Mastering

[annunaki]

Hey,

Looking for some opinions on my setup/recording. We are a 5 piece band recording live takes of our music on a Yamaha AW 4416. Our first attempt, although mixed well, is really quiet and lacks punch. (check out some examples at www.annunaki.net) We want our second album punchier . . . and are considering sending our "mixes" to a mastering studio to get it boosted up.

I guess my question is with the mixes . . . how do most mastering houses like to recieve the mixes. I am planning on sending individual .wav files of each track CD by CD. We will perform mixes on these .wav's to get them to a close level, and hopefully the mastering engineer can boost them and get them closer to commercial quality.

Has anyone dealt with any online mastering houses that did a good job? Any tips on mixing that will help the final product translate better at the mastering house? Thanks in advance.

[Change of POETS]

You can achieve "commercial" mastering on your own.

Chain together 3 C1 Comps with a -48 threshold, and a 12:1 ratio. Make sure you use no less than 32db Gain Compensation.

Don't worry about any distortion you might think you hear... it's supposed to sound like that.

BRICKWALL!!!!!

[pappy999]

You can achieve "commercial" mastering on your own.

Chain together 3 C1 Comps with a -48 threshold, and a 12:1 ratio. Make sure you use no less than 32db Gain Compensation.

Don't worry about any distortion you might think you hear... it's supposed to sound like that.

BRICKWALL!!!!!

The chap asked a direct and somewhat educated question. Instead of answering with sarcasm, you might want to educate him and maybe direct him to your "mastering" services.

[Mindset]

I don't think he was answering with sarcasm. He was answering with personal experience.

Hey,

Looking for some opinions on my setup/recording. We are a 5 piece band recording live takes of our music on a Yamaha AW 4416. Our first attempt, although mixed well, is really quiet and lacks punch. (check out some examples at www.annunaki.net) We want our second album punchier . . . and are considering sending our "mixes" to a mastering studio to get it boosted up.

I guess my question is with the mixes . . . how do most mastering houses like to recieve the mixes. I am planning on sending individual .wav files of each track CD by CD. We will perform mixes on these .wav's to get them to a close level, and hopefully the mastering engineer can boost them and get them closer to commercial quality.

Has anyone dealt with any online mastering houses that did a good job? Any tips on mixing that will help the final product translate better at the mastering house? Thanks in advance.

If your going to an outside mastering house, for one I suggest not to compress too much, and keep your levels no higher than -6 TOPS , I really do suggest lower than that though. The mastering house I usually send material to, takes a pro tools session, some will take 1 master CD of the final mix, and they tweak it to sound better.

Other than that, mix your material down better, and it will have that punch your seeking. A mastering engineer will polish everything for you.

[pappy999]

No sarcasm? 32db gain? Sure.

[Change of POETS]

Originally Posted by pappy999

The chap asked a direct and somewhat educated question. Instead of answering with sarcasm, you might want to educate him and maybe direct him to your "mastering" services.

You're right. Maybe I should've directed him to the search button where he can find the answer to this question being asked seven million times in the last year?

[pappy999]

There are way too many posts that turn into sarcastic rants. This poster is probably looking at this right now waiting for a legit answer. Do a search and find 30 threads on this subject with most of the posts in each thread consisting of rants and ridicule.

[chessrock]

Originally Posted by pappy999

Do a search and find 30 threads on this subject with most of the posts in each thread consisting of rants and ridicule.

... And most deservedly so, I might add.

.

[Change of POETS]

Originally Posted by pappy999

There are way too many posts that turn into sarcastic rants. This poster is probably looking at this right now waiting for a legit answer. Do a search and find 30 threads on this subject with most of the posts in each thread consisting of rants and ridicule.

And instead of giving him a legit answer like you're peppering me about, you chose to badger me about my sarcastic post. Which makes you the reason why the diatribe continues, and he's not getting a serious answer. Congratulations.

[RAMI]

I hate when people get on their soap box and try policing a forum. It takes 2 seconds to read a post. If it's a little sarcastic, then you wasted 2 seconds. Big deal. Commenting about it over and over again wastes alot more time.

[annunaki]

Originally Posted by Mindset

I don't think he was answering with sarcasm. He was answering with personal experience.

If your going to an outside mastering house, for one I suggest not to compress too much, and keep your levels no higher than -6 TOPS , I really do suggest lower than that though. The mastering house I usually send material to, takes a pro tools session, some will take 1 master CD of the final mix, and they tweak it to sound better.

Other than that, mix your material down better, and it will have that punch your seeking. A mastering engineer will polish everything for you.

Thanks for the response!

I've used the search button, I just wanted to give specific details about my situation and if anyone had any suggestions. I'm not saying, "My mix is too quiet, can somebody please tell me how to make it louder?" I am asking if anyone has used an online mastering house with good success. I'm sure I could twiddle around with the sound for months and get better results, but the bottom line is I play in a band that gigs reguaraly, and although we want to record it ourselves, none of us have enough time to mix and master it to perfection.

I can't comprehend what someone is thinking by being sarcastic in a thread like this, if you have nothing to say . . . then say nothing. Anything else is trolling.

"Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor"

[Change of POETS]

Originally Posted by annunaki

Thanks for the response!

I've used the search button, I just wanted to give specific details about my situation and if anyone had any suggestions. I'm not saying, "My mix is too quiet, can somebody please tell me how to make it louder?" I am asking if anyone has used an online mastering house with good success. I'm sure I could twiddle around with the sound for months and get better results, but the bottom line is I play in a band that gigs reguaraly, and although we want to record it ourselves, none of us have enough time to mix and master it to perfection.

