Another mastering question with no easy answer

[StiffMittens]

I realize that the answer to my question depends very heavily on the nature of the source recording...

but in general, if you wanted take a stereo mix that is perhaps a little too toppy (but close to sounding well-balanced) and give it that ultra big, yet tight and punchy sound that is so popular with the skateboarding kids these days, do you think that running it through a multiband compressor and beefing up the bottom, easing back on the low-mids to tone down the hoot and boxiness, controlling the upper-midrange dynamics firmly (but not repressively), and maybe leaving the ultra-highs alone to do their own sparkly thing, might be a good idea (or do I have it exactly backwards)? And if you do, where would you set the crossover points initially?

In other words, I guess, what are the key elements that you look for in a mix if you want to give it that in-your-face-but-still-very-readable sound? Or what, in your opinion, are the characteristics (in terms of frequency ranges, e.g. flat mids, squashed and boosted lows, etc.) of that type of track?

St!ff

 

[masteringhouse]

I realize that the answer to my question depends very heavily on the nature of the source recording...

but in general, if you wanted take a stereo mix that is perhaps a little too toppy (but close to sounding well-balanced) and give it that ultra big, yet tight and punchy sound that is so popular with the skateboarding kids these days, do you think that running it through a multiband compressor and beefing up the bottom, easing back on the low-mids to tone down the hoot and boxiness, controlling the upper-midrange dynamics firmly (but not repressively), and maybe leaving the ultra-highs alone to do their own sparkly thing, might be a good idea (or do I have it exactly backwards)? And if you do, where would you set the crossover points initially?

In other words, I guess, what are the key elements that you look for in a mix if you want to give it that in-your-face-but-still-very-readable sound? Or what, in your opinion, are the characteristics (in terms of frequency ranges, e.g. flat mids, squashed and boosted lows, etc.) of that type of track?

St!ff

Not to be flip, but you answered your own question, "depends very heavily on the nature of the source recording...".

There are no absolutes, no magic buttons, settings or plugins. I do a fair amount of work in punk and hardcore (stuff the skateboard kids listen to) and it varies greatly from project to project. About the only consistent element is to make it loud!

 

[StiffMittens]

I understand that but...

Yeah, I know there's no magic button, but what I'm really trying to get at is what in general terms tends to make things sound louder without sacrificing clarity. If I look at the waveform in Waves PAZ analyzer it seems pretty even across the whole spectrum (everything peaking around -22db rms). There's a slight roll off at the top end start around 3k, but still the whole thing sounds a bit toppy. And if I just compress a little off the top to control the peaks a bit and boost the whole thing up as is, I can get it pretty loud but it starts to distort pretty quickly (particularly when played through lo-fi systems). I'm wondering if the toppiness of it is the main culprit for the distortion, or the midrange, or if maybe it's just the density of the mix that's making those cheap speakers flap so uncontrollably, or maybe something else entirely. I'm really just looking for some hints on where to start. And maybe the answer is to go back to the mix. I mean it's my understanding that mastering is usually a battle of millimeters and that if I need to torque the hell out of something in mastering, then I really should have done something different in mixing. Is that generally the case in your opinion?

You mentioned that you do a lot of punk and hardcore stuff. Have you seen any sort of commonality in the best of those types of recordings (other than being loud)? Do things tend to have big, energetic low ends and not as much dynamics on the top?

 

[masteringhouse]

Yeah, I know there's no magic button, but what I'm really trying to get at is what in general terms tends to make things sound louder without sacrificing clarity.

Try parallel compression. There are some plugins that you can do a similar trick with right off the bat. For example, digidesign's Maxim allows you to specify a percentage of the limited and unlimited signal. It's basically making the audio more "dense". Since there is an unprocessed signal mixed with a compressed signal you can add density without affecting the transients making it retain clarity. The other "nice" thing about Maxim is that it seems to add a bit of distortion, appropriate for punk/hardcore stuff.

If I look at the waveform in Waves PAZ analyzer it seems pretty even across the whole spectrum (everything peaking around -22db rms). There's a slight roll off at the top end start around 3k, but still the whole thing sounds a bit toppy. And if I just compress a little off the top to control the peaks a bit and boost the whole thing up as is,

My mommy always told me that looks can be deceiving. More importantly how does it sound in comparison to a good reference CD?

I can get it pretty loud but it starts to distort pretty quickly (particularly when played through lo-fi systems).

Look at the amount of sub frequencies in PAZ (yeah, I know my mom told me looks can be deceiving, but I still check out the booty), if there is a lot of bass material in the 20Hz and below range try filtering it out, it's just robbing you of headroom that can be used elsewhere. I would suspect this before top end.

I mean it's my understanding that mastering is usually a battle of millimeters and that if I need to torque the hell out of something in mastering, then I really should have done something different in mixing. Is that generally the case in your opinion?

I agree 150%

You mentioned that you do a lot of punk and hardcore stuff. Have you seen any sort of commonality in the best of those types of recordings (other than being loud)? Do things tend to have big, energetic low ends and not as much dynamics on the top?

I really depends, a band like Clutch has a good bottom to it, a bit less on top, while some bands go for a "wankier" kind of sound. But in general most hardcore is pretty "macho" and between guitars tuning down and a kick that sounds like it's about 5 feet in diameter, yeah, usually lot's of bottom and a slightly scooped out mid. I don't go into mastering a CD with a preconcieved idea of any "standard" in regards to EQ though. Just make it translate well and be appropriate to the genre.

 

[StiffMittens]

I'll give it a whirl...

Thanks for the advice, man. I'll try some more stuff out based on what you've suggested. Chances are I'll wind up sending you this crap to deal with. ;-}

Thanks again,

St!ff

 

[mixandmaster]

Look at the amount of sub frequencies in PAZ (yeah, I know my mom told me looks can be deceiving, but I still check out the booty), if there is a lot of bass material in the 20Hz and below range try filtering it out, it's just robbing you of headroom that can be used elsewhere. I would suspect this before top end.

Yes, yes and yes. I even go as high as 40Hz with the filter. With most mixes of harder stuff, I find that the lo end needs tightening more than it needs to be bigger.

You also may have a small peak where the kick or bass resonates that the PAZ isn't showing. Do a filter sweep with a steep "Q" and see if there's anything that can be notched out a bit. If you can hook up one of these "lo fi systems" directly to your workstation, you may be able to find the exact frequency that makes them distort. Just be sure not to overdo it.