Now, If you get to the grammy level of things, well…, that’s a very demanding world in every aspect, even to offer a drink and something to eat to the person that comes to visit your studio will need to have such a high standard that you would probably spend more money in the bottle of whisky and the snack, than in your next upgrade he he
So, it is a little fanciful to compare us with them. The money people move in the high mastering realms are pretty different compared with the amounts I and many VST studio guys handle, let say in radios voiceovers, jingles, presentations and the so, even in TV shows. As I say, for radio, TV shows, presentations, showrooms, little commercials movies for cinema, etc., I do master with SCOPE and VST and people tend to believe I have a mammoth studio because the final results are pretty good.“BUT”, when I engage into any professional project, I never ever allow myself to start with a bad idea (something ineffective), or a bad sound-source in the first place, because I know I don’t have the tools to fix these kinds of problems to perfection in the mastering process, like the big studios have. That is probably why I can do it.
When I have to record something really demanding, the first thing is having new batteries, new strings, clean ideas and very well chosen or made from scratch presets for synths and samples. Guitar and bass takes must be almost perfect, or perfect, otherwise I throw them out to the rubbish bin and start all over again, no compromise accepted here. These takes may take me a few hours so no bad details at all are perceived or a sound is broken, they must be really good. I am very cautious doing what we could call a “cold sighted none-artistic analysis”, in regard with frequencies. I chose meticulously my instruments AT THE BEGINNING of the project with the aim of not getting into EQ too much. I will be very specific in this point: “I avoid getting into the sadly famous cutting frequencies problem to fix the mix”. I would try to use as little EQ as possible for this purpose, the source must be the sound to be used, and I am talking about the first source, not even an EQd bass, so to say. I have to get the sound “from the bass itself”, this is the best way to work for me.
Under these conditions, I can achieve pretty simple but good masters in just a few hours, sometimes immediately depending on the complexity of the song.
I neither use a tone of VSTs to process quality, I go with what is strictly needed to achieve the “character” of a given track, let say, a percussion track, and period, I don’t fool around or get too creative in the process either, as these masters are most of all for voiceover or things of the like, they only need to be well placed, no need to shine, except in rare occasions, for a few minutes.
In one occasion I actually send the tracks of an album to be mastered in Canada, and even if it was a renowned studio, the final result did not impress me much; they achieved a very clear sounding album yes, but so cold... So, I don’t know… I guess that VST mastering tracks have their own place in this world.
Conclusion: There are different mastering strata and many people are actually mastering with VST in low and middle end strata like myself. I doubt very seriously that Avril Lavigne would ever come to see a guy like myself for her mastering needs, but radios and TV shows actually do. I’m sure that if you send one of my songs to be mastered in a big expensive studio of grammy-like-quality, versus my own mastering, the master of the big studio will crash my master years light away, but… is there a need for such a quality there where I move? No, there isn’t, my masters are pretty good for what is needed.
For each engine there is a proper gear!
