mastering in SF

  • Thread starter Thread starter bean 123
  • Start date Start date
"But we should save that one for another challenge. Mastering, IMHO, is a necessary but over-rated step in the chain. Mixing is a whole different beast. "

Exactly - you've nailed it on all three counts. I still think you don't understand what mastering is :D, but I think you do understand WHAT IT AMOUNTS TO.

But I'm keeping an open mind. I look at it this way: I put my sound somewhere on a scale of 10. If I can hear that some procedure or piece of gear can take that sound up the scale by at least one point, then I take it seriously. For me, the downside of this mixoff is that I still don't get to hear what difference real mastering makes to a mix. :)
 
dobro lamented...For me, the downside of this mixoff is that I still don't get to hear what difference real mastering makes to a mix.
Click to expand...

Actually, dobro, if we end up using the rewake stuff in the 'masteroff', we will have a 'real' master to compare to.

Queue

hey hearclear2 - still no CD...
 
If you are performing "DIY mastering", you ARE NOT "MASTERING". Period. Argue all you want, hate my guts for saying it - the plug-ins are NOT "good enough",
Click to expand...

2 questions...

If your not mastering, then what are you doing?

Plugins are not good enough? Good enough for what? Is there a mastering scale somewhere everybody should be looking at?

Isn't mastering the process of optimizing a mixed tune so that it sounds as good as possible?
 
brokenwindow said:
Isn't mastering the process of optimizing a mixed tune so that it sounds as good as possible?
Click to expand...
Yes... but it's done in an environment that allows the experienced mastering engineer to determine exactly what the mix needs "to make it sounds as good as possible".

This specialized environment (not ot mention, the engineer's ears) is beyond the abilities of most studios, and not even a consideration for a non-pro environment.

Again, this is my opinion, but it is the crux of the discussion.... since chessrock and a few others disagree with my opinion.

Bruce
 
having varied thoughts on this discussion...of whether mastering is really essential or not, I have to only think of the situations where the mix has been so good, the mastering engineer felt it didn't need touching, and thus left well enough alone. However, I guess those stories are usually heard in the magazines depicting the great mixing engineers and their efforts. ...and all the *substandard* direct to disk recordings too!!....(ah..the old LP days....)

Mastering...to make sure it could "work" on a vinyl medium with a needle scratching out those tunes. Nowadays, where that specific purpose isn't needed...the need for mastering has somehow increased...even with all the *better equipment* available to record with too. interesting...hhmmm

I guess you gotta make the transitions from song to song on a CD that came from Joe's 20 bit studio to sound like Lenny's 24 bit studio sound like they where all recorded in Harvey's 16 bit studio...!!
 
Please help . . .

I have a dilemna:

You see, I've been spending as much as 4 to 8 hours at a time trying to tweek some of my final mixes in preparation for my demo's master copy. My roommate thinks I'm a few fries short of a happy meal the way he sees me strap on the headphones (studio-quality flat-frequency AKG's) and listen to the same song over and over and over again. Sometimes it's just small sections of a song, 1 - 10 seconds in length . . . over and over again. Then, after several hours, I'll take the same mix and play it on the stereo . . . then the boom-box . . . then the car stereo.

Usually, I am making only moderate adjustments to a particular frequency. Finding that spot in the range where the crash cymbals sound harsh, the vocals sound siblant, or the bass muddies up the mix. With wild, fatigued eyes and cigarette butts all over the computer console, my roommate shudders as he witnesses me jump out of my chair in total elation, whooping and hollering: "Can you believe it ! ! ? I just fixed that awful-sounding crash cymbal !" or "I just squeezed two extra decibals out of my mix without clipping ! ! High fives all around !"

I'll never forget the time when my roommate said in a very concerned tone: "Why are you trying to make your mix sound louder, when all the listener has to do is turn up the volume on their stereo ? ?" I was about ready to smack him after this comment.

One time, I even managed to simulate the effects of the bbe sonic maximzer. Basically, I mixed the high, mid, and low frequencies of a song in to separate mixes. I then mixed them back together, but with a very slight delay on each frequency. Basically, this allows for each range to hit your ears at a slightly different time, giving the illusion of a cleaner, crisper sounding mix. I didn't even know what a sonic maximizer was at the time.

Total processing time (for just this effect): about 5 hours on a slow processor.

Now, I have some guys trying to tell me that mastering on my PC isn't really mastering . . . and now I even have another guy trying to tell me that I don't know what mastering even is?

Well, apparently, I seem to be having some troubles here. I've been spending insane amounts of time doing things to my mixes, and I don't even know what you would call what I've been doing ! ! ! Apparently, it's not mastering. So if someone would kindly tell me what it is, I would be most appreciative. And so would my dog and my roommate . . . as neither of them are even able to tell the difference between my final mix and my (incorrectly-titled) "masters."

Thankyou, and I look forward to your answers and/or recommendations for good therapists.

Sincerely,

Chessrock
 
If you've got a roommate, then you're doing this stuff at home.