If this is what you wanted to know, then why didn't you ask it? It's obvious you have the ability to communicate intelligently, and you've done so here. But you asked a very general question which is asked almost daily on these forums, and gave no real reason as to why you were seeking the advice you wanted. Until now...

Many people on this site have great Mastering businesses. Many forum members have used their services, and I'm not aware of any unhappy customers.

[annunaki]

Originally Posted by annunaki

Hey,

Looking for some opinions on my setup/recording. We are a 5 piece band recording live takes of our music on a Yamaha AW 4416. Our first attempt, although mixed well, is really quiet and lacks punch. (check out some examples at www.annunaki.net) We want our second album punchier . . . and are considering sending our "mixes" to a mastering studio to get it boosted up.

I guess my question is with the mixes . . . how do most mastering houses like to recieve the mixes. I am planning on sending individual .wav files of each track CD by CD. We will perform mixes on these .wav's to get them to a close level, and hopefully the mastering engineer can boost them and get them closer to commercial quality.

Has anyone dealt with any online mastering houses that did a good job? Any tips on mixing that will help the final product translate better at the mastering house? Thanks in advance.

Sorry I thought I was pretty clear . . .

[Ford Van]

Originally Posted by annunaki

Sorry I thought I was pretty clear . . .

What a fucking great burn!


My take on this (having recorded/mixed/mastered...sometimes all three on the same project):

If your MIXES lack punch, you will not get it in mastering. Actually, mastering can heighten an already punchy mix with some well done compression, and certain you can increase RMS a LOT with a limiter, but, you cannot create what is not there to begin with.

Make your mixes sound as close to what you want to hear in the end, and mastering will only make it a bit better.

In mastering, you can generally reshape the overall EQ, smooth out the quietest to loudest parts, and increase RMS. You can work with some "tricks" such as trying to expand the stereo field a bit, but this is VERY dangerous to try, and should only be used when it actually does something cool for the ARTIST element of the song. If you didn't get things panned out very well on the mix, trying to do this in mastering is no substitute for the bad mixing job. It introduces it's own problems to the end product that may not be desirable.

I would be very careful about online mastering, and before you pay somebody, make sure you hear a sample of what they will do to your mixes.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by annunaki

I guess my question is with the mixes . . . how do most mastering houses like to recieve the mixes. I am planning on sending individual .wav files of each track CD by CD. We will perform mixes on these .wav's to get them to a close level, and hopefully the mastering engineer can boost them and get them closer to commercial quality.

Most mastering houses that I know of ask that you send mixes as 24 bit stereo interleaved wav files at the same sample rate used for the tracks on a data CD (assuming that you did not mix to analog tape). Let the ME handle any sample rate conversions (up or down), basically leave the audio at the highest resolution possible.

In regard to the second question, there are a few MEs that frequent this forum fairly regularly that I recommend.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Most mastering houses that I know of ask that you send mixes as 24 bit stereo interleaved wav files

Hey Tom,

I understand the 24 bit part, as well as the sample rate part. What I'm not sure of is the stereo interleaved part. Is there a sonic or technical reason for preferring interleaved over dual mono tracks, or is it just that it really doesn't matter between the two and it is simply more common for the client to 2mix to stereo?

G.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Hey Tom,

I understand the 24 bit part, as well as the sample rate part. What I'm not sure of is the stereo interleaved part. Is there a sonic or technical reason for preferring interleaved over dual mono tracks, or is it just that it really doesn't matter between the two and it is simply more common for the client to 2mix to stereo?

G.

Hey Glen,

There no sonic difference between the two assuming the DAW applies panning laws equally. Stereo interleaved helps to ensure that phase between the two channels is maintained.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Gotcha. Thanks for the quick reply!

G.

[eraos]

What is interleaved stereo? And what's it's difference from dual mono?

Is dual mono two tracks while interleaved is one single stereo track?

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by eraos

Is dual mono two tracks while interleaved is one single stereo track?

Yep.

G.

[chessrock]

Originally Posted by Ford Van

I would be very careful about online mastering, and before you pay somebody, make sure you hear a sample of what they will do to your mixes.

Oh Jesus Christ. If I hear that term "online mastering" one more time, I'm going to lose my lunch.

So a guy who masters records has a web site ... and maybe he uses an ftp instead of snail mail. So that makes him "online mastering." Holy crap. I could be an auto mechanic with a web site ... which would technically make me an "online mechanic!"

.

[Ford Van]

Originally Posted by chessrock

Oh Jesus Christ. If I hear that term "online mastering" one more time, I'm going to lose my lunch.

So a guy who masters records has a web site ... and maybe he uses an ftp instead of snail mail. So that makes him "online mastering." Holy crap. I could be an auto mechanic with a web site ... which would technically make me an "online mechanic!"

.

I know, the whole concept is hard for you to grasp and understand. That is okay, the retarded kid understands you.

[Massive Master]

Well, there are "online only" mastering places...

Most of them scare me.

[Ford Van]

Originally Posted by Massive Master

Well, there are "online only" mastering places...

Yeah, everybody but lesscock understood that.

[masteringhouse]

The difference between online mastering, and a mastering studio with a website is that online mastering uses the Internet as the medium for feedback and delivery between the client and engineer. It includes sending mixes, remixes, mastered samples, a complete CD image that can be burned by the client on CD for approval, as well as correspondence between client and engineer.

IMHO when done correctly there's nothing wrong with this approach except that you unfortunately don't get to watch the engineer (and possibly pickup a few new techniques) and the process usually takes longer than attended sessions.

As suggested I would highly recommend getting a sample of anyone taking this approach before being charged. You can get burned with attended sessions as well, but the advantage is that if you don't like the results there's more of an opportunity to just leave if you haven't made a deposit before the session starts.