Best way to master?

[tigerflystudio]

Hi chaps, I've a project (album) coming to the final stages now and I'm thinking of doing some DIY mastering. Avoiding the debate on whether or not to 'go pro' or DIY, can I have your thoughts on what's best for mastering please? Hardware or software? if you coudl include make / model / price in your post that'd be superb, plus, of course, any experience or advice you consider relevant.
Kind regards
P

[chamelious]

What exactly are you wanting to do with your audio?

[tigerflystudio]

I want to master about 11 songs so they all 'work together' as an album. It's basically, just to give out to freinds / fans at gigs etc.

[Waltz Mastering]

It would be very hard for someone to tell you how to master or even think that you could learn how to master in as little time as your describing.

As far as getting continuity through the album, EQ and leveling is your friend, but first you need an honest system.

As John from Massive always says, "You need to do what the music tells you".

At this point buying outboard gear will not guarantee you any better results than inboard. As you say this album is for handing out to family and friends so it is not that crucial to be on point.

Just experiment and see what you come up with, but if your going to spend a couple thousand on any one piece of gear, it might be better to send out.

Learning how to use the piece could take a while.

[tigerflystudio]

Cheers, I was kinda hoping for suggestions as to what software / hardware to be looking into so I can learn to master my own stuff. I've got a pretty simple but decent set up (I'm PC-based with Mackie's for mxing / mastering).

Is there any decent budget software out there?

[Waltz Mastering]

Gotcha.

Here's some mastering software options:

For PC

Magix Samplitude/Sequoia
Steinberg Wavelab
SADIE
Pyramix
SAWStudio
Sony CD Architect

For Mac

Sonic Studio PreMasterCD and SoundBlade
DSP Quattro
BIAS Peak
Audiofile Engineering Wave Editor

[punkin]

IMHO, the best option is to send it to a pro.

[leddy]

Originally Posted by tigerflystudio

Hi chaps, I've a project (album) coming to the final stages now and I'm thinking of doing some DIY mastering. Avoiding the debate on whether or not to 'go pro' or DIY, can I have your thoughts on what's best for mastering please? Hardware or software? if you coudl include make / model / price in your post that'd be superb, plus, of course, any experience or advice you consider relevant.
Kind regards
P

I know you specifically said to avoid the "pro or no" comments, but respectfully, I just have to say this -

What if you said: "I only need to record drums for this one album. I don't want to hire a drummer, I'll just do it - even though I don't play drums. What kind of drums should I buy?"

That's pretty close to what you are asking about mastering.

If you want to learn something, then learn it. If you just have a specific project you want to get done in the near-future, you will need help from someone who has already learned it or your results will likely be very low quality.

[Massive Master]

Originally Posted by leddy

What if you said: "I only need to record drums for this one album. I don't want to hire a drummer, I'll just do it - even though I don't play drums. What kind of drums should I buy?"

That's pretty close to what you are asking about mastering.

Of all the analogies I've come up with over the years, I have to say - that one has an entirely different and perspective to it that I've never approached from that particular direction.

Well met.

[tigerflystudio]

Yes, I'm happy to learn and experiment. I've been making music for years, just for fun, but never really got into mastering. I was simply asking what kinds of software (or hardware) are out there, and if you guys had any good thoughts on what works and what doesn't.

[Massive Master]

Things that *don't* work - ESPECIALLY for the "rookie" --

Almost anything that claims to be "mastering software" -- T-Racks (a.k.a. "T-Wrecks"), Ozone (a.k.a. "Blowzone), Har-bal (a.k.a. "Hair Ball"), etc.

I present their common 'nick-names' just for the helluvit.

None are 'evil' alone - But any are incredibly easy to confuse the ear and mess up an otherwise decent mix.

There is no substitute for objectivity - You won't have that by design. So you're stuck with listening skills (also no substitute). You need to listen and do what the mix is telling you to do. YOU decide the tools, YOU decide the settings, YOU decide the order of the chain (okay, the MIX decides - You're simply there to serve the mix).

