Mastering Plug-Ins

A

AngeloMcCulloch

New member
So I just got done tracking and mixing a little EP for a project I've been working on with a friend.

We have been working in Logic and have a nice array of mics. We got the mix down to how we like it, put a limiter on the main stereo output track, for a tiny bit of mastering. Tweaked that up, played back, sounded great out of the monitors. Burnt it to a disc popped it in a few stereos around the house and damn, what a shock. Completely sounds like shit. I know that this is a common issue among people new to recording, especially with just such a minimal set up, and before you learn how to properly mix with your monitors.

Anyway, I am looking into mastering plug-ins, just for a little extra boost. I have been looking at Ozone, and was just curious if anyone has any opinions about it, or any recommendations as to one that you prefer.

Thanks
 
The plugs mean sh*t and you already know that. Monitoring and listening skills are everything. Not just at the mastering phase either... Far more important during mixing and even more important during tracking.

You're not getting good translation. There isn't a plugin that fixes that. Listening and experience fixes that.
 
I completely understand that fact. I know that the human aspect is far more important than anything a computer will do, etc etc. I am, however, going to get a mastering plug in, even if it is $225 Ozone. Im not expecting it to fix the sonic mess I have created, but I would like to have the power to boost it up to a more commercial level. Even though I'm sure some of you guys would scoff at a cheap all-in-one mastering plug in.
 
For not much more than the cost of a plug-in such as this you could get the objectivity, experience, monitoring, room, high quality analog and digital gear, quality control, etc. of a couple of the mastering engineers on this forum. There is no plug-in or easy fix that replaces all of this especially if you are having issues with translation from the studio to the outside world.

Unless this is something that you plan on offerng to clients on a future basis and wish to make that investment, it is more cost effective to seek a professional. Obviously I'm promoting our services, but it also makes good "cents".

If you just intend to make something louder with no other major improvement Ozone is as good as any other.

Best,
Tom
 
Last edited:
AngeloMcCulloch said:
Burnt it to a disc popped it in a few stereos around the house and damn, what a shock. Completely sounds like shit.
Click to expand...

That's the most disheartening part about home recording. I think everyone has been there. The solution is to improve your a) ears b) listening environment and c) monitoring chain. A decent set of monitors + acoustically treated room + trial/error/experience get you MUCH closer to having a mix that translates. It takes time to gain experience, but you can do something about the other two things right now... If you're having trouble to get your mix to translate, I'd skip Ozone and spend that some amount of $$ on a box of OC703 some lumber and some fabric...
 
You'd be much better off spending some time and money on proper monitoring/room treatment. If your mixes sound shit everywhere else you play them, then you have a problem in your listening environment.

If you thought you were shocked and disappointed when you played your mixes on other systems, you'll be just as shocked and disappointed when you finally admit to yourself that you spent $225 on a "Mastering" plug for nothing.
 
There is NO SUCH THING as a "mastering plug". All they are are packages of EQs compressors, limiters, and such, which are all common tools used in tracking and mixing just a much as in mastering. There is NOTHING special about mastering nor about the so-called "mastering plugs".

The fact is you haven't learned to translate your monitoring environment to make a good mix yet. You don't fix that by mastering, you fix that by mixing. If you think you can fix your problems at all - which you apparently do since you think you can fix it in mastering - then apply the corrections you feel you need TO THE MIX and get the mix right before you even begin to consider mastering.

MASTERING IS NOT ABOUT FIXING THE MIX.

G.
 
AngeloMcCulloch said:
but I would like to have the power to boost it up to a more commercial level. Even though I'm sure some of you guys would scoff at a cheap all-in-one mastering plug in.
Click to expand...

I think more people would scoff at the notion that you just want to "boost" a mix that you know is shit.

I do know a lot about the monitoring environment lying to you though. I just got my room mostly sorted in the past year and a half. I can now finally make a mix that sounds the same on pretty much any decent system (laptops and computer speakers don't count). It's very nice to not have to run out to the car or to the home stereo to check a final mix. Get your room right.
 
Mastering is not about fixing the mix, but often times it is about adjusting the frequency balance of a mix to translate better as well as adjusting dynamics of mixes to fit the overall balance of an album.

It really depends on what the issues are. If the mix sounds great in your studio but bad elsewhere it seems to point to room, monitors and likely a few other tweaks that can help. As I've heard Bob Ohlsson say, most times mastering is simply making adjustments due to poor monitoring.

I don't know if there are more issues than overall adjustments in this case, but again an objective ear could help determine that and make suggestions either way.
 
If mastering engineers want to mix so much, why aren't they just mixing engineers? Why do they choose mastering if they want to do the job of mixing?

