Ebook Prepping For The Master - 3.2

Prepping For The Master

Brian Murphree
Soundporter Mastering ~ eBook: Prepping for the Master
To my girlfriend, Maricela, who has

shown amazing patience with my
running a small business and
everything else I do.
© Copyright 2020, Soundporter Mastering. This text may not be copied in part or in full without explicit permission of the writer.
Revision 3.2, 01/22/21
2
Table of Contents

Prepping For The Master
Table of Contents
Introduction
Why Am I Here?
Comfortability of Soundporter
The Free Master
Choosing a Mastering Engineer
What Is Mastering?
Back To Choosing a Mastering Engineer
Transparency or color?
Know what you like
Send me references
Send me notes….or not
Audition the demo masters
Build Comfortability
Instant Online Mastering Services
Choosing Formats (Mediums)
Digital
Aggregator
CD (Compact Disc)
Cassette
Vinyl Record
Have a Strategy
Getting Started
Phase 1 - Before mastering
Phase 2 - Payment and first masters
Phase 3 - Revisions
Phase 4 - Master the rest
Phase 5 - Final Assembly
Phase 1 - Before Mastering
While mixing
Some mixing tips, from a Mastering engineer
Stems
What’s your Loudness Level?
The Loudness Wars
Elect a Proxy
3
Phase 2 - Payment and First Master

Listen to the master
Phase 3 - Revisions
First Revision
The Iterative Master
Approval
Revisions
Phase 4 - Master The Rest
Phase 5 - Final Assembly and Exports
Song Sequence
What if I want some songs to flow into others?
Multiple formats
Delivery
Confidentiality and Privacy
Backups
Credit
Other Referral
Word of Mouth
Wrap Up
My Mastering Room The really boring (or geeky) stuff!
Acoustics
Speakers
The Amplifier
Cabling
Electrical Power
The Mastering Desk
The Chain
M (Mid)
S (Side)
Plugins
Back to Mastering
The End

4
Introduction

This book cannot completely replace the need to consult with a real Mastering Engineer but
there are some of you who, like me, want to have the information received to be comprehensible
and stored where it can easily be referred back to. Plus, some of you are true introverts and
prefer reading the fun little details of what’s going on before shopping for the right mastering
engineer to work with.

Good news! I feel perhaps this book will not only describe my own services and process, but it
may also help you choose a mastering engineer without even speaking to me first. I don’t simply
wish to give you this book with the intention that you will work directly with me, but to show
you how I’m here to help you regardless of your ultimate decision. It’s in my best interest to be
helpful, not fish and reel you in as a customer.

I do hope this text will help you better understand what mastering is all about from two points
of view: 1) From an outsider who isn’t technical, or 2) From someone who does understand it,
but may not understand some of the ‘black magic’ involved. I’m going to explain mastering in
both contexts and then I’ll expound on my own process, gear, technical know-how, some tips!

Please enjoy it all!
5
Why Am I Here?

I know why I’m here, but why are you here? Just out of assumption you might fall into one or
more of these categories:

● I’m an artist or producer who’s planning an album and I want to know as much as I can
about mastering before I make mistakes and choose the wrong engineer.
● I’m a mix engineer who’s checking out new mastering engineers and I want to see what
you’ve got going.
● We’ve almost finished the album and we’ve still not chosen our mastering engineer.
● I need advice on whether my mix is ready for mastering, or just some general advice.
● I’m genuinely curious, and maybe perhaps I’d like to give it a go on my own.

Meanwhile, there are other reasons for being here, but these are typical. There’s no reason to
pigeon-hole you like that but it helps to see if you are thinking about this the way you probably
should. For example, it’s not often an artist who’s putting a band together for the first time
suddenly shops around for mastering engineers. However, it should be advised that anyone who
is nearing completion of an album shop around. At this point one can assume you’re potentially
ready for this step or you’re just super-proactive--a very nice quality!

I can’t stress enough the risk and anxiety many people feel when it comes to art. If you bought a
genuine Picasso at an art gallery and you’ve been told it was a one of a kind, hopefully you’re
rightfully inquisitive as to whether it’s even an authentic piece from Picasso himself. If you
spent $15M on this painting and only based on the word of the curator that it’s genuine and
100% unique I can see your risk. You don’t want to walk into a gallery like this and even
consider purchasing a Picasso (if one was even available for sale), unless you had ways to truly
verify its authenticity, or you strongly trusted and felt comfortable with the gallery’s experts.

Another example of this type of risk is the auction of David Gilmour’s Black Fender Strat. This
is probably (at the time of this writing) the most expensive auctioned electric guitar ever sold. I
suspect there were auction bidders who didn’t know ways to truly authenticate the guitar, but
trust was largely based on the advertising, the statements made by what appears to be
authorities in the realm, the auctioneer, and David’s own video announcing the auction and
guitars being put up.

With mastering, as with mixing, finding a great engineer to master your music it is a risk to
your expensive and exhausting endeavor of making music. It’s almost enough to simply hear
results, but there’s far more to choosing an engineer than you might realize. Comfortability is
many times regarded as of higher importance than the quality of the master. I’ll say that again.
Comfortability is often regarded as more important than quality of the master. Feeling that your
risk is low helps, tremendously. That’s a part of the engineer being authentic and part of
lowering your risk, because you know. You feel it. You trust.
6

One might assume that quality work is encompassed in comfortability of working with a
specific engineer but they’re not always one in the same. For example, if you sent your masters
to a major label mastering house your results should be stellar. Many times the lead engineer
(typically the owner/partner) does something not even other senior engineers in the same
mastering house would provide. The quality control and process is there but you may not get
“that” authentic sound only the very expensive lead engineer provides. That said, with other
engineers on staff, you might still trust the mastering house enough to feel comfortable in your
investment.

To clarify all this into a statement, why you are here is this:
You are shopping for a mastering engineer, one who you can trust and feel comfortable with,
one that’s genuine, is actually a real mastering engineer, is going to lower your risk of
wasting time and money, and do amazing work.

Does that sum it up a bit? For me, I can provide you with ample information here and still offer
you free advice and samples. With Soundporter I afford you the leisure of researching the
subject, testing your mixes out (I’ll explain that), and engaging in mastering with me, even if you
ultimately choose another engineer instead.

Comfortability of Soundporter

Historically, I could never tell you exactly why I felt such anxiety from sending something to
another mix engineer or mastering engineer. Somehow, I felt as if the engineer is really just
someone like me who loves the gear, loves the music, and loves the process. But why I felt
perhaps maybe the engineer was just another enthusiast that tweaks a few knobs and runs my
audio through expensive equipment, only to really smash it and send it back to me, I’ll never
know. It wasn’t until I started mastering myself that I realized there’s much more to it.

From where you sit, is it enough to arbitrarily select a mastering engineer to master your music?
Some would feel that way but they’d be mistaken. Traditionally, a mastering engineer is
supposed to do no harm and only perform the best job of translating your mix to a medium
(vinyl, cassette, MP3, CD, streaming, etc.). This hasn’t been that way in a few decades.
Mastering engineers are far more involved in the final mix than ever before. This is why you
must build trust and comfort with the engineer you work with. This is also why the engineer
must work harder to provide that trust and comfortability.

“I’m not here to do a job. I’m here to help you.”

In an attempt to be compelling about what I do, it’s to help you realize the absolute best sonic
performance of your final mix. In other words, I’m not here to simply do a job. I’m here to help
7
you. I’m here to be your last chance of quality control (QC) and ensure your mix sounds best on
whatever medium or digital outlet you’re planning to deliver music to your listeners. This is why
my customers feel comfortable with me. They all know that I’m here to help them, not simply
charge for a service and produce only results I deem best. If it doesn’t work for the listener or
the music creator, producer, etc., then it doesn’t work for me. Let’s get it right!

After you are happy with the first or second master, we can then start to build more trust. It
takes a little time. This is why I offer the free master. And I don’t mean a free sample demo, I
mean a true finished product! Why should I do that? Well, it’s an online demo master, which you
can hear for free, but you can easily purchase and download the demo for immediate release!

The Free Master

Yes, I offer a free master demo. It is a finished product you can hear online for free in full
resolution/quality. Should you love the free master, you can simply pay for a download of it for
immediate release. However, I do ask that the master include credit. “Mastered by Brian
Murphree of Soundporter”, and we agree that I may use the master as a portfolio piece (even if
there is no further commitment). I can also apply that payment for download as a discount for
the rest of the album.

Should you request a free master, here’s the process:

1. Submit the request through my contact form.
2. I’ll master the audio for you immediately or we can opt for a conversation first.
3. I will send you a link where you can listen to the master online.
4. Enjoy your master! If you like it enough I will have a discounted purchase price ready for
you to immediately download and release the master when you want. It’s yours!

Yep! It’s that simple! And yes, you may release it, so long as the mastering credit is applied.
Now, that said, I do have a few requests/limitations to keep transparent:

● Free master is in a single format, such as .WAV, or .MP3 at 16-bit/44.1kHz. You would
need to pay extra for any additional formats.
● There are no iterations or revisions of the free master. One pass only.
● You add mastering credit as, “Mastered by Brian Murphree of Soundporter.” in your
release wherever it is distributed. Use the comments or description of the song’s posting.

While I cannot enforce that last bit, this is the passive referral process that you would otherwise
rob from me. That would be taking advantage of my generosity. Please help keep rates low.

NOTE! Free revisions or alternate formats are not available for demo masters.
8
Choosing a Mastering Engineer

This is why you’re here. You’ve decided to record, mix, master, and release music you feel the
world needs to hear. You need to find the right mastering engineer at a fair price who can fully
appreciate the work you’ve done and do it justice. And while I don’t recommend making this
choice lightly, swiftly or whimsically, it’s true that many artists do leave mastering as a near
afterthought. This is why many artists are disappointed with the masters or they simply bust
their budgets too soon, reducing the mastering engineer quality (increased risk).

A mastering engineer can make or break your mix faster than your mix engineer can. Since the
mix is sent to the mastering engineer as a stereo mix, it only takes a few tweaks to make it sink
or float it. Mastering is so critical and should not be taken lightly. At. All.

If you aren’t familiar with mastering and what it’s really about, skip to “What Is Mastering?”
then return here. Nevermind, let’s get that out of the way now…
What Is Mastering?

The funny thing about this question is, it’s probably answered in some way on every single
mastering website, and while a growing number of artists who have music mastered know what
happens and what to expect, in my opinion, it’s still never fully understood or perhaps, fully
appreciated. This is why mastering has often been considered a black art of audio production.

Mastering is the final step in the mixing process. See, this is where it gets all confusing. I
thought mixing and mastering were always supposed to be separate. In truth, it’s not really
separate, but rather two different people working on the same mix in different rooms. There’s
just a few limitations to each engineer’s job--at least as the audio itself is concerned.

The mix engineer has total access to tweak anything in the mix, such as lead guitar level, lead
vocal, kick drum, or piano, including areas where the mastering engineer might even work. But
while the mix engineer is focused on the mix of individual elements, as well as the ensemble, the
mastering engineer focuses squarely on how the sound is projected from your speakers or
headphones. The mastering engineer only gets to tweak the stereo output of the mix and
nothing else. Sort of. If the mastering engineer is sent stems or the entire mix, then all bets are
off. But that’s another aspect. So, let’s really define what mastering is. The answer to “What is
mastering?” depends highly on w hen in history the question was asked. Traditionally...

Mastering is: T
he transformation from the stereo/mono mix to the final medium
from which it will be mass-produced and distributed.

9
If you asked this question in the early 1970’s, anything performed on a mixing board in the mix
studio, including any mix-buss effects, EQ, or compression/limiting was all part of the mix
process. Today it’s far more complicated than that. Today, a mix engineer can probably master
the audio on the same mixing desk or computer. “Mastering” has been shifted from what was
defined above to what effects have been applied on the mix-buss. But it’s simply not that simple.

Today, “mastering” is really the “mastering process”.
Today, the mastering engineer gets involved with the final mix.

● The mastering engineer acquires the final mix and checks for quality.
● The mastering engineer gives any feedback to the mix engineer of any issues found.
● The mastering engineer then tweaks the audio using mastering processors or software.
● The mastering engineer encodes the audio in a basic format.
● The mastering engineer listens critically again to ensure there were no issues with the
final master.
● The artist, mix-engineer, producer, etc. auditions the first master and approves or
provides feedback for a revision.
● The mastering engineer takes the feedback and revises the master, or the mix engineer
submits an updated mix to replace the previous mix.
● The mastering engineer remasters the work again and provides another master.
● After approval, the final master is produced, checked yet again for quality, and sent to
the customer (or press/replication plant) for pressing, duplication, and release. If you
have questions about this step, see the Choosing Formats c hapter of this book.

Mastering today is very confusing, difficult to draw lines of demarcation around, and it’s not
easy to simply define what it is anymore. It’s a modern reality. So, now it’s easier to consider the
mastering engineer a part of the mix team, and mastering is a process and at times, an art.

Now, when you see this question, “What Is Mastering?” it’s ok to take it as black art. If so, just
discard that question and ask, “What can you do for my mix?” It’s considerably easier to talk
about what happens between the mixdown and the final product than it is to define mastering.

Still confused? Don’t worry. That’s why I’m here. I’m easy to communicate with and explain
anything about the process you want to know. I don’t believe there’s any secret I can’t tell you
but I can explain that there’s quite a bit involved, and it’s not a bunch of templates.

There are no mastering templates.

When you know more about what goes into the mastering process, it will be easier to
understand why you’re here, why you’d choose the mastering engineer you do, and why it’s
worth the money invested.
10
Back To Choosing a Mastering Engineer

When you are looking into mastering engineers, think of these questions to ask:

● Who understands the music realm or genre in which I’m aiming to release music?
● Who has demonstrated the ability to make my mixes sound better?
● Who can make a mix sound like what I have in mind?
● Who has the rates I need to work with?
● Who has the quality control and careful handling of my music?
● Who is going to be there to walk me through the process?

Who is going to do great things? Honestly, the best way to answer that is to send your mix to
multiple mastering engineers and ask them all for a demo. In some cases, it may even be worth
paying a great mastering engineer who charges for the demo. I say that because you might just
be surprised at how well a much less expensive mastering engineer can make your mix stack up
to a Grammy winner. Grammy winners win for a reason: The Grammy mastering engineer is
trusted with a multi-million dollar recording. But the engineer still may not be your best fit.

I also mention this because it’s not always the major mastering houses that win the work. I
know of a famous, Grammy-winning artist who’s tried multiple Grammy-winning mastering
engineers for a new album. Not satisfied with the results of any of them the artist went with the
mix engineer’s master of the album, and the rest is history! It cost less and the artist was
satisfied with the final result.

Yes, even the greatest engineers might simply not be the ones chosen, and it’s no skin off their
backs, I assure you. It just means that the right engineer is quite subjective when it comes to
sonic quality and vibe.
Transparency or color?
First decide what type of master you want. Do you want the mastering engineer to keep the glue
of the mix as close as possible to the mix you’re happy with already? Would you like the
engineer to improve on it, but not change it? Would you like the engineer to add some color to
the mix to make it sing more? Or would you just let the mastering engineer have free reign?

Add rabbits? Yes, rabbits can be added, but they’re a bit too quiet for many clients. The idea
here is that the mastering engineer is largely chosen by what he or she does routinely to a mix.
Some engineers thrive on transparency and cleanliness (“do no harm”). Others might add a hefty
palette of saturation and color. This is why you need to get a demo. Each mastering engineer has
a different approach. I don’t know a single one that has the exact same process or tendencies.

