Best way to master?

[SouthSIDE Glen]

SouthSIDE Glen = a heck of a post. Thanks. Food for thought. If I keep a close eye on peaks in the actual components of the mix and try to reduce any spikes, is it conceivable that I won't need to use much / any compression on the overall masters?

It is conceivable. Very rare these days, unfortunately, but very conceivable.

I like albums that have dynamics (light and shade) but it seems everyone these days is boosting their tracks to super-loud levels because that impresses / catches the attention of the 'average' (non-audiophile) listener. I want to strike a balance somewhere in between. Could I aim to 'manually' compress (volume limit) my mixes somehow? Is it a good idea, or a lengthy and laborious task?

What catches people's attention is what's different from the rest. When everybody is flattening their mixes to pancakes, the mix that will stick out is the one that uses dynamics meaningfully. If you want to impress, don't try and sound like everyone else, but rather sound how you and your musical creations *want* to sound.

That said, there's nothing wrong with boosting your mix a little during mastering. I question that's even necessary, but I can understand having to at least find a middle ground in today's market. Again, I think the key is use your ears critically and analytically when you do it, and not just arbitrarily do it by a set of numbers. Every mix has a point where you start noticeably sacrificing sound quality for volume; the mix just starts sounding unnaturally "pushed". It's entirely your own personal call as to how much of a cost in sound quality and dynamics you're willing to pay for volume; i.e. how far past that "push point" you're willing to go. My own personal tastes are to take it to that point and then back off a dB or two, but YMMV.

How hard is it? The further you want or try to push the mix, the harder it is to do well. So much depends also on the quality of the tracking and mix before it; quality tracking and mixes will tend to push a little further than crappy ones. Also a lot depends upon the quality of tools you use; which is part of the reason why mastering engineers especially need their top shelf gear these days more than ever.

But all that aside, you're usually (IME, IMHO, YMMV, USDA,etc.) better off if you chisel away at the volume in small bites instead of one big swipe. In other words, don't just throw the whole mix up against a brick wall limiter in one fell swoop, but try more gentle compression in chunks of a couple of dB (+/-) at a time.

G.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

If I keep a close eye on peaks in the actual components of the mix and try to reduce any spikes, is it conceivable that I won't need to use much / any compression on the overall masters?

It can be very easy to look at a mix like it's a photoshop program.

Sometimes visuals can influence a lot of unnecessary editing. Everyone does it.

The onus should be but on sound, with the visual as an aid when needed, but don't rely on the visuals to make your decision making.

Slight rant.

 

[RAMI]

I almost never look at my music. It's hard enough listening to it.

 

[masteringhouse]

The best hardware for mastering is ears, the best "software" is experience and taste.

 

[tigerflystudio]

Thanks for all the good advice, friends. I tend to listen closely and critically (sometimes overly so), but with this project I've tried to get things right from the start, right form the mic. Where I've noticed I've needed to do a fair bit of 'corrective' EQ'ing, I've tried to alter the mic set-up / instrument settings to ensure the best signal is being captured (i.e. reducing, where possible, the need to EQ). As you suggest, using the PC monitor as a secondary visual aid is useful, but for me it's the ears that lead everything. I think it will be possible to keep an eye on the peaks and then reduce them fairly subtley, and I'm then hoping to be able to increase the overall volume of the track without using 'too much' compression (although I am aware that some comp. will be needed to even things out). I think the toughest part of what I'm facing is to get the vocals to sit at the front of the mix whilst keeping musical passages (seem) even / level during non-vox parts.

 

[leaningpine]

The best hardware for mastering is ears, the best "software" is experience and taste.

Exactly! You can only trust your ears, that is if you have good ears!

