DIY Mastering Clinic #1!!!!!

Garik said:
Ok ive read this 30 times and i still dont understand :(
I hate math!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok just read the links,i'm getting hang of it,but my brain is overloading,and i feel like i'm gona crap my pants...oooowp too late

Sounds like you have a lot in common with Albert Einstein. I've heard that he flunked math and used to crap his pants when deep in thought. :)
 
masteringhouse said:
Sounds like you have a lot in common with Albert Einstein. I've heard that he flunked math and used to crap his pants when deep in thought. :)

Well actually it was a joke(craping my pants :D )....but :eek: i guess it was a bingo on Einstein's lifestyle...unless you're pulling my leg :p

Never the less ,thanks for your contribution :)

learning things like these is like walking along the shore and finding jewelery.

So to put it in laymens terms:

You took a stereo mix,chopped it down to create a simulated live recording?

Well its so much more than that,but am i on the right track? :D
 
Garik said:
So to put it in laymens terms:

You took a stereo mix,chopped it down to create a simulated live recording?

Well its so much more than that,but am i on the right track? :D

Something like that. To put it simply, separated the stereo component of the sound and mono portion of the sound in order to operate on them separately. And then re-assembled.

Not quite accurate, but that's the basic concept.
 
I've been asked by a few people when #2 will start. I have the track, but I'm busy getting a business project off the ground at the moment, then the week after Easter is spring break . . . so probably later this month.

In the meantime, have a fresh look at Dog's track, maybe try the MS approach. I've been saying I was gonna do that for two weeks now :o
 
mshilarious said:
I've been asked by a few people when #2 will start. I have the track, but I'm busy getting a business project off the ground at the moment, then the week after Easter is spring break . . . so probably later this month.

In the meantime, have a fresh look at Dog's track, maybe try the MS approach. I've been saying I was gonna do that for two weeks now :o

MS as in MShilarious? :)
 
I thought this was pretty cool little tune. Ran it through my standard setup which consist of para'eq, master reverb, loudness, harmonic exciter, multi-band compressor and a stereo imager. The bass end was a little over bearing so I cut a little under 40hz and I compressed it. Boosted a little between 2k and 5k, and then cut a little past 10k. Compressed a little at the high end trying to kill some of the s's out of the singer. Recovered some of it with the harmonic exciter. Then stereo imaging for a little wider sound plus a little verb to make it sound like your right there with them.



Wish I had access to each track. Normally I don't go for any reverb unless it really needs it. For some reason I thought it added something nice to it.
 
mshilarious said:
I've been asked by a few people when #2 will start. I have the track, but I'm busy getting a business project off the ground at the moment, then the week after Easter is spring break . . . so probably later this month.

In the meantime, have a fresh look at Dog's track, maybe try the MS approach. I've been saying I was gonna do that for two weeks now :o
Easter break, business projects aside for yourself, if you have decided on a #2 track....cough it up....whether you're on vacation or not. ;) :D
 
syscrusher said:
I thought this was pretty cool little tune. Ran it through my standard setup which consist of para'eq, master reverb, loudness, harmonic exciter, multi-band compressor and a stereo imager. The bass end was a little over bearing so I cut a little under 40hz and I compressed it. Boosted a little between 2k and 5k, and then cut a little past 10k. Compressed a little at the high end trying to kill some of the s's out of the singer. Recovered some of it with the harmonic exciter. Then stereo imaging for a little wider sound plus a little verb to make it sound like your right there with them.



Wish I had access to each track. Normally I don't go for any reverb unless it really needs it. For some reason I thought it added something nice to it.

Whoa dude, like that exciter much? ;)
A bit extreme sounding to me, but better than the original. I think you would need artist approval to take this much liberty on the sound, but it is all subjective I guess. :)
 
Reggie said:
Whoa dude, like that exciter much? ;)
A bit extreme sounding to me, but better than the original. I think you would need artist approval to take this much liberty on the sound, but it is all subjective I guess. :)

Yeah sounds pretty crispy to me. Otherwise a nice job. Therein lies the danger of using a fixed path, I think. Especially if loudness and exciters are in the chain every time, you're at risk for creating a very fatiguing CD.

