I dont want to say "mastering" software

[jmorris]

So..... I am wondering what you guys or gals use to put the final touches on your mixes. I hate to even call it mastering but I'll call it "editing" software. I use Soundforge to place final stereo eq. if needed and comp and or limiter. Also, what do you do to your finaL mix to get it a little more
" radio/myspace.youtube" ready. Also...again, would I use a spectrial anyalizer to "see" where the eq. freqs. are? I'd like to be able to play a commercial cd that I like on my system, and try to match the "sonic properties". Can this be done?
Thanks

 

[Chili]

I use Wavelab Essential with the Ozone 3 plug for the unimportatnt internet or family cd stuff. I sent one collection of tunes out to Mastering House to make a cd for me. (I've yet to finish the artwork and get this thing to cdbaby )

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So..... I am wondering what you guys or gals use to put the final touches on your mixes. I hate to even call it mastering but I'll call it "editing" software. I use Soundforge to place final stereo eq. if needed and comp and or limiter.

I also use Sound Forge as my go-to 2mix editor. I have a fair collection of plug-ins each with my favorite specific uses, but my workhorse plugs are the Roger Nichols Digital collection (actually I have the older stuff from Elemental Audio before Roger Nichols bought the company.)

I also (optionally) run the mix through some outboard gear, mostly an ART ProVLA for opto compression and a dbx 2215 for gentle EQ shaping and possible limiting (hey, I never claimed to be a pro mastering engineer with tons of money )

Also, what do you do to your finaL mix to get it a little more
" radio/myspace.youtube" ready.

Personally I don't. There are supposedly tricks out there for optimizing one's files for the various streaming engines, but those engines sound so crappy anyway that I don't see much point. I just work on making the bet-sounding stereo WAV that I can and let the rest fall into place. YMMV, this is just one opinion.

Also...again, would I use a spectrial anyalizer to "see" where the eq. freqs. are? I'd like to be able to play a commercial cd that I like on my system, and try to match the "sonic properties". Can this be done?

That really doesn't work very well, because there is no one way that a spectrogram should look. If you have the same band recording the same arrangement on the same instruments in the same studio with the same acoustics and same gear, there may be *some* validity to the idea of spectral matching, but even then it's not a great idea.

Spectral analysis can be very useful in troubleshooting specific problems that may be buried in the mix and difficult to isolate by ear alone (e.g. unwanted harmonic overtones, extreme sibilance range, fundamental LF buildup frequencies, etc.), but it takes a little practice to read the spectrogram properly for many of these tests; it's not simply a matter of expecting the spectrogram to follow a specific curve.

The only time one can expect their sound to follow a specific spectral curve or look is if you're pumping pink (or white) noise through your system.

G.

 

[Murdersgalore]

I use Adobe Audition. What I run the file through depends on what Im trying to accomplish. Most of the time though that consists if first ensuring that the files doesn't clip (duh). I apply reverb, usually very faint, just enough to add space. Then Audition's built in fft filter, almost always the gentle and wide setting. This adds that airiness that I just cant seem to accomplish while mixing. Sometimes a hard limiter set around -2db or so, whatever cuts off those nanosecond spikes if needed. Then normalization, and then Waves L3 MultiMaximizer. I usually just use the Hi-Res CD master preset and tweak the threshold according to what it needs. Then convert the file type to 44000 16bit for cd writing or mp3ing.

 

[RAMI]

I never understood why anyone would EQ the entire mix. If something lacks hi or low end, then that should be done in the mixing stage, rather than affect everything just to fix one instrument. If the whole mix lacks hi or low end, then you need to go back and re-mix it. Either way, EQ shouldn't be done in the mastering stage, in my opinion.

 

[The549]

I also use Sound Forge as my go-to 2mix editor. I have a fair collection of plug-ins each with my favorite specific uses, but my workhorse plugs are the Roger Nichols Digital collection (actually I have the older stuff from Elemental Audio before Roger Nichols bought the company.)

I also (optionally) run the mix through some outboard gear, mostly an ART ProVLA for opto compression and a dbx 2215 for gentle EQ shaping and possible limiting (hey, I never claimed to be a pro mastering engineer with tons of money )Personally I don't. There are supposedly tricks out there for optimizing one's files for the various streaming engines, but those engines sound so crappy anyway that I don't see much point. I just work on making the bet-sounding stereo WAV that I can and let the rest fall into place. YMMV, this is just one opinion.That really doesn't work very well, because there is no one way that a spectrogram should look. If you have the same band recording the same arrangement on the same instruments in the same studio with the same acoustics and same gear, there may be *some* validity to the idea of spectral matching, but even then it's not a great idea.