My mastering process is very strange but it works for me. I have a set of JVC bookshelf speakers I use for nearfields I EQ'd to my room using Boston's debut album. Using this EQ curve I EQ the mix to this setting. I then mix the recordings. I use Adobe Audition 3 for mastering. I EQ the mix until the EQ is flat, which usually only takes about 2 passes through the program, if it takes more than 3 something in the mix isn't right. After I've done this I use very little compression, usually just on the high frequencies(1.6 Khz-16 Khz) then I use a limiter but I DO NOT BRICKWALL IT, I like to keep the dynamics in the song. I test the mix in several places, the car, a boom box, a component system with huge floor standing speakers and the computer. 95% of the time they sound fine. My recordings have sounded fine on several stereos and on the radio. I don't have $1,000 to put out to a mastering house for recordings that have no label backing for mass production.


http://www.myspace.com/jonathanrisen

 

[flatfinger]

As has been pointed out , most of the components of a "mastering suite " are not really dedicated , for mastering only devices ( except the BW Limiter) . I vote for the walk away for a few weeks theory ... Then get B.Katz book;

http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_focal_press_2/



and then hit the net up for articles( search will bring up lenty of Ideas ... go to the sos archive ) . Then have some fun with .

Your not going to be the next greates mastering engineer in the space of a month , but if it's not mission critical stuff then have at it .

M.E.'s have the room , the analog stuff and the experience ( no substitute for that).

 

[SoundBetter]

Hi chaps, I've a project (album) coming to the final stages now and I'm thinking of doing some DIY mastering. Avoiding the debate on whether or not to 'go pro' or DIY, can I have your thoughts on what's best for mastering please? Hardware or software? if you coudl include make / model / price in your post that'd be superb, plus, of course, any experience or advice you consider relevant.
Kind regards
P

No matter what genre, Izotope Ozone rocks!

 

[Massive Master]

I'm going to go a head and vehemently disagree with that...

 

[jonesey]

I'm going to go ahead and do this, because I'm and idiot. Every time I see a thread that says "best way to master" or the like, its like a car wreck. There is always carnage, but I have to look. This thread is a great example. The author even said he would like to avoid the common arguments that go with this topic, but invariably he gets dumped on by a bunch of pros who insist their way is the only way, undermining and belittling his attempt learn something new.

This board, after all, is called "Home Recording". Ergo, there are many newbies and hobbyists on here. Many are simply trying to learn new methods and techniques, or simply don't have the money to send their mix off to a professional to master. Much like they may not have the money to buy studio time to record professionally or buy the best gear or instruments, or may not be good enough musicians to get a recording contract. Does that mean they shouldn't even try their hand at recording?

One of the greatest pieces of advice I've gotten in my years of recording is to experiment with different techniques and to not get bogged down in rules, factory pres, or plug ins. But when it comes to mastering, the message I consistently see is "leave that to the professionals, son." Kinda like "You'll shoot your eye out kid!" I respect that it may be a honed skill, but acting like it is beyond everyone else's reach is rude and counter-intuitive to the purposes of this board.

Maybe the pro masterers here are just trying to keep their corner of the market, which I can respect. But please, just advertise your services and maybe mention that it took you years to be able to master properly, and you need good equipment both God-given and man-made, and not a cookie cutter software. But the holier than thou attitude wears thin. If we're all too green to be worth your time, then get off of a Home Recording board and stick with your trade magazines.

Let the flames begin

 

[RAMI]

when it comes to mastering, the message I consistently see is "leave that to the professionals, son." Kinda like "You'll shoot your eye out kid!" I respect that it may be a honed skill, but acting like it is beyond everyone else's reach is rude and counter-intuitive to the purposes of this board.

What are you talking about???? Are you reading the same thread as everyone else??? Please find me one post in this thread where anyone told the OP to send his music to a pro to get mastered. Waltz MASTERING even gave him a list of mastering software to look into.


As far as this is concerned:

One of the greatest pieces of advice I've gotten in my years of recording is to experiment with different techniques and to not get bogged down in rules, factory pres, or plug ins.

That's EXACTLY what everyone is suggesting. Some people are trying to steer the OP away from thinking that one plug-in and it's "mastering" pre-sets will magically transform his mix into a "Pro" sounding product.

The overall message in this thread seems to be "Learn to use your ears". And, while this takes a lot of trial and error and time and patience, it's still the best advice anyone can give.

 

[jonesey]

What are you talking about???? Are you reading the same thread as everyone else??? Please find me one post in this thread where anyone told the OP to send his music to a pro to get mastered. Waltz MASTERING even gave him a list of mastering software to look into.