11
Take this as good news. Finding the right mastering engineer can be easy if you know what you

want to start, and you can seek free demos.
Know what you like

This really should be quite easy for most artists. Start with knowing who influences you. Then
move on to which album or songs sound amazing to your ears. Pick those songs and bring them
to your mix engineer first. These are external references. I feel bad if this has not already been
done but unless you work with the same mix engineer as the artist you love your mix will be
heavily influenced by the mindset and music tastes of the engineer.

The direction of a currently loved mix/master already on the market weighs heavily in the
results you’re looking to achieve, especially in terms of power and loudness! Every decision
made by the mix or mastering engineer can be greatly influenced by some references you supply.
It can make a ‘night and day’ difference for the artist, producer or label, should a reference not
be supplied.
Send me references
When choosing a mastering engineer it’s helpful to supply reference tracks along with your mix.
Include internal and external references.

● Internal reference - A demo of artists’ the mix the artist, producer, and label are all
listening to now. It can be smashed to the wall loud, or can simply be the exact mix you
send to me.
● External reference - Other artists, albums, songs, or mixes that you really want to
compete with.

Pick maybe two external references and one internal reference. You can likely narrow your
choices down to two, but if not it’s no sweat to supply three or four. I will listen to all of them
and pick out characteristics I feel are most compelling. You can also tell me what you like about
each one.
Send me notes….or not

You can submit notes on what direction you’d like me to work in, but if you really want a good
demo from a new mastering engineer, it’s sometimes better to blindly let the engineer work
alone. Allowing this you learn more of what tastes the engineer has and whether his or her
vision of your music meets yours, or even comes close.

It’s sometimes better to find the right fit, than to simply
order the engineer to do it your way.

12
One can argue that a mastering engineer shouldn’t have any negative impact on a mix, but if you
send a rap tune to a mastering engineer most widely known for Americana music, you might be
severely disappointed. Maybe. You might also get something back that’s just incredibly raw and
fresh! Again, the demo says a lot. Get one!
Audition the demo masters

So, you’ve sent mixes to three or four mastering engineers to produce demo masters for you.
Now, you need to A/B them all to pick the winner(s). I suggest you blind-test them.

1. Make a backup of your demos and place them into a new folder on your computer.
2. Have an associate, mix engineer, or friend you trust to make a randomization key and to
rename the duplicate files as 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on. You should have no idea which file is
which, but your associate will have the key tucked away.
3. Play back each random file and make notes about what you like about each. Or, what you
don’t like.
4. Pick a clear winner if there is one. If not, pick the ones you don’t like and cast those
aside. Then spend more time comparing the remaining close contenders.
5. Finally, once you’ve chosen the winner, have your associate reveal the mastering
engineer who created this winner.

You can also do this on a burned CD or USB, iTunes or any other player that can randomly play
each file. Next you can compare prices of each engineer. This can be a bit surprising if the clear
winner is a nobody engineer, meanwhile the second best is a Grammy winning engineer. Prices
usually are drastically different. This is a decision-maker, obviously. By the way, please be sure
and thank the losing engineers for their time and be kind enough to offer feedback. Let them
know what they did well and if asked, why you chose to go with another. It’s helpful, I promise!

TIP! If the clear winner is the Grammy winning engineer but her price is out of your budget
you can try sending her free demo master to your second ME choice to be a reference master.

Build Comfortability
Have a conversation with the mastering engineer. Call, Zoom, email, social media message,
text---whatever you desire. It should be easy to communicate with your engineer. If it’s not,
don’t take it personally. It could be the engineer has a goal to eliminate too many forms of
communication. Remember, it’s about the comfort of the engineer working with you as well.
After all, if the engineer really likes working with you, it’s probable you may be given more
attention and value for your money.

Me, personally, I prefer phone conversations, Zoom, and email most. These are much easier to
say exactly what needs to be said, or to better use inflection and tone to make the conversation
13
more fruitful. Text is fine, but it’s not a great relationship builder. Plus, many times, I may be
more verbose and detailed than you’d care to read on a phone screen. It’s all about comfort, and
after it’s all in play, routine texts, SMS, Facebook messaging, etc. are easier to provide updates,
although I heavily rely mostly on email. Email has a great history.

After you’ve worked with an engineer over the course of a few songs or albums it’s much easier
to already have a rapport and a way of communicating that’s easy to follow and maintain. I will
still provide updates through email largely for capturing a paper trail and describing things in a
less interactive way. Sometimes it’s best to explain it all in a single email, one I can tailor to our
conversation, meanwhile maintain a record of our discussion in an organized way.

I’ll be honest and transparent here: Texts/SMS are probably my least favorite--not that I don’t
love the communication, but because they always seem like an urgency. The reason is, to me,
text is more of an “I need you to read this now” form of communicating. I feel compelled to
respond ASAP (it’s just my character). It’s much like a phone call. Emails and sometimes
Facebook messenger alerts can be less critical, although you can have them both buzz your
phone to get your attention. I just prefer to send you information at any hour, day or night and
not disturb you. You’d love not to wake me up in the middle of the night to a text that’s just a
“yes” or “no”, or a message that states, “Don’t worry about responding now.” (Too late).

But there’s no way a good mastering engineer isn’t going to communicate with you any way
you’d prefer. It’s really on the engineer to silence alerts or use other devices for this, if they’re
serious about you. There’s ways I can cause a text from my family to wake me up, but silence
others.

If you do message me in some way but I don’t message you back immediately, rest assured I will
and typically within 12 hours. If not, I will have some way of notifying everyone I’m currently
working with of my absence and expected return. I’m pretty good about this, I hope. After all, I
want you to feel you know me, you trust me, you’re comfortable with me, and that you feel I will
be the best mastering engineer you’ve ever worked with. If I fail in any way, I will happily
recommend you to another suitable engineer that I believe will also do great work for you.
Finally, if you get to know your mastering engineer a bit and express some concerns or hopes,
vision, and tastes to him/her, you’re going to provide yourself a better feel for the quality work
you should expect in return, and perhaps a goal to shoot for when mixing. Even the greatest
mastering engineers in the world won’t have a clue of what you want until you walk through an
actual commitment/project to master and you can get a feel for some common ground and
vision.

The mastering process is also a conversation.
14
Instant Online Mastering Services

Here’s a topic of great debate. We know the evolution of music making is always building new
highways for even a young girl and her brother to produce a multi-Grammy winning album in a
bedroom. And such artists are finding it easier and easier to access online services that were
simply not available two decades ago. Online Mastering wasn’t automatic until recently. From
2000-2018, if you saw an online mastering service advertised, it was largely an FTP upload
service to a live mastering engineer. Some still offer this type of FTP service.

Now we have websites that are housed in “cloud” data centers such as Amazon AWS which
allow you to upload audio, pay a small fee, and within 5 minutes download a choice of mastered
audio in a few different styles. These services use methods to analyze the audio and algorithms
to process the files. There’s a controversial YouTube personality who strongly believes one of
the instant online mastering services simply uses iZotope Ozone. While he nor I can qualify that
to be the case, in his perception, you’re pretty much getting the same quality, good or bad.

Honestly, unless you’re involved in those services and have signed an NDA with each one you
can only speculate exactly what goes on behind the curtain. What we can assume is that it’s
automatic and it’s hopefully being improved all the time. From what I’ve heard you can get a
really solid master for online streaming. It’s really great to just use as a reference to how your
music might sound with a relatively conservative mastering engineer, but they don’t take risks
for even better results.

To be fair, these services have had collaborations from some top ME’s. What they don’t tell you
is whether those same ME’s will ever use those services. I personally don’t, and while I’m going
to struggle not to show bias, my reasons are simple: I’m a human. I listen to the music. It’s
ultimately an emotional success, not a mathematical one. No algorithm can accurately
understand that. Just so, one could also argue that tubes, transformers, and guitar cabinets can
never be faithfully simulated--oh wait, they HAVE! Well….sort of. They can convince you in the
right mix. Using algorithms to master isn’t death, it’s just not human.

Still, what makes a live mastering engineer so great? And will they ever go away? Mastering
engineers communicate, they want your feedback, they have a better understanding of where
you want the music to go, and they are willing to accept that you aren’t happy and you want to
provide feedback. Humans have emotion, are moved by music, and react to it emotionally as a
listener. Human ME’s can also experiment and push boundaries. Robots don’t listen to music.
ME’s will remain for a while, but their roles will evolve. Perhaps they will one day use some
online tools (supervised) and work more to prepare the mix.

Would I ever recommend an instant online mastering service? Yes. Why? Sometimes a client
really doesn’t have the funds or confidence in a mix or performance to burn valuable time with a
live ME. There are occasions when I realize that and direct a client to an instant online service.
15
I’m not trying to keep from wasting my time (I could still just take the money), but I don’t wish
for a budding mix engineer or inexperienced producer to pay me for something I’ll likely be
asked to refund (because the mix just needs a lot of work). And yes, some instant masters do
sound just fine. Don’t underestimate them, but don’t overlook the potential benefits you can
gain from a real engineer. Go online and search for “Instant Online Mastering shootout”. You
should find some examples of how well these services can stack up to a mastering engineer.

And here’s one more example of how a live engineer stacks up. Heard of a Stradivarius violin?
Those multi-million dollar instruments, each with its own name? Search online for violin
comparisons to a Strad. Listen to the emotion of the Strad vs cheaper violins. Listen to how it
truly sings every note, effortlessly with grace. A great mastering engineer knows that feeling. A
great mastering engineer just might be able to find it and make you cry, if it’s that good!
Choosing Formats (Mediums)

There’s a number of formats you can release music on. Below is a description of what you may
expect from each one that you decide to go with. While not every plant that manufactures CDs,
for example, works with you in exactly the same way, at least you can get an idea of how the
process works.
Digital
This can often be the simplest, fastest way to distribute music but it’s not exactly “simple”.
Digital distributions vary wildly. There’s literally over 50 that you can distribute to. Some are
easier than others to release music through. One could write an entire book on this subject
alone (they exist), but the moment one is written, it’s already outdated to some degree.
Nevertheless, let’s look at a few examples:

● Amazon - Obviously, in the U.S., Amazon is probably the single biggest online retailer.
It’s digital music competes with the likes of Spotify, in that, you can pay a monthly
subscription, gain free music and movies, but also fast shipping. Amazon typically
delivers .MP3 (lossy) files to listeners who buy an album or song to download.

● iTunes - Apple helped start the craze of online music, but they’re no longer on the top of
the food chain who evolve it. However, Apple campaigned the end of the Loudness wars
by creating a Mastered For iTunes process, whereby mastering engineers must adhere to
certain standards or potentially ruin the music. It mainly reigned in the volume of loud
masters so quieter releases could still compete. Audio quality was historically also much
higher than standard MP3 and some other outlets, although that may change.

● Spotify - Probably the most widely used free digital music outlet. You’re likely already
familiar with this one. It’s free, but contains commercials. You can pay a small fee to
eliminate ads. The strategy with Spotify is to get your music on “playlists” where it can
16
be heard more than just sitting on a digital shelf waiting to be chosen. One strategy is to

build your own playlists that others will want to follow, and sprinkle your own music in
that playlist. If it becomes a popular playlist, you win the extra exposure!

● Tidal - This is my favorite. It’s free, but for a monthly fee, you can get true Master
quality recordings at 24-Bit. The concept here is that you no longer have to listen to how
their audio engine processes or compresses the audio to make it sound acceptable. It
uses a technology from MQA, which is a file-compression technology that is still lossy,
meanwhile allows streaming of absolute high quality audio.

● YouTube - This one shows videos, but you can render music to play on this
commercial-based platform. However, like Spotify, you can eliminate ads if you pay a
monthly subscription. Quality is high, but adapts.

● Bandcamp - This one is free, but not to artists. Artists must pay to upload audio to this
site. However, they can use this to promote only their own music and couple it with
merchandise and physical media, such as vinyl or CDs.

So, these are just several. The problem with these outlets, when it comes to selling your music is
that you’d have to set up individual accounts with each one and possibly acquire an IRS tax ID
or VAT, etc., depending on where you live in the world and what your laws are governing
income. More, you’d have to pay each outlet a separate fee to upload and release your music.
That could get expensive fast!

Enter the A ggregator.
Aggregator
An aggregator is a digital distributor that can help you get your music in almost all of the other
distribution outlets. You upload your music once and they do the rest! Easy! Some examples are:

● TuneCore
● DistroKid
● CDBaby

There’s one catch, however. The audio you upload to the aggregator is the audio submitted to
every other outlet to handle any way their processes will. While this makes things easy it many
times might produce results that aren’t the best on every single platform. For example, if you
use CDBaby and submit a loud 16-Bit/44.1kHz master, that same loud master will be submitted
as-is to iTunes. iTunes will automatically turn it down and, by doing so, will squash the life out
of the master. Meh, you may not want that.

17
I have a solution! Depending on the aggregator service, you might be able to submit more than
one release. One could be loud for CDs, and MP3, while the other might be submitted to
different outlets, such as Spotify, iTunes, and YouTube. This way, each platform gets the better
master. It’s a thought.

Most of my mastering requests are submitted to aggregators. This makes mastering the music
quite simple. I supply one or two different masters, and done! I only have to reach my
best-recommended dynamics and targets levels, based on the genre and we’re off to the
distributors fast! This also lowers mastering costs for you. I recommend this method unless
you’re a label with accounts in all the appropriate digital streaming platforms and outlets.
CD (Compact Disc)
CD’s are now a very old digital medium, they're still widely played. A 74-80-minute playback
time is great-- frankly too long, the disc is lightweight, and easy to store. More, the music can be
bone-crushingly loud. But this platform was the best (and worst) one to support the Loudness
Wars. It’s also the one medium I probably spent 20 years trying to compete on for loudness, and
having done so I believe it’s a great thing people aren’t always shooting for loudness all the
time, especially for streaming platforms, because it hardly matters anymore. Well, it shouldn’t.

CD’s are quite easy to work with. If you’re looking to produce a CD, I’ll master a CD in the way
you need, and I’ll create what is called a DDP image, a file that is usually sent off to a CD-Press
plant, or CD Duplicator. The DDP image will be formatted exactly as the CD will play, and I
offer a free DDP player to all CD clients that wish to playback the file on a computer like a CD
without burning a CD-R.

When you’re deciding how many CD’s to have manufactured of your album, consider this
choice:

● Replicator - Qty: 100-300
● Glass-Master Press - Qty: 1,000+

If you’re not releasing more than 300 discs, you may be better off using a Replicator. The
Replicator is a CD-R duplication company best suited for small quantity runs. For larger runs of
500+ you’re likely to see a better price in going to a minimum 1,000 quantity glass-master press.

The Replicator burns CD-Rs and usually does a fabulous job of silk-screening the CD label. It
can look quite professional, but keep in mind that a CD-R might reliably have a lifetime of 10
years (could be longer). Depending on the discs the replicator uses will help determine the
failure rate and length of life. Artwork can be factored in or kept separate.