Spectral analysis can be very useful in troubleshooting specific problems that may be buried in the mix and difficult to isolate by ear alone (e.g. unwanted harmonic overtones, extreme sibilance range, fundamental LF buildup frequencies, etc.), but it takes a little practice to read the spectrogram properly for many of these tests; it's not simply a matter of expecting the spectrogram to follow a specific curve.

The only time one can expect their sound to follow a specific spectral curve or look is if you're pumping pink (or white) noise through your system.

G.

I'm sure you're been asked before, but what sample rate do you send out to say, a VLA, and get it returned the same I presume? You do a D/A then A/D for mastering compression?

 

[Drummerbones]

Rami,

I have to disagree with you there. One of the most important benefits, though there are many, to having an album properly mastered - i.e. by a professional - is that there is virtual no way at the mixing stage to get every song in detailed sonic alignment with the others. Mastering, and I'm beating a long-dead horse here, takes a bunch of individually well-mixed songs and brings them together to make a cohesive collection of songs into an album. However, I will say that it is always, always better to fix eq problems at the mixing stage. Mastering should never be relied on as a fix, rather utilized as a way to make good songs sound great. By all means try to get your mixes to be as uniform as possible in the mixing stage, if appropriate, but mastering brings it all together. My 2 cents...

Bones

 

[TeyshaBlue]

I never understood why anyone would EQ the entire mix. If something lacks hi or low end, then that should be done in the mixing stage, rather than affect everything just to fix one instrument. If the whole mix lacks hi or low end, then you need to go back and re-mix it. Either way, EQ shouldn't be done in the mastering stage, in my opinion.

Mixes are funny animals. I agree with your point mostly. However, there have been times when a small, global eq move has worked wonders in a mix and kept it viable. Sometimes, just a little added low-mid body can work wonders. But you are correct. If a mix is strong, it ususally doesn't even need that nudge, but it can be done.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I never understood why anyone would EQ the entire mix. If something lacks hi or low end, then that should be done in the mixing stage, rather than affect everything just to fix one instrument. If the whole mix lacks hi or low end, then you need to go back and re-mix it. Either way, EQ shouldn't be done in the mastering stage, in my opinion.

Note that the dbx EQ I mention is actually a graphic EQ. When I do use it (or a graphic EQ plug, FTM) on the 2mix, it's almost always in the form of a very gentle shaping curve (rarely more than a couple of dB off of flat in either direction) that is very difficult to execute precisely by shaping individual tracks.

Those times I use a parametric on the 2mix, it's to suppress those honkers which are not apparent in the mixdown but will otherwise wind up revealing themselves only after mastering compression or limiting is applied.

YMMV et cetera.

G.

 

[Murdersgalore]

....that is very difficult to execute precisely by shaping individual tracks.

Hence why I add a gentle lift if needed. I think its funny how people have all these rules like

...EQ shouldn't be done in the mastering stage, in my opinion.

Ok.

Why?

If it sounds good then who cares how the results are achieved? That's the whole point of doing this isn't it? To make music that sounds cool?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'm sure you're been asked before, but what sample rate do you send out to say, a VLA, and get it returned the same I presume? You do a D/A then A/D for mastering compression?

I perfer to work at 44.1k/24, unless I'm working with audio for video, in which case it's often 48k.

As far as going out to the iron boxes, it's a judgment call for me. I honestly like the sound of the VLA, I think it's generally underrated, especially for it's price range, but I have to honestly decide for any given mix if it's worth it. My A/D//D/A is the original MOTU 2408, which is a fine device, but it is using 10-yr-old converter technology so, like most of my gear, it's not exactly state-of-the-art.

It's also more work and time to run stuff through the analog loop. Basically I gotta feel that the mix is something that has "that feel" that will benefit the most from - feels like it's calling for - going the extra steps. Frankly some of the trackings that cross my desk simply won't sound all that much better for it because they're not all that hot to begin with and simply aren't worth the extra effort.

I used to have greater access to analog open reel - I used to have a couple myself over the years, and since I got rid of mine, I have had friends and associates who have either brought their decks to me or I brought my location rack to them, and when I use those as the pre-master or master mix medium, I almost certainly will want to use my external boxes if/when needed.

