MP3 examples of songs before and after MASTERING?

Robertt8

Robertt8

New member
Anyone have mp3 examples of songs, before and after mastering? I'm curious how much difference it REALLY makes to the song. Especially being able to hear what the song sounds like before mastering. And...I'm not referring to the mastering option on some recorders like I've got with the VS-880EX. All that seems to do is make it a bit louder.

I'd love to hear em' if anyone's got em'.

Thanks!
Tait
 
Robertt8 said:
And...I'm not referring to the mastering option on some recorders like I've got with the VS-880EX. All that seems to do is make it a bit louder.
Click to expand...

Then you must not know how mastering really works. The MTC program on the VS card is acually quite good. Especially condifering what you get for the price of a $300 EFX card.
 
By the way....you have to start with everything off. As in, no expansion, no, compression, no limiting, no boosting, etc. Then you turn on one at a time and make it somewhat neutral.....then you can tweek it a bit. Then proceed to the next one and so on.
 
I'm not saying I'm an expert. I run all my tunes through one of those mastering options and notice little other than increased volume and some variations of EQ.

True I'm not fine tuning those particular settings, but I still notice a HUGE difference between what the pros do and what I do. Now that's what I'm trying to figure out...maybe that's all Mastering does, but if I can't hear the before and after song, then I can't tell if I'm doing all I can do before it reaches that state.

if the before song sounds (Quality wise) as good as mine than I'm golden. If mine still sounds like ass compared to this one, then I know I've got some serious learning to do in the tracking and mixing portion.

All just a learning experience.
 
It is a learning process, and first you need to learn what mastering is and what a mastering engineer does before you can even begin to fully comprehend any of this.

The fact that you still don't know or understand why there's such a huge difference between what the pros do and what you do is further indication that there is a lot of learning ahed for you.

The next step is to learn what those differences are and why they exist. Then you'll be back to square one. :D

So strap in, and enjoy the ride.
 
Take everyone's word for it.

Just take everyones word for it. Mastering makes a huge difference. You should try sending out one of your mixes to a Mastering Engineer to hear the differences for yourself.

Good luck,
sonicpaint
 
I agree with sonicpaint that mastering does make a big difference, but It will NOT change the quality of your music, It wont change the quality of your recording. If your music doesn't rock how it is, you cant expect it to rock after mastering.
Now of course a good mastering engineer can improve what you have, but if you give him a bad recording to work with, its not going to turn into a commercial professional recording...
If that was the case, wouldn't all studios use something as simple as the VS-880EX if they were gonna get similar results???
Scott
 
Yup, I agree.

That mastering thingy is nonsense. You might be able to improve one song moderately but it wouldn't even come close to helping a whole LP. Only a good Mastering Engineer can do that.

As Scott said bad recordings can be made to sound better but you can't get a diamond from a pile sh@t. You know what I mean?

Good mixes are made into great songs and LP's but though bad mixes can be improved they can't revamped into something that wasn't in the audio file to begin with. (unless taken back to the studio to do more overdubs)

sonicpaint
:D
 
CHESSROCK: Thanks for responding! I've got the general idea of Mastering. I'm not saying there's NOT a huge difference between mastering and not mastering. I AM saying I've never done mastering and have never had one of my tunes mastered, so I have no idea first hand exactly what is different from one that is mastered and one that isn't. That is why I'm looking for MP3's before and after to help aid in my knowledge.

So I'm all strapped in and ready to learn!

SONICPAINT: I'd LOVE to send a tune or two out to a mastering house. I'm just too damn broke now. I need a new set of tires on the piece of shit first.

SCOTT MELLISH: Again, I agree that mastering should help the song considerably. I've just never heard a "before" and "after" to hear what it sounded like before it became a beautiful mastered tune.

As for whether or not my tunes suck and no amount of mastering could help...I guess that's subjective, but you're all welcome to listen to a tune or two and let me know if you think mastering would be worth it...

http://bob.birdsallinteractive.com/

Thanks!
tait
 
The tunes are good.

I think the songs are good and though some Equalizing and compression would help to tighten the mix a bit, it's not that bad. I didn't listen for too long but I did notice some tonal differences between two songs, which was nothing too drastic. Over all I don't think your songs need all that much (from the short time I listened).