Try to repost without the exciter and see what you get.
 
Yeah, it does seem a little crispy since I gave my ears a rest. I'll give it another shot with out it and try to nail down that singer's specific s fequencies with the eq.
 
A more detailed account

All mastering was done within Izotope Ozone with the exception of noise reduction in Adobe Audition and De-essing using dB Audioware. As this was for the benefit of people with limited budgets, I confined the tools used to easily accessible software.

The song was a good example for mastering as it exibited many typical problems.
The vocal was very sibilant, some background noise exibited, guitar parts too loud, vocal buried, Eq issues, slightly dry mix, uncontrolled levels in most frequencies. Additionally there were a lot of clicks in the vocal which was highlighted as the levels were increased.
I found the greatest challenge was to improve the high frequency response while controlling the vocals harshness. In the end I feel I compromised slightly with a master that is a biased to a top and bottom end exaggeration. Given the substance of the song this was probably the best approach to enhance it's musicallity.

Now you know what I was dealing with, here's how i did it.


- Converted to 96kHz/32 bit Wav. file
- Added 1 second leader to start of song
- Ran file through noise reduction software to negate the obvious hiss at end of the track.
- Raised the overall level with intelligent limiting, around 6dB with a medium release time to maintain some smoothness, particularly in the snare. Already a loud mix any further increass would have done too much damage to the depth.
- EQ'd the mix, reduced the bottom end to remove boominess, cut high frequencies considerably and also around 290hZ to improve clarity.
- Used tube enhancement on bass with a 3ms delay to increase punch. A little on 700hZ-10kHz for air.
- Multiband compression to controll various aspects of mix. Tightened bass. Expansion on lower mids and high frequencies. Clamped the upper frequencies and deep but minimal ratio compression on upper mids to help vocal and drum presence.
- Stereo imaging was reduced in lower frequencies and opened up in upper and low mids, this helped with clarity somewhat but applied quite minimally. The overall stereo image was quite wide to begin with but seemed acceptable in mono and out of phase so I didn't toy with it a lot.
- Mastering reverb was applied in VERY small quantity to help gell the mix and improve the drum sound. Around a 24ms pre-delay using a moderate sized room and fairly heavy damping. Reverb is dangerous o apply as it's easily overdone and can dull a mix. Rather than add an effect I was looking for a tightening of the overall sound without hearing the reverb.
- Dither was applied prior to converting out of Izotope. As bitrate was higher than 16 this is a must.
- De-essing the mix was next. I focussed on the overall sound during the earlier processes knowing that this step was required. It would have been impossible to control with EQ and compression without killing the overall sound. Around 24dB of cut using a triggered lowpass of 3.36kHz. Detect was around 6.2kHz and 2.6kHz wide.
- Click removal of vocal track was left till last as all previous actions determined which parts had to be fixed.
- Mix was then converted to 44.1 / 16 bit before saving as an mp3.

Mastering is similar to mixing in that it can be highly subjective at times. Although you are trying to create something that is balanced on all playback systems (impossible) there is a degree of decision making involved in respect to maximising the appeal of the song.

http://www.lightningmp3.com/live/file.php?fid=3345
 
RDMSstudio said:
The song was a good example for mastering as it exibited many typical problems.

It did! Finally someone understands why I picked the tune!

And also once kicked around a bit I think it really blossoms into a nice tune.

Yours is a good version, somehow I get the feeling you do this for a living ;) I think you have pulled off the most mono-compatible version. I might rolloff the bass a little more, seems to give the track room to breathe in a few places.
 
RDM, that is a very nice sound you got. And thanks for the info. :D

Should help us all quite a bit.
 
Well, I hope I'm not too late with this. I decided to give it a try.



I haven't listened to the other ones as I didn't want to get influenced.

