The market of mixing and mastering engineers has become overwhelming due to the access of technology. If you look on Fiverr or SoundBetter, you're not likely to have any trouble connecting with even the most modestly priced freelancer on the market. Though you can sometimes find the crème de la crème of engineers there as well, you're most likely going to find engineers that vary from seasoned pros to those with a staged photo, earbuds, and a laptop. Nevertheless, even those just breaking in at $5 per master just might surprise you. YMMV.
What I think is a most interesting topic in mastering is whether to use analog gear or in-the-box (ITB) plug-ins to master with. Now that plug-ins can very capably provide amazing masters, why would anyone spend hundreds of thousands on antiquated analog gear?
The answer is, much like esoteric products in the audiophile circles: there's a market for it!
Engineers often purchase one or two super-amazing EQs, one or two insanely good compressors, a saturation box, a Baxandall EQ, and some useful choices of secondary equipment. But why buy any of that? What's the thought process an engineer goes through before taking out a $100,000 loan to buy hardware that could easily be saved by working in the box with plug-in versions of the same hardware? I think it's largely due to the complexity of a client asking, "where is your mastering room?", or "what do you master on?" and having to answer with the embarrassing truth that you don't have any equipment, right? Or maybe you do have clients that never question you, but you see another engineer's room online and think, "I need to compete!" There's a sense of graduation that still goes on from plug-ins to hardware, when in fact, back in the 1970's engineers often jumped at the new technology and felt they were being "old" or invalidated by not keeping with the latest and greatest digital evolution. Now, they're hunting for the old hardware again. Ironic, isn't it?
Maybe, but I believe there might be some ethereal, euphoric, and gratifying sense that you actually use a "real" studio.
Perception or truth? I think it's a little of both. For me, I only buy analog gear when I find the plug-in version is used almost 100% of the time. But I only buy hardware to do exactly what hardware, and only hardware can do judiciously: color the sound! I can't say I wouldn't love to own many devices that are amazingly Class A or super deep in dynamic range, or fluid in musicality, but unless it has a specific "thing" I seek on nearly every master, I often don't feel the need to replace what's already perfect in the box.
My pieces all have a character. Nothing I have in my desk is meant to be 100% sterile. If it is, I'm sure the mathematical and transparent plug-ins, such as DMG EQuillibrium or Sonoris Mastering Compressor, or FabFilter offerings can more than easily handle the work, and cost very little. After all, there's engineers 100% ITB, and they don't need anything else. The music is still released and attains millions of plays. What is wrong with that?
I often believe that hardware-centric mastering rooms follow some old-school vibes where we all pine for outboard EQs such as a Sontec 430, GML 9500, Avalon 2077, or a Manley Massive Passive. Even compressors have their holy grails, such as a Fairchild, elysia Alpha, Shadow Hills, Neve 33609–you name it! What I always feared is that I would purchase gear that I found to be worth their weight in gold, but then, I end up using the plug-in version for speed and recall. After all, if the master sounds great, why not? ITB is easy and the mastering chain is recalled in seconds vs. a minute or so only in one room only. ITB mastering engineers can master on a cruise ship, sitting in a quiet hotel room in Dubai, or on a train to Prague.
Again, I only sought analog equipment I felt I would use completely, should I master on the hardware. I just can't yet justify going totally outboard and racking up tons of debt or spending my profit on hardware that I end up feeling nailed to, or that I couldn't survive without.
Why would I use analog vs. digital (ITB)? It depends on what the mix tells me at the beginning. If I feel the mix might be already oozing warmth and saturation, I might stick with the plug-ins, and only the clean ones. There's no need to dirty up an already tasteful, warm mix. Conversely, it the mix is clean and probably was recorded and mixed only ITB, you know, maybe the analog gear might really bring out some roundness or analog flavor that's honestly best gained through analog hardware.
So, again, my pieces of gear are specifically tastefully and judiciously acquired to do the work of hardware where it matters most (tone, character, and color). I still believe tubes and transformers still have a ways to go in order to be perfectly modeled. Yes, there are a few plug-ins I use and trust for such things, but oh, how much I enjoy using outboard hardware in the desk. Does it staple me to my chair, yes, but I'm not complaining.
Comments