When you can afford it, I'd suggest finding someone that will do some level correction and sequencing equalization for cheap. I think your music would benefit from those corrections with out braking the bank on you. Now keep in mind much more can be done but I call those the "frills" or "extras" that also cost more because of the time.

Now if you'd like to know how much it would cost, it can very from $25 to $75 bucks a half hour if not more. So look around I'm sure someone will offer to do it for a reasonable price. Maybe someone in the forum?

Hope this was of some help.
sonicpaint
 
Perhaps I am reading something into this that I should'nt.

But it seem to me that Robertt8 (like most of us) would like to have some reference point as to whether his mixes are at a good enough level to translate into a winner after mastering, or whether he still has a way to go on his mixing skills.

I obsess over my mixes to the point I burn out. That doesn't relieve me of the task to do better, but sometimes it would be interesting to hear what (whizbang big mix person's) mix sounded like before it was mastered just as a reference to know whether you can stop farting with your stuff and go on to the next project.

Obviously the more "stellar" your mixes are before mastering, the better after.

Again, I think it is a matter of wanting a reference point.

Tait, I have just sent off an album to a ME for the first time in many years. I will be posting high res MP3s on NoWhere Radio when I get it back (before and after). If you are interested in being notified, shoot me an email.
 
Unfortunately we can't...

Unfortunately I don't think anyone of us is going to be able to get a well known before and after from the "Pros". I think the only approach to coming close to doing this is to get one song of your own Mastered and use that as a reference. I think out of the people on the forum the only person that I know of that does it for a living("Pro")is BlueBear . Check out his site and find out what he'd charge you to do one of your songs and maybe, just maybe he'll be nice enough to explain what he did and where your mixes can use some improvement.

We can't use the CD's we own because of the differences of a raw mix to a final mastered CD. The differences can be so drastic (in some cases unbelievable) that I wouldn't even try.

I say this because it's been a while since I've done recording (actual tracking). I spent a couple of years just on learning Mastering through info on the web and a lot (and I mean a lot) of trial and error, (it was like an addiction) that it hasn't been easy to listen to a raw mix in the same way.

Even in a single song, the things that can be done are amazing! Many people would be shocked.

sonicpaint
 
I have some great examples of my work mastered and non mastered i'll post on nowhereradio this weekend.
 
SONICPAINT: Thanks for listening to a couple songs. when I say Pro, I mean someone who actually get's paid to master. I'm not talking about the guy who Mastered Crash by Dave Matthews or whatever, just some local in San Francisco or whatever. I'm anxious to learn about this stuff.

MTARDIF: thanks for the complement!

TMIX: That is precisely what I was trying to say. Thanks for cleaning up my hacked up attempts!

FENIX: I'd love to hear what you've got as far as mastered and unmastered... thanks!
 
Robertt8 said:
[FENIX: I'd love to hear what you've got as far as mastered and unmastered... thanks! [/B]
Click to expand...

I'll add my "me too" to that. It's absurdly difficult to find examples of "before and after" mastering. Given my own experience with local mastering houses, I have some theories about why this is, but that's a whole other thread.

Chris
 
Just wanted to throw out there that I've heard a couple examples of this where there was only a slight audible difference between the original and the mastered version. But most of the time it seems that it's the slight differences that are cleaned up by the ME.

I actually just got back from the studio where I had the opportunity to listen to a pre-mastered and final radio mastered version. Some friends of mine are working with Tree Studios here in ATL to get their latest single ready for radio. In their particular song, the biggest differences I could pick out immediately was that:
- guitars were pulled out and given a lot more punch
- vocals were cranked up
- the low end was boosted
- they cleaned up the drums (cymbols/hat hits) with a sampled kit
- they brought in extras to do some overdubbing on the lead vocals to give it more presence
- they clipped the intro to bring the song to under 3:20
- compressed the hell out of it (can't really hear it, but you can definitely see it when you load the waveform into an editor)
- eq'd throughout

Think that's about it (I'm sure there's tons more that I couldn't see or hear that was done to it). Pretty interesting to learn what these big studios do to music :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top