Self mastering

[osiris]

So I just finished mixing this album and my clients have asked if I could master it for them. I really don't know anything about mastering so I could use some help. I know its dprobably difficult without hearing the mixes, but are there any general guidelines, procedures, rules of thumb that you use? The music is country/ blues/ jazz/ americana so severe compression is probably not desireable right?

also, how do you use multiband compression? Should I use multiband compression? How should I approach applying eq to a mix so I don't fuck it up?

[eeb]

source it out to someone else.

If you mixed the album you got it to sound as good as you possibly could right?

The point of mastering is so someone (preferrably who knows their shit) with a fresh set of ears can have a litsten and fix anything you may not have noticed.

I'm fairly new to the world of multiband compression... but as far as I can tell the general purpose is to compress certain frequencies as opposed to the whole thing.. I've used it to tame the bass a little bit. And get rid of a few harsh high's... Regarless of that there is ALOT more to mastering then throwing a multiband compressor over it..

hopefully one of the mastering guys here will jump in and give you some "real" advice.

What did they want done in the mastering stage?

[osiris]

I had actually suggested that they look into sending it to a mastering studio and they asked if I could do it. I don't think they knew what mastering was until I mentioned it.

I told them I could at least run some compression and maybe some eq on it. The mix already sounds good by the way. They are very happy with it so there's nothing major that needs to be fixed.

I think they just want something temporary to take on the road with them until they can actually send it out to a mastering studio. I thought I would take the opportunity to learn something.

[CIRO]

Originally Posted by osiris

So I just finished mixing this album and my clients have asked if I could master it for them. I really don't know anything about mastering so I could use some help.

Well, are the same songs you ended to mix and you said are OK; altough mastering is another step of the job, if your clients don´t have the money to pay a professional Mastering Engineer with great room, monitoring,fresh ears,EXPERIENCE to assume each small modification he/she will make ... simply do the best you can, opening the songs in a software like CD architect, take care with eq changes and level betwen the songs and stay away from Multiband if you don´t know how works/what to do.

What monitors do you have? Some treatment in the room?
You can put (2 songs) in the MP3 clinic and take for advices.Many guys ("fresh ears") can, at least suggest what to do (compress or not, for example).

Ciro

my songs
www.soundclick.com/openstation

[CIRO]

Originally Posted by osiris

I think they just want something temporary to take on the road with them until they can actually send it out to a mastering studio. I thought I would take the opportunity to learn something.

Great, that´s the way

Ciro
my songs
www.soundclick.com/openstation

[osiris]

[QUOTE=CIRO;2688867]What monitors do you have? Some treatment in the room?
You can put (2 songs) in the MP3 clinic and take for advices.Many guys ("fresh ears") can, at least suggest what to do (compress or not, for example).
QUOTE]

I'm using Event tr8s. The treatment in my room is not ideal. I will try posting a couple songs.

[osiris]

Hey, how do you post to the mp3 clinic?

[eeb]

just upload the song somewhere (even yousendit ) and give us the link...

[CIRO]

Originally Posted by osiris

Hey, how do you post to the mp3 clinic?

or www.soundclick.com



Ciro
www.soundclick.com/openstation

www.lightningmp3.com

[masteringhouse]

As far as processing you need to determine the potential in the mix, and what's necessary to get from point A to point B.

Here's an extremely rough procedure for the processing phase mastering:

1. Compare you mix to commercial CD that is in the same general genre and has an overall sound that you like.

Determine what's missing in your mix compared to the commercial one, but realize that you are very likely not going to get it to sound the same (nor should you). It's just to set some general parameters around frequency balance and overall level. It also helps when your monitoring isn't quite up to snuff to help ensure that you're not too off base on your mix.

2. Get a "course" handle on the overall level, usually just a limiter will do the trick or bring up the overall volume before clipping. Remember volume changes perspective on EQ, so I usually find that EQ settings translate better once you have things brought up to the approximate "final level".

3. Work with an overall "broad" EQ getting the balance kind of "roughed-out" using fairly wide Q values, set the overall "tone" of the mix if it needs it.

4. Listen for problems that can't be handled with 2 and 3 above. Possibly using a more surgical EQ approach, de-essing (or multi band if essential), and experiment. You may also want to try a few things like analog simulation (or better yet real analog if you have it) to hear how it affects the mix. Everything plays off of the other, so you may find that you can back off the more "course" settings after fine tuning a bit.

5. After you have the EQ close to where you want it, go back and adjust processing for levels. Try a combination of compression, limiting, and possibly automating levels where needed. EQ and levels should be compared from song to song as well to make certain that the entire album is going to work together.

