Ok, so I have a nice 24 track digi studio. I record a bunch of tunes, spend hours mixing down all my tracks to a nice stereo mix. I make sure I can hear every instrument played in the song, vocals are cohearnt, keyboards are robust, guitar has that killer tone, bla bla bla. So now Im ready to master. Mr. Bank account tells me that any further attemps to remove funds will result in my familly leaving me. So no pro mastering for me. I have produced songs before so how hard could this be? I know that knowledge is power. So I read a few books, that talk about mastering. I also read posts about mastering from people who have hands on experiance with this. My head fills with a wealth of good information. So I start mastering my music. If my levels to the cd for each song are about the same, wtf do I care if one song has 50 instuments or 3, as long as you dont have to reach for the volume knob between songs? Since most of what Im mastering has alot of the same instruments and sounds, getting an overall EQ "color" for each song shouldnt be hard. If it sounds muddy, brighten it, if it sounds like a earphone am radio, add some bottom & mids god damn it. If something doesnt sound right, you can bet your ass its NOT right. If you have to sit there with the eq all day trying to "fix" the song, you ruined it in the mix, go back and remix it. If the song sounds good to you, if it does for you what you expect it to, its a good master. Dont second guess yourself, dont compare, good god dont compare! Make sure your songs are nice and spaced out from each other, so people know when to appaud your performance. Do the best you can with the equipment and gifts god gave you. Remember, not everyone will have the same opinion about your CD, thats why we have Bass & Treble knobs on our stereos.
Passive/Agressive mastering.......
- Thread starter Sigma9
- Start date
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Actually... you DO want to compare - A LOT.... to give yourself a valid frame of reference....Sigma9 said:
Bah! I disagree STRONGLY
who knows better what your own music should sound like!?! The guy that produced the Ozzy cd or YOU? Why must people feel like they have to do this, because someone did this and we all said hey thats sounds like a good idea?. Hey you, you better refer to MY music, MY production, MY mastered cd before even thinking about mastering YOUR OWN MUSIC! I know I have been Listening to music for more then a quarter century. Do I really have to listen to someone elses stuff again? Personally I think we have gotten to into this comparing thing, and its now a crutch. Be yourself, and let it show in your music and recordings. What are we afraid of really? Corrosion of conformity dude. You go listen to your reference cd, Ill be just fine
who knows better what your own music should sound like!?! The guy that produced the Ozzy cd or YOU? Why must people feel like they have to do this, because someone did this and we all said hey thats sounds like a good idea?. Hey you, you better refer to MY music, MY production, MY mastered cd before even thinking about mastering YOUR OWN MUSIC! I know I have been Listening to music for more then a quarter century. Do I really have to listen to someone elses stuff again? Personally I think we have gotten to into this comparing thing, and its now a crutch. Be yourself, and let it show in your music and recordings. What are we afraid of really? Corrosion of conformity dude. You go listen to your reference cd, Ill be just fine
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
"I have produced songs before so how hard could this be?"
you gotta start looking for shelter when you read that !
you gotta start looking for shelter when you read that !
Blue Bear Sound
New member
*sigh* 
The reason you use a reference CD is NOT for production-matching.... it's for a valid point of reference for audio-quality....
Is the bass sitting where it should? Are the highs appropriate, or did you goose the shit out of them because you don't know what good highs are supposed to sound like or your monitoring system is bad? Is the mid-range thin and reedy compared to full-and-present?
The validity of using a reference is quite obvious.... mind you, I haven't heard your stuff - but given your statements above, it sounds like it wouldn't rate from a sound quality point of view....
The reason you use a reference CD is NOT for production-matching.... it's for a valid point of reference for audio-quality....
Is the bass sitting where it should? Are the highs appropriate, or did you goose the shit out of them because you don't know what good highs are supposed to sound like or your monitoring system is bad? Is the mid-range thin and reedy compared to full-and-present?
The validity of using a reference is quite obvious.... mind you, I haven't heard your stuff - but given your statements above, it sounds like it wouldn't rate from a sound quality point of view....
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Just checked out some of your stuff....
...you DO need a frame of reference.
Does the concept of stereo imaging mean anything to you? How about depth and air? Overuse of effects??
Some things to think about....
I think it's great if you want to find your way.... but for it to be listenable, there are some audio standards to adhere to in terms of overall mix quality.