That, unfortunately, has gotten rarer as the decks have been sold off or gone out of service. (I have a friend who has both a Otari 8-track and a Tascam 8-track just collecting dust at his workplace, most likely in need of nothing more than some motor and belt maintenance, but I can't yet talk him into fixing them again )

G.

 

[The549]

I perfer to work at 44.1k/24, unless I'm working with audio for video, in which case it's often 48k.

As far as going out to the iron boxes, it's a judgment call for me. I honestly like the sound of the VLA, I think it's generally underrated, especially for it's price range, but I have to honestly decide for any given mix if it's worth it. My A/D//D/A is the original MOTU 2408, which is a fine device, but it is using 10-yr-old converter technology so, like most of my gear, it's not exactly state-of-the-art.

It's also more work and time to run stuff through the analog loop. Basically I gotta feel that the mix is something that has "that feel" that will benefit the most from - feels like it's calling for - going the extra steps. Frankly some of the trackings that cross my desk simply won't sound all that much better for it because they're not all that hot to begin with and simply aren't worth the extra effort.

I used to have greater access to analog open reel - I used to have a couple myself over the years, and since I got rid of mine, I have had friends and associates who have either brought their decks to me or I brought my location rack to them, and when I use those as the pre-master or master mix medium, I almost certainly will want to use my external boxes if/when needed.

That, unfortunately, has gotten rarer as the decks have been sold off or gone out of service. (I have a friend who has both a Otari 8-track and a Tascam 8-track just collecting dust at his workplace, most likely in need of nothing more than some motor and belt maintenance, but I can't yet talk him into fixing them again )

G.

If you regularly ran 88.2 or 96khz would you use it more?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

If you regularly ran 88.2 or 96khz would you use it more?

Nope, that's not a limiting factor, IMHO. I have no use for excess sample rates that extend my converter's frequency response to twice the hearing range of a dog, and that's not the main reason why I limit my use of the analog chain.

I just don't bother taking the extra time it takes to run something through the analog if the source isn't that great to begin with, and therefore isn't going to sound all that great afterward either. It's kind of like the old "polishing a turd" syndrome, but not quite as harsh.

G.

 

[jmorris]

My in most cases run a stereo mix through an eq. Then usualy a comp/limiter. Waves L2 a lot of the time. Funny thing which brought up this question is I had what I thought was a great mix.Played well through all listening "formats" such as studio, car,whatever. I had to get a new computer,installed all software(sonar 5) sound forge,uad-1 cards and motu2408mk3 with pci424 card. All my presets are lost.My favorite eq settings that I use to start off tunes with when "mastering". Settings like...this one could be a little brighter,this one could benifit by cutting bass etc. So....I used to run mixes through the Waves L2 to get level up and it made the mix perform better on different listening environments. The car benifited the most. Now, I dont seem to be able to reproduce those settings. The biggest problem is any mix I play in my car very much lacks the punch and the bass is just a muddy rumble of mush. Now these are the sames mixes I played before but have not been treated to my old standby eq. comp,limiter presets. Those really made the mix work. Getting mixes to sound great in my car is the hardest thing. Anyone else have the same problem?

 

[RAMI]

I think its funny how people have all these rules.........

Why?

I already answered why in my original post:

If something lacks hi or low end, then that should be done in the mixing stage, rather than affect everything just to fix one instrument. If the whole mix lacks hi or low end, then you need to go back and re-mix it.

It's not a rule, just an opinion. You don't have to agree, but I stand by it.

In most cases, people end up doing more harm than good to their mixes by EQ'ing, Normalizing (why do you normalize your mix???), stereo widening, and a bunch of other stuff that either makes it worse or should have been taken care of in the mixing stage.

I find it funny that when people list all the things they do to their mixes without knowing why, and then wonder why it doesn't sound good.

Too many people don't pay enough attention to how important the tracking and mixing stages are (not to mention room treatment, mic placement, and all the REALLY important stuff). And then they expect their "mastering" to save it all.

 

[Chili]

I already answered why in my original post:

It's not a rule, just an opinion. You don't have to agree, but I stand by it.

In most cases, people end up doing more harm than good to their mixes by EQ'ing, Normalizing (why do you normalize your mix???), stereo widening, and a bunch of other stuff that either makes it worse or should have been taken care of in the mixing stage.

