Determining the limits of mastering?

SouthSIDE Glen · #1 03-13-2006

These questions are mostly for Tom, John and Brad, but I'll take any and all comers!

When mastering a stereo mix (no stems, etc.) of dubious quality, what flags, tricks, limits, or whatever do you use to determine when you have mastered it as far as it will master? Do you just massage it until it won't go any further or do you have some kind of guidance alng the way that will tell you ahead of time that you'll only be able to polish it so far?

I already know that the $64K answer is, "Expereince"

. But for those of us mixing engineers and editors who are only 2nd- or 3rd-tier MEs at best, any recommendations?

What brings this up is that I am currently working on a project where I have been asked to refurb and punch up some ~20-yr-old mixes. The stuff is 80s non-synth rock on the order of a Squeeze-ish/Elvis Costello feel. I have had no problem getting rid of old tape hiss, restoring response and dynamics, getting decent RMS, etc. But the more I polish these recordings, the more I seem to expose a "harshness" in the upper-mids, right around the 3-3.5kHz area, give or take. I've been trying to massage this harshness out with EQ of every style and color, and even (*shudder*) MBC and MRC, using all the tricks I know, and I can't (to my satisfaction, anyway) get rid of this harshness without throwing the baby out with the bathwater and lobotomizing so much of the content of the song as to make it sound like there's a hole in the upper-mids (how's that for mixing gruesome metaphors?

)

It's not just a simple case of inferior monitoring chain, I don't believe, because it sounds inferior at my desk as much as it does anywhere else (including the car and home stereos and another project studio); it's not a matter of translation. Half of me believes that it's just an inferior mix that can only be polished so far, the other half of me (the self-critical part) thinks that it *has* to be able to sound better, but I'm just not skilled enough to do it.

I can accept either answer from either half of my brain. I'm just not sure how I can tell which is which. How does one tell how much polish any given mix can take?

Any wisdom?

G.

mshilarious · #2 03-13-2006

Ah, I know that problem well. I call it AMS, Amateur Mastering Syndrome. It's a chronic condition for me. Someday, with enough telethons, there might be a cure

I keep telling myself it's the accumulation of too many Beta 57s, but since I'm the tracking engineer, there is no one else to blame

SouthSIDE Glen · #3 03-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshilarious

I keep telling myself it's the accumulation of too many Beta 57s, but since I'm the tracking engineer, there is no one else to blame

Oh yeah, what I'd give to ge my hands on the source tracks and re-mix the whole bunch. I know I could not only fix it, but make it better.

At least part of the problem is buildup from the gits and the vocals all having almost identical formants. I don't know the gear used during tracking, but there could be a lot of identical mics used too.

Part of the reason, I think, that I prefer mixing over mastering. Polishing turds is not my cup of tea.

G.

mshilarious · #4 03-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Part of the reason, I think, that I prefer mixing over mastering. Polishing turds is not my cup of tea.

G.

That's funny, I like tracking, dig mastering, but I can barely tolerate mixing. Too detail-oriented for me. To quote Ratbert, I'm more of an idea rat

FALKEN · #5 03-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshilarious

That's funny, I like tracking, dig mastering, but I can barely tolerate mixing. Too detail-oriented for me. To quote Ratbert, I'm more of an idea rat

yeah I'm in the same boat. I am such a perfectionist that I rarely truly *love* a mix. That said, on to Glen's dilemma.

Perhaps you are attacking the problem from the wrong angle. It seems that as you are driving and as you are driving you are seeing all of the places you can go and it seems like by the time you picked a place you can't exactly get there. When instead it seems you should have picked your destination before you got in the car.

Either that or you are using too many plugins which is causing the fatigue. Have you tried using some outboard gear?

SouthSIDE Glen · #6 03-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by FALKEN

Either that or you are using too many plugins which is causing the fatigue. Have you tried using some outboard gear?

I have used both, but really to a minimum, as necessary. It changes from song to song of course, but for the most part there's typically three passes: EQ (using EA Eqium, which allows me to freely shape the sound in one pass), compress/expand/limit (I've tried inboard and outboard), and the final tweak EQ (outboard dbx2215). That's all I'm using.

