Mastering EQ?

VesuviusJay

VesuviusJay

Poser Roaster
Can anyone advise me on the use of EQ while mastering? It seems on many of my mix downs, the resulting wav is a hair bit on the dull side. OF course mastering will put a little sparkle on it but it doesnt seem to be quite enough. So my question is, is it better to tweak the EQ of the instruments in the mix, or mess with parametric EQ in the master?
 
I think it's best to address as much as possible in the mix. Anything and everything you can.

More accurately, at the tracking level - Even more accurately, during mic placement - Even MORE accurately, when creating the core sounds.

It's all in my sig...
 
I would bet you that there are some instruments in the mix that are as bright as they need to be, adding high end to the mix will brighten them up as well. It is always better to get the sounds right in the mix.
 
I don't want to pile on, but you definitely want to get the track sounding exactly the way you want it to in the mix.

It used to be the joke was "fix it in the mix", but now it seems to be "fix it in the master". If you can get the tracks sounding the way you want them while tracking, that's even better. Either way, the concept is to get everything sounding right as early in the process as possible. Then there's less to fix later.
 
I concur with John, Albert, Farview. The more processing that is done, the more you add various types of distortion along the chain. Get the sound source the best that you can first, choose the best mic or mic combination, etc. Hopefully you won't need to EQ at all, or at least that should be the goal.

I wouldn't recommend boosting high end on all of the tracks to get overall high end on the mix. Concentrate mainly on getting the tracks to sound balanced together. If the mix needs a little top overall (and often times does), save that for mastering. It will give you more options to play with later, you can use the best EQ in your arsenal for the entire mix rather than several compromised ones (if going analog rather than plugin) and you will likely have less overall distortion.
 
SonicAlbert said:
It used to be the joke was "fix it in the mix", but now it seems to be "fix it in the master".
Click to expand...
I'm pushing for a new trend:

"Fix it on the playback!" This way we don't have to worry about a damn thing during the entire production process. We'll just leave it to the listener to decide how to fix it their way! :p

Just kidding, of course. The whole gang here is right; front-load your quality as much as possible and use only the best china when mastering.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
front-load your quality as much as possible and use only the best china when mastering.
Click to expand...

However, I do consider this whole concept of "self mastering" to be a joke. It's not really mastering in the true sense, it just isn't. More a bit of self-deception really. As long as you realize that self mastering with an eq plugin on the same gear you mixed your song with is *not* mastering, the better off you'll be.

If the song is missing some sparkle or whatever, then that's a mixing issue, and should be dealt with in that context. Again, if you notice *anything* you don't like when you are done mixing, then that is not a mastering issue, but a mix issue. When you are finished with the mix it should please you in every way.

Finally, when you've finished a bunch of songs that please you, send them to a qualified mastering engineer (and then release the album!).
 
Can't add much to this thread, but:

If your mix sounds dull it might not be the high end that you need to look at. Maybe there is too much energy in the lows, low mids, etc: mud. Too many things stepping on each other in the lower end of the spectrum makes it *really* tough for the upper end of the spectrum. Hard to add sparkle to mud even if that high freq. information is well captured and present.

So EQ is a powerful WMD during the mix. Carve out space for everything by finding where tracks are stepping on each other and CUT the frequencies that overlap. Thanks to the way the ear works, if you cut a little...say 500Hz...out of a quieter track (e.g. background guitar) when it placed back in the mix with everything else you won't notice that a little bit is missing- its covered up (masked) by the louder 500Hz information in the lead guitar.

MUCH, much, much easier to have this kind of control while mixing. And the more you mix this way the more your ear develops and you can start tracking things that way. Why do we always record the full spectrum of a guitar track? There isn't anything useful below 100Hz or so... so cut it on the way in and save yourself the DSP (or hardware) later. Why not EQ out the ring of the snare on the way to tape? Etc.

Anyway- its just my observation that you almost have to "fix it in the mix" for a while until you learn the patterns of what you're fixing all the time and start tracking in a way that prevents those problems. By the same token, home mastering is a great way to uncover what's wrong with your mixes SO YOU CAN GO BACK AND FIX THE MIX!