If a mix obviously doesn't translate at all, its has NO BUSINESS going to mastering yet. That's like sending an apple pie to the cooling tray while the crust is still raw and then letting someone finish cooking it with a hand-held butane torch.

Yes, someone with an ear and with the proper monitoring gear could definitely help...they're called mixing engineers.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
If mastering engineers want to mix so much, why aren't they just mixing engineers? Why do they choose mastering if they want to do the job of mixing?

If a mix obviously doesn't translate at all, its has NO BUSINESS going to mastering yet. That's like sending an apple pie to the cooling tray while the crust is still raw and then letting someone finish cooking it with a hand-held butane torch.

Yes, someone with an ear and with the proper monitoring gear could definitely help...they're called mixing engineers.

G.
Click to expand...

Tailoring the overall frequency balance of a stereo mix so that it translates better is a big part of mastering, especially when the mix engineer is not equipped to do so. It would be nice if every mix was well balanced and required no further work other than putting it together in a CD, but this is the real world.

Not everything is a mixing problem. I've mixed, it can be difficult to be completely objective about a mix with the same ears, same room, same monitors, same skills. Even more so when a room isn't setup for critical listening over utility as most mix rooms are.

Why don't I still mix? Well on some rare occassions I still do. But the main reason was I got bored with clients stressing over minutiae that didn't matter much in the overall scheme of the quality of their project like moving a drum edit a few samples. Also with the advent of DAWs it often seemed that a good performance became dependent more and more on the skill of the editor rather than the performer.

In other words it became less about making great audio to me than the satisfaction I feel in making a great master. I often do stem mastering, that's really about as close as I want to get to mixing most days. This is not to take anything away from a good mix engineer, if one enjoys dealing with things at that level it's great fun. Maybe some day i won't feel as burned-out by it and give it another go. :-)
 
Last edited:
AngeloMcCulloch said:
I completely understand that fact. I know that the human aspect is far more important than anything a computer will do, etc etc. I am, however, going to get a mastering plug in, even if it is $225 Ozone. Im not expecting it to fix the sonic mess I have created, but I would like to have the power to boost it up to a more commercial level. Even though I'm sure some of you guys would scoff at a cheap all-in-one mastering plug in.
Click to expand...
Level is simple. A monkey with a freeware limiter can do "loud" -- Get the GVST limiter. It's free, it's better than Ozone's limiter (IMO/E), and it'll make a mix that's not translating sound even more horrible (just like Ozone's limiter).

It's how the mix reacts to volume that most people are interested in (and a lot of people consider that "mastering" for some reason - but that's for another thread).
 
The biggest mistake people make is a poor track to begin with. If the track lacks punch and clarity, it is useless to try and beef it up later.
Start with a good strong track both in level and clarity of frequencies.
Then, once all the tracks are running together, you can go back and add or reduce eq and compression.

I rarely have to "master" a song because I am actually doing that during the mixdown process.
 
AngeloMcCulloch said:
Burnt it to a disc popped it in a few stereos around the house and damn, what a shock. Completely sounds like shit. I know that this is a common issue among people new to recording, especially with just such a minimal set up, and before you learn how to properly mix with your monitors.
Click to expand...
So re mix it. Compared to making sound better by futzing with the stereo mix file, a remix will be easier, faster, and sound better.
Before you remix, take a few hours to listen to songs you like through your monitoring system so you know where to shoot. More often than not you need way less bass than you think.
We have been working in Logic and have a nice array of mics. We got the mix down to how we like it, put a limiter on the main stereo output track, for a tiny bit of mastering.
Click to expand...
So, why did you say you want to master to make it louder a few posts down? You already did that.

And mixing into a compressor is one thing, but mixing into a limiter? When you remix, I really wouldn't do that again.
 
AngeloMcCulloch said:
We got the mix down to how we like it,
Click to expand...

AngeloMcCulloch said:
Burnt it to a disc popped it in a few stereos around the house and damn, what a shock. Completely sounds like shit.
Click to expand...

I think that the statements above may be causing a bit of confusion. You say that you like the mix, but it sounds like shit outside of the studio. What do you like about the mix in the studio versus outside?
 
Don't rely on plug in's to fix the problem as many people have already said. Most mastering plug in's can be dangerous in the wrong hands and totally destroy a good mix.

The most important thing to do is get accurate recordings from instrument to microphone/DI. If you use crappy mic's or the wrong mic for an instrument you're SOL.

You also need to know how to use an EQ, not just make a smile out of the sliders, but know where an instrument sits in the frequency range, if your (10-20-30) band EQ is mostly flat and it sounds good, job well done! if you've got sliders going up and down more than 3 db's then you should re-record the part. reproduce what you hear from the instrument, don't over accentuate what's recorded.