As I listened to the mix there were 4 things I wanted to accomplish: clean up the low end mud without losing the nice kick low end thump, try to bring the snare to the front as much as possible, get rid of excessive sibilance, and add some shimmer to the top end.

I quickly realised that while EQing out the low end helped with the mud, it also caused the kick to disappear, so what I did was duplicate the track in Cubase and low passed it down to around 150Hz. Next, I made 2-3 passes of expansion, untill I could hear the kick nice and good, and brought the bass down quite a bit. This however made the kick hits more uneven, so out came the compressor, with a fastish attack and long release, overall doing abot 4dB reduction, which both helped with the unevenness, and brought out the kick a bit more.

Next, I duplicated the original track again, highpassed this copy around the same frequency as the low passed one and played them together, adjusting their relative levels. After playing about with EQ to bring out the snare and deEsser, I gave up on that idea. Since I had good results with expansion on the kick, I figured I'd try the same with the snare. So out came the expanders again. However, this also made the snare too sharp and exacerbated sibilance... Since I already had an EQ before the expanders, I low passed this down to around 2000Hz, as I mainly wanted to bring the body of the snare to the front. As with the kicks, this made the snares a bit too uneven, so I took care of it with compression.

For the high end, out came another copy of the track, highpassed at around 2000Hz or so. This one was compressed to both take care of the snare spikes, as well as sibilance. Next I added an FX channel, put an EQ there with a low cut around 6000Hz, followed by a plate reverb, followed by a low cut around 7000Hz and sent the hi-passed track to this to help with the shimmer.

I bounced the whole mess to a new track. At this point the different bands felt a bit detached. After trying different compression settings to help them gel together, I settled on duplicating the track yet again (sheesh), severely compressing the duplicate with LA2A (lets just say the gain reduction needle was pinned all the time), and mixed this in with the original bounced track. Then I added around 1.5dB boost at 1000Hz wth a rather wide Q to the uncompressed track to bring out the mids some more, limited (about 2dB reduction, and hardly ever working).

And this is the end result.

I am still not that happy with the snare, I'd like to have more body to it, and overall the whole thing seems a bit too thin to me.

Now I'll go and download the others and see what else is possible.
 
Nice job. There is some kick issues I think. It has an odd thump. Maybe too long of an attack on the compressed version? :confused:
I think the snare sounds fine, and the vox seem to have cleaned up well. The odd thump is all I hear sticking out.
 
mshilarious said:
It did! Finally someone understands why I picked the tune!

And also once kicked around a bit I think it really blossoms into a nice tune.

Yours is a good version, somehow I get the feeling you do this for a living ;) I think you have pulled off the most mono-compatible version. I might rolloff the bass a little more, seems to give the track room to breathe in a few places.

The bass was something I did agonise over. Yes, it could be rolled back further. I felt the low end was doing some interesting stuff and was the main focus of the song's appeal, it's hook if you like. So backing it off in my mind would remove some of the appeal.
"Look for the hook" whether writing, mixing or mastering.....

p.s. yes, I do this for a living (consequently I'm a very paranoid, rarely satisfied person)
 
hey..i know there's a new mastering thread, but i didn't want to listen to the other song, and i've never done this before, so i would really like to get feedback.

i took 4 recording classes in college, and i hope this place will let me further my growth in all of this.


Like most people, i rolled off the bass, and tried to keep it.

i tried to get the tin sound out of the hats and the snare so i did some cuts in the highs, and brought out some mid for the voice.

it lost some shimmer even reducing the highs a bit, and i put a little 4 band on and just lightly brought out some other high ends.

i added a multiband compressor but kept it fairly flat only messing with center frequencies and thresh's.

after, it has a maximizer, and i think it turned out well.

i liked it more than some of the masters i listened to at least...

i think i kept the bass eerie ness without having it muddy, and i like the kick sound i got from the small peaks i did with the 4 band.
http://www.lightningmp3.com/live/file.php?fid=3849
 
Back
Top