'homestudio mastering' versus professional mastering

[Alexander Jamal]

Hello,

I have been lurking around the forums trying to learn about the 'Mastering' process. I have learned alot and wanted to throw out some ideas and see what people thought on home studio (software) mastering versus professional mastering.

I believe that the mastering equipment used, and the expertise of a professional can add a tangible amount of quality to a CD. But for a band just starting out, trying to get gigs and maybe sell/give out some cheap cd's.. it seems that a full blown professional studio/mastering session would not be needed (this IS the home-recording website right?).

The software available cannot truly emulate the existing professional harware..but it's getting closer and closer.. I believe you would hear a huge difference in a 'Mastered' CD if you were a professional band with great gear and tons of time in the studio.. but for all the rest of us (homestudio).. the difference in the software isn't that great

so my question is.. do the professional mastering engineer's believe the mastering software (used correctly and with a decent mixdown) out today can produce a good enough demo to hand out (ie. get shows at bars/clubs) to the point where the music is listenable ?

after all the music itself is at least as important (if not more) than the producing job

thanks,
alex jamal

-------below I put some observations from my home/mastering attempt

After messing around with mastering software and burning alot of cd's (aka coasters).. it seems that most home-studio people who can't get 'decent' recordings onto cd just don't understand the tools that they already have.

IF I had known that when you mixdown, that the high end (7k-10k) gets wayyy attenuated and needs to be boosted BEFORE any of the fine EQ/Compression/Limiting ect... then I would have saved alot of time and CD's

The high freq. boost was a boost that was necessary for my recording/mixing setup and that particualr song.. everyone's setup will be different and must be compensated for... this just takes time and attention to detail..not a $1000 mastering job..

HAR-BAL, or an 'EQ ripper' or the snapshot/realtime function in Ozone are NOT CRAP... and they are way more valuable than the 'Professional' mastering engineers let on. They are LEARNING TOOLS to help the newbies understand how the frequency response can drastically affect the recording/ AND how different processing steps (ie.. mixing,compression,ect..) can affect the frequency response..(people mastering should constantly be looking at the spectrum)

for all you home-recording people without the big bucks for mastering.. try this..

1. Use Har-Bal,Ozone, or a spectrum analyzer to compare your mixed down track with an older recording.. I've been using the old Black Sabbath records.. try early 80's and 70's recordings.. because those won't have all that 'excited high end' that modern stuff has added AFTER the initial EQ

2. After mixxing down your track.. compare the frequency analysis of your track with the older recording.. and EQ the mixdown until it is CLOSE to your reference.. up to 10KHz... (many of the old sabbath recordings cut off at 10K)..

3. what will probabaly happen is that the 7-10KHz freq range will need to be super boosted to match the shape of the reference..

4. once this is done the wave will actually shrink on the screen but become clearer.. everything will stand out.. some of the mud will be lifted

5. NOW comes the black magic voodoo where your monitors and your experience come into to play.. you need to adjust the EQ to preference..this is where every song is different and where more than one set of ears and speakers are helpful... my problem with 'professionals' is that at this stage it is up to thier opinion.. and they can drastically change a song.. sometimes good.. sometimes bad.. bottom line though it is usually out of the artists immediate control...(thats why Eddie. VH built 5150 studios)

6. if you can't eq it to a sweet position.. then go back to the mixing stage and find your problem instrument and fix the problem on that track..

7. After this perform your standard Mastering chain.. slightcompress/stereo/reverb/limit ect...

8. use an exciter to create harmonics in the 10k-16K range, you can try to mess with the EQ there but do it carefully and using your ears.. that is to give it the 'polished' sound (another way may be to run it through an analog processing stage..maybe some very slight tube saturation could create the right effect)..

9. If the software/hardware can't make it sound good then leave it alone..and just worry about up to 10K.. at that point people should be able to hear the music clearly enough to look past the "non-professional" tone...

10. My Theory on the 'HOT' recordings of today are that they are good for the radios/record companies and studios because they are so trebly that people will ear-fatigue to them much sooner than alot of the older recordings.. this makes people seek out more music (ie. more money for the record co., studios, new bands ect..).. where's my proof? where are the modern-day big-following mega bands of the 70's-early 80's... every new band these days is a 'fling of the month' then everyone is into somebody else.. why is this? I think partly to do with all the 'Hot' matering going on.. the last big bands with supportive followings were Pearljam and Nirvana..recorded earl 90's.. BEFORE the ultra limiting/level boosting really started kicking in..

