Bumfuzzled by mastering process

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melchizedek666
  • Start date Start date
M

Melchizedek666

New member
I am a singer songwriter, who has spent the last 25 years recording my work on a Mac, in Cubase 5.1. I play music that is in the style of Beatles, Zeppelin, Etc., with many varying styles all interweaved. Here is my dilemma:

I have gotten some decent mixes on my system, and have been trying to finish the recordings with various mastering software [T-Racks 3, Cubase Mastering Mastering Suite; etc.], and hearer is my final synopsis: What a cluster-$@#!!

I have read so many articles, watched so many videos, and absorbed so many opinions, that I am worse off than I was when I started this learning curve! Between the liars, sales people, bloggers, and closed minded opinions among the music world flock, I have basically ended up more confused than I was when I initially opened up the first mastering software I purchased! I can't figure when to use what, what order to place them in, or when not to use any of the plethora of processors that are at my disposal! When do I use a multi-compressor, compared to a linear EQ? WhenWhat do I NOT use? Truthfully;I am scared I am going to screw up my songs! I want to write music, and record it - not master sound. Can someone tell me where I can get a good mastering studio fairly reasonably? I have a limited budget, so I need a mastering engineer who is good, yet hungry. Thanks, Bill
 
Melchizedek666 said:
I am a singer songwriter, who has spent the last 25 years recording my work on a Mac, in Cubase 5.1. I play music that is in the style of Beatles, Zeppelin, Etc., with many varying styles all interweaved. Here is my dilemma:

I have gotten some decent mixes on my system, and have been trying to finish the recordings with various mastering software [T-Racks 3, Cubase Mastering Mastering Suite; etc.], and hearer is my final synopsis: What a cluster-$@#!!

I have read so many articles, watched so many videos, and absorbed so many opinions, that I am worse off than I was when I started this learning curve! Between the liars, sales people, bloggers, and closed minded opinions among the music world flock, I have basically ended up more confused than I was when I initially opened up the first mastering software I purchased! I can't figure when to use what, what order to place them in, or when not to use any of the plethora of processors that are at my disposal! When do I use a multi-compressor, compared to a linear EQ? WhenWhat do I NOT use? Truthfully;I am scared I am going to screw up my songs! I want to write music, and record it - not master sound. Can someone tell me where I can get a good mastering studio fairly reasonably? I have a limited budget, so I need a mastering engineer who is good, yet hungry. Thanks, Bill
Click to expand...


You mean you started recording on an Apple2 ... twenty five years ago? :eek:
 
Just to be clear...You are talking about Mastering, right? Your songs are all mixed onto 2 tracks and ready to be mastered?
 
As long as you don't save the mastered files over the unmastered files you can always go back and redo them.

Mastering doesn't mean automatically using every tool available, it just means producing a file ready for distribution. For now I'd stick to using a mastering limiter to get your stuff up to about the same volume range as other music you like.

But I'll give you an idea of what I often do. Usually an eq goes first in my chain, followed by a multiband compressor (if needed), a regular compressor (if needed) and sometimes and enhancing or fattening plugin. I might stick a parallel compressor in there. The limiter goes last. Then I convert the sample rate (if it's not already 44.1kHz), dither and truncate.
 
There are 100 + songs. I started on an 8 track Tascam 38 reel [mid 80's] and then went to Cubase 5.1. I have finished most of the basic mixes, but want to have them mastered. I believe in DR. I hate how most modern music is squashed- not to mention very dull and uninteresting for the most part - sorry if that offends]. I am more into Zep, Beatles, sounding stuff. I am more interested in originality, and the beauty of the music [melody, dynamics, arranging, etc.], not in how loud it is, or what system it was recorded on. Also; I believe there is way to much emphasis on gear [making mountains out of molehills, sales people, liars telling you what you need not based on what you REALLY need, but on how they can make money]. I do not believe the medium of recording matters. One of my favorite recordings is "My Mummy's Dead", by Lennon, and it was done on a cheap cassette player. Billy Holiday didn't have Protools, and yet I will listen to her over 99% of the music being produced in this pathetic music world we now presently inhabit. In short - I like integrity, love, and beauty MORE than technology.