A CD Press is used for larger quantities, where each disc is pressed vs. burned individually. The
benefits here are fewer errors and indefinite life. I wouldn’t ideally go this route in modern
18
times unless you firmly believe for certain your audience is serious about any new CD you
release. Also, with a CD press you stand to lose a decent amount of money should something be
wrong with the disc, artwork, or other aspects of the process. The glass-master they print is the
single most expensive part of this process, so you want it right on the first try. You better be
ready with all your artwork as well because the CD press usually seals the disc in a wrapper.

For the press, you may need a sample of the finished product, but for audio, there’s no change.
You just may have the change to listen to the test-pressing one more time before moving on.
Cassette
Believe it or not, there is still a good sized niche market for cassette tapes. I personally found
cassette tapes a poor platform, not necessarily due to the tape itself, but rather the appalling
lack of high-quality cassette players on the market. Cassette tapes mastered well actually do
sound quite good if played back on a high quality player but most cassette players in the market,
new and old, are terrible at reproducing deep bass. Only truly high-quality players did the
cassette tape justice. Plus, the magnetic surface of the tape is so small that audio levels must be
kept in check.

Cassette tapes are easy to have manufactured. The main difference from CD’s is that we don’t
smash the audio to be louder than a foghorn from 6’ away (which, incidentally has been reported
to be deadly at that range), and there’s actually two mastered files, Side A, and Side B. Sequences
of songs must carefully be considered, or suffer a lengthy playback of silence at the end of one
side of the cassette tape during playback.

Some cassette plants may offer you a test-sample, but I’ve never needed one, myself.
Vinyl Record
Now, here’s a seriously interesting market! In the 1990’s when CD’s were hot on the market, I
thought this was the absolute end to vinyl records and cassette tapes. For a while, it was the end
of cassettes. But vinyl played on! I’m not totally sure why but people really still love that sound!
Don’t get me wrong, in the 1980’s I listened to a LOT of vinyl records. I know what people like
about the medium now, but back then, it was really not all that. CD’s were of a much higher
quality, or so I thought. There is something fun about vinyl, and I get it. My ears don’t think
vinyl is the best medium to listen to music on, because it’s a pretty drastic transformation from
the mastered audio to the playback, but I do love just the novelty and presentation of it all.

If you decide to go with vinyl it’s worth hearing up front that this is more of a commitment than
a mere decision. Vinyl is probably the most expensive medium to reproduce and distribute.
Roughly, to have 500 LPs (Long Play records) pressed will cost you anywhere from $2,500-$5,000
depending on the presentation. This is for the vinyl plant work alone, not including the
pre-mastering, acetate-cutting, or artwork. Some presses have become less expensive but the
19
process is not something you can adjust easily, should you decide at the last-minute to make a
change. Even CD’s at a glass-master plant are easier to stop and change than vinyl.

The steps to produce a vinyl record are:

1. Pre-mastering and song sequencing. There are two files (Side A and Side B) transmitted
over to the acetate cutter (lacquer cutter). A cut sheet with song information is also sent.
2. A lacquer cutter will work with the submitted audio and cut a test-cut acetate (not to be
confused with a test-pressing). The acetate cut is playable up to maybe 10-15 times before
it begins to deteriorate, and may be slightly dull compared to the final pressed vinyl.
3. You approve the test-cut and the lacquer-cutter will cut another exactly the same way.
That cut master is sent to the pressing plant, or a new, duplicate cut is sent over.
4. Next, in a few weeks you should receive (if you opted) a “test-press” demo. This is exactly
what the pressed record will sound like. It’s also something the label will want to
audition before pressing hundreds of thousands of copies.
5. After that, assuming everything’s a go, in a couple of months you should receive your
final pressed copies.

So, when going with vinyl, not only is there expense, but there’s a considerable amount of time
between pre-master and pressed copies. BE SURE to read ALL of the documentation you need
to get it right. One mistake on the order form and you’ll be kicking yourself later (trust me).

ISRC codes
ISRC codes can be a bit confusing, but the short answer to “What is an ISRC code, and do I need
it?” is, you need it if you’d like to get paid for your music in airplay. An ISRC code is a
12-character ID “tag”, or digital fingerprint that goes along with each song, so that when radio
stations and other public venues report what songs are being played, royalties can be paid to the
correct artist or label.

While ISRC codes are not a perfectly reliable method of getting paid royalties in every realm, it
can certainly help eliminate confusion between multiple songs called, “My Love” that are paid
for. It’s a good way to ensure the right artist or label collects revenue on the correct songs
played.

Do you NEED them?
Almost everyone would say, yes. Even if you don’t care about royalties, to even release music
online with the likes of Spotify, for example, they’re needed. The good news is, they’re free--or
at least, you shouldn’t have to pay for them. Entities that charge for individual ISRC codes
might be bending the rules a bit.

20
Can I provide them to you?

Yes. Soundporter Mastering is a registered ISRC Code Manager. As a client, you can simply
request that I assign them to your songs and I will also embed them for you.

How and when should they be assigned?
Every recording should have its own ISRC code. The code allows entities to catalog the
recordings in question. For example, Adele’s R umor Has It has an ISRC code applied to the song.
It is likely embedded in the file, or whatever format is transmitted to radio stations. At the very
least, it’s identified by the ISRC code and reported for airplay. This provides owed royalties to
Adele and her label.

The ISRC code will remain the same for that recording, forever. However, should Adele decide
one day to re-record the song, as an entirely new recording, it will need a new ISRC code.
Remixes or re-masters do not. Even if the song is sold to a new label or owner, the ISRC code
remains the same.

When should you request ISRC codes?
You only need them before releasing the music to any access where the song(s) may be played in
public places by radio stations, music venues, or anywhere that’s required to pay for airplay of
your music to help business. So, don’t worry about them until you need them. They’re fast and
easy to assign, and again, they’re free.

Have a Strategy
So, I’ve gone through some of the major release platforms you can use to distribute your music.
There’s a few questions (be 100% honest with yourself) below that I’ll include that may help you
decide which platforms you should want:

1. How big is your market? If you know for certain you will sell 500 copies of a vinyl record
in a year without touring, go for it.
2. Can you tour? If so, how many people do you expect at each show? Do you expect to sell
at least 10 copies of something at each show? 100? If 10 is your number, CD-R’s are a
better choice. If 100, then, you might consider CD’s, vinyl, and maybe even cassette tapes
(maybe).
3. How much money are you putting into promotion? Think of this as being equal to the
amount of cost you spent on the album. You don’t have to spend that much, but you
should be prepared to. Promotion of an album and touring with it is 95% of what sells it.
That, and being amazing on-stage.
4. How long do you expect your band to last? This one is crucial, and be honest. If you don’t
have signed contracts in place between band members and label, don’t expect the band to
last more than 2 years. It might, but anything can change quickly.
21

From a real label
“The best advice I can give any new artist who wants to be signed by us: Put out your own
record.”

In today’s climate, you can’t get a label behind you if you do nothing for yourself. Wasting your
money on drugs, or other fun things in life that could go toward your record and promoting it is
going to be a red flag for any serious label. Everyone dreams of “being signed”. My advice is to
simply ask yourself and your bandmates: How serious are we?

Set a solid strategy behind every release, and grow it as your audience grows. Don’t “build it,
and they will come.”, but don’t release music on CD-Rs with SharpieTM on the label. Find the
right combination of release formats and distribution that will be ample enough for your
audience, but small enough not to store boxes of unsold copies in your attic.

22
Getting Started
So, you’ve chosen your mastering engineer and you’re closing in on your final mixes. The first
and foremost important thing you can do is communicate to the mastering engineer some
expected date(s) you think the mixes will be ready for mastering.

NOTE
For the remainder of this book, I shall use “ME” frequently to shorten “Mastering Engineer”.

The mastering process involves multiple phases, or milestones. I like using the phase approach
because the process can be swift. Milestones make me think of a 3-6 month project involving
teams. Perhaps if you consider your album (writing, recording, overdubs, mixing, mastering,
promotion, release, and touring) as a milestone-tracked project then the term, “milestones” is
far more appropriate.

Phase 1 - Before mastering

Engaging the ME at least 2-3 weeks before you’re ready for mastering is a great way to renew
any previous conversation in your last contact. Some artists shop for mastering engineers early
on, have one in mind, or just want to keep one or two as a backup. Various scenarios are
possible. A majority of artists, labels, or mix engineers don’t contact the ME until they’re
finished with the mixes. While this is just fine, there’s a risk that the ME could be on travel,
booked up in a backlog of other mastering work, sick, or simply not in a position to work with
you on such short notice.

None of these scenarios are what any ME will want you to discover, but reality does take
advantage of the fact that many ME’s work alone and don’t always have others in the studio who
can simply pick up overflow work. In my case, I will always refer my clients to another capable
mastering engineer should any of these scenarios kick my butt. I will always reach back out and
ask how your session went and to see how you felt about the transition. There’s no reason to
expect any less than that from any engineers who refer work to me.
23

After reaching out, the first thing you’ll do is send me audio to audition. I will listen to it with
critical ears and provide any feedback, including, “Sounds fine. You’re ok to have this
mastered.” If there are any problems with the files or mix, I will alert you to those in this phase
at no charge and you have the opportunity to remedy those issues before we move to the next
phase.
Phase 2 - Payment and first masters

Unfortunately, due to the historical nature of this business and the massive number of
“freeloaders” out there, most ME’s are forced to require payment up front. While that seems
risky to the customer, it’s doubly risky for the engineer. Most of them require up-front payment,
myself included. It’s just the way business must be guarded. While that’s true, I do allow repeat
customers a bit more flexibility. A proven repeat customer who not only provides swift payment
but also, repeatedly provides the appropriate mastering credit on releases will have the ability to
receive finished work and pay afterward in some cases. I always hope every customer will be this
kind.

Once payment is received, I start the initial mastering session. I routinely only master one song
to start. Assuming the entire collection of songs is mixed much the same way mastering a single
song, sending it back to you for approval is much more efficient than mastering a whole album
right off. It costs a good bit more time to master a collection of songs vs. one, so if you need me
to adjust things in the master afterward you can see it would be a lot to accomplish for each
revision of each and every song.

We start with a single song, .WAV format, 16bit/44.1Khz and at nominal loudness. This demo
master is sent back to you for approval. The only thing we’re interested in here is the sonic
quality of the master. All else follows in the next three phases.
Phase 3 - Revisions
This stage almost always takes place, but there are times when it’s not required. If the demo
master is awesome and there’s no changes required, then we simply proceed to Phase 4.
Otherwise, this Phase is the back and forth feedback process between you and I to get the first
song perfect. When we achieve that perfection and/or suitability, we then proceed to Phase 4.
However, Phase 3 is important because this is where the quality of the master is absolutely
crucial to be approved by all. In other words, everyone who has a say in the sonic quality of the
master should be in on this phase, BUT...

You need one proxy of the process, and that proxy is responsible for everyone else involved. I’ll
explain what the proxy is after this section.
24
Phase 4 - Master the rest

This Phase is one of my favorites! The initial song is approved, and now I can get busy with all
remaining songs. I typically spend most of the mastering time here, but when I can begin to
hear the context of the full album and how the artist is going to be heard by listeners as a
presentation, I get satisfaction.

As with Phase 3, this phase is not always involved. It’s mainly involved if there’s more than one
song.
Phase 5 - Final Assembly

There’s no shortage of joy that everyone gets to see the finish line. The final assembly is really
the sequencing of an album, adding all the attributes to the music files (meta-data), ISRC codes,
MP3 artwork, and just making sure the music feels rightly packaged up exactly as the artist,
producer, or label desires. After this all you have to do is plan marketing and release.

Phase 1 - Before Mastering
While mixing
You have a choice here, one I’d not take lightly, but one that can be beneficial to both you and
the ME (Mastering Engineer):

Whether to send each mix when they’re done, or the collection of mixes when they’re all ready.

On one hand, should you wait until all mixes are completed you get the luxury of tweaking
previous mixes to get them all working cohesively together in context before ever sending them
on to the ME. This is also beneficial to the ME who won’t hear a single note until the entire
mixes are completed. This gives the ME a perspective of truly fresh ears.

On the other hand, if you sent the first mix to the ME for feedback, you can have a better
consensus between the mix engineer, mastering engineer, artist, producer, label, etc. as to the
success of the mix. This will give you a great focus on what the rest of how the mixes should
stack up against the market.

Either way it’s not really a gamble with me. I offer what I coin, the “Iterative Master”, which
lowers your risk of cost. If you choose to send mixes to me I will master them. Afterward, if you
decide your mixes weren’t really 100% baked, I offer a remaster of the song at less than half the
cost of the first master. You can see that rate on my site next to the single master rate. It’s nice
25
to know you can retry without incurring a real hefty full-rate remaster. By the way, this is great
for alternate mixes, too, for example, such as karaoke or instrumental mixes.

What’s frustrating is having your mixes mastered and during the process the ME discovers some
issues in the mix that only the mix engineer can resolve or treat. In such a case, rebooking the
mix engineer might not be nearly as easy as in mastering. The reason is that mixes tend to
consume much more time from the mix engineer’s schedule. After your scheduled session it
could be days or even weeks before you can schedule a remix. It’s useful to have the ME involved
early on to ensure the mixes don’t have problems fixable while you’re in your current mix
sessions. Your mixes don’t even need to be 90% ready for FREE feedback. I will provide
feedback on your mixes, should you contact me early in the mix process or when my availability
affords this on short-notice. It’s quite easy and my feedback just might help you fix things in the
mix before the mastering session. This saves both you and the ME time--and certainly money!
What I Listen For

Your mixes are your mixes. The mastering engineer’s job is not to change them--quite the
opposite! The ME should maintain the spirit of the mix as much as possible. However, there are
characteristics of a mix’s sonic quality which may need to be adjusted and are frequently tailored
to maximize the success of the mix on any given medium. The challenge to the ME is to do so
without compromising the integrity of the mix.

Why am I bringing this up? I want you to fully understand where my feedback comes from and
how it can act as a guide for you. While you’re mixing, your attention is focused squarely on the
balance of the individual elements such as guitars, vocals, backing vocals, drums, bass, etc., and
not always on how loud it should be on CD or Spotify. It’s a challenge to predict exactly how a
kick drum will perform alone on the radio, or vinyl. Those typically aren’t your concerns.
Conversely, the ME’s concerns shouldn’t be the exact same as yours because he/she is not the
producer. You don’t normally hire a mastering engineer to guide you through songwriting. So
it’s not typical to hire an ME to help you with the mix.

This is why my feedback is typically limited (no pun intended) to mere sonic quality of your
entire mix, not of whether a guitar solo should be louder or if the toms need more oomph. My
feedback is mostly objective, not subjective. If your role is to mix the entire ensemble then you,
the artist, or producer’s role might be to dictate exactly how loud the guitar should be or
whether you need to add more bottom end to your toms.

I do at times help with advice of a mix and my feedback might be to help you identify a problem
in your mix that may otherwise not have been heard as a problem. So, certainly, I will help you
eliminate those issues but I don’t typically give you advice on how to mix drums, for example.
It’s still ok to ask. Just understand that I have my own tastes and preferences. I will be frank.

26
Now, what do I listen for in the context of the entire mix? When I’m sitting still to audition a
mix, I have a notepad in hand to take notes. I will listen either on headphones or my speakers to
determine whether there are any glitches or sonic quality issues, respectively. The headphones
are excellent to hear ticks, pops, distortion, and other artifacts, while the speakers are geared
more for performance and quality of the overall mix. Both are superb, so issues appear on the
speakers as well, sometimes even more obvious than on headphones.