10. give your music a chance to win people over..it doesn't need uber-polishing if the music is good

11. I think the professional mastering engineer's are generally very helpful on the forums..I just wish they weren't so biassed towards 'their way'... they should be supportive of newbies.. and let them know that Home-Studio people can make decent sounding music (just takes time/patience..like anything else) and maybe that $50,000 mastering studio setup should be payed for and used by the record company and their signed bands.. instead of an up and coming band who just wants to test the waters

ie.. instead of saying 'gotta have it done professionally or <insert generic sarcastic comment here> ', they should use their knowledge to find out why people are getting bad results, and help them find a happy medium that doesn't cost an arm and a leg..
encourage people.. and maybe someday one of us newbies will revolutionize the industry

I should have some songs up on myspace soon if there is any interest..or anyone wants to call out my home-mastered work

sorry for the long post had some thoughts I wanted to get out. !

[AlexW]

A "decent-demo" is very subjective and can mean different things to different people. It will likely depend in large part on what other bands in your area are doing. If most bands are going into semi-commercial studios to create demos and having them mastered, then your home recorded disc might not stack up as well. If you're going into smaller clubs and the songs on your disc are well played (if maybe slightly sonically inferior) then it may be ok.

At the end of the day, how does your disc sound. If it sounds good, it's fine. If you're happy with it, it's fine. If you don't want to pay to have it mastered, don't. But don't expect people who routinely pay money to have their projects mastered to tell you "no, it really isn't necessary, we're just throwing our money away."

As far as your lengthy post-post goes, I'd just say trying to match EQ waveforms on reference CDs can be tricky. It's better just to use your ears the whole time. Good luck.

[Bartman]

Interesting perspective AJ.

I'm looking forward to the "spirited" responses/counterpoint that will most likely follow soon.

Bart

[Alexander Jamal]

To AlexW,

Thanks for your reply.

Just to be clear though, I did not say try to 'match EQ waveforms' between the reference song and the mixdown. I said to come CLOSE to it. This is the step I used to make that huge intial treble boost that compensated for the mixing stage (yes mixing affects the freq. response). Once that was done, it seemed that the track became much more sensitive to the EQ and every other processing stage. Therefore I could use much less processing at each stage without 'overcompensating' with all the different plugins

Don't get me wrong, I don't think everyone has the ability (ears), or the time, or the patience, to fine tune EQ/compress/limit a mix. So there are definate times to use a mastering house (IMO)..

also, as much as a 'decent-demo' is very subjective, so is a 'decent-master'..

let me think of a better way to ask the question..

Is the home mastering software out there today good enough for producing a small time demo cd to the point that the CD is judged more on the music than on the production ?

[AlexW]

I think the easiets way to answer that is what does your CD sound like in relation to commercial releases in the same genre?

[Massive Master]

Originally Posted by Alexander Jamal

Is the home mastering software out there today good enough for producing a small time demo cd to the point that the CD is judged more on the music than on the production ?

Absolutely.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

AJ,

What you are asking about is whether the tools are good enough to accomplish the job. In the right hands a LOT can be done with basic tools.

Colonial furnituremakers had only what we would consider the crudest of hand planes, hand chisels and the like. The more professional ones may have had foot-pedal-powered, belt-driven lathes and stuff like that. OK, the best may have had a small factory powered by a central cam driven by a waterwheel, but that's not the issue. The fact is they were able to craft excellent quality furniture without things like laser-guided electric bandsaws or computer-controlled lathes. Because they knew how to get the best out of the tools they had and they had the expertise to do so.

On the other hand, put even the best of todays woodworking tools in the hands of someone who can barely use a hammer, and not only do you wind up with crappy furniture, but you risk loss of limb and life.

Now, mastering a demo disc may not have the physical danger that can be involved with woodworking (unless you stick that mini headphone plug into the AC outlet ) but the principle is the same.

Yes, a quality demo disc can be mastered well enough on prosumer gear if the engineer knows his tools and techniques. And that doesn't necessarily that you have to be a master craftsman of an engineer, but you do have to have at least some experience or at least practice to know what buttons to push and what ones to leave alone to get the sound you want.