If you don't have the ace gear, ace room, and if you don't have loads of ace experience, you're not mastering. If you do have a great room, great gear and great experience and a decent mix to work on, then that's mastering. Simple. Easy-peasey.

As for what you're doing, you're a homer mixing in a home studio. Simple.

You are getting better at mixing, though. Or maybe not. Does your dog howl when you play your stuff when he/she's in the room? :D
 
Yea, sometimes . . .

. . . when I look at the spectrum analysis, and I notice all those frequencies going crazy on the far right, she'll howl a little.

:)

Now don't get me wrong, here, Dobro, I enjoy your comments. But you might want to look up the definition of "mixing" one more time. The stuff that I'm doing right now is applied AFTER I've already gotten past the mixing phase.

Yet you still insist that it's not mastering. Why don't we just compromize and call it "Post-Mixing?"

Also, without stirring up too much shit here, and I apologize for any harshness in my tone, but some of your statements might be taken as being somewhat snobbish. Basically, what you are saying then is that home cooking can't be considered "cooking," as long as there are professional cooks with better ovens and utensils who can do it better. On that note, I guess I can't consider what little cleaning I do around the house to be "cleaning," since it isn't done by a professional maid or janitor with better mops and brooms. I guess when I hop in my car, I'm not really driving, since my car is basically a worthless piece of shit, and I don't get paid to do it :)
 
[ www.digido.com ] Chess this Bob Katz's site you could

Maybe clearup some questions that you have on the whole subject....There does seem to be some grey area in the definision...Semantics hummmm call it a "leveling mix" .Good luck
in you compition.

Don
 
I know some people don't want to hear it but, ANYBODY can MASTER a song. Plain and simple.

Master it right?...thats a different story. It obviously won't come close to the quality of a proffesional, but it's mastering nonetheless.
 
Thanks, Don . . .

Some of the terminology discussed in the PDF: Compression, Multi-band compression, Limiting, Dynamics Processing, etc.

Funny, but I could have sworn I was using a compressor when I plugged in my Waves C1. Ditto on the C4 for the multi-band compression. And the limiting? Hmmm. I can't believe I shelled out $200 for Sonic Timeworks' Mastering Compressor. -- Which is, of course, an inaccurate name. Maybe they should rename it "Sonic Timeworks Home/Pseudo-mastering almost-compressor."

. . . And their Mastering EQ -- the one that, in several tests, has been shown to be equally as accurate as it's more expensive analog counterparts. I guess they should call that "Almost-but-not-quite-mastering EQ."

Gee, for something that can't be called mastering, the PC sure is offering up an alternative that looks, smells, walks, and quacks an awful lot like it.
 
Ya I understand where you are comeing from!I think experience
and equipment are the biggest factors in the whole debate...Also the computer is used by pros. too ..I think that its probobly the experence thats the biggest factor..Gotta learn! good luck

Don
 
Last edited:
I guess that opens up a whole nother debate !

Alright, then -- question for Doblo, Blue Bear, and others:

What do you think of Pro Tools? Are you aware that professionals are using it on popular recording artists and movie soundtracks?

I'll shut my loud mouth for a while, as I'd like to know your thoughts on it.

Thanks!
 
Please, not tangent #2

Chess,
Can we at least limit this thread to the tangent that it is on??? It is still close to the original thread, but if we now get into a whole "Pro Tools vs. Old School" debate here, I don't see its relevance to Sonic Foundry (This Forum) or Mastering in Sound Forge (This Thread). As you so dutifully pointed out to Bruce....

Queue
 
Should I take the Vikings and - 9.5 points against Carolina?

I don't think I should. The Viking defense is very suspect, and although they have a rookie QB, I think Biakabatuka will manage . . .

Oh yea, sorry Q.
 
What does ProTools have to do with Mastering??

Bruce
 
Chess, I'm in no position to be snobbish, because from the sounds of things, you're way ahead of me in mixing knowledge. But I know how to study and think and listen. You're saying that what you're doing is mastering because you're going through the same motions that a mastering engineer does. Okay, I agree.

But here's where your cooking analogy falls down. (dobro resorts to a different analogy). You can cut somebody's head open and mess around with what you find inside, but can that be called brain surgery? A kid can sit behind the wheel of a stationary car and go brrrrm! brrrrm! and fantasize that he's driving, but he's not really driving, right?

Now, extend the analogy. What about the guy who's got brain surgeon's scalpels and stuff, and maybe even read a book or two, and who has actually cut open a few heads? Is he a brain surgeon? Well, call him a brain surgeon if you like, but keep him away from my head, thank you very much. :D

But more importantly, I think we're just getting locked into our respective positions, and stubborn debate of definitions is stupid, so I'm going to try to let it go. I'm looking forward to hearing the results of the two studios, though. :)
 
Audio Mastering = Brain Surgery? ? ?

Interesting, uh, analogy.

I could probably comment on this more, but I have to get back to some of my imaginary projects that I am pretending to master.
 
I really wish I had that CD so we could get on with this...

hearclear2, can you verify that your friend has sent the CD?

Thanks,
Queue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top