Mastering Software

Thanks for all the info. I am a recovering dj (sounds like a junkie or sumtin), so my ears are pretty much shot. Sounds like my best option would be to have someone else master my tracks. I do agree with letting the mix 'cool down a bit', even if its in the mixing stage. After hearing it for too long your ears def need a break.
 
littledog said:
There are a few other things you are probably doing that technically fall under the range of "mastering" as well - such as setting the timing of the spaces between songs, putting them in the right order, etc.
Click to expand...

Good point...

The track order yes. But I actually just drag them into Nero and burn a CD in the order I want. I don't really worry about spacing. I only ever do CD's for my friends every now and again. If it was anything more serious I would probably be a bit more attentive. More likely if it was that serious I'd go to an ME.
 
i think the izotope OZONE is a great plug-in for newbies to get started on getting to know what mastering does. Its easy to use, has great presets, and has the main effects required to get the job done.

Once you get the concept down, like Glen said, .............youll end up doing alot of trial and error, and remixing, and remastering alot untill your satisfied with your final product.
 
bryank said:
i think the izotope OZONE is a great plug-in for newbies to get started on getting to know what mastering does. Its easy to use, has great presets, and has the main effects required to get the job done.

Once you get the concept down, like Glen said, .............youll end up doing alot of trial and error, and remixing, and remastering alot untill your satisfied with your final product.
Click to expand...



I certianly wish more co's had manuals of the same quality!!!! ;)
 
I think the best way for a rookie to approach mastering is to pretend there is no such thing as mastering. Seriously. Stick with me here...

Concentrate frirst on getting the tracking down solid. Then work on the mix as if it's the last stage in the process. By that I mean get the mix right. Don't worry too much about the volume here, but the track mix itself. the balance of it in spectrum/equalization, in pan space, and in depth.

Pretend that the only sonic mastering changes to the final two mix that you can make is standard peak normalization. Now don't light up your flamethrowers just yet; I'm not suggesting that's what one actually *do* for mastering. I'm suggesting that one work on the mix with the goal that it sounded as good a possible to the point where (ignoring RMS wars temporarlily) they simply couldn't make the resulting mixdown sound any better other than to bring the volume up as high as it will go without changing the overall dynamics. This goal is not always completly attainable, but if the tracking is good and the mixing is done completly, it is much more within reach than most realize.

Why pretend like that? Because the less a mix seems to need mastering, the more it will actually benefit from it.

Or, as we have all heard it before, we can't polish a turd, but polishing a properly cut diamond will take our breath away.

And, when we approach the idea of mastering that way, we will realize that the idea of "fixing the mix" in mastering is going down a dead-end street. And once we see that, we see that fancy tools marketed as "mastering software" - mulband compressors, and finalizers like T-Racks and Ozone - are really best when used most as "mixing software" before the final mixdown, and not so much as the "mastering" tools as which they're marketed.

The stated purpose, therefore, of such "mastering software" is to recommend what are in reality bad techniques and bad habits that virtually ensure a poorer than necessary mastering result.

G.
 
yeah, ozone has a lot of features to get you started 'mastering'.

its very demanding on the computer though, be forewarned.

you can download a trial from the website.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I think the best way for a rookie to approach mastering is to pretend there is no such thing as mastering. Seriously. Stick with me here...

Concentrate frirst on getting the tracking down solid. Then work on the mix as if it's the last stage in the process. By that I mean get the mix right. Don't worry too much about the volume here, but the track mix itself. the balance of it in spectrum/equalization, in pan space, and in depth.

Pretend that the only sonic mastering changes to the final two mix that you can make is standard peak normalization. Now don't light up your flamethrowers just yet; I'm not suggesting that's what one actually *do* for mastering. I'm suggesting that one work on the mix with the goal that it sounded as good a possible to the point where (ignoring RMS wars temporarlily) they simply couldn't make the resulting mixdown sound any better other than to bring the volume up as high as it will go without changing the overall dynamics. This goal is not always completly attainable, but if the tracking is good and the mixing is done completly, it is much more within reach than most realize.

Why pretend like that? Because the less a mix seems to need mastering, the more it will actually benefit from it.

Or, as we have all heard it before, we can't polish a turd, but polishing a properly cut diamond will take our breath away.

And, when we approach the idea of mastering that way, we will realize that the idea of "fixing the mix" in mastering is going down a dead-end street. And once we see that, we see that fancy tools marketed as "mastering software" - mulband compressors, and finalizers like T-Racks and Ozone - are really best when used most as "mixing software" before the final mixdown, and not so much as the "mastering" tools as which they're marketed.

The stated purpose, therefore, of such "mastering software" is to recommend what are in reality bad techniques and bad habits that virtually ensure a poorer than necessary mastering result.

G.
Click to expand...




I might be mistaken, but I also get the Idea theres a lot more colaboration going on between mixer and ME on a great record than the average joe might expect. I mean rather than just , the mixer saying " there you go " and passing it to the ME end of story, more like ME passes it back and says " Take some siblance of that damm High hat, or I won't be able to raise the prescence enough"

I think it's harder to wear both hats because if I as a mixer, shoot for the moon and try to do it all, am I by definition , steping into the ME's territory????? :confused:
 
flatfinger said:
I might be mistaken, but I also get the Idea theres a lot more colaboration going on between mixer and ME on a great record than the average joe might expect. I mean rather than just , the mixer saying " there you go " and passing it to the ME end of story, more like ME passes it back and says " Take some siblance of that damm High hat, or I won't be able to raise the prescence enough"
Click to expand...
I personally believe that such communication between phases is essential. This also brings in the idea and function of "producer". I don't mean the hip-hop definition of "producer" (i.e. a sequence and beat designer), I mean the traditional music production definition of producer as being to the music production very much what both the director (and producer) are to video production.