And, on the other hand, if you take someone like me with some experinece and knowledge, but with in reality only intermediate skills no where near a Jedi master's and plop me down in front of an AMS/Neve console the size of an aircraft carrier with a supporting fleet of a half million dollars of UA preamps, Neumann mics and Manley compressors, you'll still wind up with a less-than-Jedi-master quality job because I just don't have enough experience on that level yet.

Don't worry about the tools, they won't limit your performance until your performance can surpass them.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go soak my thumb in ice for a while. Damn hammers...

G.

[mattamatta]

Somebody's bound to bring up the fact that an important part of getting someone else to master your stuff is the objective opinion - you can never really separate yourself from the work you've done and look at it purely in terms of what's there. Often another pair of ears will instantly hear things that you would never notice because you've been surrounded by them for so long.

And then there's the aspect of listening on the same speakers on the same room, and you're gonna make the same mistakes you did in the mix, rather than catch them.


I guess that somebody is me.

[Alexander Jamal]

Thank you for all the responses.

AlexW: you mean semi-commercial releases right?

MassiveMaster: thank you, I needed some encouragement...after about 40 burned coasters I was close to giving up (and essentially ending the band cuz we collectively had no more money, and had nothing to give out to get shows or generate interest)

SSGlen:you are right, experience is the key... gotta keep on learning trying learning trying.. ect.. keep aiming for improvment in little steps and the end result can be great.. we all had to start somewhere.. and I think the software out today gives us newbies a much greater starting spot than any previous generation of ME...from the comfort of our living rooms (or padded basements or bathrooms or any other acoustically-clever room in the house)

mattamatta: good points.. that's why I said have additional set of ears.. I am more interested in how the casual listener (preferably NOT a friend or other pre-biased person) hears my song out of his boombox or car..hence the great number of cd burns.. I've been trying the mix in two sets of headphones.. two computers (speakers), my car, my roomies car, roomies surround sound system (ouch... hehe).. AND my mixing monitors..(in mono,stereo, inverted LR when possible)

Again I do think the Profesisonal Mastering can add a great deal to a song, but in the end..once the song is clearly heard (slight eq/comp/limit), I think it will be the music itself that has the greatest impact on how the cd is received.

[Massive Master]

If you want encouragement, don't look so far down the road...

Read my sig...

[dgatwood]

Originally Posted by Alexander Jamal

IF I had known that when you mixdown, that the high end (7k-10k) gets wayyy attenuated and needs to be boosted BEFORE any of the fine EQ/Compression/Limiting ect... then I would have saved alot of time and CD's

Wait... are you saying that you're getting significant attenuation of HF in your mixed-down versions but not when you're previewing the tracks? If so, it's time to get better audio software. You shouldn't hear any audible difference unless your mixing software really sucks, and by sucks, I mean "is of lower quality than something I would write while half asleep, drunk, and stoned, with electrodes attached to my testicles".

Or do you just mean that your mics don't have much HF response and/or are too warm?

Or do you mean that the character of the sound seems dull after compression? If so, you might be overcompressing, or you may want a faster slew rate on the compression. You may even find that certain parts don't want to be compressed, in which case, automating your mix levels more precisely might be a better fit.

You might also find that compression causes different tracks to be emphasized, which can result in very different perceptions of EQ. If so, you'll also find problems with perceived relative volume when you listen on different sets of speakers. This can be a royal pain to fix, but you really need to do so. Plastering over that sort of problem will end up biting you in the end. See my comments below for ideas that might help.

Originally Posted by Alexander Jamal

2. After mixxing down your track.. compare the frequency analysis of your track with the older recording.. and EQ the mixdown until it is CLOSE to your reference.. up to 10KHz... (many of the old sabbath recordings cut off at 10K)..

For those of us who can hear up past 20k, we'll get very pissed off if you stop listening at 10k.

Originally Posted by Alexander Jamal

3. what will probabaly happen is that the 7-10KHz freq range will need to be super boosted to match the shape of the reference..

For a lot of consumer dynamics, that's true. I'm thinking about the PG58 in particular when I say that.... For a lot of other inexpensive mics (like my $6 AKGs), the reverse is true---really tinny response that requires a boost in the mids somewhere to compensate. Your mileage may vary, depending on your mics....