6. Burn a CD and listen on a few different systems to hear how it translates. Make notes on what you're hearing. Also since your doing it yourself, I recommend listening to what you've done on the following day to get a more objective listening experience.

7. Go back and make adjustments based on what you've heard, rinse, lather, repeat.

[chessrock]

I dunno.

If you have to ask questions like "What's multiband compression?"

... then my advice would be to simply slap a mastering limiter accross the mix ... chop off no more than 4 dbs worth of peaks. Unless it's got some a few big spikes, in which case I might manually go and take those down by like 2 dbs before I slapped the mastering limiter on it.

Then just convert to 16-bit and be done with it.

Seriously, if you go mucking around with it too much right now, you'll probably listen back to it again 2-3 yrs from now ... shake your head and ask "What was I thinking."

.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by osiris

So I just finished mixing this album and my clients have asked if I could master it for them.

As no one has yet addressed the mastering an album aspect of this yet - which is an amportant part of this question - I'd like to add this nickel to the discourse:

I'd recommend as one method starting with the quietest song on the album. Not necessarily the quietest recorded level, but what seems to be the quietest, least energetic, least complexly-arranged and mixed song on the album. Get that sounding it's best and nudge the levels up with very light compression. Tom V. has given some great advice regarding the relation between EQ and compression, and as far as some general procedures for polishing the mix.

Don't expect to necessarily get that song up to commercial CD levels. You might get lucky, but the reality is probably by the time you get it that loud the mix will be quite brittle sounding and fatiguing to listen to. Just bring it slowly and *LISTEN CLOSELY* to the actual quality of sound. At some point it'll start breaking apart, probably before you would expect it to. Just bring it to that point and back off maybe a dB or two from that cliff edge. You (and they) may not be perfectly happy witht he volume, but trust me, if they are listening for any extended time on the road, they will be happier in the long run with a slightly quieter mix that they can actually listen to until they get back home than a loud one that their ears get tired of after two listens.

You now have a base by which you can judge the finish on the rest of the tracks of the album. Typically, if the songs are all recorded and mixed in the same locations, they will probably want to have a similar overall "timbre", even if the mixes and arrangements are quite different. Something to keep in mind as you're polishing the remaining tracks.

Also - and maybe more obviously - most folks will want songs to have a fairly constant volume level from track to track. As you have pushed the quietest song to it's max, you should in most cases be able get the rest of your tracks to a matching level without too much hassle. Don't judge this by your meters or your RMS measurements, however, as those change relative to the density of the song. Just simply fall back on your ears to pick an overall volume level that sounds pretty much the same as the first track regardless of what your meters tell you, and you'll have a good listening experience.

IMHO YMMV MADD RSVP MPG POTUS, etc.

G.

[COOLCAT]

i kind of like the outsource it to someone else theory, because it brings some freshness to it...but thats a gamble too, if the mastering isn't into the groove of the band's sound.

is there warranty and satisfaction guarantee's when paying someone?
or maybe listen to the mastering engineers work?

like that dewd today paid someone for a fret job on his nice guitar and it came back messed up worse.... dang that'd suck bad to have a mastering thing squash and sit his ass on your good mix!!!.

[chessrock]

SouthSIDE Glen
This message is hidden because SouthSIDE Glen is on your ignore list.

I'm sure what Southside Glen meant to say (if I was actually able to read his posts) ... is that ... all indications point to the suggestion that you don't know what the heck you're doing. So you're likely to do a lot more harm than good by attempting to master it yourself ... so it might be best to just offer them a "normalized" version, and call it a "pre-master" or something along those lines.

But only if they're willing to pony up some extra dough for your trouble. I'm almost certain that's what he "meant" to say, regardless of what it is he actually said. Ya see, I'm telepathic, and I have a direct link to his brain. Kind of like Carl Rove / G. Bush.

.

[Johnny B]

This thread started with the premise that osiris doesn't know much about mastering. I say, by all means, learn about mastering, but not on the client's dime. This is not good for your client, or for your reputation if the results are less than ideal. I'm with eeb - get your client to sub it out to a mastering house. If you think the mix sounds OK and shouldn't need much, then you don't fully appreciate what mastering is for and what it can do. The purpose of mastering, after all, is not to "fix" bad mixes, rather to maximize good ones, and provide sonic uniformity to a series of recordings (tracks). I speak from fresh experience. I have avoided being aggressive with compression in mastering (I use an Alesis Masterlink), and my masters have suffered for it. Recently I applied some of Tom Volpicelli's suggestions from this forum, and have achieved MUCH better results, but still a long way from what a professional mastering house can do. Mastering is truly a specialty unto itself, and if your clients are serious about their recording, they should at least investigate this as a possibility. The replication house I work with, DiscMakers, has a mastering facility, and Tom Volpicelli, a presence in this forum, runs The Mastering House, which has a good track record. There are, of course, many others.