It seems that the harshness is there from the outset. It's a combination of old casette brought to digital through cheap converters (before it got to me), the previously mention high-mid heavy EQ on the original tracks, and the use on the original recording of some pretty marginal-sounding 'verb that helps those high-mids amplify even more.

The thing is that as I get the rest of the mix cleaned up, the harshness seems to stand out even more, kind of like sticking out like a sore thumb. As I bring the RMS up (the sources given to me were quite low, even by 80's standards), the harshness really sticks out.

And to those MBC fans out there, before you say anything, yes I have tried isolating the problem freqs using two seperate MBC plugs as well as multi-level compressor plug. The problem is not one of needed expansion or compression, however. The results with these is really pretty similar as it is with the EQs (yes I tried other EQs than the ones listed); I can only remove the unpleasantness by removing the sound.

I'm just not used to not being able to fix something. This is the first time in a long time that I've been in this position, or if I've been in it it's because I *knew* the limits and knew whether something was fixable or not.

The more I write about it and think about it, the more I convince myself that I'll just have to live with a harsh mix, that this turd will not polish much further. But there is still that nagging feeling I get when I listen to it that I *should* be able to fix it, that it *should* be fixable. But when I try nailing it down it always seems to be just out of reach.

G.

SouthSIDE Glen · #7 03-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by FALKEN

Perhaps you are attacking the problem from the wrong angle. It seems that as you are driving and as you are driving you are seeing all of the places you can go and it seems like by the time you picked a place you can't exactly get there. When instead it seems you should have picked your destination before you got in the car.

I undertand what you're saying, and that's a good point. But I'd have to say that I don't believe that is the issue; I have already scrapped one attempt at the first CD (there are actually 3 CD's worth of stuff here to do :P ) and started over again with a different game plan going in, trying to nip the problem in the bud - go to that destination first, so to speak - but the results there were not that different (in fact I think the first attempt actually came out a bit better.)

I also guess the "why" of it - is it the mix or is it me? - doesn't matter much at this point. I guess I was just looking for any tips on how one could see a problem mix limitation coming before beating their head on it and finding out the hard way.

G.

masteringhouse · #8 03-13-2006

Good question G.

The same question can be applied to mixing, how do you know when a mix is as far as you can take it?

I think initally you have to have a goal in mind in regards to where you want to take a track not only sonically, but where it needs to go in regards to feel. From there reach into your bag of tricks. Sometimes the standard ones work, other times I find that you need to be a bit more experimental. The worse thing I feel that you can do is dig into a track with a preconcieved notion of what chain to use.

I also find that it helps to get different perspectives either by letting it sit for a day and return (if a non-attended session) or listen on a few other systems. Remember that signature you inspired me with below! If you find that you're chasing your tail, it's definitely time to stop or at least put it aside for a bit.

Professionally I would say it's done when the client says "WOW", though often times I like to take it a step further (the perfectionist side of me).

Why don't you post the track (before and after if you like), and if you feel you need some suggestions from some back seat drivers I would be happy to chime in.

For digital harshness I would suggest running it through some good analog gear rather than trying to correct it digitally (may just be adding to the harshness/coldness). Personally I like my Chandler LTD-2 to add a bit more of an organic sound to the digitally challenged mixes I get. The color knob on the Ibis EQ is also helpful here, along with things like the Crane Song Phoenix plug, the HEDD, and of course runnning things to analog tape or through tube gear. Each one has it's own color and any one or combination that you use will depend on how it's affecting the mix.

chessrock · #9 03-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Half of me believes that it's just an inferior mix that can only be polished so far, the other half of me (the self-critical part) thinks that it *has* to be able to sound better, but I'm just not skilled enough to do it.

I can accept either answer from either half of my brain. I'm just not sure how I can tell which is which. How does one tell how much polish any given mix can take?

Well ... when you have to come on to a board like this for help, that's probably a good singn that you've reached that point.

And whether or not you feel like you've reached the limits of your own capabilities ... or the limits of the mix itself at this time ... either way, it's probably time to stop, because right now it's the best it's going to get.