You should be able to do 90% of what you need to do with whatever native EQ and compressor is in your DAW. That said - As you'll have no objectivity working on your own mixes, simplicity is the king until everything else is in line.

[tigerflystudio]

thanx for the advice. I use Magix Music Studio Delux, which is cheap, but I find it really good for what I need, i.e. just straight 'traditional' band stufff. I tend to mix my tracks as I go along and then make final adjustments at the, er, end, surprisingly! Mastering a collection of tracks (the album) will be my first crack at making it all 'gel' as one body of work. It won;t be as good as the pro's, no, but being that I enjoy all this so much, it'll be useful to develop the 'skill'... in whatever form that takes (i.e.being objective / listening to what's there and not in the minds-eye/ear)

[leddy]

I master a lot of my own stuff. I'm not a paid pro, but I think I can offer good suggestions to get started by explaining how I do it.

First, I wait a few weeks between the recording and the mastering. I try to get it out of my head so I can hear it more objectively when I listen.

Next, I import some similar-style professional recordings into Wavelab and I change the volumes to match each other and the material I am matstering.

Then I go between them listening for how my material is different. I'll listen to them on different monitors, headphones, I'll make CD's of them and listen in the car, etc. All the while taking notes on what I don't like about my mixes compared with the pro ones I do like.

I often use some type of spectral display to compare the files as well and confirm what I think I hear. Then I'll begin to make some EQ adjustments and get closer to the reference tunes.

If I feel a track needs to be louder, I'll try to manually bring down occaisonal peaks and see how far that gets me. I avoid compression if at all possible (it usually is possible to avoid it), but I usually end up with some limiting (usually Voxengo Elephant or UAD Precision Limiter).

Then repeat these steps until I am happy. Though I save the original file and go back to it each time - I only process the file once.

That's usually all I do. Anything beyond that probably means I remix the track.

Hope that helps.

[mixmkr]

Originally Posted by Massive Master

Things that *don't* work - ESPECIALLY for the "rookie" --

Almost anything that claims to be "mastering software" -- T-Racks (a.k.a. "T-Wrecks"), Ozone (a.k.a. "Blowzone), Har-bal (a.k.a. "Hair Ball"), etc.

coming from a respected person that makes a living doing mastering, I'd expect a comment like this, and rightly so. But for the couple hundred bucks or less, they're not as difficult to use you don't necessarily get sucked into the tar pit of making things worse.

On individual songs, I think the idea is to get the mix as best it can be, but the above software programs can make it easier to balance a collection of songs. No, not the best, but for $150 mastering...and you end up owning the software, start an education, I think that's what you actually might consider.

btw, I use "hairball" on a floor model looper to put "backing tracks" into, which I use when playing live. With over 60 songs in the looper, it's nice to have them all the same level and same ballpark EQ wize so the sound guy isn't going nuts-zo. I picked one of my songs I think sounds best, and use that for the reference and match all other tracks to it. Since my [backing] instrumentation is basically ALWAYS the same, it works great and I'm able to keep the "relative" volume about the same.
Anyrate, it allows me to match things up VERY quickly and have them useful. Otherwise, I'd be having to match up 60 songs, not to mention the new ones I am constantly adding. Not a true sense of mastering, but to a different degree, it's in the same ballpark. Best $100 I spent for that situation and has saved me HOURS.

Not to be rude or blunt, I could give a rat's buttocks about what others think about equipment, software or otherwise. It's the user and not the equipment that makes the difference. And I repeat, no fault to others for their opinions.

That said, since you mentioned giving these CDs out to fans and at gigs, I'd HIGHLY consider having someone like Massive do the mastering for you. You have ONE time to make a first impression, not to mention, I'd think you'd want your best to give out at gigs. A crappy CD isn't going to help get another gig. For the money spent for THIS instance, I think you'd get it back in spades. Giving copies to your family and having fun in the home studio, try some of that "crappy" software ;-)

[mixmkr]

btw, Leddy had a great idea.

Separate yourself from the music for a couple months, if possible. Then come back and listen to them as MUSIC and not as a recordist. Take some notes what the problems are and go from there.