I will listen for the following issues or qualities:

● Bass to kick drum balance
● Low-end rumble or any other unappealing or unnecessary low-end
● Clipping / distortion
● Dynamic level and punch (transients)
● Bottom to top balance of the music that the overall equalization is balanced, but exciting
● Vocal or lead instrument quality, and whether or not something else would be
compromised to maintain or improve that quality
● Warmth - Does the mix make me think of warm butter on a pancake or ice picks in a
freezer?
● Sibilance
● Harshness or harsh peak(s) that stick out, calling to much attention to itself
● Flow - How well the song flows past the ears during passive listening tests
● Head/Tail fades - How the start and end of the song is addressed
● Faulty edits - Many edits (regions) are prone to sudden change. For example, if a vocal
track edit is not faded in and out correctly, ambient noise might suddenly be audible
before or after the vocal part.
● Unforeseen other issues

When I audition your mix I do want to make sure your mix will succeed in mastering. It’s your
last chance of quality control and it’s great to have an objective ear to give you unbiased and
unfiltered feedback so that you can make the best decisions for your mix and master.
Some mixing tips, from a Mastering engineer

One of the most frequent questions asked of mastering engineers:
How do you prefer the mixes?

I prefer them to sound amazing. But so do you! So let’s see if we can list off some do’s and
don’ts:

● Don’t squash the mix into a mush. By this I mean, don’t compress or heavily limit it to the
wall. There’s no reason to make your mix sound like a commercially smashed and heavily
limited CD. My advice is this: Turn up the music loud enough to where you love it and
27
there’s just nothing wrong with the mix. My job is to take that mix and bring up the level

so it can be louder, meanwhile retain as much of that impact and vibe as you already
have from the mix.
● Do balance kick and bass. Listen closely to how the bass guitar or other synth bass blends
in with the kick or bass drum. Does one stick out more than the other in an awkward
way? If you place a limiter on your mix bus and bring down the threshold by 50% with a
minimum 300 ms release (or add a compressor with a heavy ratio of 12:1 and a low
threshold) does the kick drum become lost completely or does it cause your mix to pump
severely? If either of these are true, try changing the levels of one or the other in context
with the mix. Does your kick drum and bass play too much in the same frequency, for
example 60Hz? Fighting over the same frequency can cause confusion in the low end and
also cause one or the other to become lost or pumping heavily. Decide which instrument
should reside mostly at major low frequencies.
● Do balance sibilance and cymbals. Do the “s” and “t” consonants of the vocal(s) poke out
too strongly against the ping and pshhhh of the cymbals? Many times I receive less
experienced mixes where the vocals have very strong s and t sounds, but the cymbals are
quite dull. This can result in harshness and almost non-existent cymbals in a master
because the ME must use heavier sibilance correction on the mix, which can wipe out
any remaining cymbals you have in your mix. To see if this is a problem, try a shelving
EQ boost around 6-8kHz and see if one or the other becomes hard to listen to in
comparison. If so, work on that balance a bit.
● Do check for any pop-out frequencies. In the vocal/guitar ranges (mids), see if there are any
frequencies that seem to jump out at you in a non-pleasing way. Try using a dynamic EQ
or multiband compression on those frequencies to tame them, and automate the plugin
to only become active during those times in the mix. Nothing else should be impacted.
● Do use automation. This one is phenomenal. What separates amatuer mixes from
Grammy-winning hits is largely choices of general mixing, EQ, compression, effects,
etc., but also a generous amount of subtle automation. Automation in your mixes to
bring out excitement, such as a drum fill or kick/snare flam to kick off a song’s final
chorus. I cannot stress enough the power this affords the patient and diligent. Some
mixes are chock full of subtle automation. I’ve even used automation to manually
perform expander, decompression, and gating duties on an entire drum kit. It’s very
time-consuming, yes, but worth its weight in gold records!
● Do listen to your mix passively. If you lower the listening level/volume of your mix on your
speakers to a level where you can have casual conversation in the control/mix room, then
don’t pay attention to it, does any one instrument or frequency grab your attention that
you didn’t expect? It may be worth addressing that. Only the main focus of the mix
should be the most demanding of your ears in most cases.
● Check your mix in mono. If you’ve never heard your mixes on a cheap smartphone, be
ready for a nasty surprise! Many times a loud mix with super-wide guitars will have an
overactive vocal and bass, harsh cymbals, and almost no guitar. While this can’t simply
be eliminated, and, as some Grammy winning mix engineers will say they don’t care
about mono, you might at least consider if your mix is too wide. It’s worth checking, and
28
many metering plugins such as Brainworx bx_meter have a quick way to check it. Plugin

Alliance offers this plugin and maybe still the bx_solo plugin button, which is free.
● Don’t clip the mix. Your mix engineer should know what clipping is. It’s really distortion,
but one that’s caused by the DAW (Digital Audio Workstation), not by a guitar amp
simulator or limiter. Clipping is really only handy for CD mastering.
● Do remove any “demo master” processing from the mix. This is not always best, but if your
mix engineer crushes a mix to simulate a final master, leaving this processing in place
might do more harm than good. Still, I want to hear that. I’ll explain shortly.
● Don’t bother using high-pass filtering on your mix bus. This is also sometimes called a
low-cut. You should probably roll off low frequencies from most sound resources, such
as vocals, guitars, cymbals, etc., anywhere you simply don’t need low-end rumble or
room noise that can adversely affect other mix elements or compression. Bass and kick
are a different story. You may decide to not roll those off in the low-end. However, don’t
bother setting up a high-pass filter on your mix bus. I run into clients frequently that do
this and it can rob you of beautiful and bountiful low-end in your master. Feel free to
leave this job to the ME because someone like me has speakers and such that can really
expose problematic low-end. I have speakers that reach down to 17Hz and planar
headphones that reach down to 4Hz. Let me review and adjust this because I can set it to
the perfect amount for you. Plus, if you cut it off too steeply, it’s impossible to accurately
recreate or bring it back in mastering.
● Whatever the sampling and bit-rate/bit-depth of the mix, do send me the same. Don’t
upsample the mix or increase bit-depth. For example, if your mix is at 24-bit/48kHz,
there’s no benefit of exporting it as 32-bit/192kHz. In fact, it just requires more storage
space from much larger files. Most mix engineers who don’t use ProTools HD systems
with lots of DSP already know why you don’t mix at super-high sampling rates. DSP
becomes quite expensive. Trust me, I’ve had to buy a Waves Impact server for larger
mixes at 96kHz. Don’t downsample or decrease bit-depth, either.
● Don’t dither. If you don’t know, just leave it alone. You’ll be ok. I’ll let you know if it’s
good or not. Just ensure none of your plugins have dithering enabled, most likely your
DAW or any limiters. Some DAWs are prone to have this box checked by default when
exporting your mixdown.
● Do send me Stereo (interleaved) .WAV exported files. This is usually what I receive but
there are mix engineers who routinely send L and R (left and right) mono tracks out of
ProTools. This is not uncommon, and I can accept both. But if I have my choice, an
interleaved stereo file is preferred. It’s simply less work I need to do and you’re not really
gaining anything from keeping them separate.
● Do name all files as accurately as possible. This is especially crucial for stems, but also
helpful for any file. The less I need to assume, the better. In the case of WeTransfer, you
have the message field to describe the file(s) sent to me. If you use a Google or Dropbox
method, feel free to include a “README” file with all descriptions you can provide.
● Do send notes. If you have anything about the files I should be aware of please send that
along as well. For example, “we know this file is only 16-bit, but we didn’t catch that
early on.”. Another example is, “if you could be sure to keep the dynamic balance of
29
quieter verses and louder choruses…”. If I don’t know I might can’t get it perfect.

As mastering engineers we realize your mixes are crucial to maintaining their impact and vibe.
The strength of emotion should not be drowned in commercial success of a smashed, heavily
limited, distorted mush. Unless you’re Oasis. But feel free to let me know what you prefer. I can
make it happen, and my aim is not to destroy what you’ve poured over for weeks or months.

Notice I didn’t yet say anything about how loud the mix should be. -10db LUFS, or -6db peaks
is fine, but honestly, with digital recordings these days it’s not paramount for you to shoot for an
absolute target. Just make it sound really GOOD! I can tolerate drastic differences in level, so
long as the noise floor is rather inaudible. In other words, just make it cohesive in nature, keep
them all clean and fairly consistent in level, and I’ll help make the mixes translate in the best
way possible. Again, don’t worry too much about target levels.

Once I have received the files and I’ve reviewed them for quality I will provide immediate
feedback of any issues I discover or questions I have. If there’s anything in the mix that needs
attention this might be the first QC (quality control) moment that is beneficial to fix now. There
are a number of things I can do to either fix a problem, edit the problem out, or minimize the
audibility of the problem, but 95% of the problems can be better resolved in mixing.

The recording is where the problems occur in the first place (if not during mixing), but the mix
engineer has full control over the problem in editing or mixing causing the least negative
impact. In some cases, a re-tracking of an instrument is necessary (like a lead vocal) to resolve a
technical glitch. Hopefully these issues were already caught and resolved early on. I can help
catch them early, by the way. Just ask.

After problems are communicated, resolved, or at the very least, accepted we move on to the
discussion of direction. Historically, mastering was to be extremely transparent and not change
a thing about the mix. The ME was to stay out of the way as much as possible. Any introduction
of artifacts, color, saturation, distortion, or other treatments by the ME could have been
considered a bad thing. Not anymore.

In our next conversation, brief or lengthy, we may discuss the style or direction of the master.
Reference mixes are quite helpful here. If you have a demo mix everyone has been listening to
and nobody’s complained about, where the mix engineer has created a “heated mix”, send that
to me, too. Then send me the unheated mix that was good without the master demo simulation
processing. What’s helpful is to have the mix that was first accepted without limiting, heavy
compression, master saturation, and so on. It’s my job to perform those functions because that’s
what I do well, but if you feel the mix is perfect with those in place I can accept that as the mix
to master and will still provide a master you love.

It’s also quite useful to be pointed to other artists’ music that really sings to you and has a lot of
the quality you’re looking for in your master. If you’re an R&B artist please send me links to
30
other R&B artists you would love to be on a compilation album with. No master will sound
exactly the same as another, but knowing what your listeners will have on their playlist
(invaluable information every major label and music retailer would pay through the nose to
know)....you get the idea. I want to provide a master to you where you don’t have to drastically
adjust the volume or tone/EQ controls on your player to adjust from one artist to another, to
your music, and back to another artist.
Stems
Heard of this term? I come across only perhaps 10% of clients who know so don’t feel bad if
you’re unfamiliar. It’s not a term routinely associated with every mastering session, but is one
associated with mastering in general. You want a song mastered, but for some reason, you’re not
happy with the snare drum level or the keyboards are drowned out. They sounded fine in the
mix but they simply became inaudible in the master under the slightest compression. This, of
course, is merely one example of many that I’ve worked with.

I can usually keep such travesties from happening in a stereo mix but there are times, for
example, when we prefer to keep as much of the kick drum punch, meanwhile not allow it to
impact the vocals at all. Or the kick is simply too weak. Many times I can solve this even on a
stereo master by adding in a triggered kick drum “punch” in the low-end on an auxiliary track,
one you’d never detect. Again, this is just another example. There are times I’ve created some
stems to aid me. It’s a secret---not really. Just general creativity and ingenuity helps.

Sometimes it’s useful to have the mix engineer finish mixing, but instead of exporting just the
stereo final mix it may be useful to also export a copy of the kick drum, separately. If the mix
engineer would like to offer more final mix-buss control to the ME, a separate export of kick,
snare, bass, guitars (stereo), keyboards (stereo), vocals (stereo), etc. as separate stereo stems. I may
also recommend stems if I feel there’s a problem I can easily fix by going that route.

98% of the time the mix engineer should be able to fix such problems early on. However it’s the
ME that may notice something tricky the mix engineer may not realize or know how to solve.
Sometimes the problem is borne out of an initial master session from fresh ears on different
speakers. The benefits of using stems in mastering is I can import them all into a DAW and
treat them separately before playback through the analog chain. You have full control over the
final level of each individual instrument in each stem, including automation, but I have the final
control over how these stems interact with each other.

The drawback is, it does take a bit more time, attention, and effort to master correctly. This is
simply because the ME then has more creative control over the final mix. You may or may not
want that. There’s likely more back and forth communication, so it can add time.
31
What’s your Loudness Level?

To answer this question, “how loud do you want your master” is analogous to asking, “how good
do you want your master to be?” Obviously, the answer will be, “Awesome!”. In the case of
loudness, the answer will no doubt be, “loud as possible!” for many artists. And if you answer
that way, you might already have chosen poorly. In 2020, by asking a mastering engineer to
make your music as loud as possible, you’ve already ‘committed a mortal sin’ and possibly
destroyed your music’s chance of success. Possibly, anyway. Or, I like to use the term I coin,
Prossibly.

I do receive many requests for mastering CD still, but not one client ever requested it be super
loud. I’ve spent 15+ years studying and researching how to make a massively loud and powerful
CD master. The loudest master I’ve ever produced met a -0.3 LUFS at times during a club mix of
an EDM track. (see Figure 1). Ironically, it still sounds quite good!

Figure 1 - Super loud master measured (-0.3 LUFS)
One can’t argue that this is not loud. It’s super loud and I never recommend anything be
“heated” up or “baked” to this level. It’s just bad judgement, in my opinion. Word has it that
Billie Eillish - Xanny is quite possibly the loudest song on a Grammy-Winning album ever,
having reached 0.0 LUFS, but still somehow manages to remain musical. But only that song can.

Now, to say you want a super-loud master, this is something you need to decide before
mixdown, possibly before recording. A loud mix is almost always required to produce a loud
master. To force a loud master from a normal mix is likely going to destroy its musicality and
feasibility to the listener. It will sound pretty squashed. But again, we’re hopefully seeing the
end of the Loudness wars and get back to making terrific masters again!
The Loudness Wars

Remember in the early to mid-2000’s when you’d watch a somber, but tense or dramatic 1980’s
movie on a major TV station--the quiet dialogue and a soothing, subtle soundtrack was playing
along to the delicate scene? Then suddenly a commercial break would come on from some local
furniture store and the advertisement is blasting so loud through your TV that your neighbors
wake up? Loud commercials vs. quiet movies = many complaints! The commercial was mastered
during the height of the loudness wars, long after the expertly and dynamically mastered movies
32
from previous decades. This was a huge problem. Fortunately, there’s government regulations to
curtail this headache, but not yet in the music industry--at least not in the United States.

The Loudness Wars are a terrible battle for loudness, as the title alludes. Two perfect examples
of how over-cooking a CD master can be the worst thing the industry has witnessed:

● Metallica ~ Death Magnetic
● Rush ~ Vapor Trails (first mix/master)

Both of these were overcooked with hot mixing and mastering. But this wasn’t bad at the time.
When these were mixed and mastered, each was likely pushed to the limits by some emotional
desire to be angry and powerful. Rush went through a terrible period in the drummer’s life (Neil
lost both his daughter and wife within a year), and Vapor Trails was the first record released by
Rush since that terrible time and hiatus. I suspect many emotions were amassed when the
masters were finished. Geddy Lee was reported to have a heavy hand in production and he does
like a crushing, rocking album. Metallica is well, Metallica. One could argue they merely
exhibited poor judgement based on how assertive they were at the time.

