Mastering With A Limiter...

[Dr. Varney]

I was advised, I think quite rightly, to leave some 'headroom' for other instruments in my mix - until I come to master - then push the levels up to meet the normal kind of volume expected for playback.

Now I've read up on the basics of compression and have learned to apply basic compression to certain instruments, where needed. I haven't touched a limiter yet (or so I thought I hadn't) because at this stage, I don't want something in there I don't know how to use...

Then I discovered...

FL Studio Producer 8 sticks one on the master mix - BY DEFAULT! Open the program, hear the little 'bleep' and there he is... Mister Limiter - all set up and ready to go...

(I knew it was there, actually - I just left it as is, thinking the authors of FL Studio must know best...?!)

Now... I'm aware of the old 'Volume Wars' and all that crap... I'm not in it for max volume or ear-shattering bass - I'm just trying to achieve a little 'sweetness' and groove (and I listen to music from all eras).

At this stage, I don't think I'm ready to grapple with a hard limiter just yet, but...

Obviously, I mixed my tracks with it switched on and before I switched it off, I dropped my levels to get around -12db headroom and then compared my ASIO output with the Windows Wave signal.

Now I'm not quite sure where I am because I figured the limiter would 'add' to the overall level of the main mix and of course, it doesn't - it just sounds louder. Now I've turned it off, after bringing the levels down, everything really does sound too quiet. I can't bring levels up much further, because most of them are near maximum... So this is turning out to be a bit of a problem.

Can anyone advise?

Cheers

Dr. V

 

[Massive Master]

Less is almost always more - Leave it off until the mix is begging for it. Then use as little as possible and only when you're absolutely positively finished with everything else. "Brick-wall" limiters = Damage. Plenty of damage. Basically by default. You're (by definition) limiting the dynamic range by an absolute margin. "Clipping, legally" for lack of a better term. Once that's done, it's done.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

I was advised, I think quite rightly, to leave some 'headroom' for other instruments in my mix - until I come to master - then push the levels up to meet the normal kind of volume expected for playback.

Now I've read up on the basics of compression and have learned to apply basic compression to certain instruments, where needed. I haven't touched a limiter yet (or so I thought I hadn't) because at this stage, I don't want something in there I don't know how to use...

Then I discovered...

FL Studio Producer 8 sticks one on the master mix - BY DEFAULT! Open the program, hear the little 'bleep' and there he is... Mister Limiter - all set up and ready to go...

(I knew it was there, actually - I just left it as is, thinking the authors of FL Studio must know best...?!)

Now... I'm aware of the old 'Volume Wars' and all that crap... I'm not in it for max volume or ear-shattering bass - I'm just trying to achieve a little 'sweetness' and groove (and I listen to music from all eras).

At this stage, I don't think I'm ready to grapple with a hard limiter just yet, but...

Obviously, I mixed my tracks with it switched on and before I switched it off, I dropped my levels to get around -12db headroom and then compared my ASIO output with the Windows Wave signal.

Now I'm not quite sure where I am because I figured the limiter would 'add' to the overall level of the main mix and of course, it doesn't - it just sounds louder. Now I've turned it off, after bringing the levels down, everything really does sound too quiet. I can't bring levels up much further, because most of them are near maximum... So this is turning out to be a bit of a problem.

From reading your post it hard to tell whether your questioning the use of a limiter in the mixing or mastering phase? It seems like the limiter you're describing is added during the mixing phase although the title of the thread is "Mastering With A Limiter".

I think that would be good to sort out as you can't master when you are mixing.

I would leave the limiter off completely in the mixing stage, and definitely not mix into it. These are bad habits to get into IMO.

 

[Dr. Varney]

I think that would be good to sort out as you can't master when you are mixing.

Um... New to this... Could you explain the difference please? I thought 'mastering' was just the final 'mix' or that they were interchangable terms...

From reading your post it hard to tell whether your questioning the use of a limiter in the mixing or mastering phase?

I'm questioning it's use while I'm working on the song.

Dr. V

 

[Dr. Varney]

Less is almost always more - Leave it off until the mix is begging for it. Then use as little as possible and only when you're absolutely positively finished with everything else. "Brick-wall" limiters = Damage. Plenty of damage. Basically by default. You're (by definition) limiting the dynamic range by an absolute margin. "Clipping, legally" for lack of a better term. Once that's done, it's done.

Thanks... I've switched off the limiter now and lowered all the levels manually. Had to start again but it was worth it. It sounds good without it and I'm averaging around -12db on the meter.