[Massive Master]

(@ mixmkr)

I understand where you're coming from -- My point is that if you *don't* know somewhat exactly what you're doing and what you're shooting for, start on very basic tools. Too many people get "lost" when they load up the multi-band-dilithium-disgronificator when they really don't understand how to subtly use a simple EQ.

For lack of a better phrase...

[tigerflystudio]

I will certainly be attempting to use subtle EQ to make the songs on the album work together. I try to keep each song pretty well mixed as I'm layering, so it'll be a case of making sure the final sound of each song fits with the next / rest - that's where I'll 'master EQ'. What I'm sure I'll struggle with is getting the compression (of the whole song) right (i.e. boosting the overall loudness). I record in 16-bit and I usually try and run my tracks at aprox -15dB, with peaks of about -5dB. I don't want the songs 'super-compressed' (so loud they rob subtle dynamics / light & shade, from the tracks), but there again, I DO want to boost the songs overall - just so they're more even and a bit more 'radio friendly. Can anyone recommend some very general / loose compressor setting as a starting point? I know it's subjective, depending on the track in question, but I'm a newbie and so some general ideas / settings would be a big help.

[RAMI]

Originally Posted by tigerflystudio

it'll be a case of making sure the final sound of each song fits with the next / rest that's where I'll 'master EQ'.

I'm not a mastering engineer, but I'll give my take on it and hopefully be corrected if I'm wrong.

I don't think ME's slap a "Mastering EQ" and run it over all 10 (or however many) songs on the album. I think they still go song by song to make them "fit" together. One song might be tweaked more with EQ than another, and maybe some songs not EQ'd at all.

It's about making them sound coherent. Not making them sound the same.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Also, just to add to the pot on this hand, I think a big part of the "problem" that many have with self-called "mastering software" like T-Racks and Ozone is that they actually has very little to do with the actual mastering *process*. With some small exceptions like the dithering tool in Ozone, most of these tools are little more than packages of standard tools like compressors and EQs. In that light, virtually any plug can be called "mastering software". And on the other side of that coin, packages like T-Racks and Ozone and such can just as easily be called "mixing software", and just as wrongly, since they actually do not do anything directly related to the mixing process itself.

Reaper and Audition and Cubase and the like are "mixing software", not the plugs (native or 3rd party) that you plug into them, even if those plugs are T-Racks or Ozone. Similarly, programs like those that Waltz listed are "mastering software", not the plugs you plug into them, even if they are T-Racks or Ozone.

Why get one's panties in a bunch over that? Because there's noting really special about those so-called "mastering packages", other than they fact that they package what would normally be separate plugs together into one plug. In fact, their component compressors, EQs and such are often not of the quality or sound that your average mastering engineer (prosumer or pro) would select or prefer to use for mastering tasks. Why use a packaged EQ just because it's packaged as "mastering software" when you'd much rather be using a stand-alone plug of higher quality?

It's like the old "compact" or "integrated" stereo vs. component stereo choice.Compact or integrated systems that contained tuner, tape player CD player (and turntable, if you go back far enough) all in one box or package were easy and inexpensive and good looking, but you usually were sacrificing some significant quality somewhere along the line vs. selecting individual components and mixing and matching them for your specific desires and needs.

Again, a real quality exception might be the dither functions in Ozone, which are not bad (all arguments about the importance or not of dither to be left aside for other threads). But then you look at Ozone's phase correlation meter; a nice thing to have, for sure, but far more suited to the mixing part of the process than to mastering - if your mixdown has phase problems, you should be going back and fixing that on the component track level.

So, to bring this all back to the OP question on what is the "best way to master", I would offer the answer that the pest way is to pick the right tools for the job, starting with an actual mastering platform like CD Architect/Sound Forge or Wavelab, and then continuing that philosophy by picking the rest of the tools you use with it based upon individual needs and quality, not whether they offer the convenience of throwing a bunch of plugs into one package.

G.