[Johnny B]

I just read all of the above posts; I see that your client eventually plans to take it to a professional mastering house. Sorry I missed that point. I also re-read my previous post. I apologize if I sounded preachy. I'm still smarting from a recent experience around this very subject, so I'm a little CAUTIOUS at this point.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by chessrock

I'm sure what Southside Glen meant to say (if I was actually able to read his posts) ... is that ... all indications point to the suggestion that you don't know what the heck you're doing. So you're likely to do a lot more harm than good by attempting to master it yourself ... so it might be best to just offer them a "normalized" version, and call it a "pre-master" or something along those lines.

But only if they're willing to pony up some extra dough for your trouble. I'm almost certain that's what he "meant" to say, regardless of what it is he actually said. Ya see, I'm telepathic, and I have a direct link to his brain. Kind of like Carl Rove / G. Bush.

.

Oh, brother. This increasingly scary creep is not only still on me like Glenn Close on Michael Douglas, but now he's doing it blindly and finding yet new ways of making a fool of himself.

Would someone please tell this stalker just how wildly off target his blind pot shots are, and that I am no more interested than the rest of you are in carrying on his stupid and increasingly psychotic grudge against me into yet another innocent thread?

I'm sorry for this, everyone.

G.

[pathdoc]

I strongly believe in using a mastering facility. A different set of ears can do wonders.

[eeb]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Oh, brother. This increasingly scary creep is not only still on me like Glenn Close on Michael Douglas, but now he's doing it blindly and finding yet new ways of making a fool of himself.

Would someone please tell this stalker just how wildly off target his blind pot shots are, and that I am no more interested than the rest of you are in carrying on his stupid and increasingly psychotic grudge against me into yet another innocent thread?

I'm sorry for this, everyone.

G.

you have a point..
chessrock.. dude i know this is none of my business but you put the man on your ignore list.. now the trick is to IGNORE him..

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Johnny B

Recently I applied some of Tom Volpicelli's suggestions from this forum, and have achieved MUCH better results, but still a long way from what a professional mastering house can do. Mastering is truly a specialty unto itself, and if your clients are serious about their recording, they should at least investigate this as a possibility. The replication house I work with, DiscMakers, has a mastering facility, and Tom Volpicelli, a presence in this forum, runs The Mastering House, which has a good track record. There are, of course, many others.

Thanks Johnny! I didn't know that people actually read my sputum, much less benefited from it.

I would suggest finding a reputable ME in your area (or taking a trip to a good facility) and sitting in or booking a session. It takes the "mystery" out of the process and if they are doing work for you, allows you to give instant feedback on the results. For the less experienced, there's no reason to be intimidated, they are working for you!

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by chessrock

I'm sure what Southside Glen meant to say (if I was actually able to read his posts) ... is that ... all indications point to the suggestion that you don't know what the heck you're doing. So you're likely to do a lot more harm than good by attempting to master it yourself ... so it might be best to just offer them a "normalized" version, and call it a "pre-master" or something along those lines.
.

'Rock, you should take the ban off of G's posts. You're missing some very good advice. You've also given good advice in the past, I don't understand this vitriol even if the two of you have disagreed on some points. There's more than one way of of doing this audio stuff, the wrong way is only doing it one way.

[chessrock]

Originally Posted by eeb

dude i know this is none of my business but you put the man on your ignore list.. now the trick is to IGNORE him..

What did you say?

I didn't hear you.

.

[chessrock]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

'Rock, you should take the ban off of G's posts.

Tom, you're kind of a self-promoter here, yourself ... and that's cool.

You walk around with a big, fat banner that says: "I do mastering. Come one, come all. Give me your shodily-produced turd and I'll polish it until it shines like platinum."

And I'm totally cool with that, because you're not trying to hide your intentions. You're qualified ... you've paid your dues - why not? Southside, on the other hand, is trying to self-promote for purposes that he's not being upfront about. Whenever asked for his credits and/or samples of his vast library of work ... he craftily evades the subject with a well-rehearsed answer, like a politician on a Sunday morning news program.

He tries to get people to download a zip file that they're supposed to install on their computer ... a complete stranger, on the web, mind you. Does none of this bother anyone even in the least?

So far, I've gotten about 4 positive reps to 3 negatives when it comes to this subject, so I know I'm not standing out on an Island on this subject. Me and the other four guys who've given me those little green things want to know where he's really coming from (Two positives want to hear his tunes, another green guy thinks he's pompous and arrogant, and two more red guys want me to jump off a bridge. )

.