mastering examples?

[Mountainmirrors]

Hi -
I'm looking around at different mastering options right now.
I've experimented with T-Racks and it does improve the mix's sound.
I just thought it would be great if there was an example somewhere online where you could hear a mixdown - dry.
Then with cheap mastering (home or pro).
Then with good pro mastering.

If not, can someone explain?

Thanks!

[Stealthtech]

If you intend to do it yourself try the Izotope Ozone demo...very nice....far better than T-racks.

[Mountainmirrors]

I tried that one...It opens up too big for my screen.
Why is it better?

[Stealthtech]

T-Racks seems to over do it with the factory sets. I've always had to tweak the hell out of it which takes too much of my time.
Ozone is easy to use and more control in a single window and the proccesing sounds more pro. You can also use it as a plug in with any track or all vs. t-racks as a stand alone program.
Now you also have the waves plugs as an option but will cost you dearly.

[Mountainmirrors]

Besides lending a fresh, un-biased ear, what can a pro do that Ozone can't?Could the average person hear a difference between them?
Does anyone have any mixes online done with Ozone?

[Stealthtech]

As you say, the average listener will not notice anything. I've done many songs with no mastering at all and the average listener does not know what to..... listen for.
A professional mastering engineer will do far better than any mastering software but for home recording for pleasure or hobby there's no need to go that route as its expensive. About the only thing I use ozone for is stereo spread and tweaking the lows, mids and highs and some compression on the final mix. Its a great tool to have.

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by Mountainmirrors
Besides lending a fresh, un-biased ear, what can a pro do that Ozone can't?Could the average person hear a difference between them?
Does anyone have any mixes online done with Ozone?

A mastering house has the monitoring signal chain/environment that actually allows the engineer to hear/analyze the mix COMPLETELY. This can't be overstated...

There is no way for the studio the track was recorded and mixed in to be able to hear any sonic shortcomings.

[Giganova]

hi mountainmirrors,

here's a link to an article about mastering -- with sound demos! -- using different mastering plugins (T-Racks, Ozone, PSP Audioware and the Sonar plugins):

http://www.cakewalknet.com/articlesmasteringeng.htm

I can hardly hear any difference and it seems that these tools are equally suited for mastering. I've personally checked out the demo versions of Ozone II and T-Racks and the results were amazing! What a difference compared to the un-mastered song!

I am about to purchase either Ozone or T-Racks. Can anyone give me your opinion on what I should get? It seems to me that Ozone II is more powerful and even 100 buxx cheaper than T-Tacks.

Cheers

[Giganova]

BTW: I agree with all of the above that mastering plugins can never replace a 'professional mastering' in a mastering studio. However, I find it helpful to pre-master songs and try to get the most out of the songs before submission to friends, web sites, etc. In these cases a professional mastering would be a waste of money.

I don't agree, however, that most people can't hear any difference between un-mastered and masterd songs. The difference is huge, even if you "just" use mastering plugins such as Ozone and T-Racks.

[Bstage]

Originally posted by Giganova
hi mountainmirrors,

here's a link to an article about mastering -- with sound demos! -- using different mastering plugins (T-Racks, Ozone, PSP Audioware and the Sonar plugins):

http://www.cakewalknet.com/articlesmasteringeng.htm

I can hardly hear any difference and it seems that these tools are equally suited for mastering. I've personally checked out the demo versions of Ozone II and T-Racks and the results were amazing! What a difference compared to the un-mastered song!

I am about to purchase either Ozone or T-Racks. Can anyone give me your opinion on what I should get? It seems to me that Ozone II is more powerful and even 100 buxx cheaper than T-Tacks.

Cheers

I have the Ozone plugin and I am somewhat happy with it. Granted I have an older version of the plugin but the functionality minus the dither is the same... The EQ on the plugin is not the best. Small adjustments lack the specs you would prefer to EQ the whole mix around. The master verb is nice. The multiband compression is nice... With some minor tweaking you can get good sound from this unit.... For me though I would prefer to go to a mastering house any day over any of the plugins......

[ds21]

I've tried Ozone2, and don't like the interface, besides I've got enough great not good plug-ins that I can do everything I want without either, I don't try to do real mastering just some sweetening, and continuity. And if you plan on sending it into a real mastering place don't pre-master, expecialy don't normalize your stereo master before sending it in.