...you DO need a frame of reference.
Does the concept of stereo imaging mean anything to you? How about depth and air? Overuse of effects??
Some things to think about....
I think it's great if you want to find your way.... but for it to be listenable, there are some audio standards to adhere to in terms of overall mix quality.
I totally agree with Blue Bear - the human ear/brain combination is amazing in its ability to adjust to what it hears. It starts filling in details and adjusting for misplaced frequencies, etc. Refreshing your ears with quality outside mixes in the same musical genre is like cleansing your palette in between wine tastings.
-lee-
-lee-
Blue Bear Sound
New member
One more thing....
Although the mix and audio quality could be better - I do like the tune itself (Roll It Over).... and the vocal effects were entirely appropriate.... suspiciously Beatles-esque - you didn't happen to use the Beatles as a vocal production reference, eh???
Although the mix and audio quality could be better - I do like the tune itself (Roll It Over).... and the vocal effects were entirely appropriate.... suspiciously Beatles-esque - you didn't happen to use the Beatles as a vocal production reference, eh???
At the risk of seeming like I'm piling on, yes, you do want to compare early and often. It is the best tool you have for compensating for the audio deficiencies of your speaker/amp/room chain. True, you can make a perfect mix in your room, but it gets to be a real pain in the ass when everyone who buys your CD and wants to hear it in it's optimum form has to call you up and come over to your house and listen. Think how much more often you're going to have to replace the carpet in your front hall!
????
Bear, what music are you refering to? I do not have a song called "roll it over", please dont think this is my music. I have removed my music from its old site at guitar.com because I feel that it is in my best intrest right now to be in total control of all my music and not guitar.com
Tell me something.... the words Optimum forum were used as well as reference for audio quality. I understand these and use them as well. It seems to me that no matter what, unless your house is set up just like mine, anyones music will sound different, even professional stuff. Of all the things I said was that the only thing you disagree with, not comparing? Its funny how people will assume my music will sound "bad" because Im a little unothodox. Ive been playing multible instruments for over 15 years now, and recording and producing for at least 10. My equipment has changed alot since my 2 cassette radio antics and so has the production. I admit, that I am a self proclaimed engineer. I have never nor will I ever goto school to learn this stuff, cant efford it and sure as hell dont have the time. Which is why Im mastering my own music as well. I dont expect my cd to sound like sony produced it. Sure I want it to sound its best, but when is enough enough? Isnt enough when I say it is? after all its MY music. Im I scareying anyone by saying these things?
Bear, what music are you refering to? I do not have a song called "roll it over", please dont think this is my music. I have removed my music from its old site at guitar.com because I feel that it is in my best intrest right now to be in total control of all my music and not guitar.com
Tell me something.... the words Optimum forum were used as well as reference for audio quality. I understand these and use them as well. It seems to me that no matter what, unless your house is set up just like mine, anyones music will sound different, even professional stuff. Of all the things I said was that the only thing you disagree with, not comparing? Its funny how people will assume my music will sound "bad" because Im a little unothodox. Ive been playing multible instruments for over 15 years now, and recording and producing for at least 10. My equipment has changed alot since my 2 cassette radio antics and so has the production. I admit, that I am a self proclaimed engineer. I have never nor will I ever goto school to learn this stuff, cant efford it and sure as hell dont have the time. Which is why Im mastering my own music as well. I dont expect my cd to sound like sony produced it. Sure I want it to sound its best, but when is enough enough? Isnt enough when I say it is? after all its MY music. Im I scareying anyone by saying these things?
groucho
Member
Just to balance things out a little here....:
I think all that Sigma's saying is that he's satisfied with the sound he can achieve on his own, that maybe he's a little weary of the constant warnings that the ONLY way to master is to take it to a pro, etc.
I'm not entirely sure why he felt the need to POST this, but there doesn't seem to be much to quibble with, really. If you're happy, you're happy. "Good sound quality" isn't a universally agreed-upon standard. I can't stand the sound of some CDs that have been reccomended to me as "excellently mastered" (although I do recognize the skill - it just wasn't applied in a way that suits me as a listener).
Yeah, if you wanna enter the world of commerce you gotta have an eye towards what people want to hear, or what is generally considered "good". But there is something to be said for pleasing yourself first and hoping there might be others with similar taste who will agree.
