for anyone that attempts to master on their own... what does your chain look like?

  • Thread starter Thread starter surfmaster
  • Start date Start date
surfmaster

surfmaster

New member
i need some input as i would like to be able to master demos myself rather than sending them off to a mastering house that frankly, is too expensive for the work being done. i was thinking something like...

para eq-frequency analysis-compressor-limiter

any input would be helpfull. thanks in advance.

-surf
 
A rack full of behringer gear would work if you know what your doing.
 
timboZ said:
A rack full of behringer gear would work if you know what your doing.
Click to expand...

hahaha thanks i understand that mastering mastering requires years of learning and dedication and also understand that im not gonna have it perfect right away. i just want to see what others use to begin this long educational process.
 
surfmaster said:
i need some input as i would like to be able to master demos myself rather than sending them off to a mastering house that frankly, is too expensive for the work being done. i was thinking something like...

para eq-frequency analysis-compressor-limiter

any input would be helpfull. thanks in advance.

-surf
Click to expand...
Keep the chain as short as possible, add only what the mix needs. That's my own general rule.

I'd also get rid of the frequency analyzer as a standard part of the chain, as all that will do is fool my ears. I'd bring in an RTA only if my ears tell me there is an EQ problem that I just can't seem to nail down from some unholy reason. But that's the order in which they should go, IMHO. Use an RTA only after your ears ID a problem; dont use the RTA to let your eyes ID problems first, because it's going to give you a lot of false problems.

As far as the rest of it, use what the mix needs, no more, no less. There's no guarantee that it'll need a PEQ. On the other hand it may need several bands of PEQ. Same with compression. It might just need a little tightening - or nonr at all - or it may need several passes of compression to tighten up properly. Limiting, don't even get me started on that subject :rolleyes: .

You're also forgetting things like processing the end fade, a possible reverb tail or two, the chance that - if it's a good mix - just a little shaping curve with graphic EQ might be more appropriate than the surgical strikes of PEQ.

Also also, you're not mentioning whether this is a digital or an analog "chain" (or a combo of the two.) If you're strictly in-the-box digital, "chaining" in the conventional sense is not necessarily required, and sometimes can be adventageous to avoid. This is some subject of debate and personal workflow preferences, but personally I fall on the side that there are times when it's better to run multiple but seperate processing passes on the digital signal rather than one long real-time chain. IOW, break the process down into more managable bites. This is not always the best, but it can be; especially when working on a mix of dubious quality that needs more massaging than usual.

Finally, remember that there are different reasons for applying EQ before or after compression. EQ before compression to fix problem frequencies that would otherwise be magnified by the compression, EQ after compression to sweeten the resulting compressed signal.

G.
 
First thing I would do is look at the mix :o Yes, I mean look at it, not listen. Just looking for stray peaks here, and it's faster than listening to the whole song :p If they are there, and you did the mix, unless you really really want those peaks, go back to the mix and fix them.

That will require some listening . . .

After that, listen for EQ problems. If you can narrow them down to an instrument, or maybe two tracks conflicting, go back and fix those tracks.

OK, let's say the mix is now all groovy. Chances are your mix is already 1-3dB louder than it started, just from fixing peaks and EQ problems (I say this based on my experience with homebrew mixes, including my own). Yes, cutting EQ can make a mix louder! So be sure to still have some headroom, at all stages until the final limiting!

So, what does it really need in mastering? Like Glen said, corrective EQ. I nearly always do a low-cut at 20Hz, maybe a little higher if I can get away with it. Other corrective EQ as needed.

Next, do I want to add something with a compressor? A tube feel? A vintage feel? Do I want to dirty it up with a tape simulator (frequently for me, the answer is yes, but I need to join the Roland Space Echo 12-step program :o ). Or maybe you just want some colorless compression. OK then, do it!

Next, any EQ sweetening. If you want a high boost, this might be the place.

Finally, I always have a limiter on, because the limiter I use has really good metering. Do I always limit? Well, OK, yeah pretty much, but sometimes it's only to bring the mix up to 0dBFS (remember that headroom we left?) and truly level the peaks, not to squash them. 0.3dB of limiting is pretty gentle, and usually does the trick.

If you want to squash, go ahead now! But listen to how the mix changes as the peaks drop, and decide when you've had enough. Listen for pumping! Still not loud enough for you? Then go back to an earlier step and fix a track with stray peaks, or EQ problems . . .
 
good words glen. i'll get rid of the freq. analysis plug right away and start from scratch with the chain. and yes its all plugs in the box, i have yet to venture into the realm of actual outboard mastering. i'll start trusting my ears more than curves on a screen.
 
mshilarious said:
First thing I would do is look at the mix :o Yes, I mean look at it, not listen. Just looking for stray peaks here, and it's faster than listening to the whole song :p If they are there, and you did the mix, unless you really really want those peaks, go back to the mix and fix them.
Click to expand...
Great point.

