i forget if i mastered a track

Nola

Nola

Well-known member
i can't remember if i mastered an old track. is there any way to tell? the peaks are at -3 and the rms is -19.

the thing is i wanted to change some things around in the mastering stage (just want to cut a little bass and boost the vocal), and i no longer have access to the mix files. but i don't want to render it twice, so is there any way to tell if it was already mastered? or what are my options in this situation?
 
If you don't have the original tracks how are you going to boost the vocal? EQ? What difference is there if it was 'mastered' or not?
 
mjbphotos said:
If you don't have the original tracks how are you going to boost the vocal? EQ? What difference is there if it was 'mastered' or not?
Click to expand...

i can't boost the vocal itself, but i can boost that eq range and cut the bass, which will brighten the mix. that's what i'd like to do.
if i already mastered it, can i still make those changes? would i have to re-render it?
 
If you're using a non-destructive editor, you'll have to render it. That's exactly the same thing as applying a destructive process and saving. At this point you don't have an option. It doesn't sound the way you want it to, and all you can do is "re-render" one way or another. If it sounds better afterwards, what's the problem?
 
ashcat_lt said:
If you're using a non-destructive editor, you'll have to render it. That's exactly the same thing as applying a destructive process and saving. At this point you don't have an option. It doesn't sound the way you want it to, and all you can do is "re-render" one way or another. If it sounds better afterwards, what's the problem?
Click to expand...

thanks!

does that apply to any process, not just eq? so if i wanted to boost the volume a little more, same thing applies, right?
 
mastering is a comparative craft, not an absolute one.

whether a track is mastered depends comparatively on context with other tracks in a body of work. you're track may be considered mastered with some collections and not with others.
 
Last edited:
Nola said:
thanks!

does that apply to any process, not just eq? so if i wanted to boost the volume a little more, same thing applies, right?
Click to expand...
Ummm...Yes?

In a destructive editor, you run any process or effect and it actually physically changes the file - essentially re-rendering in the process. In a non-destructive editor, you add effects almost like you would in analog, they are processed in (near) real time on playback, but don't actually change the file itself. You have to render that yourself if you want a permantly changed file.
 
The usual rule is that you don't fix in mastering what should have been fixed in mixing.

However, if you no longer have the source files to remix, then you have no choice but to edit the mastered version.

There is nothing special about this master . . . it is just a WAV file, so you can do what you like with it. The only thing you need to take care with is not to boost frequencies and cause parts of the file to go into the red.

As for the advice about not re-rendering . . .I can see that having a place when you are re-rendering lossy files such as MP3s. But for WAV files, there is no real issue there.

In any case, what you would do is load up your original, foll around with it, then save it as something else. Then you still have the original, and can compare the two.
 
Last edited:
i should have wrote "i forgot if i rendered a track" instead of mastered. b/c really that's what i was worried about rending it twice. i guess i'm okay.

thanks all
 
lesprita said:
mastering is a comparative craft, not an absolute one.

whether a track is mastered depends comparatively on context with other tracks in a body of work. you're track may be considered mastered with some collections and not with others.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
 
Nola said:
i should have wrote "i forgot if i rendered a track" instead of mastered. b/c really that's what i was worried about rending it twice. i guess i'm okay.

thanks all
Click to expand...

How does the track sound? There isn't really a reason to consider a track 'mastered' until you compare it with others in a compilation. Yes, you can get levels up and eq, but that really isn't the point.

If you are worried about if you did a poor mastering job, then yeah, you may want the original and start over. If it isn't squashed by limiting or compression, then you can obviously make changes to what you have.

Nobody other than you can really answer that from a sample of the tune.
 
"Rendering" - "Mastering" - Whatever. When you mix, you're rendering. When you make an EQ change, you're rendering. When you're mastering, you're rendering.

You have a track that you want to tweak. If the change makes it better, do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top