Either way, both albums raised significant stink in the listener community and fanbase. Death
Magnetic reportedly received a 13,000+ signature petition to have it remixed or remastered. Ted
Jensen of Sterling Mastering mastered the album and was quoted as receiving the album already
“brick-walled”. Andrew Scheps was the mix engineer, who’s been known for loud mixes and he’s
truthfully skilled in that realm. Metallica is well-known for bad mix decisions and can’t seem to
stay out of the kitchen for their mixes. The album was pushed to the brink due to influence from
the loudness wars and again, Metallica aren’t ones to just leave it alone with an excellent mix
and master. No one’s being blamed, it’s just how we learn.

There’s hope in that today, every artist, producer, label, and mix and mastering engineers are all
moving away from the hyper-compressed loudness fever. With the advent of iTunes Radio and
Spotify, both of which will turn down loud masters, this war is fading away.

Still, we need to talk about level. The loudness of your master is important depending on the
distribution strategy of your music. We need to have a common goal as to where your music will
be released. My job is to achieve the absolute best sonic quality of your mix best suited to where
it will be released. If you are releasing a CD, it might need to be quite loud to compete with the
industry. If the music is being cut to vinyl, it needs to be loud, but not so loud it causes issues
with the vinyl cut or reducing playback time.

When it comes to streaming music, there’s a bit of debate as to exactly how loud to master your
music to make for the best streaming quality. This one is tricky, because there’s rules to be
followed, and others to be broken. Most streaming services, such as Spotify have some
recommendations on how loud to master your music. Meanwhile, some masters are still loud
33
when submitted to streaming services. There are mastering engineers who will give you a single

master and expect it should suffice on all platforms.

I believe one size never fits all. I believe some rules or guidelines can be adjusted. I believe that a
streaming master can be louder than the recommended target levels. For example, I might
master to -10 dB LUFS, while the recommended target is really -14 dB LUFS. Some streaming
platforms might allow your music to play louder than others. Spotify also allows listeners to
disable the level-matching between songs, which means a loud master will play loud! You may
not want to have a -14 dB LUFS master for Spotify in that case. This is the crucial reason we
need to identify how loud your masters will be for Streaming, CD, etc.
Elect a Proxy
Most may not know what that term means because there’s other terms used for this role. Still,
you’ll understand quickly what the proxy’s responsibilities are and why. Bands are frequently
operating as a “democracy” without voting. Some bands operate with either one leader and
everyone else is a hired gun or contracted to be in the band. Some bands have two or more
collaborators and they don’t always see eye to eye. In yet other bands there’s little to no
governance. It’s all just an open book and freedom of everyone’s whim. That can be good and
bad.

Should everyone in the band have equal say the mix engineer could receive conflicting feedback
from the band as to what tweaks are needed in the mix. The vocalist wants to be front and
center, meanwhile the drummer wants the kick and snare to be right in the middle and
dominating the mix. And neither one of them ever discussed this amongst themselves. The mix
engineer does the work of the vocalist on Monday, then does the work of the drummer on
Tuesday, which could conflict with the bassist’s needs on Wednesday. Band members argue
with the mix engineer because they believe they are all in control.

If there’s a band involved I always ask for one ‘kingpin’--one representative, who acts as a proxy.
Many times the proxy is the person who contacted Soundporter in the first place. This is a great
reason to have a producer, but even a producer can be fired, leaving the band to call all the shots
(separately, I might add--on different days--or late at night). I try not to let myself fall into this
trap but you shouldn’t, either.

If you’re in the mix process do make it a point to elect a proxy. This person isn’t the single
leader calling all the shots but someone who is the only person sending requests/feedback to the
mix or mastering engineer. If the band can communicate all requests through the proxy there’s a
good chance of eliminating overlapping or conflicting instructions for the engineer. There’s also
one person who knows the rules of the mix and mastering engineer and is the one who’s best at
communicating. While this is not a hard requirement it’s certainly going to save you time and
money, I promise!
34
Phase 2 - Payment and First Master

Ok, terrible news, I’m sorry! Money has to be exchanged. We’ve got an idea of the process
involved now, so I should be able to give you a good quote for the work. This typically comes in
the form of a PayPal, Swipe, or other invoice with a super-easy method of payment. It’s my job
to reduce the friction of this so that you don’t feel burdened.

Rest easy! This also means you’re going to hear your master soon--possibly in as little as 12-24
hours! Many times I’m already working on your master before you even make payment. I get
excited about a fresh song or project. I’ve managed to send the first master demo within 10-15
minutes of payment. But sometimes I’m asleep at night. You’ll receive only my best work, either
way. While you’re waiting, feel free to read or review the rest of this book because I will detail
many of the things going on with your master. Assuming I’m going through my hybrid chain,
which you can read more about in The Chain, I will typically follow this path:

In the box ( the pitcher DAW)

1. First I will choose a song that I believe will be the best of all realms of dynamics,
loudness, power, punch, and subtlety. Any one song that I believe is going to make a nice
reference for the rest of the album, unless it’s the only song. I’ll go through it and make
some EQ tweaks (usually less than a db or two of cuts).
2. Next, I’ll make some dynamic EQ adjustments if I feel the kick or snare needs to be
punchier or if I feel some instrument has a single note or notes that seem to jump out
and cause the instrument or vocal to seem unbalanced.
3. Then I’ll use a light compression. I love VCA compressors a lot but I don’t get the
compressor clamping down very much of the mix. I love to use an attack of either 10ms
or 30ms, and a ratio of 2:1. I only just get the Gain Reduction needle pumping a slight
bit.
4. Next, I may add an optical compressor, but only if I feel the mix needs it. Again, I’ll only
give it a little, never overuse it.
5. I’ll follow that up possibly with a bit of transformer saturation, which, if the music calls
for some grainy character, this is a great time for me to add it.
6. Finally, I may pass the mix through a Pultec EQ to slightly boost the bottom at 30Hz.
Sometimes I’ll use a sub-sonic enhancer for hip-hop or country, but again, very subtle
and only if needed.
7. Before moving to the analog chain, I will spend more time going between songs to
ensure the sonic quality is cohesive and fitting in the context of the album. I’ll treat bass,
mids, treble issues here before moving on. This is where I work on consistency, a very
Brian Lucey-inspired method.

35
Out of the box

8. I’ll convert the audio to analog and direct it to an M/S processor. From there, I use a
chain of a transient shaper (which can also be a mighty great baxandall EQ), followed by
an amazing EQ for boosting and character. From there the signal returns to the M/S
processor where I may touch the width knob by maybe 1-2%.
9. After that the signal passes to a tube saturation unit for a hint of harmonic character,
then on to an A/D (Analog to Digital) converter.

Back in the box ( the catcher DAW)

10. I’ll playback the audio from the pitcher DAW through the analog chain capturing the
song on the catcher DAW. I listen to the playback during this process to ensure I don’t
hear any new analog artifacts.
11. Next I’ll save the file as the “catcher” file. From here, I will tweak the master in different
ways depending on the output destination format (vinyl, CD, AGGR, YouTube, MP3,
etc.) This way the exact same character gained in the analog chain is the same for all the
formats. It also makes recalling the session in the catcher DAW to add additional
formats or in case I one day decide to swap analog gear. I will also speed up or slow
down music here, if there’s any slight beats-per-minute (BPM) to adjust to.
12. I’ll usually spend a slight bit more time in this DAW to just make some minor changes to
what was captured. It isn’t always perfect that what I heard in the capture is best for the
output. For example, I love adding a tinge of multiband compression at this stage. I also
have a neat multi-limiter chain I pass the audio through.

I can’t really state a defacto standard method I use here for limiting and my final steps but if
you’re interested, I’ll tell you that I use a wide-band limiter with very light limiting and about
50% on the mix knob. I use a Weiss MM-1 plugin because I truly love the style choices and it’s a
rather transparent limiter. The output of that Limiter goes into another limiter, which is more
of the final say. I love the Waves L3-16 as well as the FabFilter Pro-L2. Both are quite amazing.
DMG Limitless and Evantide Elevate are great as well for multiband limiting.

Now, after I have mastered the song I will render it to the final format. If this is a demo master,
it will be posted in FilePass for your listening pleasure. If you like the song enough to release it
from there, I’ll provide you a discounted Pay Now price, which you can pay through Swipe,
PayPal, or credit card and it’s yours. I only ask that demos released use “Mastered By Brian
Murphree of Soundporter.”

I typically offer a free mastered song in a package deal. If you’ve paid up front, the file is sent to
you for immediate download and release if you like.
36
Listen to the master

Such fun!! The first demo master sent back to you is probably burning your hands from the
email on your phone to driving in traffic to a place where you can download the master and hear
it for the first time as a master! Or, you just get super-impatient and download it to your phone
and play it over Bluetooth in your car. No better (or nerve-wrecking) way to spend a few
road-raging moments in a daily commute!

Before you get too excited, let me offer some advice. Don’t take this advice lightly!

Never, never, NEVER audition your masters for the first time on any sound
system you’re unfamiliar with!

I do state that kindly and brotherly with a mother’s love. But seriously, I’m trying to do you a
huge favor and save you from an enormous gasp when you first hear such an awful master.
Anytime you listen to other artists’ commercially released music on a new sound system you
have never heard (or heard much), you’re very likely to accept the sound quality and you know
it’s ok because it’s a commercially accepted master. However, if the first thing you hear is the
resulting master I send back to you I can almost guarantee it won’t do itself justice on that
system and you’ll be disappointed with the sound quality, even if the sound system is
amazing---because your ears have no f rame of reference!

Always audition your masters on a sound system your ears know well, even if it’s your
smartphone--which I don’t recommend, either. Get to a place where you can sit and listen to
this master and other commercially successful music together and without distraction. Also, get
the rest of the band in to hear the result. Invite the mix engineer (or I can send a copy to her as
well).

Don’t provide feedback to me until everyone’s heard the song multiple times on familiar
systems. Play it on multiple systems. Try it out in your cars, since most people listen in cars and
are intimately familiar with those sound systems, but [each of you] listen in your own car.

Talk to each other and see how everyone feels. If there are any notes for a revision, have the
proxy capture those notes and then review them. The proxy should get everyone’s notes and
circulate them around. See if everyone agrees. I can’t stress this one enough! Don’t just collect
notes. Make sure everyone either agrees with the notes and feedback or can accept them,
otherwise, the feedback notes might conflict.

Now, have the proxy pass the notes back to me, the ME. Playing it all this way will ensure
everyone’s satisfied with the result. Don’t leave anyone out of the circle. Anyone who has a say,
including the label should hear the result before notes are sent back, unless there’s just
something glaringly wrong.
37

So let me list off the recommendations again:

● Listen to the master on familiar systems. Don’t listen to new systems you’ve never heard.
● Have everyone involved in the project do the same.
● Don’t listen on mobile devices, which typically sound harsh and fatiguing.
● If you listen in your car, listen in your own car. This goes for each listener.
● Compare the master with other commercially released material.
● Discuss any feedback notes with everyone involved. Come to agreements.
● Have the proxy send the feedback notes to the mastering engineer.

Believe me, this process goes wrong many times. I will occasionally receive initial disgusted
feedback from an artist who’s listening on new headphones, on a mobile device, or at a friend’s
house. It’s more common than one would think because of the excitement to audition the
master A.S.A.P.! I take this in stride because I know what work I’ve done on my speaker system
and it’s never going to be drastically different from literally everything else I’ve done.
Phase 3 - Revisions
First Revision
Has everyone involved heard the master? Has everyone provided your proxy notes for changes?
Has everyone agreed to those changes? Ok, then let’s get onto the first revision! It’s very
common to have at least one revision. Nobody is perfect, and while a master may kick ass it’s
possible there’s just one little tweak or something to try. It’s even very possible I will revise the
master. Yes, that’s right! I may listen to something new for the day which makes me want to
revisit the master. I’m human just like you. One day things may sound amazing and the next,
not as much. Sometimes this can work out better. Sometimes not. It’s how our ears work.

If I provide a revision on my own, it’s always free! You will get at least 1-2 revisions for free as
well, if needed. The only thing here I do charge a little extra for is if you want to go back and
re-tweak the mix and have a new master made of the latest mix. This isn’t out of greed. It’s just
that, the re-mastering process of a new mix, no matter how small and minute the change(s), I
have a good bit more work to do. Remember the previous section where I refer to the pitcher and
catcher DAWs, the analog chain and critical listening while passing the audio through the
chain? This is why. It’s time-consuming to remaster a new mix than to simply go back and
tweak the “catcher” file in a single DAW. That said, I charge less than half! I dub this the
Iterative Master.

During the mastering process for most ME’s you’re allowed a couple of free revisions. I also
allow this for free for the first 2 revisions, unless there’s a problem I should have caught, such as
a glitch. If revisions creep on into 4-5 revisions of the master, I will stop to converse with you
38
before we go any further. If a master revision goes past 4 or 5 without acceptance there’s likely
something else wrong. For example, if we’ve turned up the bass frequencies, cut the highs,
dipped the high mids and warmed the low mids for one revision, then reverted much of that for
the next, then we need to understand why this is happening so we’re not working in circles.
The Iterative Master

Let’s assume, in a hypothetical scenario, the master is perfect but your artist, producer,
drummer, or mix-engineer realizes the hi-hat is just a bit too sizzly in the top end that it calls
too much attention to itself. In other scenarios, sometimes a compressor or limiter might bring
out a bit more reverb in a vocal than you expect. While it’s possible to revise the master,
sometimes it makes sense to go back and adjust things in the mix. Everything else in the master
is perfect, save this one instrument or effect. Maybe the guitar solo could come down a bit. And
perhaps you don’t notice these as much until the mastering stage. It happens. A lot.

I offer a replay (‘do-over’), called the Iterative Master. The term, “iterate” loosely means “again
and again”. For less than half the cost of a full re-master, you can go back and make very minor
adjustments in your mix and send it back to me to re-pass through the mastering chain for a
much smaller fee than a full master. How do I minimize cost on this? Recallability. It’s very easy
for me to recall a session’s settings. The pitcher DAW and catcher DAW both have saved
settings from the previous session of each song. I’m also able to quickly recall analog chain
settings. As long as the mix hasn’t changed too much the same settings from the last master of
the song are used.

If the mix changes drastically or at least one month has passed, I don’t recommend a
re-master/re-pass. This is because there could have been other factors that will likely change the
effect of the saved mastering chain over time. For example, tubes in my saturation unit will have
aged a month’s worth of use. In a case like this, I may re-master for less than the full amount,
but I will provide you the appropriate pricing before we proceed.

Here’s the cool part. The settings of the last master are saved and recalled as if they were still
there on my desk, waiting for your updated mix. It’s the same! If you were to use an instant
online mastering service, you can pass a new mix through it, but you have no way of knowing if
the processing will be exactly the same. With the Iterative Master you get exactly what you had
before. PLUS, my ears hear it again! You have my second blessing on the master, and if I
determine something else is wrong, we can fix it before I proceed. I will also provide critical
listening again before and after the mix!

Robots are cool, but they don’t listen to music.