If you put it away for a day or two and listen to it again with fresh ears, you'll probably be able to make a more informed determination as to which side of the brain is more accurate. I have just a small hunch that both sides might be in the right at this juncture.

.

SouthSIDE Glen · #10 03-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

The same question can be applied to mixing, how do you know when a mix is as far as you can take it?

Touche'

Other than the #1 answer I have already given: "Experience", I'm not sure how to answer that. I'm not sure if it's that I just have more experience mixing than mastering or whether I have a better ear for one over the other, but I have rarely had an issue with analyzing the tracking and building a mix that at least fairly closely resembles what I had "in mind" after listening to the tracks.

For the matter, the same has mostly been true with mastering or remastering other mixes. Now, I will be the first to admit that I am nowhere near an A-list ME, I have neither the gear nor the experience. But usually I can picture in my head the destination I can pull out of the mix. In this case, though, there is a definite disconnect between what may brain tells me should be possible and what my ears tell me is the result.

You should know from my posts that I am an evangelist of the "let the song define the mix" school of thought, that I usually do not try to impose a mix or a mixing strategy on the song (unless I have tracked from the outset with a particular production in mind, but I get far more mixing jobs than I do tracking/mixing jobs). I try to take the same approach with the "mastering" stuff, and have done so here.

As I say, that's the rub; I "feel" I should be able to tame that harshness; it sounds "fixable" to me. I'm just not happy with my results, and - as much as I like to think I have good a ear and decent technique with many years of experience - I can't tell if I just don't have the chops for this one or whether it just plain unfixable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Professionally I would say it's done when the client says "WOW", though often times I like to take it a step further (the perfectionist side of me).

Maybe I'm just too critical. I last met up with the client a few days ago and told him that I wasn't happy with my results this far; he understood and is not in a great hurry (though I obviously have no intention of keeping him waiting any longer than necessary.) But I did not have him listen to what I had done; for all I know he could have been perfectly happy with it. But I felt that if I wasn't happy with it, I didn't want to put it out with my signature on it. I did have a recording musician friend of mine give some of the tracks a listen and he agreed that the harshness was there, but he didn't seem quite as botherd by it as I was. And he had no strong opinion on it's fixability either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Why don't you post the track (before and after if you like), and if you feel you need some suggestions from some back seat drivers I would be happy to chime in.

I was thinking about something like that. Let me pick out a representative track (there are 17 of them on this first CD) and get it up on the net (I'm stuck with dialup in my studio, so give me a minute to convert this stuff to MP3s and another two minutes to upload them

G.

FALKEN · #11 03-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

I like my Chandler LTD-2 to add a bit more of an organic sound to the digitally challenged mixes I get.

hell yeah. I was thinking about adding a 2nd unit for doing some post-compression. I love mine.

but this isn't about gear.

I know this sounds dumb, but have you tried a simple graphic eq?

SouthSIDE Glen · #12 03-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by FALKEN

I know this sounds dumb, but have you tried a simple graphic eq?

That's what my dbx2215 is, so, the answer would be "yes"

.

As far as outboard warmth, about the best (unfortunately) I have for that is the ART Pro VLA. I do not have that chained in in the example I'll be uploading in a minute, but I did use it in some earlier passes. It did warm up the sound and certainly did not add any harshness, but it did not really get rid of it either. I'll probably wind up using it again, but it's not the panacea I'm looking for.

G.

mshilarious · #13 03-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

That's what my dbx2215 is, so, the answer would be "yes"

.

As far as outboard warmth, about the best (unfortunately) I have for that is the ART Pro VLA. I do not have that chained in in the example I'll be uploading in a minute, but I did use it in some earlier passes. It did warm up the sound and certainly did not add any harshness, but it did not really get rid of it either. I'll probably wind up using it again, but it's not the panacea I'm looking for.

G.