While you're playing around with EQ's and compressors on your program material you'll start developing an ear for what the tools do to your mixes AND have fresh insights and get ideas for trying out in your mix. Its a good way to learn. If the final product isn't quite what you wanted you have to find out why and at what stage of the game you have to do what to achieve it.

More often than not, if you're struggling with the snare (for example) at the mastering stage its because the mic wasn't placed right on it in the first place. Sucks, but its better to accept that and learn from it than to try and make mastering make up for what is really a tracking problem.

- Chris
 
IMHO, the average home recording enthusiast would not be best served by spending their smallish allotment of money on professional mastering. There is no denying that the average Joe (or Jane) will never achieve the level of professionalism that a pro ME and replication house can deliver. But how many average Joe’s have gone that route and then ended up with 1,000 packaged CD’s sitting in their hall closet - to the tune of 2-3 thousand dollars spent?
I believe they could learn more, have more fun and enjoy more sense of accomplishment by directing their hard earned dollars toward a Plextor CD writer, some cool software and a stack of Taiyo Yuden CDR’s. And, possibly an ink jet that will print on the CDR’s. Then burn cd’s, compare them to their favorite commercially released cd’s, analyze why theirs doesn’t sound as good, go back and tweak, burn cd’s, analyze why theirs doesn’t sound as good… and on and on.
Eventually they will get good enough that their friends who use music to occupy their time while waiting at a stoplight will not be able to tell the difference between the home grown production and the commercial release.
What’s the worst that could come of this approach? The friend at the stoplight will still be able to tell how much your music sucks!
 
tkingen said:
What’s the worst that could come of this approach? The friend at the stoplight will still be able to tell how much your music sucks!
Click to expand...

The thing that everyone has to remember is that this is not mastering. That's the worst that could come of it, plus having a CD that doesn't sound as good as it could.

But yes, harmless fun for all. I'm all for it as long as everyone remembers that the home recordist who is "mastering" their songs is really not mastering them.
 
SonicAlbert said:
The thing that everyone has to remember is that this is not mastering. That's the worst that could come of it, plus having a CD that doesn't sound as good as it could.

But yes, harmless fun for all. I'm all for it as long as everyone remembers that the home recordist who is "mastering" their songs is really not mastering them.
Click to expand...

Well I would have to disagree with you a bit. Some home recordists are "Mastering" using software such as Izotop Ozone. Now whether they are getting quality mastering or not is another question...
 
Let's all remember that "mastering" is not a tool, nor is "mastering" a person.

Mastering is a process. This process is defined as the stage in the production process that comprises anything and everything that is done between the mixing stage and the duplication stage.

While I agree 100% with Al that when producing a professional product for public distribution, it is highly recommended to get a specialized mastering facility and engineer to do the mastering, to say that if one does not go that route that they are not "mastering" their product is a bit tight.

At the same time I would never say that just because someone has a copy of Ozone or T-Racks that they squish their stuff though that they are doing any kind of mastering job worth admitting to. But technically, if they are "polishing" the mixdown and/or otherwise prepping it for pre-master issue, that is, by definition, part of the mastering process and therefore is mastering.

It may be a crapola of a mastering job, but it is mastering nonetheless. Nobody ever accused someone of not "tracking" just because they did a shoddy job of recording. Same with "mixing".

Now, is it a great idea to put a lot of down time between the mixing and the mastering stage when mastering your own stuff? Yes.

Is it an even better idea to actually know what you're doing and not just churn your song through some all-in-one plugin with a jillion presets? Definitely.

Is it highly arguable that even if you do know what you're doing in the mastering stage, that you get a second set of ears in on it? Yep.

Is it the best thing of all to send your mixes and stems to another facility that specializes in mastering? Bingo.

however...

Are the last two options above necessary for all projects? Hell no.

Is it impossible for one to do a great job mastering their own mixes? Not if they actually know what they're doing.