Posts 7 and 8 by Punkin and Leddy would be a start

 

[leddy]

Posts 7 and 8 by Punkin and Leddy would be a start

I think this thread went much more constructive than most. Odd you picked this one for a rant.

If you look at my comment that you referred to, I said if you want to learn how to master, then learn it. If you just want to master one CD and quit, it will probably be substandard work. That's not saying "leave it to the pros". That's giving him a proper frame of reference. If his expectation is to make a professional recording, would it be doing him a favor to tell him to spend a bunch of money on gear for this one CD knowing he has no experience going in? What do you think the results would be? Would it not be more beneficial to provide a gentle warning that he may not get what he wants, so only go in if he genuinely wants to learn how to do it?

It does not sound like the OP wants to learn the process. He just wants a job done. That's the issue.

 

[RAMI]

IMHO, the best option is to send it to a pro.

Fair enough. I didn't see this post. Though, I do agree with Punkin that, at this point in the OP's journey, sending it to a pro IS the best option, if getting the best sounding results is the priority. Punkin isn't a "pro" mastering engineer, as far as I know. So, he was simply giving his opinion. None of the ME's in this thread discouraged the OP from doing it himself and at least one offered a list of "Mastering" software to try.

What if you said: "I only need to record drums for this one album. I don't want to hire a drummer, I'll just do it - even though I don't play drums. What kind of drums should I buy?"

That's pretty close to what you are asking about mastering.

If you want to learn something, then learn it. If you just have a specific project you want to get done in the near-future, you will need help from someone who has already learned it or your results will likely be very low quality.

I think this is great advice. Leddy isn't saying "don't try this yourself". He's saying "If you are going to try this, get some guidance". Good advice if you ask me.

 

[noisewreck]

I'm going to go ahead and do this, because I'm and idiot. Every time I see a thread that says "best way to master" or the like, its like a car wreck. There is always carnage, but I have to look. This thread is a great example. The author even said he would like to avoid the common arguments that go with this topic, but invariably he gets dumped on by a bunch of pros who insist their way is the only way, undermining and belittling his attempt learn something new.

This board, after all, is called "Home Recording". Ergo, there are many newbies and hobbyists on here. Many are simply trying to learn new methods and techniques, or simply don't have the money to send their mix off to a professional to master. Much like they may not have the money to buy studio time to record professionally or buy the best gear or instruments, or may not be good enough musicians to get a recording contract. Does that mean they shouldn't even try their hand at recording?

One of the greatest pieces of advice I've gotten in my years of recording is to experiment with different techniques and to not get bogged down in rules, factory pres, or plug ins. But when it comes to mastering, the message I consistently see is "leave that to the professionals, son." Kinda like "You'll shoot your eye out kid!" I respect that it may be a honed skill, but acting like it is beyond everyone else's reach is rude and counter-intuitive to the purposes of this board.

Maybe the pro masterers here are just trying to keep their corner of the market, which I can respect. But please, just advertise your services and maybe mention that it took you years to be able to master properly, and you need good equipment both God-given and man-made, and not a cookie cutter software. But the holier than thou attitude wears thin. If we're all too green to be worth your time, then get off of a Home Recording board and stick with your trade magazines.

Let the flames begin

Wha? I didn't see the MEs on this thread give any hint of "holier than thou" attitude. Sure Massive harped on Ozone, Har-bal and such, but if you get your head out of your ass and try to smell something other than your own shit, you'll realise that what he's saying is that he'll be better served at picking and choosing processors on their own merits rather than rely on pre-packaged mess that 1)doesn't necessarily consist of the best quality of processors, 2)can steer the uninitiated into wrong territory, 3)is unnecessarily complicated because it's trying to pretend to be able to do too many things.

What I got from them, at least when it comes to processing software, is to pick and choose individual processors and select the processing chain that would be suitable for a given piece of mix.

Meh. Instead of being so defensive about being a homerecer, relax and expand your mind... that is after you pull your head out of your ass... you know.

 

[Massive Master]

One of the big reasons I harp on (Ozone, Hairball, etc., etc., etc.) for that matter.

"Experimentation" is one thing - "Pissing into the wind" is another.