I haven't used the VLA, but the ART MPA, when it warms, tends to add harmonics in exactly that range. Dunno if that would help or hurt

It's interesting that you mentioned the crap verb on the tracks--how prominent is it? Is it a real short '80s style verb? Cause it might not be mastering gospel, but I'm not averse to slipping in a verb on top of a mix

Just don't tell the client

SouthSIDE Glen · #14 03-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshilarious

I haven't used the VLA, but the ART MPA, when it warms, tends to add harmonics in exactly that range. Dunno if that would help or hurt

It's interesting that you mentioned the crap verb on the tracks--how prominent is it? Is it a real short '80s style verb? Cause it might not be mastering gospel, but I'm not averse to slipping in a verb on top of a mix

Just don't tell the client

Well, the harsh is there when I don't use the VLA, so I don't think thats an issue.

The verb varies in intensity from song to song. In some of them it is so prevalent it drives me nutz. I think they may have been going for some "k3wl" effect, but to me it just sounds like spring-loaded mud (yes, in many of them there is a horrendus spring reverb, or at least something that sounds like one.)

In the sample track I uploaded, the verb is not knock you over the head horrible, but it is there. The *last* thing I would want to do to any of thes stuff is add more verb (not counting some verb tails that I added to the end of a couple of the songs, but that's a different story.)

OK, I have uploaded a "before" and a "during" version of one of the tracks to a private server (please don't abuse the d/l privilege people, just those in the conversation so far until I get this stuff over to soundclick).

The "before" version is pretty much the way I received it from the client (except for the conversion to MP3 for this purpose, of course.) The "during" version is the work in progress as I have done on it so far.

EDIT: The uploads have moved since the original post: The new soundclick location is coming shortly...

G.

mshilarious · #15 03-13-2006

The link doesn't work already

Can you put 'em on NL5's site, lightningmp3.com?

SouthSIDE Glen · #16 03-13-2006

Ok, I moved the MP3s to SoundClick.

The "BEFORE" version is an MP3 version of what the client sent me.

The "DURING" version is after some cleanup, to this point.

G.

masteringhouse · #17 03-14-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by FALKEN

but this isn't about gear.

Well I hate to say it, but maybe in this case it is. SG is a very talented engineer from what I can tell through his posts (I haven't heard his work yet). I'm sure that he has aquired quite a few tricks up his sleeve through the years and has a good ear. In this case it may simply be an issue of not having the right tool(s) for the job.

For example, have you ever noticed how much easier it is to get a Stratocaster sound with a Stratocaster than trying to make a Les Paul sound like one with EQ?

mshilarious · #18 03-14-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Ok, I moved the MP3s to SoundClick.

The "BEFORE" version is an MP3 version of what the client sent me.

The "DURING" version is after some cleanup, to this point.

G.

Yeah these guys owe Elvis some royalties eh

I think I used to own that bass in the '80s. It's why I still don't like Precisions

Yeah the "During" sounds heavy on bass, but not evenly--dead spots & wolf notes on a maple fretboard, that's just what mine sounded like. Unfortunately, one of the loud notes is the key of the song, so often it's overbearing. The dreaded MBC might be required to fix.

As for the 3kHz problem, I think you're wanting something that isn't there--like cymbals

I don't think there is much you can do about that, the drum tracking was just too poor. But the good news is that doesn't bother me that much, you could just trim a little 3kHz, look for some cymbals around 8 or 10kHz (maybe not possible from tape) and call it a day. If you can bring that bass under control, I think you've done a good job.

Mind you Soundclick hasn't enabled downloads yet, just streams, so I have not been able to try any of my prescriptions (since I have *no* outboard at all), so take my comments for what they are worth

If you do a VLA version, I'd love to hear that. Someday I'm gonna build a tube compressor to drop into my rack

Synkrotron · #19 03-14-2006

Glen,

I listened to both tracks over at soundclick (before then during then before for a second time).

First, please forgive me for even entering this topic because I'm just not experienced enough to do so.

But... from a punter's point of view, I found the during version to have been pushed at little too far in terms of "loudness" compared to the before version. It may be that, because I heard the before version first, that coloured what I heard of the during version. The bass guitar part in particular was just far too prominent for my taste.