[Enforcer{EMC}]

hi
you are probalbay not going to get pro results out of jsut T racks Izone ( its reasonably good though), or any other one application. Mastering is a reasoanbly complex job and is different for differnet songs. A trained ear can hear what a song is missing and how it should be mastered to get the kind of sonic Enhancment that is needed to bring all the engineers hard work to fruition. Mastering should also brign the whole mix alive and the effects that are often lost in mix down can be brought out and given room to breath. As every persons mixing styles are different the mastering solutions will be different. A good mastering engineer will be able to hear how he wants the song to sound and what the engineer was trying to do and attempt to not only masterign the song but enhance what the engiener and the producer has tryed to achieve. Jsut that simple statemnet :
the song dictates the masterign solution
sorry if that has become vague but good mastering requires alot of experience and a good ear but its nothing that lots of practice and experience can't achieve
regards
Enforcer{EMC}

[Giganova]

I agree with you, Enforcer, that only a "pro mastering engineer" can deliver a pro quality sound, primarily based on his experience and also in some part due to his better gear.

I think, however, that there are many applications where a mastering plugin such as Ozone or T-Racks is "good enough", e.g. when posting songs on the internet (nowhereradio.com, mp3.com) or sending it to friends and fellow musicians. I also think that for submission of demos this kind of mastering might do the job, since demos are no final products anyway. Why would an un-signed artist on a very tight budget want to spend hundreds of buxx if its not really necessary?

[Enforcer{EMC}]

hi
yea I aggree with that. I have clients that have alot of money and paying for a pro mastering job is not an issue. But for the home demo its possible to get ok results using an application. But anything that is the final product has to be mastered by a pro. I also master for bands on a tightish budget but as Giganova has stated for a demo its fine or mp3.com.
One rule of thumb :
Never master your own stuff.
I have jsut been sighned to a record deal on my previous album and have 6 years mastering work behind me and I dont even try mastering my own stuff. Freash ears no fears"
maybe get a friend to do it or soemoen with some experience
After you have spent hours ont he mix making it sound good then you have to make it sound better its hard to takle it with no bias and your mixes will end up being alot worse than if a fresh pair of ears does it
Regards
Enforcer{EMC}

[Stealthtech]

Originally posted by Giganova


I don't agree, however, that most people can't hear any difference between un-mastered and masterd songs. The difference is huge, even if you "just" use mastering plugins such as Ozone and T-Racks.

Thats only if they hear both versions

[ds21]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
A mastering house has the monitoring signal chain/environment that actually allows the engineer to hear/analyze the mix COMPLETELY. This can't be overstated...

There is no way for the studio the track was recorded and mixed in to be able to hear any sonic shortcomings.

Good point, from the list of monitors and the enviroments MOST people are using, the real low-end is missing, just getting down to the mid to low 40hz is just not good enough

[Giganova]

I don't get this point, ds21. Most home studios owers can record in 24bit/48kHz and have studio monitors and headphones which have a frequency range from 5Hz to 30kHz or so, while the human ear is only sensitive in the 20Hz-20kHz range anyway. So what's in the mix home studio owners cannot hear? Thats far better than any end users (consumers) will ever hear with their hifi or car stereos, where they listen to the 16bit/44.1kHz cds.

Could you explain that for me? Thanxx!

[ds21]

I guess it depends on the music, but if it's electronica/synth music, pipe organ, clasical,or contains some subsonics that are slightly audible, that kind of thing you'll need the extra extention(and dynamics), and generally the people who take their listening of this type of music seriously will have systems that go this low(to think otherwise your just cutting out a large part of your audience) and I think there's been enough talk about headphone mixing. And I know you probably know, the 20-20 thing is just a generalization, women are usualy the one's who can hear higher (though one of my work mates is a guy, and can hear past 20) and you can feel below 20. IMHO there's no substitute for moving air.

and the 24/192 will help on the highend but thats not a problem

[Blue Bear Sound]

The issue is, 99% of home recordist's DON'T have an appropriate acoustic environment to monitor in. Every sonic decision they made in that room, from tracking to mixing, has built-in "compensation" for flaws in the room.

So the 2 big advatages for using a mastering engineer is to get that all-important objective set of skilled ears, and further, have your mix be objectively analyzed in an acoustically correct environment, where sonic flaws that surely occurred due to the recordist's room shortcomings can be (somewhat) compensated for.

[pipelineaudio]

giganova I would doubt that many home studios are within + or -12dB from flat in the range between 250hz to 8khz never mind above and below that

also, be aware that we live in the " age of the million dollar demo " so dont blow your demo shot on cheap mastering if you can find a way around it

[mixmkr]

shit...I'll record anyones demo for a 1/2 mil.

[ds21]

To give you a better idea of the type of monitoring I'm talking about

What they use at masterdisk

http://www.griffinspeaker.com/

Do you think your room can support it?

[Giganova]

ya all raised some very good points. Never thought about the acoustic properties of my room. Thanks for all the info!

[chessrock]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
There is no way for the studio the track was recorded and mixed in to be able to hear any sonic shortcomings.

That's simply not true.

I hear plenty of sonic shortcomings in stuff recorded and mixed at my place.

. . . wait a minute. That didn't quite come out right.

[Blue Bear Sound]

That explains the reverb on the train!!!!!!!!