To review: Iterations are where the mix is swapped out, but there’s no changes to the mastering
chain. R
evisions are where the m aster is tweaked, but no changes to the mix.
39
Approval
If you’re happy with the master of this first song it’s time to move on to the rest of the masters. I
wait until this master is approved first. If this song is approved, then the rest should be similar
in sonic quality and performance. The approved song becomes my reference for the rest. This is
also the sort of Point of No Return by practical means. In other words, yes, we can make further
revisions and yes, we can iterate the master with new mixes, but the cost is a little higher due to
the amount of extra time involved. For example, should the mastering be completed on the
entire album, but now the singer wants to make a revision or iterate the mix it’s now potentially
going to be required for the entire album. Making changes to the first, single song is easy and
less costly. Making album revisions, where every song needs to be revisited, becomes a bit more
of a challenge, unless the master is done completely ITB (In the box), and no analog chain is
used. I prefer not to cut corners on critical listening, but I can work with you on any added cost.
It’s not a clean rate in this phase, unfortunately, and that simply cannot be avoided.
Revisions
I love to get the master perfect on the first try. Fortunately, this does happen quite a bit. Buuut,
sometimes it doesn’t. One client in particular, who likes a lot of bass on one master decided to
have me reduce it on another. It’s a very subjective process. There’s never a 100% success on the
first try. Still, the success rate I do have is very encouraging. Most times, I can get it right but
the client may simply desire a tweak. That’s still free within reason, absolutely!

As mentioned before, the first 1-2 revisions are free. They’re typically minimal. Most revisions
need just a small tweak and another critical listen. Others may require more. This is why there’s
no hard-cap on the number of free revisions. If they’re small and fast, it’s usually free. If there’s
a lengthy struggle to find the right chemistry, there could be charges. For example, one artist
wanted three revisions of different ‘character’ to A/B/C and pick the winner. One with more
treble, one with more warmth, and one with more bass.

This wasn’t terribly different from what you can achieve in an instant online mastering service.
However, what’s not so obvious is, this creeps into mixing territory--not in the traditional sense,
but in the sense that the artist doesn’t have a character in mind. Normally, the artist has already
had these conversations with a mix engineer. Nevertheless, even though I would normally
charge for alternate masters this was all he needed. The three versions gave him his choices and
he was on his way. If he came back asking for a revision to all three, well, that would be a
different conversation, but an easy one. I would charge a very reasonable amount.

NOTE! Revisions are not available for demo masters. If I offer you a f ree master with a
package deal, you can request revisions but only after payment of the work to be done.

40
Phase 4 - Master The Rest

All parts of the mastering process is honestly, pure joy, but this phase is probably one of the
most fulfilling for me, personally. We’ve approved the single master, and now I just have to
make the rest of the songs stack up to that new reference master we agreed on in Phase 2-3. It’s
also the point where I can spend a lot of time in my mastering room working. Sure, it’s a
wonderful thing!

Now, the boring part is that most of this process is quite repetitive but I’ll let you in on some
aspects of this process. When I’m mastering a full album I will load all the songs into the pitcher
DAW. I’ll work on the music there, ITB (in-the-box), and bring all the songs to the same
consistent level and character. Rather than trying to negotiate all aspects of the analog
mastering chain for each song, I work on each song in the first DAW to make them all cohesive.
Here I will perform any real automation I need, and make sure that every song sounds as it
should be on the same album.

Once I feel all songs are correctly treated in the pitcher DAW, I’ll play each song through the
analog chain, careful to ensure the processing is free of glitches. I’ll save each song on the
catcher DAW as a captured audio file. Once that’s done I’ll work on the finalization of each
master, exporting each file as a similar .WAV file as the initial master.

Should I run into issues by this point I will stop progress and contact you to give you updates or
address any concerns. This is just an extra precautionary step because there are times when I’ve
uncovered some debris or artifacts in the mix that perhaps I didn’t catch before. Call it a second
opinion. I’d rather get it right at a later stage than to totally miss a problem, altogether.

Finishing up, you will receive them all as separate files if desired, or we can skip to Phase 5,
where I move forward with building the montage (the entire album sequence). Last-minute
changes are not terribly unusual after hearing all the files. While I can easily adjust a sequenced
montage and even replace files, artists and producers sometimes like to change the sequence
around to just see how something sounds.

The end of Phase 4 comes from the project having a final sequence, list of formats required,
meta-data options ready, and full approval of all the songs on the album. Assuming all songs are
completely ready, the sequence is smooth to assemble.

NOTE
At this point it is healthy to have all song masters approved. Not only do you save me time but
you’ll also save your entire team a lot of anxiety. You should also submit meta-data now as
well as ISRC codes, and any MP3 artwork, if you have these.
41
Phase 5 - Final Assembly and Exports

YAY!! We’re almost done! The most nerve-racking part of the process is essentially done--well
maybe not the artwork. It’s true, most artists struggle with artwork sometimes more than the
music and it’s becoming quite the after-thought for many. Sure, some work on the artwork early
on but like I said, most artwork is an afterthought panic attack. I think this is because when the
music comes together artists eventually find themselves deep in a project that’s somehow
become far more serious than the initial vision. The artwork must reflect that, too. But I digress.
Song Sequence
I’ve always loved sequencing songs. In bands I’ve been in, myself, this was a sense of pride for
me. I believe one album I released consumed two full weeks for all band members to agree on a
solid sequence. And it wasn’t because we were lazy. No, we fought hard to agree and everyone
has a different opinion! It’s not a bad thing, though. It just indicates how much emotion and
pride everyone has in the album. If the master is just two songs, well that should be swift!
Right?? Heh.

If you send me the final song sequence (or even two options), I’ll set you up with them both, so
you can hear them as assembled. I don’t really think that’s too much of a burden. However, I will
refrain from adding CD markers, metadata, and any other serious QC (quality control) or
finalization tasks on both. We should finalize the sequence before that.
What if I want some songs to flow into others?

Valid question! This is a request I receive maybe 20% of the time (for albums, anyway), believe it
or not. How can we do this for CD, and especially for online distribution? CD is quite easy and
it’s been done for decades. Online streaming this is a little trickier. For example, when you have
a player that introduces a brief pause between songs, a run-on sequence is interrupted, and
listeners hear silence for two seconds. Yuck!

Fortunately, more modern streaming players handle this better. The challenge left over is, how
you handle singles and sales of a single selected song from the album. In cases like that we have
to decide whether a song will abruptly end or start, or whether to master a separate “single”
version of each song. I’ve done both, and to be fair, it does cost a little extra. However, I price
this as merely an additional format. Read on.
Multiple formats
More and more artists are releasing music strictly online. Others will still request vinyl, CD,
MP3, and even cassette. Yep! Cassette is sometimes still a thing! I could tangent there as to why
I think old formats come back, but another time.
42

Each format I master is separate. I almost never master a single format for literally every
distribution medium. Other mastering engineers will, but I always recommend separate formats
where the benefits and drawbacks of each are taken into account during mastering. The
limitations of vinyl in the bass frequencies shouldn’t have a weaker effect on your CD, for
example.

While you could feasibly use a general master which is acceptable for all formats, and many
ME’s promote this, I find it’s even better to have different formats. After all, a super-loud CD
master isn’t going to bode well on iTunes or Spotify. It may simply be turned down and sound
weak. Conversely, a master for Spotify may be lacking in competitive loudness if used for CD.

So, how do we judge this? How do you navigate your options? First you should just identify the
formats/mediums you want to release the music to.

● Vinyl - LP and 7” records
● CD - up to 80 minutes of digital (loud or conservative)
● MP3 - For online sale
● iTunes - Apple
● Spotify
● YouTube video
● Facebook
● Cassette
● Radio airplay (over the air)
● Aggregator

Your options are not very limited, but perhaps your budget is. If you decide to release audio on
vinyl, that alone after mastering could run you upwards of $3,000-$4,000 for just 500-1,000
copies. CD’s can vary depending on exactly how professional you’d like to get. A low-volume
CD-R release can be done by the hundreds. CD-glass-masters for a pressed, professional release
is best at minimum 1,000 copies and could run you over $1,000 easy. Cassettes and any other
physical medium will cost you ‘setup’ or tooling charges on top of duplication.

Digital releases are far easier, but can still cost you to do it right--or wrong. For a digital release
you only need to upload the music once and release it. Boom! It’s there for the whole world to
download, en-masse, and it costs you only a small fraction of your profits! And oh-boy! It would
be thrilling to simply have your album downloaded by every mobile and computer in the world.
It might even be worth giving an album away to simply have it appear on every iPhone in
existence! Or, at least, that’s what U2 thought.

Digital releases are kind of funny in a way. Mystical. What can be easily distributed can just as
quickly be annoying. Everybody has a digital release these days. It’s expected of any artist. And
it’s a wonderfully convenient way to discover new artists. That said, should you decide to release
43
vinyl, cassette, or some other cool physical medium, you have something your listeners will be
willing to keep and see sitting on a shelf, just waiting to be played! Digital just doesn’t have that
attraction.

Anyway, be prepared to spend a little if you’d like to stand out. Digital is awesome, but it’s
almost free for people to download it or listen to it on a streaming platform, meaning, there’s
little return on your promotional expenses. I know, I don’t really like that, either, but you can
hear some music you’d never hear in a non-digital world.

So, where am I going with this? I sidetracked you there by revisiting the format topic. I just
think it’s best to predetermine what formats you’ll want to release your music to. From this, I
can determine the best mastering for each. Plus, the file formats, meta-data, and for MP3,
embedding artwork and such. For vinyl and cassette sequence and per-side choices will make a
difference. Song lengths make a difference.

Just let me know what formats you want as early as possible because there is a minimal charge
for each one. This is part of how I keep my rates low. If you don’t need vinyl, for example, I don’t
need to master in that direction and I don’t need to master with vinyl’s limitations in mind. I
can let the bass stay in the far left or right channel if that’s the way it was mixed.

.WAV masters, full-resolution is a given. With every master, you receive a .WAV full-resolution
file(s) that can be archived or used much later. If I’m no longer here in 50 years, but you still
have the files backed up, you’re solid! It’s a sort of future-proof.
Delivery
Depending on the options you provided for mastered formats will also determine how the final
audio files are delivered. For Vinyl or cassette, you’ll have a Side A and Side B file. CD’s will
have a DDP file. Others will differ.

Sometimes I will provide you with a Google Drive Shared folder with all the audio in it.
However, if you have a DropBox, or some other file storage place you’d like the audio delivered,
I can accommodate that. WeTransfer is another method I use often.

If your delivery is on a shared drive you will see everything in a folder structure based on each
format. Even if it’s in WeTransfer it could potentially be in a .ZIP file. If you wish for me to
deliver onto your file platform, I will need a log-in username, password, MFA (if used), and
permissions granted allowing me to create new folders and upload your files. After this is done,
you should destroy the access.
44
Confidentiality and Privacy

While you may willfully distribute the audio you receive to anyone you wish, I have some rules
regarding confidentiality and privacy:

● I will never share the credentials you provide for me. I will destroy them when they are
no longer needed.
● I will not share your music with anyone who requests access unless you, or your Proxy
explicitly allows the access.
● For security reasons and your own protection, I will alert you at your known contact
email regarding any new requests that come through.
● I will only allow the requested access after you have been alerted and explicitly instruct
me to permit the access.
● I will never discuss a project I’m working on until the release date, except internally at
Soundporter and to you.
● If you provide me with personal information, such as contact email addresses, phone
numbers, mailing addresses, or any other information that belongs in the PII (Personal
Information Identifiers), I will maintain that information in my own documents with
strict confidentiality preserved at all times.
● Your information may be stored in a Google document or folder, but Google generally
abides by GDPR for protection of PII. Feel safe.

NOTE! When new access to files is shared (or files added to a shared folder), always be
cognizant of anyone else who may inherit the new access. You should always review who has
access, and who you’ve granted “edit” access, or access to invite others.

Backups
While I retain all audio I master, including the source audio, it’s in your best interest to
maintain a full backup of your music. Don’t under-estimate the amount of redundancy you
might need. But yes, I maintain a full backup of everything I receive that was used. I don’t
normally backup things such as old mixes or “losing” masters. I only save the “approved”
versions of masters and the source files used for those exact masters.

I have a nightly automated backup that runs and an off-site replica. Plus, if I deliver files to you
in Google Drive, I maintain those as long as I have storage. I don’t ever throw away old
harddrives with audio. They are maintained in an archive to the best recoverability they will
afford me, long-term. There’s no full guarantee I will have your archives retrievable past 120
days, but I retain for as long as I can.

45
If you need me to recover an archive, and I do have the backup, there is a charge for the effort,
but probably, I won’t charge for this if I’m unable to recover the music. So, please also backup
your music for your own benefit.

In the interest of updating technologies, if I destroy an old harddrive that once housed data it’s
always multi-wiped and destroyed with a certificate of destruction. I copy over archival data to
new storage, when available.
Credit
This is a touchy subject for some engineers. It’s been commonplace for photographers over
decades but is becoming more of an issue with engineers. Providing credit for an engineer’s
work on your album or single(s) is quite honestly the very best compliment an engineer can
receive. I honestly believe that. Should a song become a massive hit everyone involved will feel a
surge of satisfaction and in fact, will be placed much higher in demand, prologing careers.

Even a song that only gets 100 listens might produce another client. This is called Passive
Referral. When a credit appears on an album or single, if someone else loves the master they’re
likely to locate the credit and make note of the engineer. Just like a realtor, dentist, hair stylist,
roofer, or architect, if the name is on the commission or sale more clients might appear. It’s like
word-of-mouth as well, which is a bit different, but equally useful. Credit says it once and stays
there permanently, like a pedigree, allowing even total strangers to the artist to learn who’s
worked on the music.

While I don’t always contractually require credit for my work, I do request it. It can be a bit
off-putting to have a great master and nobody will ever know who did the work. So, please, this
is how I keep my rates low and what it takes for me to see continuing business. Will I prosecute
those who don’t provide me credit? Likely, no. Will I let people know I did the work? Possibly
so. Label work requires it, however. There is a contract, and the mastering credit is in the
verbiage. That said, all I request is the following text along with any form of

My credit: M astered by Brian Murphree of Soundporter (or Soundporter Mastering)
Other Referral
Passive referrals are one thing that have probably the most power but other referral methods
can be quite effective.
Word of Mouth
I truly love this type of referral! This is a real compliment! The artist, producer, mix engineer, or
mere bystander can be quite surprising when they rave about an album that I’ve mastered.
46
Recently, an old friend of mine posted on Facebook his rave about a Memphis band I haven’t
thought about in a year. He heard their EP and was just jaw-dropped. It was one of the heaviest,
most mind-blowing metal record release he’d heard in a very long time!

While the compliment itself was pretty melting to my ears and dear to me, I loved reading his
statements knowing he had no clue I mixed and mastered the EP! I couldn’t bring myself to tell
him because I’m really that shy about it but other comments poured in from his friends saying
similar things about the release. I left it alone, because on the Bandcamp page of the band,
there’s my passive referral right there. Heh.

Nevertheless, anyone who hears an album I’ve mastered and either is galvanized to do more
work with me, who wants others to know, or who wants to just rave about the album will point
potential new business to the passive credit. Otherwise, Word-of-Mouth is amazing!

Wrap Up
While I could carry on with the mastering process, I believe you should have some idea what to
expect now. But I shouldn’t just drop the end of this text with that. I do feel it’s worthwhile to
discuss a bit of my mastering room and tools I use. Please read on, if you like that sort of thing,
or just generally curious. Thanks so much for going through all this!

