DIY Mastering Clinic #1!!!!!

[mshilarious]

And the loudness war is beginning to start ...

It's not true, Dog, yours was louder! I believe the final mix is a bit shy of -16, your first file was -13.3, mine was -13.6, which I thought was a little too loud. There were parts I wanted louder than the mix, like the guitar intro, but generally not. I probably should have automated the compressor to back off during the vocals. Your second master is -12.7.

A lot of the RMS score in the final mix comes from the low end, so after that is brought down, it drops. Then after the compressor I just brought the peaks up, and only limited a few of them.

This is where stats are gonna fall short: I think my file is apparently louder than your first, because there is much less low end energy, and therefore relatively more amplitude where the ear is more sensitive.

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.

Well, it was semi-on-purpose in my case, just for that reason But for the record, I didn't grab for it first, I just couldn't figure out another way to fix the bass. And it was a pleasant surprise in the presence range, which I at first had some radical EQ on that wasn't working at all, which was after subtle EQ that was also ineffective.


As for the low-mid problem, the second note in the progression seems troublesome, whether G or F#. I played around a lot in the 100-140 range before bailing out and leaving as is, but that is a little higher, more like 180. Because of the arrangement, the first note always sounds OK to me, so it's not as simple as EQ due to the modulations. Other than MBC, the guitar is fairly side-heavy, so it might be work looking at a mid-side process to kill those freqs on guitar. If you concur, I'll be the guinea pig and give it a shot, although I am a complete novice with that sort of thing


As for retracking, suffice to say that is going to be a suggestion in every track I put up, and that is intentional. Indeed, one stated purpose is to learn what mastering can and cannot do. The mic choice the vocal doesn't bother me, this seems to be a track that purposefully has that vocal sound. However I would remix (or maybe retrack) to get the other instruments out of the way. I would also be inclined to remix to fix the low end issues.


OK Dog I'm listening to your #2 next

 

[60's guy]

Why? What are you trying to fix by doing this?

I have to agree with Tom. I downloaded the original (by Dogman) at work today and listened to it and then I downloaded it again here at home (dialup) , but that's OK 'cuz I was cooking dinner while it was downloading.

The file I was listening to and monitored was *just* shy of clipping, so I'm confused as to why you added a 2 dB boost, unless of course mshilarious had cut the overall volume of the first mix he performed (the one that).... Dogman grabbed for a redo).

Is it just me that thinks the original file left very little headroom to work with?

I'm just asking. This is fun stuff guys, and once again thanks for taking the effort. We all learn something along in the process.

 

[masteringhouse]

I have to agree with Tom. I downloaded the original (by Dogman) at work today and listened to it and then I downloaded it again here at home (dialup) , but that's OK 'cuz I was cooking dinner while it was downloading.

I didn't say it was good or bad, just curious about his thought process. Was it raised because it needed it or to be competitve?

 

[mshilarious]

OK D-Man, I like #2 better. Good things in the intro, the snare is cleared up. Maybe next try some of the low-mid medicine we're kickin' around, that will probably drop your volume a bit too

 

[Dogman]

I didn't say it was good or bad, just curious about his thought process. Was it raised because it needed it or to be competitve?

Actually, what I was doing, was trying to emulate what MS did, on my own. I was listening to his, and reading his post, then trying to translate it to mine. Most of the eq was cuts, so it was a tad quiet in comparison to his, so I boosted it. Definitely not necessary. And I'm speaking of teh second track I did. I started from scratch, with the wav file, and just read mshilarious' post, and tweaked it a bit for my own ears. The first one I put up is not good at all. Not that the second is much better....

 

[60's guy]

I didn't say it was good or bad, just curious about his thought process. Was it raised because it needed it or to be competitve?

I realize that your question was relative to the "need" for an increase in overall volume and was not questioning what is "good or bad". I guess it all comes down to the need to pay strict attention as to who is "post treating" post treated files. It can quickly become very confusing......easily.

Like I said, I listened to the original and found it as bordering on the edge of clipping overall.

 

[mshilarious]

Is it just me that thinks the original file left very little headroom to work with?

The original mix is peak 0/-15.9 RMS. There are lots of 0dB peaks in the original mix; you'd have to ask Dogman how that was accomplished.

 

[Dogman]

The original mix is peak 0/-15.9 RMS. There are lots of 0dB peaks in the original mix; you'd have to ask Dogman how that was accomplished.

Really poor mixing....

 

[mshilarious]

Actually, what I was doing, was trying to emulate what MS did, on my own. I was listening to his, and reading his post, then trying to translate it to mine. Most of the eq was cuts, so it was a tad quiet in comparison to his, so I boosted it. Definitely not necessary. And I'm speaking of teh second track I did. I started from scratch, with the wav file, and just read mshilarious' post, and tweaked it a bit for my own ears. The first one I put up is not good at all. Not that the second is much better....

Yeah it's kind of tough to translate when the plugs I have aren't labeled in dB

 

[mshilarious]

Really poor mixing....

I dunno technically none of the peaks are clipped. Probably you had something that kept you from going over, maybe on the drums?