Chris
I think all that Sigma's saying is that he's satisfied with the sound he can achieve on his own, that maybe he's a little weary of the constant warnings that the ONLY way to master is to take it to a pro, etc.
I'm not entirely sure why he felt the need to POST this, but there doesn't seem to be much to quibble with, really. If you're happy, you're happy. "Good sound quality" isn't a universally agreed-upon standard. I can't stand the sound of some CDs that have been reccomended to me as "excellently mastered" (although I do recognize the skill - it just wasn't applied in a way that suits me as a listener).
Yeah, if you wanna enter the world of commerce you gotta have an eye towards what people want to hear, or what is generally considered "good". But there is something to be said for pleasing yourself first and hoping there might be others with similar taste who will agree.
Chris
Blue Bear Sound
New member
I see where you're coming from, but in reading Sigma's original post, there was a definite slant to why bother worrying about the sound quality of the CD.
The mastering process is TOTALLY involved in dealing with just that - ensuring a production sounds the best it can. Part of knowing how good something sounds is recognizing any areas that there's a deficiency. One way to do this is by comparison because the ME's working on the commercial side of things ARE much better and more experienced at "making it sound good", so using a commercial mix as a reference makes a whole lot of sense in giving someone else a good frame of reference or "sound quality goal" to go for.
While it's great that Sigma is happy with the sound he's getting, I have absolutely no doubt that his mixes will be vastly improved by a good ME.
In addition, the underlying tone of a statement such as "don't conform" in relation to sound quality is completely ludicrous - there is a range of acceptable audio quality and production standards that most people will agree sounds good or excellent. Striving to get your mix categorized as either good or excellent is not being conformist, it should be your goal every time you get behind the console! That's your job as an engineer for fuck sakes!
IMO, "don't conform" in audio quality terms usually means, "I'm not up to snuff but can't do any better, so fuck it...." -- and that is simply a cop-out....... even home recordists should care about what they're doing with their sound - even if they are only trying to please themselves!
The mastering process is TOTALLY involved in dealing with just that - ensuring a production sounds the best it can. Part of knowing how good something sounds is recognizing any areas that there's a deficiency. One way to do this is by comparison because the ME's working on the commercial side of things ARE much better and more experienced at "making it sound good", so using a commercial mix as a reference makes a whole lot of sense in giving someone else a good frame of reference or "sound quality goal" to go for.
While it's great that Sigma is happy with the sound he's getting, I have absolutely no doubt that his mixes will be vastly improved by a good ME.
In addition, the underlying tone of a statement such as "don't conform" in relation to sound quality is completely ludicrous - there is a range of acceptable audio quality and production standards that most people will agree sounds good or excellent. Striving to get your mix categorized as either good or excellent is not being conformist, it should be your goal every time you get behind the console! That's your job as an engineer for fuck sakes!
IMO, "don't conform" in audio quality terms usually means, "I'm not up to snuff but can't do any better, so fuck it...." -- and that is simply a cop-out....... even home recordists should care about what they're doing with their sound - even if they are only trying to please themselves!
dobro
Well-known member
Sigma, ignore Blue Bear - he gets on everyone's tits. 
However, if you're happy with the sound you're getting on your mixes/masters, why did you start this thread? Because you think you're right, and you want confirmation from others? Or is it because you have some doubts and you're looking for useful input? Blue Bear and littledog gave you their best advice regarding the value of referencing your stuff to pro/commercial stuff. It's good advice. In other words, don't ignore Blue Bear.
However, if you're happy with the sound you're getting on your mixes/masters, why did you start this thread? Because you think you're right, and you want confirmation from others? Or is it because you have some doubts and you're looking for useful input? Blue Bear and littledog gave you their best advice regarding the value of referencing your stuff to pro/commercial stuff. It's good advice. In other words, don't ignore Blue Bear.
Re: ????
Actually it was "form", but anyway, we are in complete agreement: a recording will sound different on every system in every room. The difference is, rather than just acknowledge that fact and say there is nothing one can do about it, I prefer to have someone make final adjustments that will give my mixes the maximum possible "translatability" for when they eventually get played in car stereos, boom boxes, hi-fi living rooms, walkmans, etc.