Dr. V

 

[Waltz Mastering]

Um... New to this... Could you explain the difference please? I thought 'mastering' was just the final 'mix' or that they were interchangable terms...

That's what I was thinking by reading your post and I also think there are a lot of engineers coming up that think the same thing - that "mixing" and "mastering" are interchangeable terms when really they are not.

In the simplest sense mixing is the blending and balancing of the individual recorded elements that make up a song into a cohesive, subjectively listen-able 2 track composite.

Mastering in it's simplest sense is then taking these mixes and molding them or adjusting their final tonal balance and level so to have continuity and translation between them and within them,
individually and together as a group.

What I'm getting at is, it's virtually impossible to master as you mix. You can add 2 track processing to your mix, but that's not really mastering.

Mixing and Mastering are two separate processes that can not be done at the same time, so if someone is just learning to engineer. I think it's important to understand the difference between the two,

 

[kcearl]

One thing Doc....dont be afraid to zero everything and stick all your panning back to central...sometimes a fresh start is what you need..

Im all for mixing on the go, I mean thats what most of us do in homerecording, but if it just isnt sitting right just scratch it and start again...

-14bd average for the initial volume is good, then the first mix can take say a couple of hours...the tweaking is where the real time is spent..the recording (though make sure you track as accurately and with as good a performance as possible) is generally the quickest part for me

one more thing...use the mute button, if its all getting a bit crowded mute some of your tracks...either limit the amount of instruments playing at one time or just delete them altogether..it pisses you off if you've spent a lot of time but if it doesn't work it doesn't work..I have two days worth of vocals lying in my recycle bin on the desktop...just the way it goes

forget about mastering just now..imho mixing will be the most difficult obstacle and its certainly just as important, if not more so, than the actual recording

 

[Dr. Varney]

That's what I was thinking by reading your post and I also think there are a lot of engineers coming up that think the same thing - that "mixing" and "mastering" are interchangeable terms when really they are not.

In the simplest sense mixing is the blending and balancing of the individual recorded elements that make up a song into a cohesive, subjectively listen-able 2 track composite.

Mastering in it's simplest sense is then taking these mixes and molding them or adjusting their final tonal balance and level so to have continuity and translation between them and within them,
individually and together as a group.

What I'm getting at is, it's virtually impossible to master as you mix. You can add 2 track processing to your mix, but that's not really mastering.

Mixing and Mastering are two separate processes that can not be done at the same time, so if someone is just learning to engineer. I think it's important to understand the difference between the two,

Hum... Where to start? I have so many questions... Okay - first of all, why don't I tell you what I've been doing all this time, then you take it from there?

From reading what others do, I'm beginning to think this may raise some eyebrows...

First of all, I start out choosing instruments I'm going to use and assign them to mixer slots, set their levels and add any FX where needed. I'm generally tweaking levels throughout the whole song-writing process. Same with panning.

Then when it's nearly finished, I tweak some more and spend ages listening critically, to it, over and over again, whilst tweaking more levels and adding more FX or maybe taking FX out, etc. Only then, will I decide on how the song should end because for me, that's the most difficult decision.

Now, you can probably tell I'm aware this isn't erm... standard practice; that I'm looking to start working in a different way and from reading in here, I'm getting the distinct impression that what I'm doing is probably so wrong, it gets crowned 'El-Wrongo' of Wrongland.... But I've never had any instruction before.

So - if it's not possible to mix and master at the same time - I wonder what I've been doing. Perhaps both or neither, which you might call... Muddling? So yes - I do desire to learn some kind of 'standard practice'. I even don't mind starting this song again, if it means I'm going to learn something through it.

Okay - so I understand that mastering should occur last of all in the whole process. That just leaves mixing... I don't quite understand how you define a 'mix'.

Now I'm reading this: http://musicians.about.com/od/musiciansfaq/f/mixingormaster.htm

Dr. V

 

[Dr. Varney]

Ah now... This is what I'm getting:

Mixing is getting each song right.

Mastering is getting each song to sit on an album.

So then, what I've been doing all along is mixing? I thought I was mastering each song. Now I can see why you say it's impossible to mix and master at the same time.

So have I got that right?

Dr. V

 

[Massive Master]

Sounds about right to me.

I'm still wondering where the confusion was... Unless it was another one of those typical 'definition changes' (definition bastardizations) that seem to creep out of certain genres...

 

[Dr. Varney]

Good.

The confusion was internal. I don't mix in 'genres'... (mixing - as in: associating with)!

Thanks for clearing that up.