I find it funny that when people list all the things they do to their mixes without knowing why, and then wonder why it doesn't sound good.

Too many people don't pay enough attention to how important the tracking and mixing stages are (not to mention room treatment, mic placement, and all the REALLY important stuff). And then they expect their "mastering" to save it all.

I agree with most everything you said, but there are times when you've got to EQ during mastering. It's not like one eq setting for all the songs, but to get the songs to sound coherent, they have to be eq'd individually. And you won't know what adjustments to make during mixdown until you've got all your songs together.

For someone like you, who has the same setup, the same room, guitars, amps, mics, etc... there's probably not much eq'ing needed during mastering because all the songs are going to sound similar already. You probably just slap a limiter across the master buss and call it done.

For someone like me, I've moved 2 times since starting to record seriously and none of my songs sound the same. I need EQ. ha ha ha I'm hoping to get some stability and finally have a permanent setup. Life will be so much easier.

peace.

 

[RAMI]

I agree with most everything you said, but there are times when you've got to EQ during mastering.

I'm not saying you're wrong, after all, I never said "No EQ'ing in mastering" was a rule. I've just never found a need to do it. If I did find that my mix lacks something frequency-wise, I've always been able to fix it by re-tracking or re-mixing.

For someone like me, I've moved 2 times since starting to record seriously and none of my songs sound the same.

Hehe...I've moved 3 times in the last 3 years. While the different rooms sound different, obviously, it was never to the point that they were in-coherent with each other. Every tune has it's own sound anyway. So, instead of making everything sound exactly the same, I look at it in this way: If I treated my rooms, tracked properly (to the best of my limited ability), the EQ of each song isn't so drastically different that they need to be adjusted by a global EQ. Usually, a re-mix will do it.

Of course, this is just my opinion based on my experiences. Everyone has their own view on these things, which is what makes it cool.

 

[Seafroggys]

Well, regardless, EQ is good for getting the frequency balance to sit right between songs. While individual mixes may sound great, you may find Sond #1 has more bass than Song #2, and thus you have to do minor adjustments on one and/or the other to equalize it (hohoho)

EDIT: I should hit refresh

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

There's mastering EQing on a perfectly good mix and there's EQing (and MBCing and other things) during mastering to try and make up for a lack of a mix. I see those as two different things.

Not to put words in Rami's mouth, but I believe he's talking about the later, which is the huge trend in "home recording" to slap together an unfinished mix and then try to finish the mixing by over-mastering the 2mix. I completly agree with him that that is just wrong on so many levels.

If the mix sounds bad, it is a bad mix and you shouldn't go any further until you get the mix right.

That does not mean, however, that there is no use for EQ in mastering. First there is the aspect that Chili is talking about, mastering an album for coherency, which can require possibly a little fine-sanding of the overall mix here and there. There is also the potential need for EQ to handle response problems that come up to the ears attention only after mastering compression or limiting.

Personally I (perhaps surprisingly to some) think that if the mix does indeed sound good or sound "right" at mixdown (and I mean *right*, not just good enough), that going back and re-mixing at that point to anticipate mastering problems is taking it a bit too far. In such cases, the mastering engineer has every right to use EQ as they see fit. Notice that this is especially true if the mastering engineer is not the same person or in the same studio ans the mixing engineer. It's not fixing a bad mix, it's doing what's necessary to master a good mix well.

All my presets are lost.My favorite eq settings that I use to start off tunes with when "mastering". Settings like...this one could be a little brighter,this one could benifit by cutting bass etc.

If you still have your old PC, or at least your old hard drive(s), your custom presets should be somehow recoverable. It would take a little research, probably mostly with the software manufacturers' support channels, but whether in .inf files, registry settings, or other config files of some type, those settings were stored somehow somewhere and should be retrievable and duplicatable (is that a word?) to your new system.

G.

 

[RAMI]

While individual mixes may sound great, you may find Sond #1 has more bass than Song #2,

But then, the question comes back to this for me. Why does it have more bass??? Assuming you mixed the song according to how you think it should sound, why would you go back and take off the bass (thus making it NOT sound the way you think it should), just to match up with an other tune that maybe shouldn't have as much bass??? If it simply has TOO MUCH bass, then you should go back and re-mix it properly.

Again, this is all just my opinion and how I roll. Not trying to claim any of these are "rules".