Mastering...order of operations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter punkin
  • Start date Start date
punkin

punkin

Univalve & Avatar Speaks
Yea, I'm not kidding myself and I'm still convinced that no matter what, send the rough mixes to a pro. I get a lot of requests to try but I know my limitations.

With that said, once in awhile I get a little free time and like to play around and try my hand at mastering and I always start with the same question, what's the general approach? I really find this part of a project to be the most aggrivating and stressful. Being able to focus on the one all important getting an honest capture of the performance is about all I can do. But as I said, I'm a glutton for punishment and I ask, is there a recommended or prefered order of operations?

Seems to me, first...clean up the individual tracks...noise, glitches etc.. Then individual track EQ, then the levels.

Next, a good mix/blend of all the tracks but then what?

Now you've got a nice sounding mix and you wanna put some shine on it. Out comes the multiband compressor and EQ...an expanding effect, a touch of reverb of course the "pump-up-the-volume" effect.

But then here's the snake eating it's tail. So no it's loud the bass it bumpin' the kick is thumpin' the solo geet is screaming and the rhythm guitar is missing something...just a little flat. So you start fiddling with this and a little of that and the whole thing sounds like crap and you're inclinded to start all over again.

How do the big boys attack a small say 6 to 12 track project? Just currious. Not wanting to get a lot of detail,...just the building blocks or the mental process that the mastering engineer puts to the work.
 
Spock , set limiters on STUN!!!!! :eek:
you are now DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D


:D
:D :D
:D :D :D


:cool:
 
I'm no mastering engineer by any means, but I dabble with my own stuff. I find that if your mixdown is really good, then it will require very little 'mastering' work outside of some gentle EQ and limiting.
 
punkin said:
Yea, I'm not kidding myself and I'm still convinced that no matter what, send the rough mixes to a pro. I get a lot of requests to try but I know my limitations.

With that said, once in awhile I get a little free time and like to play around and try my hand at mastering and I always start with the same question, what's the general approach? I really find this part of a project to be the most aggrivating and stressful. Being able to focus on the one all important getting an honest capture of the performance is about all I can do. But as I said, I'm a glutton for punishment and I ask, is there a recommended or prefered order of operations?

Seems to me, first...clean up the individual tracks...noise, glitches etc.. Then individual track EQ, then the levels.

Next, a good mix/blend of all the tracks but then what?

Now you've got a nice sounding mix and you wanna put some shine on it. Out comes the multiband compressor and EQ...an expanding effect, a touch of reverb of course the "pump-up-the-volume" effect.

But then here's the snake eating it's tail. So no it's loud the bass it bumpin' the kick is thumpin' the solo geet is screaming and the rhythm guitar is missing something...just a little flat. So you start fiddling with this and a little of that and the whole thing sounds like crap and you're inclinded to start all over again.

How do the big boys attack a small say 6 to 12 track project? Just currious. Not wanting to get a lot of detail,...just the building blocks or the mental process that the mastering engineer puts to the work.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm not understanding (which has been known to happen), isn't most of what you describe above part of the mixing process, as opposed to the mastering process????

While there are exceptions, I think when we're talking mastering we're usually working with just a stereo master (...ing!). Going back and fixing a guitar track, etc. is not really possible (well, it is, but then you go back to mixing again).
Also, to take it a step further, mastering involves other things like; the order of the songs, their relative volumes, etc...
 
RAMI said:
Also, to take it a step further, mastering involves other things like; the order of the songs, their relative volumes, etc...
Click to expand...

I think he meant a single track; if we ignore for a minute that mastering refers to how the tracks go to CD.
 
Exactly. ..I was rambling on my approach to getting things to fit.

If I'm not mistaken, mastering often requires "puttin' polish" onto single tracks as well as the final mix.

Any way...I was just hoping to hear from someone who's had a good deal of experience with this and what their approach/process is like. When you hear the mix for the first time, what do you do? Tear it down to the tracks again or do you work with the mix as is and then what?

Thanks to you all for chiming in!
 
punkin said:
If I'm not mistaken, mastering often requires "puttin' polish" onto single tracks as well as the final mix.
Click to expand...
Sorry to side-track your thread, Punkin. But, for the sake of argument until someone chimes in concerning your questions...While mastering can and often does involve individual tracks, most of the time it only involves polishing up a stereo mix. Not a rule or anything, but if someone refers to mastering, unless specified, I think it's assumed they're talking about dealing with a stereo master. Just the way I've always understood it.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled program. :)
 
punkin said:
If I'm not mistaken, mastering often requires "puttin' polish" onto single tracks as well as the final mix.
Click to expand...
Nope, "puttin' polish" on single tracks is still mixing. That's a completely separate process to mastering.