Anyhow; I want to do songwriting, arranging, etc... I want to write, and play music, not master it. On the other hand; I want to make my finished songs a sweet as possible. I have digitally converted my Tascam recordings to 32 bit/ 96 Khz [floating point] multitrack files, and of course, the computer stuff is there also.

Any help would be appreciated, and assholes [trolls] are not welcome to respond. Thanks, Bill
 
Melchizedek666 said:
There are 100 + songs. I started on an 8 track Tascam 38 reel [mid 80's] and then went to Cubase 5.1. I have finished most of the basic mixes, but want to have them mastered. I believe in DR. I hate how most modern music is squashed- not to mention very dull and uninteresting for the most part - sorry if that offends]. I am more into Zep, Beatles, sounding stuff. I am more interested in originality, and the beauty of the music [melody, dynamics, arranging, etc.], not in how loud it is, or what system it was recorded on. Also; I believe there is way to much emphasis on gear [making mountains out of molehills, sales people, liars telling you what you need not based on what you REALLY need, but on how they can make money]. I do not believe the medium of recording matters. One of my favorite recordings is "My Mummy's Dead", by Lennon, and it was done on a cheap cassette player. Billy Holiday didn't have Protools, and yet I will listen to her over 99% of the music being produced in this pathetic music world we now presently inhabit. In short - I like integrity, love, and beauty MORE than technology.

Anyhow; I want to do songwriting, arranging, etc... I want to write, and play music, not master it. On the other hand; I want to make my finished songs a sweet as possible. I have digitally converted my Tascam recordings to 32 bit/ 96 Khz [floating point] multitrack files, and of course, the computer stuff is there also.

Any help would be appreciated, and assholes [trolls] are not welcome to respond. Thanks, Bill
Click to expand...

OK, but what is your question(s)?
 
Melchizedek666 said:
Can someone tell me where I can get a good mastering studio fairly reasonably? I have a limited budget, so I need a mastering engineer who is good, yet hungry. Thanks, Bill
Click to expand...

You need a mastering set up or a engineer? We have alot of Mastering Eng that can work with you right here? Massive, Waltz, Mo Facta, Red mastering, and others. Purchasing a "fairly reasonable" mastering setup...there is no such thing.
 
Then experiment with the least processing you can get away with and only add as necessary. That would be convert, dither, truncate. Those are the only "necessary" processes, and you would do them last. But it seems probable you will want to at least do some eq. A bit of light limiting can be useful. I would need a specific reason to add more plugins, some problem that I needed to address.

Sometimes I like to tame the low end with a multiband comp, or use one to minimize sibilance. A regular compressor used gently can add a little rhythmic bounce to a song. On some mixes I have used tape saturation plugins, but if your material came from tape that might be redundant.
 
I was answering the comment about my use of a Mac prior to DAW world.
 
Thanks, Boulder... you seem sincere. I appreciate it. I agree with you on your assessment. I have been looking at the Beatles/Zeppelin files in T-racks, and have noticed they are NOT squashed. Can you tell me which compressors in Tracks 3 you would use. Also, I know what you are going to say, but what about the BBE processor plug? It it NOT good to use it in the chain, or does it only redundant to what linear phase EQ does? Also... What frequency, and Q settings do you use for what frequencies. I read how MKen Scott cuts at 200 Hz on EQing a final mix, but I could find which Q setting to use, and which wave [bell?] to use. Any comments, sir? What frequencies are the critical ones? Thanks, Bill
 
By the way... what is truncate? Does that mean change sampling rate?
 