If you don't or can't afford to treat your room use nearfield monitors at normal listening volume, pointed directly at your ears to get a decent mix.

Try to get the flatest speakers possible, usually if you can get down to 40 HZ on a speaker you're doing fine.

This should help you get nice translation on most systems.

Here's another hint, this is when you're completely desperate, A/B your mix with your favorite pro recorded CD, set your EQ to make your mix sound close to the pro CD and you should be in the ball park.
 
leaningpine said:
Don't rely on plug in's to fix the problem as many people have already said.
Click to expand...
Shoot, don't even rely on a golden-eared mastering guru to fix the problem. Once the mix is done it is far too late. In reality, it may be too late before the mix even starts. This type of stuff is frequently a recording problem.

The most important thing to do is get accurate recordings from instrument to microphone/DI. If you use crappy mic's or the wrong mic for an instrument you're SOL.
Click to expand...
Tons of recorded music doesn't capture accurate sound. Almost no popular music captures accurate sound. Every recorded drum kit would sound like an old jazz recording if it did.

Get appropriate recordings. It takes a long time and a creative ear to even know what that means.


If you don't or can't afford to treat your room use nearfield monitors at normal listening volume, pointed directly at your ears to get a decent mix.

Try to get the flatest speakers possible, usually if you can get down to 40 HZ on a speaker you're doing fine.
Click to expand...
Flat speakers down to 40 Hz are great. The problem is we spend all of our life listening to something totally different. So when we are presented with a flat system for the first time we make a mix that sounds like what we're used to. So when it's played on what we're used to, well...it's what we're used to times two! That always sounds awful.

My point is that yes, you need to buy good speakers/amps/room stuff and set it all up correctly. But it is all useless until you spend weeks listening to existing professional recordings through the flat system. It needs to overtake the old "what you are used to" to become the new "what you are used to".
 
Personally I don't see how advice can be given until we know the reasons why the OP feels the mix sounds like shit outside of the studio and what the depth of the "shit" is. What made him like it in the studio? There has to be a quality about it that he went for and likes that isn't translating to the outside world. The recording might be fine, even the mix might be ok but just needs some small overall adjustments to compensate for studio monitoring.

Seems like a lot of assumptions are being made. But back to the original question, identify the issues, then pick the tools needed to fix them. Nobody here (including myself) can tell you what you should buy or use if doing this on your own without more information other than it "sounds like shit".
 
Mixing is the most important stage

AngeloMcCulloch said:
urnt it to a disc popped it in a few stereos around the house and damn, what a shock. Completely sounds like shit. I know that this is a common issue among people new to recording, especially with just such a minimal set up, and before you learn how to properly mix with your monitors.

Anyway, I am looking into mastering plug-ins, just for a little extra boost.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Angelo, you are talking about two different things: You said that the mix sounded like shit on other stereos and you mixed in about mastering plugins for a boost.

A good mix has nothing to do with loudness wars.
No matter how loud it is it will not make the mix more clear.

Most of my mixes have been performed by a trained mixing engineer or by me using headphones, mixing through trial and error, taking large amounts of time.

A few months ago I lost my engineer, project had to be done and I did not have the time to really mix in the same manner I normally do. So mixed, thought it sounded good in my lab, went to play it at several sources and bam!!!! Frequencies all out of wack and it had not a thing to do with mastering either! I have been doing music for years, making money doing it, and always knew that you can record a masterpiece and if the mix if f'd up it becomes a dud yet it was as if I completely forgot the importance of the mixing stage.

You, my friend, need to take more time learning how to properly mix. It starts with proper balances being step 1.Take some money and purchase some mixing tutorials by some pros. or invest in furthering your understanding of mixing. You CAN NOT learn it for free (even if it is free, time is money and you will waste a heap of time trying to learn it that way only) at some point you have to pay unless you have had some prior experience being in a studio & paid dues before. Take my word if I had not had all the experience I have I would not have been able to progress in 3 months to being consistent in making good mixes.

With dedication, motivation and a drive to never be caught in a situation where I depended on someone else, I commmenced to mixing everyday for the past 3 months. In the process purchased some powered monitors to assist with my JBL monitors. I have yet to treat the room because financially I had other commitments but by spring I will do that and I am sure the mixes I am doing now will take even less than the few hours it is taking now to get a solid mix.

At the end of the day I was fortunate that my client had dealt with me before and was willing to push back the release date. I got them the product they desired, did it myself, and now am the musician, producer, writer, mixer that has more confidence due to this experience happening!

FINALLY!::)
ONCE AGAIN, MASTERING WILL NOT HELP A POOR MIX!
Also, a small setup has not a thing to do with the mixes sounding bad. Actually, less is better, all the classic mixes had much less and sounded much better!

www.twitter.com/dbxxl1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top