Most important mastering tip for beginners

[Rod Norman]

Interesting comments. Of course it is serious. Everything I've heard of songs supposedly "mastered" by amateurs is either brick-wall limited or punched so hard it loses all clarity. The best ones are those with air and dynamics, but honestly, they are not mastered. They might be finished to your satisfaction but a good mastering engineer could do wonders with them and make them really glisten. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wUKAYNqTEs I suggested the multi-band compressor, and the presets because the one I was using had excellent presets. It was built in to the Akai DPS24 and had been adjusted by a good friend in New York before they shipped it to me. Most of the presets were useless for my purposes but the idea was that toggling through them gave me many different adjustments that changed how the mix sounded. I was always able to find at least two or three that made me happy. Once saved, I was able to put the song away while I worked on other projects and come back to it in a week or two. In the meantime, I had sent the original mix sans effects as well as the wave files to a mastering studio I use in New York. The difference was night and day. But my original multiband compressed version allowed me to see what I was getting for my money. I have never had to pay more than about three or four hundred dollars for my masters. One reason is I use the studio a lot. The other reason is my mixes are dry. What I do to them is for my own enjoyment and I like them. I play them for friends and family and have no problem with the results. But I don't believe in giving a mastering engineer material with reverb or eq on it for two reasons. One is, they get an accurate recording of the instruments. The second is, they don't have to deal with effects and adjustments that might impede the work they can do for me. The mix tells them what I want to stand out, the wave files gives them the option of making changes they might feel improve the music. So, for those who thought I was suggesting that a multiband compressor preset is HOW you master, you were not reading the post. For those who think they know better, you don't. A good mastering facility is more than an engineer, and engineers don't "graduate" to mastering. They prove themselves over time and are trained to use the studios set up for mastering. The engineer must have great ears but they must also have the best environment to do their work in. Home studios are improving exponentially, but are not mastering studios. Do what you can but always save the wave files untouched and the mix untouched as dry projects. Then send one off to be done in a mastering studio and see if you aren't blown away by the result.
Rod Norman
Engineer

 

[RAMI]

But I don't believe in giving a mastering engineer material with reverb or eq on it for two reasons. One is, they get an accurate recording of the instruments. The second is, they don't have to deal with effects and adjustments that might impede the work they can do for me.

This makes no sense...surprise, surprise! You don't add reverb if you think the drums need it, for example? You don't EQ individual instruments? Those things should be done in the mixing process. In fact, that's what mixing IS.

How is a mastering engineer supposed to add "Reverb and EQ" to individual tracks? Do you even know what mastering is?

 

[jimmys69]

@ Rod:

I must say that giving a link to a video pertaining to multiband compression that has no audio is just about as redundant as giving a class on photography for the blind...

I see your point of not giving an ME a already 'mastered' mix but your statement about not using reverb or eq is confusing. No mastering engineer is going to take your individual tracks and add what is needed to them. That is precisely the job of a producer and/or 'engineer'.

I am not getting your point here. Or maybe I just am not understanding the way you put it in this post.

Please explain.

 

[RAMI]

I am not getting your point here. Or maybe I just am not understanding

Man, they can use you in the Mid-East. Your sense of dimplomacy is admirable. I wish I could do that.

You're like.........Jimmy Kissinger.

 

[jimmys69]

Man, they can use you in the Mid-East. Your sense of dimplomacy is admirable. I wish I could do that.

You're like.........Jimmy Kissinger.

LOL!

Well I am in moderate mode. Wait till I get pissed. I'll get all Jimmy S Truman and throw the bomb.