Is the real answer that one has to look realistically at their project goals, their project budget, their available tools and their own capabilities, and decide from there what the best path is for them to take through the mastering process?

Absolutely.

G.
 
Hell, I use Ozone 1 as my mastering agent. Is it going to turn out as good as some mastering house that has spent big bucks on expensive gear with names I've never heard of.....no it ain't. But for a guy with no commercial channels and no desire to spend the additional dough on mastering proper...it polishes my tunes just fine. Not the real deal but better than nada.

Bob
 
-Warning: super long post!-

Okay, I guess I'm a little sensitive right now because I'm on the receiving end of a lot of tracks that have obviously been home recorded, engineered, and "mastered".

I'm currently scoring a film that is making use of licensed tracks. Beyond writing and recording the soundtrack, part of my job is to help out with the selection and placement of the tracks that are being licensed. So I've been going through stacks of CD's of prospective tracks.

I have to say what is shocking to me is how bad the engineering is on many of the tracks. Even the director commented on that specifically, and he's no musical expert (although he does know what's good and what isn't when he hears it). People are putting work out there that is not up to standard, is poorly mixed, and has glaring flaws.

What's also very noticable is that most of these CD's have been maximized/L2'ed to death. Many of them have that "crew cut" or "toothpaste" look. Most have peaks at -.1 and keep hitting that. It must be that the unwritten rule now is to "master" tracks to -.1 and to be on the verge of distortion (or into distortion) at all times. It's ugly, and unusable.

If you think you will be sending your tracks out in any kind of professional situation, then *you owe it to yourself* to do some major homework and understand the processes that are taking place.

For mastering, you must read Bob Katz's book called "Mastering audio, the art and the science". If there is a good quality mastering engineer in your area, take a finished song to him or her and sit in on the session where they master it. After doing both of these things you'll start to have a clue as to how to go about it yourself on your own. Before that, forget it, no way. Buying a book and paying for one song to be professionally mastered locally is a cheap education.

If your music is going to be heard by anyone beside your immediate circle of easily impressed family and friends, then don't kid yourself, you need to know what you are doing or hire someone who does. I just hate to think of someone missing a great opportunity because their tracks were technically flawed. There's this myth that if the music is good enough nothing else matters. That's baloney, it *all* matters. If the track is technically flawed it may be unusable or unlistenable, no matter how good the music.

There is the other side of the coin, where the tracks are super smooth technically, have been recorded and mixed to perfection, but are *too* slick and lack heart. We've been rejecting those tracks too, at least for this picture.

Bottom line, if you've got talent and something to say musically, it is worth it to go the extra mile and make sure the tracks are really wonderful in every respect. That doesn't guarantee anything, but I do believe it makes the odds better.

I speak from personal experience. Like many of you I started out doing everything myself, but my recordings didn't start working for me until I smartened up and hired an outside engineer to make them sound pro and appropriate for their intended market.

I really believe that most people with home studios have a dream. While they may say they are just doing it for their own personal satisfaction, I think that many still have in the back of their mind a vision or desire to do more with it than just that. So that's why I basically wrote this whole long post, to encourage those of you that feel that way to go the extra mile and invest in some books and some sessions now and then with a pro engineer. You will learn from it, and most of all will probably totally enjoy it.
 
Mastering Exchange Network

While I fully acknowledge that much of what constitutes a quality mastering job is an experienced ME and and high-end equipment, it seems that the other major factor is just having a fresh set of ears doing the mastering.

For those home recordists who can't/don't want to shell out cash for a pro job, it semes that there would be plenty of people here that could do it. Essentially, trading mastering jobs for mastering jobs, just to get some fresh ears working on it, even if it is using less than ideal monitors, room, softare/hardware, etc.

In other words, we could set up a mastering exchange network, for people interested in the process to hone their skills a bit and for recordists to get their little personal projects mastered by someone new. By the way, count me out unless you wnat me to master your project on a Tascam portastudio. Jsut a thought....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top