DIY Mastering Clinic #1!!!!!

I have 3 different flavors of the source file available at:

http://www.masteringhouse.com/masteringclinic/

The first is a zipped version of the original wav file. I don't do this to save space, but just to help ensure that the download is complete and not corrupted during the transfer due to the native CRC checking in a zip file.

The second file uses Monkey's Audio lossless compression, and the third is a 320Kbps MP3 file if anyone wants to join in but has severely limited access to the Internet.

Let's have at it!

Best,
Tom
 
MS, nice listen. I am going to take some of your eq stuff, and see if I can apply a bit of it to my next shot. You got the bottom to sound much better than mine. Snare and cymbals seem to fit nicely now. I like the vocals sound also. Mine has been too bright.
Cool stuff man.
Ed
 
  • Like
Reactions: NL5
Dogman said:
MS, nice listen. I am going to take some of your eq stuff, and see if I can apply a bit of it to my next shot. You got the bottom to sound much better than mine. Snare and cymbals seem to fit nicely now. I like the vocals sound also. Mine has been too bright.
Cool stuff man.
Ed
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks. For me the jury is out on the MBC helping the lows, I liked it a little. I did enjoy the de-essing, before I tried that, I had much larger EQ cuts up there, I rolled those back a lot after adding the de-esser. The de-essing was pretty mild, 2:1 ratio and about 3dB peak reduction, usually much less.
 
rubber mallet- check
hack saw- check
meat cleaver- check
golf club- check

time to try to master. :)
 
Creamyapples1 said:
When it's presented in such a manner that leads me to believe that you get your jollies by "acting" smarter than everyone else, I'll stick with what I know, but have fun with the dead horse.
Click to expand...

Sorry, dude. If you can't accept the limitations of your own knowlege, and trust the words of those who are more experienced ... then it's you who's trying to "act" smart.
.
 
chessrock said:
Sorry, dude. If you can't accept the limitations of your own knowlege, and trust the words of those who are more experienced ... then it's you who's trying to "act" smart.
.
Click to expand...


Please try again sir.


On a lighter note, I totally dig the tune!
 
So I'm on dial-up. And I like the idea of playing around with mastering, even with meat-cleavers and hack-saws.

So yes I'm a complete idiot. We'll just get that out of the way right now.

Anyway, I've listened to the source track and Dogman's first job so far:

First of all the song is very cool. A little over long, but otherwise great.

My biggest concern is the bass. It has a very interesting tone to it. It sounds like there's lots of boominess in the very low end. Could the attack of that instrument be brought out a little more without altering it's character too dramatically? Listening to Dog's first try, the kick sounds a bit muffled as well.

Sorry I'm late to reply. This thread filled up fast. I'll try to get to MS's version later. But I'll probably be behind then too. . .Oh well.
 
Bloodsoaked said:
Just to be clear...can "anyone" post 1 song they would like mastered? Are all songs accepted?


Thank you...
Click to expand...

No, we need to take one at a time or it will get confusing. A lot of the value is in comparing different versions of the same track. Also the purpose is to learn something about analyzing stereo mixes in general rather than helping the artist with their track.

Based on your username, I suspect you'll like the track I have for #2 :) but we'll let this one run its course first.

If you need specific help on one of your tracks, I'd recommend starting a thread in the MP3 Clinic board.
 
Alright, so I got a chance to listen to the bare mix as a .wav file.

And I did do a little fiddling around with it. Now bare with me guys, because I'm actually trying to be helpful here ... this is totally constructive.

Now, after fiddling with this mixdown for a little while, I've come to the conclusion that the mix itself is fundamentally flawed in one main area; the vocal track was either poorly tracked, or there was too much presence boost EQ used on the vocal track. What you have to realize is that, in it's raw, unmastered form, it doesn't sound like there's much wrong with the vocal.