 

[Rod Norman]

Jimmy,
I'm sorry about the link. I checked it and it is missing the audio on youtube as well. Here is another. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B4eozf-kNE The point was that suggesting Multiband compression is not incompatible with mastering. It was the first thing I was taught how to use. (Probably because they thought it was the hardest.) Two things were in that video though to support my original post. The use of a MBC in mastering and the use of presets in a multiband compressor. I'm really not interested in replying to some of the comments but I felt that this might explain why I started the thread in the first place. As for telling the noobs about MBC, my feeling about the noobs are that anyone who steps up to recording has real balls and deserves respect. I saw no reason to keep any secrets. I also saw very little advice regarding mastering that seemed anything like the mastering I experienced. I'm not saying anyone is ignorant but they might not know some of the information I had been exposed to. The question of why I would send wave files or a mix that had no reverb or eq does not relate to mixing. It relates to production. Mixing is setting relative levels. I get really good tracks to begin with that rarely need much help. Since my mastering house has a much better room and great ears I see no reason to muddy the waters where effects are concerned. If reverb would help a mix, they have stellar units available and I trust their judgement. If I send them something with reverb, they might feel reverb over the whole mix would improve things but with reverb being present it can get muddy. This is not advice necessarily, but simply a justification for the original post that seemed to generate such acrimony. We all have different ways to do things and one way isn't always better than another. I love a lot of the tracks I hear from members, even beginners. The reason I don't post any of mine is that they are not mine to begin with. They belong to the artists and to whoever they are signed with. Posting them would violate my contract. Whether they ever go anywhere is not my concern. Some are demos and some are finished. Some might be demos. Some are songs that never see the light of day, but it isn't because they don't like the mix. I get paid in full. In some cases they are picking songs to send to an artist. Of course if the artist or producer wants me to produce I have the tools to do that and will add whatever they need. In some cases they want me to finalize the tracks and punch them up a bit and it is then that I compress. I just never use brick wall limiting or go for loudness. I aim for clarity. I will be doing some tracks that are mine and will post those when they are ready. I'm still moving the studio and the JBLs will need to be on stands that are being built. Thank you for being kind. I hope this answers your concerns.
Rod Norman
Engineer

@ Rod:

I must say that giving a link to a video pertaining to multiband compression that has no audio is just about as redundant as giving a class on photography for the blind...

I see your point of not giving an ME a already 'mastered' mix but your statement about not using reverb or eq is confusing. No mastering engineer is going to take your individual tracks and add what is needed to them. That is precisely the job of a producer and/or 'engineer'.

I am not getting your point here. Or maybe I just am not understanding the way you put it in this post.

Please explain.

 

[RAMI]

The question of why I would send wave files or a mix that had no reverb or eq does not relate to mixing. It relates to production. Mixing is setting relative levels.

It absolutely does relate to mixing. Mixing is not just setting levels. Mixing is the complete process of getting a song 99% finished before mastering.

Telling someone not to EQ or add reverb to individual tracks on a mix is wrong, irresponsible, and shows a complete lack of knowledge of what mixing or mastering is.

 

[RAMI]

You can't start a thread about mastering giving out the kind of "advice" that was given in the first post of this thread, and then revive your own thread a year later with even more bad advice, and not expect people to call you out on it. You can't cover bad advice with bad advice and think nobody's going to notice.

If I was new, which we all once were, I'd hate to read posts from someone who I think knows what they're talking about, follow that advice for years without knowing that it lead me down the wrong path, and only realize it years later after wasting time doing the wrong thing based on what I thought was sound advice.

Adding reverb, EQ'ing individual instruments, panning, volume levels, effects, etc...are all an integral part of the MIXING process. To not do those things because you stupidly think you're complicating the job of a mastering engineer is just plain wrong and dumb. It's not a matter of opinion. This is a fact.