People are goiing to hate me (even more!) for sounding schitzophrenic, but frankly I have no problem with manually taming visually excessive peaks in the two mix when it's appropriate. Sometimes if it's a summing peak it might sound better to tame just one of it's components back in the mix tracks, but often just pulling back on the composite peak in the mixdown is just fine, IMHO :).

mshilarious said:
After that.....
Click to expand...
Great post and great explanation of the sequence of things. Surf, listen to mshilarious on this one, it's a pert near perfect post, IMHO.

Aslo, just to avoid future arguments that may come up, please note that I'm not saying to throw out the RTA altogether, keep it around if/when you need to go to it. But I wouldn't recommend using it as a first line of defense until your ears are have done their jobs first.

G.
 
thanks both ms and glen for helping me out on this issue, you guys rock, and make this forum the best out there for home recordists. i will put all your tips to use and will pass them on years from now on the board.
 
Stereo expander - 6 band para EQ - Linear multiband - Linear multiband - 2 band para EQ (hi pass filter) - Limiter - 24 bit dither.

Noise reduction if needed but using as little as possible.

I have been known to add noise to songs at mastering to give them an older dirtier sound. Hip hop can work well this way, You record and mix the song relly clean then dirty it up at mastering so all tracks are clear, but dirty if you know what I mean.

Eck
 
I'm pretty sure he's joking about that chain...

(He HAS to be joking about that, right...?)
 
Massive Master said:
I'm pretty sure he's joking about that chain...

(He HAS to be joking about that, right...?)
Click to expand...

No John. :rolleyes: It is a chain that just might work for some guys! I might not never use it, and you might not never use it, but he seems happy with it.

Some mastering engineers just don't get it.
 
Man, my chain is more like a little bracelet compared to what I've been reading here. I figure less is better, especially since I'm no ME. But my so-called chain is:

MAGNETO-WAVES L2. (Using Wavelab)

Am I missing out on something? I have a million plug-ins, but I just don't feel a need to use them. I'd probably just start dialing things in for the sake of it and not really inproving the end result.
 
Am I missing out on something? I have a million plug-ins, but I just don't feel a need to use them. I'd probably just start dialing things in for the sake of it and not really inproving the end result.
Click to expand...

Well it really depends. Your own stuff is likely to be consistent, so your chain won't vary much. My chain only has a few constants, the first is a Precision EQ hi pass, the last is Precision Limiter (OK, Apogee UV22HR, but there are practically no settings on that thing, so it's not very interesting to talk about. I prefer Low/Autoblack).

In between . . . Pultec is usually but not always there. Plate reverb if I feel like it, maybe LA2A or yes, Roland Space Echo :o which I use as my tube/tape dirt emulation chain :D . Sometimes I need another PEQ in there, or yes, that multiband.

I don't think I've used the SSL LMC-1 in mastering yet, but I'm waiting for the day. Based on the amount of audio work I've done in the last few months, I'll be waiting a long time :(
 
On the sample I used some mild compression. I only use a compressor if need be, and rarely mixes need any compression.

Eck
 
mshilarious said:
Well it really depends. Your own stuff is likely to be consistent, so your chain won't vary much.
Click to expand...
Good point. I guess it would HAVE to vary if I was mixing other people's music and varying styles, etc...

Also, I do my recording on a TASCAM 2488. So by the time, I bring my mix into my PC, it's (hopefully) got all the effects I need on it.
 
After mixing I run some of my mixes into a Behringer Ultra-Q T1951 par EQ then an ART Pro VLA.

I have not done anything worthy of sending out to get mastered.. :mad: :eek: :(
 
No comment on the chains above.

One thing that I would highly recommend though is to first determine the problem that needs to be fixed and add the appropriate remedy. Just throwing a "standard" chain to a mix without any pre-thought is totally missing the purpose of mastering. As an analogy, if I were a doctor I don't think that I would treat an allergy by giving someone a cast on their leg.

That said, an EQ, comp, limiter, dither, and a good editing/burning program is usual fare. Anything else only when needed for processing.

Of course a good set of monitors and listening environment might also help just a little too.
 
If I need limiting, I use Voxengo Elephant.

If I need compression, I use UAD Fairchild, but I generally use a very small amount - so the needle barely moves.

If I need EQ, my two favs are Voxengo Gliss EQ and UAD's channel strip EQ. (I don't own the precision EQ yet).

I also like to use Voxengo Soniformer for some mild band-specific compression if it's not worth remixing.
 
ecktronic said:
On the sample I used some mild compression. I only use a compressor if need be, and rarely mixes need any compression.

Eck
Click to expand...
You call that mild? It was pumping like a bitch. The highs almost took my head off. You also have some phase strangeness that kind of twists the image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top