[tigerflystudio]

SouthSIDE Glen = a heck of a post. Thanks. Food for thought. If I keep a close eye on peaks in the actual components of the mix and try to reduce any spikes, is it conceivable that I won't need to use much / any compression on the overall masters? I like albums that have dynamics (light and shade) but it seems everyone these days is boosting their tracks to super-loud levels because that impresses / catches the attention of the 'average' (non-audiophile) listener. I want to strike a balance somewhere in between. Could I aim to 'manually' compress (volume limit) my mixes somehow? Is it a good idea, or a lengthy and laborious task?

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by tigerflystudio

SouthSIDE Glen = a heck of a post. Thanks. Food for thought. If I keep a close eye on peaks in the actual components of the mix and try to reduce any spikes, is it conceivable that I won't need to use much / any compression on the overall masters?

It is conceivable. Very rare these days, unfortunately, but very conceivable.

Originally Posted by tigerflystudio

I like albums that have dynamics (light and shade) but it seems everyone these days is boosting their tracks to super-loud levels because that impresses / catches the attention of the 'average' (non-audiophile) listener. I want to strike a balance somewhere in between. Could I aim to 'manually' compress (volume limit) my mixes somehow? Is it a good idea, or a lengthy and laborious task?

What catches people's attention is what's different from the rest. When everybody is flattening their mixes to pancakes, the mix that will stick out is the one that uses dynamics meaningfully. If you want to impress, don't try and sound like everyone else, but rather sound how you and your musical creations *want* to sound.

That said, there's nothing wrong with boosting your mix a little during mastering. I question that's even necessary, but I can understand having to at least find a middle ground in today's market. Again, I think the key is use your ears critically and analytically when you do it, and not just arbitrarily do it by a set of numbers. Every mix has a point where you start noticeably sacrificing sound quality for volume; the mix just starts sounding unnaturally "pushed". It's entirely your own personal call as to how much of a cost in sound quality and dynamics you're willing to pay for volume; i.e. how far past that "push point" you're willing to go. My own personal tastes are to take it to that point and then back off a dB or two, but YMMV.

How hard is it? The further you want or try to push the mix, the harder it is to do well. So much depends also on the quality of the tracking and mix before it; quality tracking and mixes will tend to push a little further than crappy ones. Also a lot depends upon the quality of tools you use; which is part of the reason why mastering engineers especially need their top shelf gear these days more than ever.

But all that aside, you're usually (IME, IMHO, YMMV, USDA,etc.) better off if you chisel away at the volume in small bites instead of one big swipe. In other words, don't just throw the whole mix up against a brick wall limiter in one fell swoop, but try more gentle compression in chunks of a couple of dB (+/-) at a time.

G.

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by tigerflystudio

If I keep a close eye on peaks in the actual components of the mix and try to reduce any spikes, is it conceivable that I won't need to use much / any compression on the overall masters?

It can be very easy to look at a mix like it's a photoshop program.

Sometimes visuals can influence a lot of unnecessary editing. Everyone does it.

The onus should be but on sound, with the visual as an aid when needed, but don't rely on the visuals to make your decision making.

Slight rant.

[RAMI]

I almost never look at my music. It's hard enough listening to it.

[masteringhouse]

The best hardware for mastering is ears, the best "software" is experience and taste.

[tigerflystudio]

Thanks for all the good advice, friends. I tend to listen closely and critically (sometimes overly so), but with this project I've tried to get things right from the start, right form the mic. Where I've noticed I've needed to do a fair bit of 'corrective' EQ'ing, I've tried to alter the mic set-up / instrument settings to ensure the best signal is being captured (i.e. reducing, where possible, the need to EQ). As you suggest, using the PC monitor as a secondary visual aid is useful, but for me it's the ears that lead everything. I think it will be possible to keep an eye on the peaks and then reduce them fairly subtley, and I'm then hoping to be able to increase the overall volume of the track without using 'too much' compression (although I am aware that some comp. will be needed to even things out). I think the toughest part of what I'm facing is to get the vocals to sit at the front of the mix whilst keeping musical passages (seem) even / level during non-vox parts.