The only people I personally know that do this effectively and consistently are mastering engineers. If you have either the innate ability, acquired skills, or just dumb luck to be able to do this on your own, I envy you. I know i can't, and most people, if for no other reason than they have badly compromised listening environments, can't do it either!
Obviously, no one here has a problem with you doing to your music whatever your heart or wallet dictates. I think the discussion got originally stimulated more by the "general principles" that came to be debated by examining your specific situation. Not everyone who reads these threads will necessarily have your innate talent or finely honed skills, so it would be dangerous to recommend that less fortunate folks like me follow your path.
Sigma9 said:
Actually it was "form", but anyway, we are in complete agreement: a recording will sound different on every system in every room. The difference is, rather than just acknowledge that fact and say there is nothing one can do about it, I prefer to have someone make final adjustments that will give my mixes the maximum possible "translatability" for when they eventually get played in car stereos, boom boxes, hi-fi living rooms, walkmans, etc.
The only people I personally know that do this effectively and consistently are mastering engineers. If you have either the innate ability, acquired skills, or just dumb luck to be able to do this on your own, I envy you. I know i can't, and most people, if for no other reason than they have badly compromised listening environments, can't do it either!
Obviously, no one here has a problem with you doing to your music whatever your heart or wallet dictates. I think the discussion got originally stimulated more by the "general principles" that came to be debated by examining your specific situation. Not everyone who reads these threads will necessarily have your innate talent or finely honed skills, so it would be dangerous to recommend that less fortunate folks like me follow your path.
dobro
Well-known member
"The only people I personally know that do this effectively and consistently are mastering engineers."
You tend to know what you're talking about most of the time, in my experience. Yet your comment depresses the hell out of me.
Yet again, there must be a general approach that homers can use. Homers can't afford mastering engineers. So, what's the best approach? Reference your stuff to pro stuff, yeah, okay. But how about taking it a step back? Or two steps back? Back to mixing and recording? Get it as right as possible when tracking. Good. I understand that. But what about in the mix? What's the principle to follow? The Wisdom of the Minimum Tweak (fewer changes yield a better result)?
Short of that, what's the fix? Marketing two or three versions of the same album? One for the boombox, one for the home stereo, one for the walkman?
You tend to know what you're talking about most of the time, in my experience. Yet your comment depresses the hell out of me.
Yet again, there must be a general approach that homers can use. Homers can't afford mastering engineers. So, what's the best approach? Reference your stuff to pro stuff, yeah, okay. But how about taking it a step back? Or two steps back? Back to mixing and recording? Get it as right as possible when tracking. Good. I understand that. But what about in the mix? What's the principle to follow? The Wisdom of the Minimum Tweak (fewer changes yield a better result)?
Short of that, what's the fix? Marketing two or three versions of the same album? One for the boombox, one for the home stereo, one for the walkman?
Son of Mixerman
Mix Junior
dobro said:
I can advise you to follow some simple ideas, that ME's do while learning or honing their skills. This assumes your using any Pc based editor.
Make multiple mixes, document how each one was done. Then take those mixes to different listening environments to see how each one translates.
Don't try to master 2 minutes after your done mixing. Try to do it at least a week afterwards. Also use a reference consumer cd through the speakers during that week or so to acclimate your ears.
Do not attempt to master in your atypical mixing room. If you have to drag your PC into the biggest room of your house and use decent home speakers that your are familiar with. Don't be afraid to walk around your room listening for boominess, harshness, muddyness...etc
And lastly, have someone listen to it besides yourself. I used to have my wife do that for me. She actually acts like a client by telling me what needs what. And I ll tweak realtime to see if it gets better or worse. Don't worry about looking at waveforms, just use your ears to identifiy the good and the bad and learn how not to make it worse.
These are only guidelines for improving what you have. It doesn't deal with whether or not you have the ears to be even mixing without adult supervision. Don't be too focused on specific details, but listen to the overall generalities. Practice Practice Practice...
SoMm
Son of Mixerman said:
This one is always my biggest downfall.
Given the type of time constraints I'm often faced with, I have no other choice but to jump from tracking right in to mixing, and on to "mastering" with no breaks. So it's very easy for me to run out of fresh ears.
Perhaps the best tool I've found is right here at the MP3 clinic. Post your tune, and if you're lucky enough, you might get 5 or more responses from people who's ears are much more objective than yours. And most everyone has different monitoring setups, so it's kind of a lazy man's way of checking your mix on different systems.
dobro said:
I could tell a few jokes instead...