If the home recordist is recording and mixing himself or her own band, then they are prettty much acting as producer, in which case the more they can explain what they want to and from the mastering engineer, the better. If the mixing engineer is a ahred gun for a client performer, then IMHO the decision needs to be made early just with whom the production desicions lay. It cound be the bandleader, it could be the mix engineer, it could be a collaboration of both, whatever. But whoever it is in that case, they are the ones IMHO who need to communicate with the mastering engineer as to what they envision.
flatfinger said:
I think it's harder to wear both hats because if I as a mixer, shoot for the moon and try to do it all, am I by definition , steping into the ME's territory????? :confused:
Click to expand...
I agree that wearing both hats can be troublesome. The old idea of getting a fresh set of ears in a new environemnt to take a fresh listen to it before mastering remains a great idea that I'd recommend whenever feasible.

I personally don't think what I describe is any form of toe-stepping or wearing both hats, however. Getting the mix right does not mean mastering it.

I think where a lot of the confusion comes in is because of that phrase "getting the mix right". I personally (FWTW ;) ) translate that in the context of mastering as meaning polishing the mix, not fixing it.

Yes, there can sometimes be a fine line between fixing and polishing; it's not always clear-cut. Perhaps the first good way to break it down is that if you hear something in the mix that you need to decide whether it should be handled in the mix or in mastering is to ask, "Is this something that is better fixed on the track level or is it something that the overall mix just needs to sound better overall?" The former is best handled in the mix, the latter in mastering.

G.
 
Thanks for letting us pick yer brains SouthSIDE.

I read in the september issue of RECORDING that Bob ludwig said : Quote " Never in my career has the average tape come in for mastering sounding as bad as they do now" : Unquote

He made a comment about how guys " with all the time in the world" have access to all this technology and, are (supposedly) the replace ment for journeymen enginneers!! I think what he meant was that without the pressure to be good or yer fired, allot of "garage recordest" are not cutting it.
When you add all the confusion about the newly discovered "black art " called mastering into an already confusing wave of powerfull new digital gadgets, you got quite the potential for bad recording!!! :mad:


Time to hit the books!
thanks for the compressor tutorial , it's very good :D !!!
 
Last edited:
I know I'm hardly worthy of polishing Bob L's shoes, but I agree with him completely. The quality of the "average" stuff coming in (generally) is going down a steep slope. The better stuff is sounding better and better. The good stuff is sounding great. But what used to be "mediocre but decent" now comes in as a salvage operation.
 
flatfinger said:
Thanks for letting us pick yer brains SouthSIDE.
Click to expand...
Be careful not too pick too much, I don't have a whole lot of them left ratteling around in my skull. ;)
flatfinger said:
He made a comment about how guys " with all the time in the world" have access to all this technology are (supposedly) the replace ment for journeymen enginneers!! I think what he meant was that without the pressure to be good or yer fired, allot of "garage recordest" are not cutting it.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. I'd also add into that interpretation - just based on what I have seen myself first-hand (not that I'm any Bob Ludwig by a long shot) is that a lot of "garage recordists" expect all this technology to do the work for them. "No need to know how to mix, I'll just let the MBCs and finalizers fix everything on the mixdown". It just don't work that way.
flatfinger said:
When you add all the confusion about the newly discovered "black art " called mastering into an already confusing wave of powerfull new digital gadgets, you got quite the potential for bad recording!!! :mad:
Click to expand...
Ain't that the truth. One thing a lot of rookies, especially those that were born after Watergate, have lost sight of is that "mastering" used to simply mean prepping a recording for pressing to vinyl. There was very little, if any, actual fixing or polishing of the recording other than assembling the song order and applying what EQ curves were technically necessary to physically get the recording to stick to wax.

The whole concept of "mastering" as an extension of mix processing is a relatively new definition. What many folks think of as "mastering" never even happened on many of the original classic recordings that they tout today as being some of the best recordings of the last half century.

In fact, those of us born before Apollo 11 remember that it was not that long ago that some of the best special audiophile recordings were those that were labeled as "direct to disc" (DTD). These were sessions where they did not even record to tape (except maybe for archiving purpose); they recorded direct to the cutting lathe right in the studio. No editing, no overdubs, no post processing, and certainly no mastering in anywhere near the modern interpretation of the word.

I'm not minimizing what tody's MEs like John, Tom and Brad do in any manner. A great modern mastering job like these guys do is worth every penny. But it's not a magic wand for fixing a bad or incomplete mix.

I love Bob Dylan's take on modern recordings. Read here.

G.
 
I've used adobe audition 2.0 for mastering.. It's expensive but has nice VST plug-ins and it's "quite" easy to use if you've dealt with cool edit before ;) ..
 
That's the first time I've ever seen "Adobe Audition" and "Expensive" used in the same paragraph...

Besides a few fledgling freeware programs that few have ever heard of, is there actually *anything* out there that's *less* expensive than AA 2.0?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top