If you have any questions, please email me at b
rian@soundporter.com. I typically respond
within 24 hours or less.
47
My Mastering Room The really boring (or geeky) stuff!

Up until now I have walked you through the Mastering process, what you should prepare for,
along with what you should prepare for and expect, how to prepare, things you should do, parts
of the process, and last-but-not least, giving you tips to prepare for the process. Yes, that
sentence was intentionally corrupt. It’s how you feel after you’ve read something that dry, right?

If you’re one of procedure, hopefully it all helped in some way….even if you didn’t use
Soundporter! But now, I want to indulge anyone who’s just excited about the process, excited to
work with me, and perhaps those of you who just love talking tech! At least there will be some
pictures!

WARNING! This could get technical. My apologies! It’s why I placed this part after
everything else. I suppose for the techie people out there this is just as much as anything else.

My mastering desk, 2020

My mastering suite is rather simple in nature but fluid in how it’s used. Perhaps what’s
complicated enough is how I manage to use a single computer with two DAWs running and
48
multiple ASIO interfaces. It wasn’t easy, but it works. As you might also gather, I’m sort of an
audiophile at heart, too.
Acoustics
Probably one of the most overlooked, but ironically critically important aspects of any mastering
room is treatment. Room acoustics can either help or destroy your chances of mixing and
mastering any music. Without a measured and treated room you’re better off mixing or
mastering on headphones. I use ATS and GIK acoustics, along with a few techniques on my own
to help tame any standing waves or buildup in the room. My room isn’t live, but it isn’t
completely dead, either.

Few rooms have absolutely perfect acoustics, and a completely echo-free room is horrifying to
sit in. Try an anechoic chamber. You’ll hear your blood flowing and any tinnitus (ringing in your
ears) will be deafening! A truly perfect room is nearly impossible to achieve because the
speakers themselves will never be ruler-flat (in that room). Even if a speaker is ruler flat in
frequency response, measured in a perfect room, it still won’t be perfect--too many variables!

But exactly what is perfect? Is it measurable, or audible? Is it a sound or the experience of
hearing the sound?

My room has a blend of attributes that help it be conducive to mastering:

● It’s a large, wide room with a ceiling that reaches 11 feet tall.
● I have thousands of dollars invested in room acoustic treatment on all walls and ceilings.
● GIK Acoustics simulated the room and verified with me that the dimensions should be
good.
● The distance from my speakers to my desk is actually greater than most mastering
rooms. This is so my ears can hear the fundamental lowest frequencies, even down to
22Hz! Most low frequencies down there aren’t fundamentally audible at anything less
than 10 feet (3 meters) away. My speakers are approximately 9 feet away from my ears.
● The distances between the speakers and the walls are near perfect.
● In the back corners of the room I use custom reverse speakers that soak up some low
buildup, along with corner bass traps, front and rear.
● My room has been exhaustively measured and adjusted naturally.
● I use SonarWorks Reference 4 to take care of the last 5-10% of frequency variances. None
of the errors in my measurement or correction breach +/-6 dB until measurements reach
above 10Khz. I use the B&K 1974 curve in Sonarworks System-wide.

My room has been measured with an Earthworks M23 measurement microphone, one that
incidentally measures flat to 30Khz (beyond advertised specifications), and an Earthworks M30.
I’ve used measurement microphones from other companies, but I have a blog about why it’s
better to have a near perfect mic for this calibration. In my room, naturally, there is a slight dip
49
at 46Hz, another larger hole between 200-400Hz, and a sharp dip at around 1Khz, and finally a
roll-off on the high-end (my room is slightly more dead than it should be). See Figure 2.

Figure 2 - All of these are corrected by SonarWorks. The red line indicates the expected response.
Speakers
In the past, I used a set of Polk Audio SRS-SDA 2.3TL speakers. I’ve always been a fan of
audiophile components. These old 1989 Polks are extremely dynamic and quite a lot of fun to
listen to. They measure bass all the way down to 12Hz! Easily. Listening to these behemoths, as
I mentioned is just a blast to enjoy, but I found they really weren’t conducive to mastering. They
were great at disappearing, and were pioneering products of what we have now with some
amazing DSP-powered speakers on the market. Their strengths were quite great, but the one
weakness was in the 100Hz range.

The Polk 2.3TL uses an array of 6.5” speakers for most of the audio in the mids and lows. They
have an array of tweeters also that manage super-high frequencies with astonishingly low
distortion. The issue comes in the form of a 15” passive radiator at the bottom. The passive
component beautifully throats frequencies beyond the low end of human hearing. They’re music
to elephants, probably. Unfortunately, this means a little bit of lag in the punch of a kick drum.
They’re not quite as punchy around 60-100Hz as they truly need to be. Everywhere else, they’re
tight and accurate.

So, I set out to shop for something that at least had a more respectable name in the industry and
something that wasn’t more expensive than a house (in my area, anyway).

50
Enter the Egglestonworks Andra II.

Powered by a Pass Labs X-350 power amplifier.
51
Egglestonworks is headquartered in Memphis, TN. I visited the factory in 2019 and met Jim
Thompson, the owner. He gave me some well-regarded advice on the speakers and even was
nice enough to show me around the factory floor and showroom. They were in the process of
building a new set of Eggleston Ivy speakers, the updated model speakers of what Bob Ludwig
uses in his mastering room in Portland, ME. He actually has the #001 and #002 of the Ivy. Bill
Eggleston III built those speakers for Bob per request, I believe.

When I first purchased the Andra II pair you see in the picture, I bought them, sound unheard. I
traveled to Broken Arrow, OK to pick them up from a home-owner who was selling them for a
fabulous price! Having transported vintage Polk Audio speakers a few times, I know they’re
fragile and the drivers are prone to lock-up after significant bumps. I was afraid the Andra II
speakers could suffer the same fate. Fortunately, the seller still had the original shipping crates.

After a 9.5 hour trek back to Nashville, I had to hire help to lug these 215lbs. Beasts into the
Mastering room and to remove the Polk 2.3TLs. It wasn’t so much trouble lugging them around
on a dolly but moving them up a flight of stairs is an entirely different story. Obviously, we made
it happen.

The Eggleston Andra II comes with a Dynaudio tweeter, Morel midrange drivers, and a
Dynaudio 12” isobaric woofer. Isobaric means that there are actually four 12” woofers, even
though you only see the two. The other two sit in a chamber behind the woofers you see.
Isobaric designs allow deeper, more solid bass in a smaller cabinet, meanwhile remaining inside
a sealed cabinet. The only disadvantage I found was they are a little more power hungry. The
Pass Labs X-350 powers them just fine.

Each speaker sits on a set of adjustable spikes, balanced to ensure the speaker can’t move or
sway, even on carpet, in order to maximize the bass punch, clarity, and bottom end. You may
also note the leaning-back posture of the speakers. The center of each driver (woofer, mid,
tweeter) are time-aligned so that audio transmitted by each driver arrives at my ears at the same
time, inducing even more clarity.

Another attribute that makes the speakers so amazing is how inert the speaker boxes are. When
a speaker box/cabinet resonates at any frequency, it colors the bass. This means you’re likely to
hear whatever resonant frequency of the box louder than the rest of the bass. The Andra II uses
granite to dampen the sides, and at least 1.5” of MDF on all other surface areas, covered on the
outside by plexiglass. When you thump or ‘knock’ on the speakers, you hear no resonant
frequencies. You only hear the tap of the impact. That’s the way all speakers should be, but
cheaper speakers simply aren’t and shipping prices for the added weight of bracing and wood,
etc. is outrageous!

How do they translate for the masters to the outside world? Tremendously well. But the
speakers are nothing without a properly treated room.

52
The Amplifier
The Pass Labs X-350 was touted as being slightly clinical in reviews it received in the
mid-2000’s. It’s no longer made, having been warmed slightly by newer designs. To me, the
more clinical isn’t necessarily a bad thing. My amp doesn’t color the sound. What it does is
maintain a serious abundance of instantaneous, transparently clean power.

Nelson Pass garnered a patent for what he calls Super-SymmetryTM circuitry. While you can read
about this technology online here1, the bottom line is it allows the amplifier to all but eliminate
crossover distortion when moving into a Class A/B operation, by way of canceling out the
crossover distortion between the two halves of the circuit. The amp uses pure Class A power up
to about 40 watts per channel. Then, it switches to Class A/B for more power.

Pure Class A power is the cleanest power most amplifiers can produce, but it’s horribly
inefficient in how it works. When the amp is in Class A mode it’s drawing about 600 watts of
street (A/C) current at all times, even idle. It must dissipate that energy, hence the purpose of the
huge fins on each side of the chassis.

Previous to this amp, I used a pair of Sunfire-300 amps. While they did the job of bi-amping the
Polk Audio speakers, they didn’t hold a candle to the Pass X-350, which had more depth and
more commanding and clear bass. It wasn’t even a contest.

1. https://www.passlabs.com/technical_article/super-symmetric-amplification/
Cabling
I believe it’s important to have great cabling for the studio, especially for mastering. There’s a
number of interconnect, speaker, power, Ethernet, and USB audiophile cable-makers on the
market today. Most of them are producing the best cabling you can possibly afford. That said,
there’s a LOT of snake-oil on the market, whereby you can sell your house to afford just two
speaker cables from some boutique cable builders. These, I avoid like the plague and properly
join my colleagues who buckle over laughing at just how ridiculous some of them are.

It’s not that $70,000 speaker cables aren’t excellent but they are grossly overpriced, I’m sorry. If
my amplifier is an A+ quality amp, and it costs $9,000 when it was bought new, consider how
much time and research, not to mention materials and component costs were put into the amp
vs how much time and effort and materials costs are placed into a $70,000 speaker cable. Even a
$5,000 XLR interconnect cable should seem ridiculous. But there’s a customer base for it.

Worse, should you approach a trade show booth for one of these esoteric, exotic, and expensive
cable-makers and suggest you can’t tell a difference between your high-quality cables and their
top-shelf efforts, you know what their response would be? “You’re not listening.” Sounds quite
53
insulting, doesn’t it? For the most part it should be. After all, the agent at the booth has no
insight into your history, your experience, or your listening skills.

There is a difference between cheap after-market cables you can buy in a big-box store or online
vs. a high-quality cable that pay a much higher attention to detail, design, materials, and
assembly. Some ideas are solid and purvey a higher level of quality overall. They just routinely
charge a fortune to sell it to you. If so, why do they not offer the absolute best cable only and
remove lower-end cables from their catalog? Simple. The ultra high-end market is too limited.

For interconnects, at shorter distances, (between pieces of mastering gear) I use Benchmark
Quad XLR balanced cables with gold Neutrik connectors, or Better Cables Silver Serpent
silver/copper XLR cables. For USB, I use Audioquest Carbon 1m cables. For the output to the
amp, I use Better Cables Silver Serpent copper/silver hybrid cables with silver-plated
connectors. For speaker cables I use Goertz flat-copper ribbon cables, elevated at least 2” off the
floor. These are made of high-quality copper with an ample gauge, the most important attribute
for speaker cable. The ends of the speaker cables employ silver spade terminals and I run in
bi-wire orientation to each speaker to minimize impedance interference between bass and
highs.

I spent a couple thousand on good cables, and they sound fabulous. Should I buy better cables
than this? Perhaps, but almost zero of my customers are going to sell more than 10 copies of a
song or album to an audiophile who’s invested a hundred thousand dollars on cables alone. If I
can hear the quality of my masters with that much top-shelf cabling, almost nobody else will. It
would serve the music, artist, customer, and listener best if I can master through cables that are
a little closer to the absolute best cables a listener will ever use in their lifetime.
Electrical Power
I have dedicated power for the studio from the entry of the building to my room by way of a
separate 20AMP circuit breaker and shielded cabling avoiding other power wiring. I use two
Monster Power units for stabilizing and conditioning power. One is a Monster Voltage
Stabilizer AVS2000 Signature, that keeps my electrical power at exactly 120VAC (U.S.), and a
Monster Power Center PRO 5100 Signature. Both of these units are serialized and power the
entire mastering room. I use a CyberPower battery-backup unit for my DAW workstation.

The power amp uses a 12AWG Hospital-Grade 6-foot power cable. I don’t find power cables
made from Unobtanium to really make the amp perform better. If the last 6-feet of power costs
$50,000 more than the power line that runs down my street or even the amp, something’s up. I’d
rather just invest in clean, regenerated power from a large battery backup unit. Just to tangent a
bit here. YES, I believe clean power is crucial, but I don’t feel a mere 6-foot power cord from the
wall is going to suddenly make the audio sound alarmingly better. Ask Nelson Pass, the builder
of the amp, for example. He’ll tell you the power supply is built to filter out all the noise, and
with power conditioning to start with we’re halfway there with clean power. Any more than this
54
and I would prefer a fully-regenerated power supply for the mastering studio. That may come
one day, but long before I invest that money in a $50,000 piece of dead-wire cable.
Headphones
I could probably wreck my career on a set of headphones. Studio engineers almost will always
argue that mixing or mastering on headphones is a cardinal sin. In fact, yes, it does compromise
the integrity of how you listen to music in the room and how the speakers interact with your left
and right ears. But what if all we humans have ever been able to reproduce sound through were
headphones? What if speaker drivers in a room couldn’t exist? We’d enjoy all our music on
headphones, and that would be the end of that.

We are evolving into a realm where the best audio experiences by the masses is through
earbuds. Dare I say “evolve”? Yes, because at some point in the future, we’ll have earbuds that
are just as amazing to experience as over the ear flagship headphones. I recently acquired a set
of Meze Empyreans, and I’m powering them with a Benchmark HPA4, fed from my Benchmark
DAC3. They are...quite amazing. While there’s some things the speakers in the room have
revealed that the headphones didn’t, my ears are training to use them every day until I can
reasonably master music on them.

Mastering on headphones is not really a crime and I’ll argue with some engineers on why.
Listening to a set of speakers in a room has the same goal: Produce masters that translate
everywhere. If you learn to do this on headphones the result should be expectedly similar. And
yes there are multi-platinum mastering engineers who do it every day.

That said, I never deliver a master now without listening to my speakers and my headphones.
55
The Mastering Desk

One could say I’m self-indulgent, but there’s only truth to that if you see it that way. There’s a
number of mastering engineers who have gone completely ITB (In-the-box), meaning, the entire
mastering session stays inside a single computer, eliminating quite frankly, most of the
headaches analog equipment and conversion can introduce. These engineers often master
phenomenally successful releases and there’s no slowing those engineers down. And I love it!

Yes, I have analog equipment, but I do sometimes master ITB, and sometimes…..on headphones!

It’s not about the gear; it’s about the result!

I use a hybrid mastering chain. In other words I use both digital plugins and external outboard
analog equipment. The reason isn’t simple but the result is actually quite good. Digital plugins
are becoming so far more advanced and convincing that, unless someone tells you a song was
mastered 100% ITB, you’d never know. This is very true today!

So, why bother with analog gear? I have a couple of minor things I use the analog chain for:
Boosting and Saturation. And that’s it. I stay ITB for compression, most EQ, and Limiting. I
56
believe most everything can be done 100% ITB, but I still have a little love for boosting EQ on an
external analog EQ and saturation/harmonics by way of real vacuum tubes and transformers.

Most professional electric guitarists will raise their hands if you ask them, “Show of hands, do
you think the real amplifier is still better than digitally modeled amps on the market today?”.
Largely, this is bias (no pun intended), but I will be in the majority that believes that true tube
emulation is still quite far off. I believe many analog modeling attempts have done quite well but
there are simply a few that just haven’t met 100%, and they won’t soon.