 

[Rod Norman]

Rami. I love you too. Mixing is setting relative levels and panning (should it be needed) Some of us use stereo outs on equipment in which case it is hard panned. Producing is bringing the mix into completion by correcting problems and creating an environment. Compression is used to correct off mic problems with singers, inconsistent drum hits, or to smooth out a track. EQ is used to get sounds to sit well with others and to avoid piling up, comb filtering, or cancellations. Reverb is used for environment, ie: the size of the space the music is in. Beyond that, there is creativity. Using equipment to do thing that make the tracks or the complete project sound unusual and to stand out. Mastering is the art of preparing the completed project for distribution to all mediums, and is not just about the product. It prepares it for CD, DVD, theater, radio play, etc. Not using eq or reverb is not what I am recommending. It is what I do because my tracks are clean and accurate and based on good orchestration so they don't conflict and because I have developed a good relationship with my mastering facility. I do this on jazz tracks where I don't want a lot of extra effects. It is one way, not the only way. Noobs are not so dumb, Rami. They get it. Some of the responses here have been positive. You're consistent flaming is the only reason I have to revive a thread. And if you'll notice, each of my replies contain information. For whatever reason, yours don't.

You can't start a thread about mastering giving out the kind of "advice" that was given in the first post of this thread, and then revive your own thread a year later with even more bad advice, and not expect people to call you out on it. You can't cover bad advice with bad advice and think nobody's going to notice.

If I was new, which we all once were, I'd hate to read posts from someone who I think knows what they're talking about, follow that advice for years without knowing that it lead me down the wrong path, and only realize it years later after wasting time doing the wrong thing based on what I thought was sound advice.

Adding reverb, EQ'ing individual instruments, panning, volume levels, effects, etc...are all an integral part of the MIXING process. To not do those things because you stupidly think you're complicating the job of a mastering engineer is just plain wrong and dumb. It's not a matter of opinion. This is a fact.

 

[RAMI]

Rami. I love you too. Mixing is setting relative levels and panning (should it be needed) Some of us use stereo outs on equipment in which case it is hard panned. Producing is bringing the mix into completion by correcting problems and creating an environment. Compression is used to correct off mic problems with singers, inconsistent drum hits, or to smooth out a track. EQ is used to get sounds to sit well with others and to avoid piling up, comb filtering, or cancellations. Reverb is used for environment, ie: the size of the space the music is in. Beyond that, there is creativity. Using equipment to do thing that make the tracks or the complete project sound unusual and to stand out. Mastering is the art of preparing the completed project for distribution to all mediums, and is not just about the product. It prepares it for CD, DVD, theater, radio play, etc. Not using eq or reverb is not what I am recommending. It is what I do because my tracks are clean and accurate and based on good orchestration so they don't conflict and because I have developed a good relationship with my mastering facility. I do this on jazz tracks where I don't want a lot of extra effects. It is one way, not the only way. Noobs are not so dumb, Rami. They get it. Some of the responses here have been positive. You're consistent flaming is the only reason I have to revive a thread. And if you'll notice, each of my replies contain information. For whatever reason, yours don't.

I'm not flaming you, I'm stating facts. You're not, because you don't know what you're doing. Mixing is NOT just setting levels and panning. Not EQ'ing individual instruments if they need it is plain stupid. Not adding reverb if it's needed is stupid. Those actions are part of the MIXING process.

How do you expect a mastering engineer to add reverb to the vocal track? Or just the snare? Telling someone that mixing is only setting levels is plain wrong.

NOOBS:

"MIXING": Involves volume levels, panning, effects, EQ'ing and EVERYTHING ELSE required to get your song finished and ready for mastering. If you want reverb on the drums, you add it during this MIXING process, not later on during mastering simply because it would be impossible to do during the mastering phase. If you want echo on the vocals, you do it during this phase because, once again, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do it during the mastering stage.

"MASTERING": The process of taking the FINISHED MIX and polishing it up with final EQ adjustments TO THE OVERALL MIX, and volume levelling between several songs. You CAN NOT add reverb, echo, or any other effect to individual tracks during the mastering process because you are only working with the 2 track master of the whole song. You cannot EQ individual tracks during the mastering process for the same reasons. These HAVE TO BE DONE in the MIXING process.

Everything I stated above is very basic, verifiable information that's pretty much common knowledge.