Melchizedek666 said:
Thanks, Boulder... you seem sincere. I appreciate it. I agree with you on your assessment. I have been looking at the Beatles/Zeppelin files in T-racks, and have noticed they are NOT squashed. Can you tell me which compressors in Tracks 3 you would use. Also, I know what you are going to say, but what about the BBE processor plug? It it NOT good to use it in the chain, or does it only redundant to what linear phase EQ does? Also... What frequency, and Q settings do you use for what frequencies. I read how MKen Scott cuts at 200 Hz on EQing a final mix, but I could find which Q setting to use, and which wave [bell?] to use. Any comments, sir? What frequencies are the critical ones? Thanks, Bill
Click to expand...

Plugins and settings all totally depend on the material and how you want it to sound. It seems that you're looking to just make your mixes a bit better sounding without trying to pump them up to modern "loudness" levels. Keep the signal path as simple as possible. Start with a good eq and adjust to taste. Add a good mastering limiter and set it to just tap at the peaks of your mix. Turn the output down a few tenths to allow for intersample peaks.

I don't really know T-Racks so I can't comment on specific plugins except that I would hesitate to use the BBE on a mix.
 
Honestly, mastering can not be taught in a book or on a forum.

Mastering engineers are SPECIALIZED and bona fide mastering itself is the actual preparation of a duplication master, which is a physical process with its roots in vinyl. The processing that occurs before that should more accurately be called "pre-mastering".

The goal is TO MAKE EACH AND EVERY SONG SOUND GOOD ON A WIDE VARIETY OF SYSTEMS. Not only that, but it is also the mastering engineers' job to arrange the songs in a way that they flow in a performance manner and to balance the relative tone between them.

The problem with your dilemma is that there is no definitive answer. A mastering engineer, just like a recording, mix, broadcast or any other type of audio professional has got a palette of tools at their disposal that they utilize to accomplish a specific job, be it creative or corrective. There is no blanket process that works for all material. In fact, they best mastering is none at all, which means the production was achieved correctly.

Mastering is NOT loudness. It is not EQ, or multiband compression, or hyperlimiting. It is the careful arrangement of tracks into a cohesive album, it is applying tools to address tonal and dynamics problems on a case-by-case basis to achieve that cohesion.

Have you read Mastering Audio by Bob Katz? It's the best mastering guide available.

Cheers :)
 
I think you should mix one of your tracks, convert the stereo file to MP3 & post it in the MP3 Mixing Clinic or here and have people listen to it & then tell you what they think it needs in terms of mastering. You'd then be able to address the track on an individual needs basis - which is what an M.E. would do.

Now I know that RAMI actually masters his own - his recording/mixing are top notch as are the mastered versions. Greg L does similarly - I mention them as I've heard their CDs and they sound fabulous.
If you're into the writing & recording the MP3 Clinic will help with mixing - IF you're prepared for honest commentary & suggestions.

Personally, the few tracks I've recorded that I believe were mixed well enough that the next logical step was mastering I sent off to a mastering engineer.
To suss some out go to the soundclick link below & select one of the most recent few tracks.
in terms of good M.E.s.: I've used and am extremely happy with jan at finemastering.de and fran ashcroft at Happybeat in the UK.
Both will deal with you online if you like & both are excellent value for money - giving advise as well as perfomring the task. Send teach an MP3 of a track you want done and ask for their thoughts. You may well be able to get a demonstration mastering done before undertaking the expenditure too.
 
A song is mastered once it's burned to CD and THAT was told to me by a full scale mastering engineer..

I guess you'll get offended at that too ...... another humorless person who wants people to only respond with absolutely no joking or kidding around.
That's just not gonna happen here plus it's boring.
 
Mastering, or at least the processing portion of mastering works just like any other thing in audio. You listen to what you have, imagine what you want it to be, then apply the processing needed to get that result with the appropriate tools.

Mastering your own work is problematic because you are probably using the same monitors in the same room that you are mixing in. This means that you aren't going to hear anything different or get a different perspective on your mixes, which is necessary in order to do a good job. Also, if you think a song is a little dull sounding, you would probably go back and remix it so that it wasn't like that...

The best you can hope for is just making all the songs sound like they belong together. Like making sure that they are all about the same volume, or at least they transition well from song to song. Or processing songs so that they all have the same sort of low end or brightness, etc...