The problem comes in after I do all of the things I want to do to make the music sound the way it needs to sound ... there are all of these harsh artifacts that are "uncovered" / revealed in the vocal. Very obvious ones. First off, it's very clear to me that the vocal was tracked using a large-diaphragm condenser. And unfortunately, I'm guessing it was of the cheapo variety that all you numbnuts are always clamboring over on the mic forum. :D

The only way I found to get the kind of presence I needed out of the snare tracks in the 2-4k region, as well as the kind of shimmer I want to hear from the cymbals in the 12k region ... without totally making the vocals sound sucky ... was to use some serious MB compression in the higher registers. And even then, it was merely a compromise.

The result is that the mix really comes to life when you boost a little bit of the high end, a lot of the mids, while cutting some of the low-mids, but unfortunately, this basically sends the vocals right down the crapper; like the vocal track has a thousand little ice picks gnawing away at my ear drums, if that makes any sense.

My recommendation, as a recording professional (although not an ME) ... would be to go back and address the vocal track. Either recall the mix and ixnay some of the presence boost on the vocal track ... or just re-track them altogether using a more suitable vocal mic; preferably a dynamic or a condenser without as much of that shiny high end gunk. After that, I think we could pull off a mastering job on this that might make for an "acceptable" final master. And by that, I mean acceptable for a demo.
.
 
Last edited:
Interesting feedback so far.

Let's assume that a remix is not possible for this track as is often the case due to pressures to release the CD on time, or other issues.

So far I've heard two people mention multi-band compression even though there have been hundreds of posts on this forum about not grabbing it as the first tool in mastering.

One thing that stands out in the mix as a problem to my ears is how the distorted guitar, synth and bass interact. There seems to be a peak at the fundamental frequency of the chord whenever they come in (mostly because they are reinforcing each other at that frequency). In the mix it might have been nice to scoop some of this out and maybe use some complimentary EQ between the two, but since we can't remix ...

What techniques can be used to fix this (without breaking out the multi-band compressor)?

Why might that technique be better than using MBC?
 
Last edited:
masteringhouse said:
Why? What are you trying to fix by doing this?
Click to expand...
The 2 db boost? That wasn't really to fix anything. I was listening to mine, in comparison to Mshilarious' mix, and mine was quiet, so I boosted it in relationship to his. That was simply done as I was comparing the 2. I just thought I'd note that, as a change.
Ed
 
Dogman said:
The 2 db boost? That wasn't really to fix anything. I was listening to mine, in comparison to Mshilarious' mix, and mine was quiet, so I boosted it in relationship to his.
Click to expand...

And the loudness war is beginning to start ... :)
 
masteringhouse said:
There seems to be a peak at the fundamental frequency of the chord whenever they come in (mostly because they are reinforcing each other at that frequency). In the mix it might have been nice to scoop some of this out and maybe use some complimentary EQ between the two, but since we can't remix ...

What techniques can be used to fix this (without breaking out the multi-band compressor)?

Why might that technique be better than using MBC?
Click to expand...


The answer is: None. This is a perfect instance where MBC is appropriate.

What you have is a narrow, offending frequency range ... right at about 165 hz to be more specific.

Just use a very narrow band right around that range to just tame the peaks at the beginning of each measure, and the problem is pretty much solved. I don't think there is a better tool (than MBC) in this particular instance.

.
 
chessrock said:
The answer is: None. This is a perfect instance where MBC is appropriate.

What you have is a narrow, offending frequency range ... right at about 165 hz to be more specific.

Just use a very narrow band right around that range to just tame the peaks at the beginning of each measure, and the problem is pretty much solved. I don't think there is a better tool (than MBC) in this particular instance.

.
Click to expand...

What about automating an EQ? Wouldn't there be more control since the fundamental of the chord changes?
How about sidechaining a compressor? (essentially MBC for a single range, but you can have your choice of what compressor to use).

I'm not proposing either, or saying that your answer is wrong, just trying to get folks here to think about various ways of fixing issues without just slapping on a magic plugin or reacting by reflex.

Analyze the problem, is it frequency dependent, an issue with dynamics, time based, a combination of these or other problems? What tools do you have that correct each? When is one or a combination more appropriate than others for the given problem?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top