I'm assuming that most people aren't pressing, shrinkwrapping, printing artwork, silkscreening, etc. their own CDs. Most of us pay a duplication house to do that, and since prices have plunged on these services, making a CD is no longer unaffordable for the average person.
But you do pay SOMETHING for these services. Some of us also pay musicians, although some of us don't. But there's always going to be some cost out of pocket. So only you can determine if an extra $500-$600 for mastering is a budget buster. Seeing as most of us wouldn't hesitate to spend much that on a mic or a preamp, it's hardly fair to assume that no one here can afford to do it.
The better question is can you afford NOT to do it.
JR#97
New member
I love how Musician's Friend has turned everybody into a mastering engineer.
Seriously, how many of you even know what the purpose of mastering is? Or at least what it was up until the last 5 years or so....
When I worked as a mastering engineer, my role as a mastering engineer was to do the following:
1) Maintain the integrity of the original mix. Mastering Engineers are not producers.
2) Make sonic corrections if needed to compensate for the differences between the source media, master media, and target media. One of my golden eared bosses also made corrections for things like converters, processing changes, how the monitors were feeling that day, etc. dude was amazing. I couldn't hear the difference in his microscopic tweaks, but to him it was night and day. He also had perfect pitch, could transcribe on the fly, blah blah blah.... anywho...
3) Make corrective adjustments, edits, fades, etc. Correct things like hisses, hums, noises, bad edits, pops and clicks, etc.
4) If needed, obtain sonic continuity... ie... try and make the songs fit together so that they sound like the same project overall and not just a bunch of songs.
5) Provide a NEW AND FRESH SET OF EARS to the project. Even though our role wasn't to make drastic changes, some times our opinions and suggestions could lead to a re-mix should need be.
Does every project need to be mastered? Yes.. if you're going to make duplicates. But that doesn't mean mastering has to be anymore than transfering your mixes to a duplication master CD without any level or eq adjustments. You'd be suprised how many CD's out there say they were mastered, but all the mastering guy did was make a duplication copy without any tweaking whatsoever! Or the tweaking was so minuet or inconsequential you could really take it or leave it. So stop getting it in your heads that tweaking in the mastering stage is necessary! It's not!
The other thing that drives me nuts the most is people talking about mastering one song... that isn't mastering!!!! It's just more mixing!!!!
So ignore that damn mastering button on your digital multitrack until you've got a bunch of songs for a project and you really need it!
Seriously, how many of you even know what the purpose of mastering is? Or at least what it was up until the last 5 years or so....
When I worked as a mastering engineer, my role as a mastering engineer was to do the following:
1) Maintain the integrity of the original mix. Mastering Engineers are not producers.
2) Make sonic corrections if needed to compensate for the differences between the source media, master media, and target media. One of my golden eared bosses also made corrections for things like converters, processing changes, how the monitors were feeling that day, etc. dude was amazing. I couldn't hear the difference in his microscopic tweaks, but to him it was night and day. He also had perfect pitch, could transcribe on the fly, blah blah blah.... anywho...
3) Make corrective adjustments, edits, fades, etc. Correct things like hisses, hums, noises, bad edits, pops and clicks, etc.
4) If needed, obtain sonic continuity... ie... try and make the songs fit together so that they sound like the same project overall and not just a bunch of songs.
5) Provide a NEW AND FRESH SET OF EARS to the project. Even though our role wasn't to make drastic changes, some times our opinions and suggestions could lead to a re-mix should need be.
Does every project need to be mastered? Yes.. if you're going to make duplicates. But that doesn't mean mastering has to be anymore than transfering your mixes to a duplication master CD without any level or eq adjustments. You'd be suprised how many CD's out there say they were mastered, but all the mastering guy did was make a duplication copy without any tweaking whatsoever! Or the tweaking was so minuet or inconsequential you could really take it or leave it. So stop getting it in your heads that tweaking in the mastering stage is necessary! It's not!
The other thing that drives me nuts the most is people talking about mastering one song... that isn't mastering!!!! It's just more mixing!!!!
So ignore that damn mastering button on your digital multitrack until you've got a bunch of songs for a project and you really need it!