The broader the adjustment, the wider the translation

One of the goals in mastering is to make adjustments that translate into improvements in the sound of the master across a wide range of playback situations - everything from big stereos to small stereos to computer speakers to headphones to cars to …

The broader the adjustments, the more likely it will be heard as intended in the widest variety of playback situations.  

For example, a 1db change in overall volume sounds like a 1db change pretty much everywhere.  Similarly, eqing with very broad shelves translates into tonal changes that sound consistent across many different speakers.

On the other hand, very specific adjustments like narrow eq tweaks are much less likely to be heard as intended on a wide range of speakers.  The narrower the tweak, the more likely it will only be an improvement in your room.   Out in the real world it may sound better on some systems, be mostly inaudible on others, or even sound worse than the source.

Before getting surgical better be damn sure you are fixing a problem in the recording and not a problem in the monitoring.

Evaluating mastering equalizers

1. Can it correct broadly unbalanced tracks swiftly and intuitively?  Many EQs qualify.

2. Perhaps more importantly, can it get in and fix the one small (but critical) problem in an otherwise perfect mix without creating other problems?  Very few EQs qualify.

A little or a lot

Sometimes you can get away with just raising the level. 

And sometimes you have to do a ton of processing just to make it sound like you did nothing but raise the level.

Loudspeakers and the Tolerance Parameter

I’ve been using the term tolerance to describe speakers ever since I started using the excellent ATC SCM150s in the mastering room.  

What is tolerance as it applies to speakers? Well first of all, it’s a bullshit term that I made up, but basically it’s a way of describing how quickly a speaker will show you when you’ve made a counterproductive processing move.  So tolerant speakers have a wide window of acceptable sound, whereas intolerant speakers have a narrower range of acceptable sound.

For example, I have used (well regarded) speakers that would allow you to boost 3db at 4k on a given recording and sound fine.  Boosting that same recording 3db at 4k on the ATCs would immediately sound harsh. On the ATCs a boost of 1.5db was more appropriate.  

So what is correct?  

Checking those two options on a variety of systems in the real world reveals that on most systems, both masters sound very similar, and the 1.5db difference at 4k is mostly a moot point.  However, a few systems already predisposed to sounding harsh in the midrange revealed the 3db boost to be too much, and the 1.5db boost to be spot-on.  But critically, the opposite was not true - on systems with recessed midrange the 1.5db version was still good.  The conclusion here is that the lower tolerance (intolerance) of the ATCs allow the user to spot potential translation problems that would be overlooked on the other mastering speaker system.

To make matters more complicated, tolerance can vary by frequency - for example, some speakers may be tolerant to changes in the low end but intolerant in the highs.

All of this points toward the need to evaluate mastering speaker candidates for an extended period of time, and by doing real work with them.  

Just listening to speakers is not enough and won’t reveal their suitability (or not) for making mastering processing decisions.

First impressions rule the day

I’m thinking I probably make up my mind about what a track needs within about 30 seconds of hitting play for the first time.  

Maybe even much less.

Turn up the level first

Before touching the equalizer turn the track up so that it is playing back at the same relative volume as the other tracks it must balance with.  

Only then may you touch the eq.  

You may be surprised to learn that much of the previously perceived need to equalize has gone away once the levels are matched.