In my analog chain I use a Chandler Limited TG12345 EQ (Curvebender), mostly for boosting in
the bass and mids. It’s quite good, and I simply love working with it. It’s the Mastering edition
with 0.5 db steps in boost-cut. I use an Elysia nVelope, which is pretty good at helping recover
or soothe transients, but it actually doubles as a much better Baxandall EQ. Beyond that, I have
a slightly modded Black Box HG-2. The HG-2 hardware differs from the plugin. The plugin is
great for tastefully distorting and saturating elements of a mix with a 12AX7 tube character but
it’s a little more gritty than the hardware. The hardware I have replaces the Saturation tubes
with a balanced set of Amperex Holland 12AT7 tubes (one, a Bugle Boy). After installing these,
I’m hooked. I sound snooty, I know, but it’s real if you know what to listen for. If your master is
passed through the HG-2, you’ll hear why.
The Chain
I suppose it’s worth running through my chain and for the super bored, I’ll detail a few things I
do in the master process. But I won’t go into every detail. That’s just too much to ask of you. I
can’t let you fall asleep yet. After all, you’re driving in traffic right now, correct? I hope not….

I use two DAW’s. One is Studio One Professional, and the other, Wavelab Pro. These allow me
to play from one and capture the recording on the other. I can accomplish this on a single
computer.

My chain flows like this:

57
1. Pitcher DAW 1 (Studio One). I use this DAW to set up all songs to pre-master.
In pre-mastering, I use EQ, compression, etc. to tailor all the songs in a collection, EP,
album, or compilation to sound as if they will appear on the same CD, for example. I’m
not concerned here with where the music’s going. I’m more concerned with it all
sounding cohesive in context and similar in tonal quality overall.

2. Digital-to-Analog Conversion (DAC) - I use a Benchmark DAC3
One of the absolute best DACs, and not extremely expensive. Probably the best one for
dealing with USB-jitter. I also use Audioquest Carbon 1-meter USB cables.

3. SPL Gemini M/S Processor
This provides M/S processing in an FX loop where either Mid or Side can be solo’d or
deactivated, but also provides an elliptical filter and stereo spread processor.

4. Chandler Limited TG12345 “Curvebender”
A supremely fine (and well-built) mastering equalizer. I use this for boosting, mostly. It’s
probably better than a lot of plugin-boosts, especially if dramatic--but mastering is never
supposed to be dramatic with EQ.

5. Elysia nVelope
Transient shaper, one that can do a great job recovering lost punch, but I find it has an
incredible Baxandall like EQ function. So, it can be either/or.

6. Return to the SPL Gemini, then onto the Black Box HG-2.
I can’t stress enough the goodness this tube unit provides for most masters. Brian Lucey
inspired me with his Fairman EQ using Amperex Bugle Boy output tubes. I managed to
find a matched set of Amperex Holland 12AT7 tubes to saturate a mix with. They add a
3D quality to a mix, that I don’t believe even the plugin provides. But these tubes are
really something! A must hear!

7. Analog-to-Digital Conversion (ADC)
I return to the digital world with a CraneSong ADC, the HEDD-192. One of the things I
like most about it is the fact that I can’t seem to get it to do bad things to the mix!

8. Back to the catcher DAW 2 (Wavelab Pro).
In Wavelab I will capture the mix in time, having passed each song through the analog
chain once. After that, I can save that capture and use it for the final ITB mastering
session. This way, the analog goodness is always there, and never changes. Now, I only
need to finalize the masters for the different formats. This is post-processing.

The analog chain is quite simple, but offers a few options, especially in regards to M/S
processing. Mid/Side (M/S) processing allows EQ and other changes to only affect the middle of
58
the mix or the sides (left and right) of the mix. M/S is an encoding and decoding of the music.
It’s done as sum and difference. Any information that is heard in both speakers is considered
summed. Any information that only appears in either the left or right speaker is considered the
difference. And this is not a hard-fast technology.

If you think of the left and right channels (White=Left, Red=Right) of a turntable or CD player as
having a left and right RCA cable, this diagram might help. When the signal is encoded as M/S,
think of everything in the middle of the mix (between the speakers) as going through the white
RCA connection, and everything in the sides (outside the speakers, far left and right) going only
through the red RCA connection. By encoding the signals that way, I can use a stereo EQ (the
Curvebender) to make EQ changes on either the middle or sides of the mix. Afterward, the M/S
is decoded back into left/right stereo. I can also bypass M/S and keep it all stereo.
M (Mid)
The Mid is everything between the speakers, such as a lead vocal, kick and snare, and bass
guitar (usually). If the sound seems to come from between your speakers, this would essentially
be the MID. Imagine being able to make EQ and compression changes to just the MID.
S (Side)
The Side is both far left and right side audio that seems to come from outside the range of the
speakers, left and right. Knowing this, I can make EQ changes to things like rhythm guitars
panned hard/left, or backing vocals, meanwhile minimize affecting anything in the middle of the
mix.

M/S processing is a major tool in a mastering engineer’s wheelhouse.

59
Plugins
O baby! I cannot begin to describe the addiction I have for plugins, but I’m not quite crazy...yet!
I’ve loved plugins since the Waves Q10 caught my attention (and that was late, in early 2000!).
Ever since I began working with a few Waves plugins, I began to catch a fever. They’re SO
EASY! I thought the parametric EQs in the likes of the Yamaha O2R and AW4416 two decades
ago or more were easy enough. When I purchased my first DAW, and the plugin was usable for
me, I couldn’t not have it!

Today, plugins have jumped ahead by leaps and bounds. What was once a dark corner of code is
now a reality for many plugin builders! Even people you know might make their own plugins!
More, the plugins are far less expensive than we could have ever imagined (at least for me). Even
more, plugins are routinely outperforming the hardware that costs thousands more dollars!

Even, EVEN more, we’re theoretically going to run out of hardware to emulate faithfully.
Perhaps we’ll go back and re-emulate hardware with new and improved modeling technologies.
Maybe one day, we’ll maybe see plugin modelling of older plugins! Ha.

I can’t believe how easy it’s gotten to produce professional-sounding recordings that not only
rival that of major label studios, but even the techniques and production that, although timeless,
doesn’t keep up any longer. I mean that playfully, but sincerely. There are some stellar
recordings made in the past, but the limitations were there. Most of the limitations are no
longer. So, there’s no excuse to do any worse! Err, actually...it depends on the engineer.

I do have a lust for plugins, in that I will find myself watching videos of plugins I’ve seen 100
times before. I just find the plugin is beautiful if it’s got a story behind it and a demonstration of
a master engineer using it. It’s even fun to read about Grammy winning engineers using plugins
that are 20 years old! It’s just a rainforest of plugin fun, and I can’t get enough!

“If this is a dream, may I never wake up. If this is real, may I never sleep.”

Wasn’t that quote from Karate Kid II? Miyagi’s father? I believe so. That’s how I feel about my
significant other, and how I feel about mastering and plugins! When you enjoy something this
much, you’ll never stop living.

Some of my favorite plugins right now are:

BOZ - Sasquatch, Imperial Delay, and Big Clipper are all useful and great. Others as well.

DMG Audio - Equillibrium, Multiplicity, EQuality - Nearly everything Dave Gamble and DMG
make is fabulous, and g enerous!
60

EastWest - QSpaces and Spaces II (Altiverb has some amazing convolution reverbs), but
EastWest has recently upped the game with Spaces II. Wow!

Eventide - Elevate Bundle. Can solve some problems better than anything else. Quite
transparent!

Fabfilter - Pro L2, a very transparent but loud limiter. It’s deceptively simple. I also love the Q3.

Kazrog - KClip3 and True Iron (both amazing!) True Iron is a secret-sauce form mix and
mastering.

MeterPlugs - Dynameter has been an awesome tool to help guide me on loudness for different
platforms. Easy to use, and no B.S., I also love Loudness Penalty, which is either a plugin or
website. It’s accurate!

Plugin Alliance - I love the Elysia Alpha, SPL Iron, Shadow Hills Class A compressor, VSC-2
compressor, Townhouse, and Metric A/B (amazing tool!), to name a few! Metric has also released
a fabulous new plugin called Streamer, which thus far has been the most telling of how your
music will sound on different streaming platforms.

Slate Digital - I’m not 100% on the company name, but Steve Slate/Slate Digital’s Trigger 2 is
my favorite Drum-replacement (after Drumagog took a vacation), but it does need a bit of a
facelift. Slate also has a killer EL Distressor emulation. I love it! I just wish they didn’t require a
channel bank (multi-slot chassis) engine to use it.

Soundtoys - Decapitator, DevilLoc Deluxe

Softube - Weiss MM-1 Maximizer, and Drawmer S73 (both of these are secret-sauce for
mastering!)

Sonable - I really like the smart:com because of the spectral compression functionality. It’s a
different way to think about multi-band compression.

Sonalksis - (Sienda) CQ1 and DQ1, a very underrated pair of dynamic EQ and dynamic
compressor. These are the only plugins I’m aware of that allow dynamic EQ and compression
with dual thresholds! An oldie but goodie! I’m not kidding! I used this to play with Rush’s Presto
after Adam Ayan re-mastered it.

Waves - Pioneers of the plugin market. I’ve owned the Mercury bundle for some time, and
Waves, not really a trend-setter much anymore, keeps bringing new plugins on-board quite
often. Some are turned off by the WUP Support plan, but you don’t have to stay in it. Some
plugins I use the most are the Waves SSL 4K VCA compressor, the PuigTec EQs, L3-16,
61
Sibilance, CLA Compressors, API, SSL Channel Strips for mixing, F6, H-Delay, and many
others. I love the Waves Vinyl and I believe it was part my idea, but Waves will never admit it,
it’s ok, I have some corroboration to my suggestion (and their acknowledgement) 2+ years before
it’s release. Still, it’s a really great plugin! It was even cooler to see Yoad Nuvo and Dave
Darlington walk you through it. I use it to check my vinyl masters or provide vinyl-sounding
demos.

Anyway, I’ve got a few hundred others, some great, some awful, but I can do pretty much
anything now with the power. It’s hard to imagine what’s left undiscovered. I think the world of
plugins has a strong future and there’s no way they will die out (I imagine).

I will say, there’s one significant, but understandable shelf-life limit of a plugin. Computers.
Apple recently released Mac OS Catalina, which no longer supports 32-bit applications. This
means you would need a “bridge” software to encapsulate a 32-bit plugin to even use it, and
that’s bound to slow you down--if you can even install your 32-bit plugins. Case in point. We’ll
just say, in the mid-2000’s I purchased a $1399 digital equalizer plugin that Bob Katz raved
about. It was 32-bit only, but revered as perhaps t he best digital EQ plugin on the market.

The problem was that, over time the company who sold the plugin experienced a change of
priority. They didn’t develop a 64-bit version of the plugin. I alone requested updates from them
multiple times over the course of 4-5 years, and the last response was “we’re still working on it”.
Then, nothing. Now, it’s all but unusable. $1399 is worthless now. That said, another developer
acquired the code of the defunct EQ, produced a 64-bit version and now sells it online as a
phoenix-like new life for the old plugin. The sad thing is, previous owners of the plugin don’t
even have the benefit of a new-purchase coupon/discount. I understand, it really is an entirely
different company. I’m not bitter.

Nevertheless, a piece of hardware only needs to worry about failing capacitors and other
internal components that one day perhaps won’t be replaceable, but it’ll outlast the plugins!
Back to Mastering

Time to reign this book in. To be fair, I don’t expect everyone to fully understand or appreciate
every tiny aspect of this book but I hope maybe there’s a few sections you find quite useful and
fun. The general goal here is to simply give you something fun to take advantage of and to let
you see a little more into the mastering studio so you can feel like you’re part of it.

When you’re ready to master you may now know a lot more about my process and how easily I
can add value to your project. You can certainly see that mastering is not really a mystical
subject and, while it’s a form of black magic of sorts, it shouldn’t be scary or be seen as a
necessary evil. It should be seen as a bonus, knowing you will get the best treatment your music
can benefit from.

62
The End
Don’t let yourself be bogged down by the mass of information available. Some of it is useful, I
know, and I agree, some of it is not. It’s easy to be confused, and it’s easy to get lost in what a
full production album or song requires to be commercially successful. The mindset you need to
start with is great music, and practice! I can’t stress that enough! After that, find people who are
good at recording, mixing, and mastering. Then, jump in and don’t get out of the pool until the
release is ready. Keep pressing through until you see the end. It’s worth it.

Have a plan, and set it in motion. Don’t take too many breaks. They can be counter-productive.
Don’t let the technical stuff throb your brain. Just get the sound you want and don’t let anyone
simply tell you it’s wrong. It’s never ‘wrong’. It’s interpretation. Some of the best songs in
history sound awful. Some of the worst music in history sounds amazing. Just dedicate yourself
to doing the best work you can, and rely on a team to get you through it with their expertise.

Again, if you have any questions, please email me at b rian@soundporter.com. I typically
respond within 24 hours or less.

Thank you and make some awesome music!

63

Ebook Prepping For The Master - 3.2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebook Prepping For The Master - 3.2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prepping ​For The Master

To my girlfriend, Maricela, who has

Revision 3.2, 01/22/21

Table ​of Contents

Phase 2 - Payment and First Master

Why ​Am I Here?

Comfortability ​of Soundporter

The ​Free Master

Choosing ​a Mastering Engineer

What ​Is Mastering?

Back ​To Choosing a Mastering Engineer

Take this as good news. Finding the right mastering engineer can be easy if you know what you

Know what you like

Send me notes….or not

Audition the demo masters

Instant Online Mastering Services

Choosing ​Formats​ ​(Mediums)

be heard more than just sitting on a digital shelf waiting to be chosen. One strategy is to

Can I provide them to you?

Phase 1 - Before mastering

Phase 2 - Payment and first masters

Phase 4 - Master the rest

Phase 5 - Final Assembly

Phase 1​ - Before Mastering

What I Listen For

Some mixing tips, from a Mastering engineer

How do you prefer the mixes?

there’s just nothing wrong with the ​mix​. My job is to take that mix and bring up the level

many metering plugins such as Brainworx bx_meter have a quick way to check it. Plugin

What’s your Loudness Level?

The Loudness Wars

when submitted to streaming services. There are mastering engineers who will give you a single

Phase 2​ - Payment and First Master

Out of the box

Listen to the master

The Iterative Master

Phase 4​ - Master The Rest

Phase 5​ - Final Assembly and Exports

What if I want some songs to flow into others?

Confidentiality and Privacy

My Mastering​ Room ​The really boring (or geeky) stuff!

Enter the Egglestonworks Andra II.

The Mastering Desk

Back ​to Mastering

You might also like

Prepping For The Master

Table of Contents

Why Am I Here?

Comfortability of Soundporter

The Free Master

Choosing a Mastering Engineer

What Is Mastering?

Back To Choosing a Mastering Engineer

Choosing Formats (Mediums)

Phase 1 - Before Mastering

there’s just nothing wrong with the mix. My job is to take that mix and bring up the level

Phase 2 - Payment and First Master

Phase 4 - Master The Rest

Phase 5 - Final Assembly and Exports

My Mastering Room The really boring (or geeky) stuff!

Back to Mastering