If you find yourself having to do severe corrections across the board, though, you should probably change one of two things: A. your mics, B. your reference CD....


Some other bits of advice:

Do critical listening for EQ of each track, then again for each timbre group (e.g. all the vocals, all the stringed instruments, etc.). Finally, do this again, grouping together all the instruments in a given pitch range. This is especially important with vocals. Make each of the vocal tracks sound as much alike as you can, EQ-wise.

In particular, when listening to these subgroups, listen and watch for massive changes in the waveform when different instruments, vocals, etc. come in. Filling a hole in the spectrum can be a good thing, but finding that one instrument in a given pitch range has a long tail going off to the right while another one rolls off sharply at 10kHz... bad thing....

Nothing bugs me more than hearing a CD where when the choir comes in, the whole EQ seems to change because some engineer used a close-up dynamic for the solo parts (warm sound) and a distant dynamic (or condenser) for the chorus (cold/tinny sound) and didn't do anything to make the presence even halfway match between the tracks.

Even worse, though, IMHO, is rolling off the highs because a vocal part is too bright. Resist the urge to roll off vocals (except perhaps any LF rumble), and instead, adjust the presence by boosting/lowering appropriate midrange frequencies instead. Make the sound brighter by boosting the upper formants. Make it warmer by boosting the lower ones. Tweak to suit.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Massive Master

If you want encouragement, don't look so far down the road...

Read my sig...

John can you elaborate on your signature? It's a bit vague.

Not to be a smart ass but the first thing that I do before I ever press the "RECORD" button for the first time is to take a crap, have a cigarette or both.

[ryanlikestorock]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

John can you elaborate on your signature? It's a bit vague.

Not to be a smart ass but the first thing that I do before I ever press the "RECORD" button for the first time is to take a crap, have a cigarette or both.

I wouldn't say these things are "the most important", but they're right up there, no?

[Massive Master]

I was talking about turning off the oven - Otherwise it could potentially start a fire, and that would ruin the session.

And warming up the lava-lamps...

But seriously, for the unitiated (just in case), there's no substitute for instruments that sound good "at the core" - Great sounding instruments properly tech'd for the session - Whether that means new strings every half-hour of playing time, new heads on drums, a proper *tuning of the drums* or what not. Pre-production and what goes into it will always rule a recording's potential more than anything that will be done to it later.

[Alexander Jamal]

dgatwood: thanks for the feedback...

yes I was incorrect.. I'm not sure why the consistant dropoff in that range but it seems it's on all of my tracks.. I't may be inherent in my A/D converter (mAudio Delta 44 ?)...

The strange thing is that the tracks all come from different sources (keys direct in, drums mic'ed w/ 4-track, guitars direct in from digital pedalboard)..

what seemed to work the best was boosting the snare/cybals (both on the same track.. long story) and tweaking them before the mixdown.. then doing a slightly less severe pump of the hf range after mixdown...

I guess I should have stated it clearer..that you have to recognize and compensate (aka Calibrate) your recording and listening environment... that is something that is usually looked over.. I think a great way to begin calibrating your setup isto use other people's finished recordings as comparison...

great idea about the EQing in subgroups..I had been mixing like that but also EQing would be even better

I think I used .3db of opto compression on the mix after mixdown.. no other compression after mixdown.. (I've tried the pancaking approach.. it saves time..but it sounds like crp.)

Vocals.. oops I did roll them off slightly starting around 12K I think.. they still seem ok (so far) but I will keep that in mind in the future.. (file: yet more ways to properly EQ a signal)

as far as the sabbath tunes only up 10K.. 'Electric Funeral' seems to still stand up to todays recordings.. (guess I'm biased tho).. I mean.. I can zone into the songs and I'm not thinking about how the guitars could be cripser or the drums more excited or anything..

My goal at this point is to get people to listen, not think about the lower quality production, and get caught up by one of the song hooks.. hopefully that's a realistic goal.. (assuming the songs are good enough)

[Farview]

This is about the 4th thread I've seen in 24 hours that someone is asking if it is possible to master your own stuff with plugins. When someone says that it isn't a good idea, the original poster defends the DIY approach. You don't need anyones permission to master your own music. Yes, it is possible. If you want the most professional results, it isn't a great idea. Just go do it, if you are happy with the results, you are much farther ahead of the game than most big 'rock star' types with large recording budgets.