avoid distortion with very high output levels. Low frequencies, indeed, tend to distort when limiters or clippers are used to raise the output level. So, to achieve an high output level with a contained distortion, some mastering studios cut very much low frequencies with an high pass filter and/or a shelf. But cutting too much the lows brings away all the impact from the sound! Low frequencies should be well balanced, not exaggerated nor thin
• Excessive stereo widening. To make the sound more 3D and wide, some mastering engineers apply too much stereo widening, which consists in raising the gain of the "side" channel. This practice makes the sound wider but, on the other hand, it reduces the relative level of the instruments located in the mid channel. These instruments are very important (voice, bass, kick, snare...): reducing their relative level it's often not the best choice.

What I like

• Well balanced sound. For me, the sound has to be well balanced: a sound in which there aren't portions of frequencies that are too much prominent. Dividing virtually the sound in 4 bands (low, low mid, high mid, high) or 5 bands (low, low mid, mid, high mid, high), I like to hear that these bands coexist in an harmonious way, without any "prevarication"
• Powerful transients on low and low mid frequencies. What makes you dance is the kick. Without the kick, there isn't that fundamental impulse that makes you dance. This is because the kick generates transients around 90-100 Hz, and these transients give the music its fundamental impact. I like to preserve this impact in the mastering stage. In all my projects, I try to have powerful and well defined transients on low and low mid frequencies, even when the client asks for an high output level
• Controlled transients on high mid and high frequencies. Transients on high mid and high frequencies are, in many cases, good, because they make the sound more interesting, lively. On the other hand, when these transients are excessive, they make the sound harsh and fatiguing. So I like to have smooth, well balanced transients in the high region of the audio spectrum. This let me obtain a sound which is never fatiguing, even after a long period of listening

At the end of the day, the sound is much more important than many words. For this reason, it is possible to check which are my preferred albums here. These albums represent my ideal sound, the sound that I try to achieve at Warm Mastering.