 

[schulteboy]

As a newbie and a fly on the wall, let me just say that this is very cool. Some people seem to have said 'this can't be done...it's beneath me." To some extent, I can see how there is no way to tell just a newbie how to start mastering like a pro.

On the other hand, those who have been willing to give this a shot have certainlly helped the cause of hobby guys like myself, who just want some insight on the mastering process. In other words, I can see that sometimes you need to cut at odd frequencies; sometimes an MBC is the right tool, but then again, it's not the answer in every situation...

Thank you and please continue. I'm gonna stay tuned.

 

[giraffe]

I dunno technically none of the peaks are clipped. Probably you had something that kept you from going over, maybe on the drums?

i finally got it to download..... and yea, it's loud for an unmastered track.

 

[60's guy]

I'd like to be considered as going on record to have said one thing...... I've learned a lot today as a result of this clinic effort! As loud as the original track may initially have been and in need of overall volume reduction (easily dealt with), I have also learned quite a bit a bit about what I can (or cannot) accomplish when using parametric EQ to deal with stereo tracks. There's a limit to what may be accomplished.

This clinic is paying dividends already......and I didn't have to invest a dime of my own!

Kudos, guys!!!!!!!!

 

[mshilarious]

Here's something I thought I'd throw out for discussion, this is by no means a finished master, just a 2MB snippet so it shouldn't tax anybody:

Uncompressed mshilarious version

This is a clip of my settings with the compression and limiting removed, so you can hear two things: first, what the compressor is doing to the sound beyond making it louder, and also what the "natural" volume of the track might be with more balanced EQ.

This track has my previous EQ settings described above, although I finally decided I liked the 40Hz low cut better. I also took a crack at the midrange on this version. Finally, I increased gain +1.35dB just to get the track close to peak--that is, strictly speaking, the EQ changes dropped the track from its original peak 0 / -16 RMS to peak -1.5 / -18 RMS. Thus the EQ has shaved a half a decibel off the average volume.

 

[Dogman]

Here's something I thought I'd throw out for discussion, this is by no means a finished master, just a 2MB snippet so it shouldn't tax anybody:

Uncompressed mshilarious version

This is a clip of my settings with the compression and limiting removed, so you can hear two things: first, what the compressor is doing to the sound beyond making it louder, and also what the "natural" volume of the track might be with more balanced EQ.

This track has my previous EQ settings described above, although I finally decided I liked the 40Hz low cut better. I also took a crack at the midrange on this version. Finally, I increased gain +1.35dB just to get the track close to peak--that is, strictly speaking, the EQ changes dropped the track from its original peak 0 / -16 RMS to peak -1.5 / -18 RMS. Thus the EQ has shaved a half a decibel off the average volume.

To me, this sounds pretty clean. You have taken care of the rumbling of the bass and synth, and the vox don't seem to have the bright bite that can pop up. Nice job.

 

[mshilarious]

To me, this sounds pretty clean. You have taken care of the rumbling of the bass and synth, and the vox don't seem to have the bright bite that can pop up. Nice job.

Yeah but I like the dirt the compressor dumps in. I like it a lot Especially on the synth tone, in my clean version it sounds like Principle of Moments to me--which was a cool album, but what, 23 years ago

 

[masteringhouse]

This is a clip of my settings with the compression and limiting removed, so you can hear two things: first, what the compressor is doing to the sound beyond making it louder, and also what the "natural" volume of the track might be with more balanced EQ.

EQ comments aside, this version has much better imaging than the compressed version. The compressed version seemed to destroy the depth of the original and sounds more "monophonic" than the non-compressed.

One thing you may want to try if you haven't already is to use more than one compressor. One to take care of the issue with the synth/gtr/bass build-up, and another for adding some density to the overall sound if you think that it's needed.

I was playing around with this mix a bit yesterday trying to solve the issue with the bottom end. I compared using one band of an MBC along side an automated EQ, and just cutting around 120 Hz with a compressor over the entire mix. I favored EQ with the compressor (using a slower attack/med release) to try to "wrap around" the bass. Seemed to glue everything together much better than the other two.

 

[mshilarious]

One thing you may want to try if you haven't already is to use more than one compressor. One to take care of the issue with the synth/gtr/bass build-up, and another for adding some density to the overall sound if you think that it's needed.

That's actually a big reason I'm demoing the UAD MBC, is to use it as a clean single-band compressor. When I look at my bin of compressor plugs, they are all really really colored. So I need to give that a try.

Also I said earlier if I hadn't been lazy, I would have automated the LA2A so it was crunching hard on the intro and guitar solos, and much less on the vocal part of the tune.

 

[pingu]

So whos going to upload a master?



This song is actually quite suprising in the fact that it opens up nice once youve scooped out some of the 80-250hz range.

 

[mshilarious]

So whos going to upload a master?

I don't want to post my current working version quite yet, because I didn't intend for this to turn into the me & Dog show . . . we need some different perspectives on this issue!

Also I wouldn't expect the pros to show us the "answer sheet" They will tell us there is no single answer anyhow

So please feel free to jump in!