 

[mixsit]

You can't start a thread about mastering giving out the kind of "advice" that was given in the first post of this thread, and then revive your own thread a year later with even more bad advice, and not expect people to call you out on it. You can't cover bad advice with bad advice and think nobody's going to notice.

If I was new, which we all once were, I'd hate to read posts from someone who I think knows what they're talking about, follow that advice for years without knowing that it lead me down the wrong path, and only realize it years later after wasting time doing the wrong thing based on what I thought was sound advice.

Adding reverb, EQ'ing individual instruments, panning, volume levels, effects, etc...are all an integral part of the MIXING process. To not do those things because you stupidly think you're complicating the job of a mastering engineer is just plain wrong and dumb. It's not a matter of opinion. This is a fact.

I'm going to give this a shot, try to keep it on point as I have to agree with much of what folks are sighting or questioning re some of you content Rod.

Your advices seem (at best in some of the cases) to be from a perspective that is not typical ..of at least what I see and have learned as 'norms.

. Mixing is setting relative levels and panning (should it be needed) Some of us use stereo outs on equipment in which case it is hard panned.

Compression is used to correct off mic problems with singers, inconsistent drum hits, or to smooth out a track.

So, in no particular order;
- panning, More often tracks are recorded mono, dual mono what have you, than are fixed pan stereo outs'.
- compression, I would add that leveling (automation, formerly called 'mixing grins..) for first attack for things like 'off mic' things, but in general, extends well into the shaping and style of tracks.
-I would tend not to steer noobs to MBComp as anywhere near first in line, rather last. I would suggest we try to stay focused on solving these things in the mix (primarily, but way ahead of auto eq' and band leveling!

.. Not using eq or reverb is not what I am recommending.

Well, you sort of were!

..It is what I do because my tracks are clean and accurate and based on good orchestration so they don't conflict and because I have developed a good relationship with my mastering facility.
I do this on jazz tracks where I don't want a lot of extra effects. It is one way, not the only way.
I suggested the multi-band compressor, and the presets because the one I was using had excellent presets. [snip] ... my original multiband compressed version allowed me to see what I was getting for my money. [snip]
.. I have never had to pay more than about three or four hundred dollars for my masters. One reason is I use the studio a lot. The other reason is my mixes are dry. What I do to them is for my own enjoyment and I like them. I play them for friends and family and have no problem with the results. But I don't believe in giving a mastering engineer material with reverb or eq on it for two reasons. One is, they get an accurate recording of the instruments. The second is, they don't have to deal with effects and adjustments that might impede the work they can do for me.

In a nut shell I read a lot of this and see much that doesn't follow (or lead I should say?) in ways we would send folks trying to get up to speed and figure out how this stuff is going to work for them -what to do/learn/concentrate of first etc. Rather, perhaps ways unique to yours.

 

[Greg_L]

Rod Norman is a forum supported troll and only here to get people to post back at him, so nothing he says should be acknowledged by anyone.

 

[Rod Norman]

Mixit:
Although directed to this comment, some of this is intended to deal with others as well. Part of the problem seems to be that the misconception I am seeing is based on comparisons. If my advice is not typical, that does not make it irrelevant.

I started doing this a long time ago. What has changed, or become typical today, has not necessarily been an improvement. In other words, it seems that if a member's advice does not fit what is currently accepted, it is not valid. It's clear that I am "old school" but the physics of sound and its reproduction does not change. MY first digital recording was done on a Sony 32 track.

If you read my posts you will see that I have several ways of dealing with mixing and mastering (since mastering was the subject of the original post) In that original post I said, quite simply, "You do not know what you are doing." (If you do, it was not intended for you.) One person replied was that they did NOT know what they were doing. If course if you think you know, then fine. Don't take the post to apply to you. But although experienced home recording artists seem to think the multiband compressor is complicated and too much for a noob, you missed the part where I told them to start with the presets and learn the unit. At first, they would find something they liked. After that they could compare presets and see what the band choice and the compression was doing that made it sound better. In spite of what a lot of mastering experts say, the multiband compressor IS used for mastering. I posted a link to a tutorial on it.