Dr. V

 

[RAMI]

Ah now... This is what I'm getting:

Mixing is getting each song right.

Mastering is getting each song to sit on an album.

Yes and No. The definitions are pretty much correct. But, you can still put a single song through the mastering process.

Mixing a song is about getting all the levels, panning, effects, etc...where you want them, for a finished 2-track stereo mix of the tune.

Mastering that same song would involve taking the 2-track stereo mix and adding finishing touches to it, like volume and EQ touch-ups, if needed.

Long story short, get rid of that limiter while you're mixing.

 

[TelePaul]

Isn't a limiter just - for all intents and purposes - a compressor with a ratio greater tahn 10:1?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Isn't a limiter just - for all intents and purposes - a compressor with a ratio greater tahn 10:1?

Plus fast attack to handle all transients.
..................
As far as the mixing vs. mastering thang, I think an important way to look at it is to identify at what mastering is *not*.

Mastering is NOT mixing. Mastering is what you do only after you create the stereo mix. Before that you're mixing, and mixing, NOT mastering, is where 90%+ of you final sound should be created.

Mastering is NOT about finishing an incomplete mix. If the mix isn't done yet, then finish it, don't try to finish it after it's mixed down.

Mastering is NOT about fixing a mix. If the mix is broken, then fix it. Before you master. Don't try to use mastering to fix a bad mix, instead get a good mix first.

G.

 

[kcearl]

yeah but should you use mixing to fix bad mastering? uhuh...gotcha all there...who's the daddy...can i get a whoop whoop!!

 

[noisewreck]

yeah but should you use mixing to fix bad mastering? Uhuh...gotcha all there...who's the daddy...can i get a whoop whoop!!

lol!
-----------------

 

[Dr. Varney]

..................
As far as the mixing vs. mastering thang, I think an important way to look at it is to identify at what mastering is *not*.

Mastering is NOT mixing. Mastering is what you do only after you create the stereo mix. Before that you're mixing, and mixing, NOT mastering, is where 90%+ of you final sound should be created.

Mastering is NOT about finishing an incomplete mix. If the mix isn't done yet, then finish it, don't try to finish it after it's mixed down.

Mastering is NOT about fixing a mix. If the mix is broken, then fix it. Before you master. Don't try to use mastering to fix a bad mix, instead get a good mix first.

G.

Now then, now then... That's just gone totally surreal...

So if it's a good mix - what's mastering for?

Now you've told me what it's not, please tell me what it is, because someone just said you can master a song. Please give me an example of what a person does when they are mixing, then one as they are mastering. That might help.

Shit, I thought I had this. Maybe it's the Southern Comfort and cream soda kicking in but it's all gone weird again.

Dr. V

 

[mattr]

Mastering generally involves some dark voodoo magic and a sacrifice to the gods.













Well, it seems that way sometimes.

As far as I've encountered it, mastering is all about preparation for distribution, like the final stage of quality control... making final adjustments and changes before you commit your work to the big scary world (and possibly before you commit to a big scary bill for your 10000-copy replication order)!

As part of this process, some EQ, compression, limiting, etc etc etc, might be involved to 'put the icing on the cake' as deemed necessary by the highly trained ears of the mastering engineer. This is one of the important reasons for mastering as far as I can see - having some fresh ears listen to a mix from a different perspective and in a different (usually far superior) listening environment. When you spend a long time on a mix you can easily become desensitized to it which may not result in it being a bad mix, but might mean for example that you make some overall tonal decisions (i.e. mixed it a tiny bit bass heavy or something) that the ME will fairly quickly pick up on and tweak, etc.

Then obviously there's the matter of the loudness wars, and everyone seeming to want their music skillfully "crushed". This is a controversial area, but seems to be the common (mis)conception of what mastering is for.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Maybe it's the Southern Comfort and cream soda kicking in but it's all gone weird again.

LOL. Wow, I thought *I* had a sweet tooth back in my early 20s when I went with Southern Comfort and Dr. Pepper for a while!

It's not as surreal as it may seem right now, Doc. Let me throw a couple of patented analogies at you first, and then try for a more serious explanation:

If producing a recording were like cooking a meal, tracking would be selecting and prepping the ingredients, mixing would be cooking the dish, and mastering would be the plating and presentation.

If producing music were like fixing up a car, mixing would be the mechanical and body work, and mastering would be the final detailing (polishing, pinstriping, etc.)