You are correct, Productions from the 60's, 70's, and 80's are not squashed. The tools to make that happen really didn't exist at the time and you wouldn't be able to put something like that on vinyl do to the physical limitations of the medium. If that is the sort of thing that you are competing with, then there is no reason why you need to squash your mixes. However, if you are worried about your songs being just as loud as everyone else's on someone's ipod in shuffle mode, you will have to do some limiting to get that done.

The audio processing part of mastering is just the final polish that brings all the songs together as one complete thing (album). The rest of the mastering process is just the stuff you need to do to make a replication master, like assemble the tracks in order, set the gaps between songs, insert CD text, etc...
 
Mo Facta said:
The processing that occurs before that should more accurately be called "pre-mastering".
Click to expand...

I like to call that part audio finalizing or "mastering" (with the quotes).

Mo Facta said:
...it is also the mastering engineers' job to arrange the songs in a way that they flow in a performance manner and to balance the relative tone between them.
Click to expand...

If it's a single then it's just a matter of making it sound "good" relative to whatever other songs are considered relevant. People hardly listen to "albums" anymore so that part of the process is becoming less meaningful.

Mo Facta said:
Mastering is NOT loudness. It is not EQ, or multiband compression, or hyperlimiting. It is the careful arrangement of tracks into a cohesive album, it is applying tools to address tonal and dynamics problems on a case-by-case basis to achieve that cohesion.
Click to expand...

Although there are no obligatory processes, eq and limiting are so commonly used in mastering that they could be considered part of the standard operating procedure.

Lt. Bob said:
A song is mastered once it's burned to CD and THAT was told to me by a full scale mastering engineer..
Click to expand...

That's only true for a CD release, but even then I think a disk image can be considered a CD master. For an internet download release the masters are the song files. I would think that usually means .wav files but there's no reason a professionally encoded .mp3 file couldn't be considered a master.
 
For my self-mastered tracks, I typically use on the master bus: EQ, multiband compression and a brickwall limiter.

EQ - There is typically a buildup of low-mid frequencies in my mixes. I thin out that part of the spectrum. I use a frequency analyzer to observe the mix and compare it to the old RIAA EQ curve for vinyl records.

300px-RIAA-EQ-Curve.svg.png


multi-band compression - i don't want any individual frequency band to have more than 2-3 dB compression. and I prefer multiband compression so that peaks from the kick don't compress the cymbals etc.I do NOT battle in the Loudness Wars, because I believe that a lack of dynamic range (the distance between the softest soft parts to the loudest loud parts) in a track causes listener fatigue. I like the average RMS to be about -5 dB to -10 dB, depending on the track.

brickwall limiter - I set the limiter at - .3, to prevent any overs. Again, no more than about 2-3 dB reduction.

The real mastering pros have golden ears though, and are worth their pay. But for self mastered tracks for home hobby types like me, these ideas may be useful to you.

here's a track I recorded and self mastered for my brother's rock band, using these general guidelines.

Queen of the Boulevard by First Rush by Tom Hicks888 on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
 
^^^
I am not a master engineer and have only a tiny bit of knowledge as to this fine art.
dynamic range meter of some kind if in the DAW realm there are quite a few good ones. VUMT is one you can get for free. I set mine to around -10db callibration. I'm looking to keep plenty of swing on the needles. Squashed loudness war songs are hopefully going to go away, now that the new broadcast laws are going to kick in.

all the rest of it is subjective, not any two engineer would probably do the exact same thing on any given work. The biggest difference I know from my own stuff ; the premastered stuff sounds good. The mastered stuff sounds almost the same with just a bit more air or shine on it. The difference is very little.. This is good, it means the mix engineer did a good job, and not much treatment was needed.

as stated above

Dynamic range meter, EQ , compression/multiband comresseion, and usually a limiter.

I find it amazing that even though there are mastering facilities with over a million $$ worth of gear in a finely tuned room. There are paid professional mastering engineers, making a living, and getting paid well , that are doing very good project masters in their home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top