In my posts I also mentioned not applying effects to a mix prior to sending it to a mastering studio. I could have gone deeper, I suppose, but I made the erroneous assumption that the majority of the users would know why. The biggest error home recording studios make is to use too many and too much. Better to leave it alone. If you DO know what you are doing, then apply only what is needed and only as much as it needs. Best is to apply it until you can tell it is there and then back it off slightly. The biggest complaint mastering engineers have is that they are asked to master a "ruined" mix; one that has too much done to it.

For a noob getting a good signal and combining them is hard enough at first. But that doesn't mean they can't learn. Everything I wrote in this post and the subsequent replies to the comments is supported in the February 2007 issue of EQ by the mastering engineers who contributed. As for the noobs, I think they can tell when someone's advice is detailed and comprehensive that there might be something worthwhile for them. Nothing I have posted would prevent anyone from doing a good recording or mix or production or mastering. They are not as lost as some of you think. And even if someone spent a year only getting the best and most accurate signals recorded and a perfectly balanced mix, I hardly see how that would hold them back.

Rod Norman
Engineer

I'm going to give this a shot, try to keep it on point as I have to agree with much of what folks are sighting or questioning re some of you content Rod.

Your advices seem (at best in some of the cases) to be from a perspective that is not typical ..of at least what I see and have learned as 'norms.



So, in no particular order;
- panning, More often tracks are recorded mono, dual mono what have you, than are fixed pan stereo outs'.
- compression, I would add that leveling (automation, formerly called 'mixing grins..) for first attack for things like 'off mic' things, but in general, extends well into the shaping and style of tracks.
-I would tend not to steer noobs to MBComp as anywhere near first in line, rather last. I would suggest we try to stay focused on solving these things in the mix (primarily, but way ahead of auto eq' and band leveling!

Well, you sort of were!



In a nut shell I read a lot of this and see much that doesn't follow (or lead I should say?) in ways we would send folks trying to get up to speed and figure out how this stuff is going to work for them -what to do/learn/concentrate of first etc. Rather, perhaps ways unique to yours.

I'm going to give this a shot, try to keep it on point as I have to agree with much of what folks are sighting or questioning re some of you content Rod.

 

[ido1957]

Rod you're just wrong. You have a lot of opinions and nothing to back it up. Go back to Gearslutz and play your game over there. Maybe you can find some newbs there to influence.

 

[jimmys69]

The reason I don't post any of mine is that they are not mine to begin with. They belong to the artists and to whoever they are signed with. Posting them would violate my contract. Whether they ever go anywhere is not my concern. Some are demos and some are finished. Some might be demos. Some are songs that never see the light of day, but it isn't because they don't like the mix. I get paid in full. In some cases they are picking songs to send to an artist. Of course if the artist or producer wants me to produce I have the tools to do that and will add whatever they need. In some cases they want me to finalize the tracks and punch them up a bit and it is then that I compress. I just never use brick wall limiting or go for loudness. I aim for clarity. I will be doing some tracks that are mine and will post those when they are ready. I'm still moving the studio and the JBLs will need to be on stands that are being built. Thank you for being kind. I hope this answers your concerns.
Rod Norman
Engineer

I must say that the fact that you have such experience and nothing that you can share with members here makes it sound like you do not have anything substantial to back up your opinions. That just makes no sense even if you were a great engineer, that you would not have a link to any recording that you have credits on. I am not even sure how you would have continued to be an engineer if there is no way for another client to hear the work you have done.

I am sorry sir but this does not make sense. No offense but it just does not.