No one here is trying to 'corner the market' on anything. But keep in mind:

1) *PROFESSIONAL* engineers leave mastering to professional mastering engineers. The best engineers in the world send their mixes to a mastering specialist when they're finished with them. It makes (literally) front-page industry news when the traditional mastering process is circumvented.

The argument about "send it to a pro" is the same as why I bring my car to a professional mechanic. He's got the tools, he's got the experience - I know which end of the wrench is the right one, but when it counts, it goes to Ted.

That's not to say that I don't want to know how to be able to do routine maintenance on my own car - Or especially the bike. But if I'm going on a 2,000 mile ride, I'm having a pro check the bike out a week before I leave.

2) Along that same line - I could go out and buy a whole bunch of cheap tools - or even really good tools - and I'd *still* have my vehicles checked by a professional when it matters. Knowing those tools, precisely how they function and what they're actual function is (and is not) is just as important as having the right tools in the first place. I need a torque wrench. I'm sure Ted *knows* when he's at 50 foot-pounds just by feel.

Anyway - I'm not trying to go sideways - But no one is telling someone not to try to learn something. No doubt though, some of us are actually trying to have them LEARN something, as opposed to messing with some "Swiss Army" plugin.

 

[tigerflystudio]

Thanks for all your ongoing feedback / thoughts. Just out of interest, how much would I be looking at for a pro to master my 12 track (alt-rock) album?

 

[TelePaul]

Things that *don't* work - ESPECIALLY for the "rookie" --

Almost anything that claims to be "mastering software" -- T-Racks (a.k.a. "T-Wrecks"), Ozone (a.k.a. "Blowzone), Har-bal (a.k.a. "Hair Ball"), etc.

I present their common 'nick-names' just for the helluvit.

None are 'evil' alone - But any are incredibly easy to confuse the ear and mess up an otherwise decent mix.

There is no substitute for objectivity - You won't have that by design. So you're stuck with listening skills (also no substitute). You need to listen and do what the mix is telling you to do. YOU decide the tools, YOU decide the settings, YOU decide the order of the chain (okay, the MIX decides - You're simply there to serve the mix).

You should be able to do 90% of what you need to do with whatever native EQ and compressor is in your DAW. That said - As you'll have no objectivity working on your own mixes, simplicity is the king until everything else is in line.

Can I wask what ya don't like about T Racks? I find alot of the T Racks 3 plugs handy in a mix.

 

[Terry Wetzel]

Hi southside glenn. it's me wetzel the newbie! I'm not in to computer daw software like cubase,ozone,etc. for recording. i know you'll say that i'm limiting myself or i'm just too lazy to learn but, be that as it may, i decided awhile ago before i spent a fortune on software that what served my purposes best was a multitrack . hard disk recorder and an analog mixer. old school,? yes but that is where i learned what i know, which isn't all that much about recording. anyway at my age i'm never going to launch a stellar recording engineering career or have a million selling record! it's a hobby that sprung from my love of music and i'm happy with it. some that have heard my stuff say it's pretty close to pro. of coarse they are not trained audioengineers like yourself but then neither are your average listener. that said, on the subject of mastering, I recently purchased tha Masterlink from Alesis. it has 4 basic mastering tools. eq, peak limiting, compression and normalize. i know that there are probably many more audio gadgets that real mastering labs hve at their disposal but the folks at Alesis seem to have siezed on the important and most used imlements that to me, make aaudible improvement in my recordings. I realize it is not a cure all and i don't always use all 4 of the options. just to where it sounds right to me. this may be totally off the subject but i hope not. your thoughts please.

 

[Massive Master]

Thanks for all your ongoing feedback / thoughts. Just out of interest, how much would I be looking at for a pro to master my 12 track (alt-rock) album?

Most have some sort of rate information on their web sites...

Can I wask what ya don't like about T Racks? I find alot of the T Racks 3 plugs handy in a mix.

T-Racks is actually one of the less obnoxious offerings -- But as I was getting at earlier, if you know what you're looking for, none of these plugs are inherently 'evil' - But if you *don't* know what you're looking for, these plugs can do much more harm than good very quickly.