Having said that... I'm here to learn

cheers

andy

Synkrotron · #20 03-14-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshilarious

If you can bring that bass under control, I think you've done a good job.

ah... this arrived while I was listening/posting... so I'm not that far off with my comments... good to know

masteringhouse · #21 03-14-2006

Just listened (on computer speakers only) and agree with mshilarious.

I think that a case for MBC could be made here. IMHO the harshness in the upper end of the original is due more to sibilance than an overabundance of 3K. Likewise the bottom end could use a bit of control. The after sounds a bit "muted" due to the 3K reduction and doesn't cut as much as the original. I would try (as a first shot) trying to compress this out rather than reducing it across the board. Then EQ after some of the nasties were tamed.

A while back there was a thread on a mastering contest and I think that both G. and I agreed that it would be better to have a clinic than an example.

G. if you're up for it would you like to try it with this?

mshilarious · #22 03-14-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

A while back there was a thread on a mastering contest and I think that both G. and I agreed that it would be better to have a clinic than an example.

G. if you're up for it would you like to try it with this?

Yeah, I was organizing that, but I couldn't pull together all the pieces. A contest is really a lot of work, a clinic is probably much easier.

I still have Dogman's track that was supposed to be the entry

So maybe if this goes well we can try that next

Anyway, when the download comes up on Soundclick, I'll have a crack at it, maybe more people will too, then Tom can save the best for last

SouthSIDE Glen · #23 03-14-2006

First of all, you guys are absolutely right about the bass. I can handle that one. In fact, I already did; I realized after reading your posts that I sent up an older version of the "during" that was before I pulled back on the bass a bit. That is not an issue with me.

The 3K stuff does remain an issue. I threw a bunch of EQ (paragraphic and graphic, plug and outboard) at it just to get it to where it is now, and it still sounds harsh to me. The high register stuff above 8k is definitely lacking - not suprising, coming from a 20-yr-old tape, and yes, I'd love to bring the cymbals forward, as well as the snare, but there just isn't enough there to grab onto I don't think. Everything between 3k and 8k is so muddled together. Whoever said the drum tracking sucked is right, and I'd personally say the mixing is even worse. To my ears, the vocals and guitars are all sharing too much of the same spectral space and the mix is not only conventional to the boring extreme, but it does noting to try and lift and seperate the instruments at all. The entire upper-mids/lower-his section just sounds crowded and fatiguing to me (you should try listening to an entire CD, it gets REAL fatiguing on the ears), but by the time I can get rid of that feeling, so much of the high mids are scooped out or squashed that it's an obvious lobotomy job that sounds even worse than leaving them in.

As far as the clinic thing, I'm game except for one thing: these aren't my property. I might be able to get permission from the client (he's an old friend of mine, about as old as these tapes), but I'd hate to tell him I'd like to use his stuff as an example of something that sounds crappy

. As it is, I really shouldn't have it publically posted as it is; my false justification was that it was in service of getting the job done better, but I probably shouldn't leave it up there permanently.

G.

bblackwood · #24 03-14-2006

No specifics, really, I just stop when it sounds good. Guess it is an experience thing, but I don't really think about it - I just know when it's done.

Sorry, I know this isn't helpful at all.

mshilarious · #25 03-14-2006

Never mind that then, don't want to get you into any trouble.

OK, Soundclick DL is up, this is a much tougher nut to crack than it sounds at first. I tried just about everything once (expect verb

). I ended up with MBC on the bass, and just the slightest hint from 3 to 5 kHz, low ratio, soft knee, no makeup gain, but there are a few offensive drum hits where I thought it helped.

But overall the original track is so bright around 4kHz I couldn't find a way around a big cut there, and a boost at 300Hz and 12kHz as well. The tape noise is broadband, but a denoiser tool seemed to help there without hurting anything else.

After that, the standard compression and limiting added about 1.5dB in loudness, still nothing commercial or anything, but I wasn't really trying for that, actually I can't get it loud at all without it falling apart.

I doubt that's anything you haven't done. I get the feeling the 3-4kHz problem probably should be addressed with effects envelopes, because the snare on the intro sounds fine (other than uneven hits), but when the vocal, hat, snare, and backing vocal are all in on the chorus, it's too much. That much automation is a lot of work though