 

[Rod Norman]

I'm posting this link in the hopes that you can see I'm not alone in my opinions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhju6qI-Wms
Rod Norman
Engineer

I must say that the fact that you have such experience and nothing that you can share with members here makes it sound like you do not have anything substantial to back up your opinions. That just makes no sense even if you were a great engineer, that you would not have a link to any recording that you have credits on. I am not even sure how you would have continued to be an engineer if there is no way for another client to hear the work you have done.

I am sorry sir but this does not make sense. No offense but it just does not.

 

[BroKen_H]

My 2c.
My only disagreement with your post as support of your opinion is that the first thing he talks about is eq. At the very first stage of mixing, he starts by subtracting 600Hz to get the "boom" out of the drum mix...which does not agree with your advice on not sending EQ or reverb to mastering. Also, someone is bound to say it, so I might as well: You can find almost ANY supporting argument on YouTube or Wiki. It's not really proof of anything. The proof, as they say, is in the puddin'.
I see that you have added a fourth step to the norm...you use tracking, mixing, producing, and mastering. In that environment, I can get a picture of what you are trying to say. Sometimes it's frustrating to have the right thought and not the right expression and so I try to give the benefit of the doubt. I know that frustration. But you seem to be advocating sending projects to mastering that are not placed in either timbrel or spacial environments. Possibly you meant sending a mix to be produced, not mastered, but to most home recordists, we are mike tech, grip, roady, mix tech, producer, and sometimes by necessity, mastering tech.
Maybe it would be best if you simply picked up a guitar or a piano (ever tried picking up a piano???), recorded some simple lines into your daw, and showed some A/B comparisons of what you're trying to put forth to dispel the apparent mis-info that you seem to be putting out. Just clear up the negative by example...how good is your puddin'?
I do agree that you can learn from presets by seeing how the different knobs interact, especially if the presets are named well. Sometimes, however, our kit comes with no presets.
Anyway, like your sig says, "Any advice that works is good advice." I realize one of the biggest things we advocate is experiment, but if others have tried the advice and come up flat, it might just get called out if you don't post examples...

 

[wtfuhz]

1. I know what I'm doing.
2. I'd better know what the hell I'm doing.
3. Presets weren't built for my tracks specifically. I'll just set my own parameters, thanks.

Oh, by the way, I know what I'm doing

 

[mixsit]

... I can get a picture of what you are trying to say. Sometimes it's frustrating to have the right thought and not the right expression and so I try to give the benefit of the doubt. I know that frustration. But you seem to be advocating sending projects to mastering that are not placed in either timbrel or spacial environments. ...

This.. Is what I've wondered. In several threads perhaps.

 

[paddedcell]

"The biggest error home recording studios make is to use too many and too much. Better to leave it alone. If you DO know what you are doing, then apply only what is needed and only as much as it needs. Best is to apply it until you can tell it is there and then back it off slightly. The biggest complaint mastering engineers have is that they are asked to master a "ruined" mix; one that has too much done to it."

Apart from anything else, Rod, the biggest problem I have with your advice is this. I am a self-proclaimed newbie, even though I've had experience with both analog and digital recording over the last 40 years. I spend most of my time on this forum reading and trying to learn recording techniques and how to use equipment that I'm not familiar with. I do know the difference between mixing and mastering, and have worked with mastering engineers before. I know how to use EQ and effects, but there is a lot in that area that I have to learn.

What you are recommending (and I quoted you above), is that if I don't really know enough about EQ and effects, rather than trying to learn and improve my knowledge in that area, I should send it off to someone else to do the job. That does nothing to improve my recording skills, and instead of becoming a better recordist, I simply become a contractor. That's not what I'm here for, and I'm sure that a good many other newbies are rowing in the same boat that I'm in.

I don't want to slough off the job of learning mixing, and handling EQ and effects; I want to become better and more knowledgeable at using them, and that doesn't happen if you say it's "better to leave it alone". That part of your advice does no favors to the newbies who come here to ask our dumb questions, and who struggle through fifty bad mixes to finally arrive at a good one, and are better for the experience when we finally get there.