Classically, mastering has meant prepping the music for it's final distribution medium. With 78s this would have meant making the necessary technical adjustments and processes for getting the recording to cut a master disc on the cutting lathe that when used later to press the final records would make records that were as true to the original recording as possible without violating the physical constraints of the record medium: i.e. making sure things physically fit on the record while simultaneously making sure it was playable (wouldn't cause the needle to jump the groove) without sacrificing sound quality. This was a real balancing act and it required a lot of skill; in earlier years and on audiophile pressings, often done in real time right in the studio. But notice there's nothing really there about making the recording sound better or making the mix sound good.

When the LP record came along, mastering now included everything mentioned above, but also included the art of making a "cohesive-sounding" album; i.e. polishing and fine-tuning the individual song mixes to sound as though they "belong together" in both relative loudness and timbre, even if they came form different studios or different engineers. Note that mastering deals a bit more with the sound quality - at least in more ways - now, but it's still really just a polishing, fine tuning and presentation process that depends upon starting with quality mixes to begin with, and isn't really about fixing inherent "problems" with the mixes. They're not removing dents and rust from the mix, they're just rubbing in the Turtle Wax and adding the pinstripes.

That's not to say that they didn't occasionally have to "fix" what they deemed to be an issue in a mix here or there, but those would usually have been contingency fixes only - stuff that slipped through the cracks - and not something necessarily planned as part of the process.

Then when CDs came along, mastering engineers took all of the above, and added the extra "polishing and presentation" steps necessitated by the digital world, which could include anything from the conversion of analog pre-masters to digital to the conversion of sample rates and wordlength dithering, to the formatting of the signal to a digital (pre)master disc with a minimum of clips/overs and disc write errors, setting proper track markers, etc.

Now with the increasing importance of MP3s and the huge jump in the number of non-album, non-CD MP3 "singles" being released via the Internet, mastering can be considered as applying to a single song; polishing the sound, perhaps boosting overall loudness (though hopefully not too much), and maybe even optimizing the encoding for certain streaming or download formats.

The important thing to recognize in all this is the idea that while mastering may - and should - be used to fine-sand and polish the sound of a good or great-sounding mix, that is something entirely different than using mastering to try and make a poor or marginal-sounding mix sound good or better. If the mix doesn't sound that good, that's a problem with the mix itself, and should be fixed by going back and working on the mix, and not trying to force-fit it to sound good in mastering.

This is more than just style or old-school process; it makes a difference in quality to not wait until the end to fix what needs fixing. To go back to the analogies:

You can salt and pepper and hot sauce your dish all you want, but Kraft Mac and Cheese will only wind up tasting like Kraft Mac and Cheese with salt and pepper and hot sauce on it. It may be better than plain ol' Kraft, but it'll still be Kraft, and you'll still know it when you put it in you mouth.

or

You can Blue Coral and ArmorAll and pinstripe a rusty '72 Pinto until the cows come home, but it'll still just look like a polished and pinstriped rustbucket. On the other hand, if you take a brand new BMW, and then "master" that with the Blue Coral and ArmorAll, you'll not even want the phony aftermarket pinstripes, and you'll wind up with the difference between just a new car and one that looks like the wet dream of a product that Jessica Alba was standing next to at the Auto Show.

Does that help you at all, Doc? or have I just re-filled your glass with more hooch?

G.

 

[Dr. Varney]

Does that help you at all, Doc? or have I just re-filled your glass with more hooch?

G.

Haha! No, no... That's fantastic, mate. I do respond well to analogies - and those were very nice.

Okay, well my work is being used in a musical so it's going to be heard alright, by a larger audience than I'd usually feel comfortable with, though it's possible these 'mixes' will be handed to live musicians, who will then rehearse and polish this, under our musical director.

I don't have too much to worry about but I'm putting my all into it, because this is how I learn. I may have to use these mixes as backing tracks, if we can't assemble a live band in time - so it might as well be good.

So when it comes to mastering the whole ensemble, I will be looking to get a consistency and 'vibe' running through the whole album, so to speak.

You spoke of 'two-channel' mixes. My next question is: during the mastering process, is the mastering engineer not presented with these mixes on anywhere between 1-64 tracks, to which he has access to 'tweak', in order to 'remix' a little, to aid the mastering process?

See, now, I'm seeing mastering as a 'final mix' which adds the 'polish' (and technical considerations) as you say - but the process used to get there is going to be pretty much the same, as when mixing...? Tweaking levels and effects send levels, etc to get that final sound he's after...?

And the equipment he's using... Similar to that used for mixing? The same? I have one DAW I'm happy with and everything gets done in that.

If so, I'm getting this totally.

Thanks again

Dr. V