With mixing, you just get the song to work, the sound of the individual tracks doesn't matter as long as the mix as a whole rocks. Don't make the mistake of trying to get every single instrument sounding as big and cool as it possibly can individually. It won't all fit together. (unless it's something like only an acoustic guitar and singer or something else that is very sparse)

Once you have your stereo mix sounding as good as you can get it, then it is time to step back and put it away for a little while. In order to do any good with mastering, you need to have a fresh perspective.

Now, listen to it. What does it need? A little EQ? Fine, add some EQ. Maybe add some compression to glue it together. Then send it to the limiter.

Stereo enhancers tend to screw with the mono compatability of a mix. Plus, if you wanted a wide stereo image, you should have panned things wider in the mix.

I have never used a multiband compressor unless I was trying to pull someone elses mix out of the toilet. It is way too easy to go overboard with those things and they are, for the most part, unnecessary.
 
Unequivocally the best reference = Mastering Audio " the art and science" by Bob Katz ; best $40 you'll ever spend if you are serious about audio , not just mastering!! :)
 
Punkin,

What you are describing is mixing, not mastering. Mixing is everything that's done between the point where the recording is finished, up to and including the mixdown to stereo. Mastering is everything that happens after the mixdown. (More or less, but that's a good simple place to start.)

As far as an approach to mixing, you might want to start with an approach similar to what I describe in this post.

G.
 
EQ - mild compression - noise reduction (if needed) - limiting - done. :)

Eck
 
Excellent stuff gents. I thank you.

I'm just suprised at how much clarity and pop my mixes have when they come back. I have a lot of respect for the guys that can do this.
 
said it before, say it again...

mixing = trees

mastering = forest
 
Sorry - Mixing an orchestra...
How do the big boys attack a small say 6 to 12 track project? Just currious. Not wanting to get a lot of detail,...just the building blocks or the mental process that the mastering engineer puts to the work.
Click to expand...
A) Listen objectively.

B) Do what the mix asks you to do.
Out comes the multiband compressor and EQ...an expanding effect, a touch of reverb of course the "pump-up-the-volume" effect.
Click to expand...
Almost never that for sure... Well, the EQ perhaps... Very rarely a maul-the-band, stereo expander or reverb. If the mixes are asking for those, I send them back to the mix engineer most of the time.
 
Farview said:
I have never used a multiband compressor unless I was trying to pull someone elses mix out of the toilet. It is way too easy to go overboard with those things and they are, for the most part, unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the UAD multiband looks so cool, it's gotta be part of the action surely :p Plus it's fun to set it to Punch and Clarity just to see what it gets up to
 
This is one of the best questions I've seen here in a while, definitely better than one of the hundreds of "how do I make my CD louder" threads.

As with mixing there's no set approach, and much of the approach is dependent on the preferences of the ME. For example some like to process on load out (process after all of the tracks are in the DAW) while other like to process on load in (processing while loading in the DAW).

As with any project (mixing or mastering) you need to start off with a goal sonically as well as from the production and artistic perspectives. It often helps to have a few reference tracks even before you start to record during pre-production, using them from time to time to help measure your progress and make certain that you're still in line with the original goals of the project. It's not that you have to follow the references exactly, or sound just like them, there's just there to make certain that you're not going too far off base or if you are that it's intentional. When mastering one of the first things I will ask for are references of other commercial material. It helps me to determine the sonic character and levels of what the client is trying to achieve. Without setting a goal for the project you will often find yourself chasing your tail as far as how the tracks "should sound".

After the goal(s) of the project are basically determined I will load all of the tracks into the DAW and listen to all of them (as well as comparing them to any available references). I listen for common issues among all of the tracks and start with "broad strokes" in regard to EQ and dynamic issues. I then start creating a chain to deal with those issues first. After listening with this chain I pick one song that's generally representative of the sonic goal and hone in on any particular issues with that song again comparing it to any general references that are available. Once I have this song where I want it, I usually get sign-off from the client to ensure that they are cool with what I've done and we are in-sync with the sonic goal.

Once I get sign-off I then use this track as a reference for the remainder of the album iteratively applying separate processing to the song that I'm working on and comparing it to both the client-approved song reference and the surrounding tracks. Most settings are automated, so I can jump from any part of the album to the next with minimal changes (excepting analog gear).

Once the entire album is where I feel it sounds like everything belongs together and sounds like "a record" I then apply all of the processing. I'll also go through a second sign-off from the client if they aren't present for the session. After this I start the CD assembly process. The processed tracks are loaded into a separate program where I add fades, and PQ codes for the final CD. As with the processing, the client approves these and if there are any changes I can simply make changes to fades, order, etc. within this program and re-burn the CD.

Again everyone's approach is different, but hopefully the above serves as a start for your own procedure and workflow.
 
Bulls Hit said:
Yeah but the UAD multiband looks so cool, it's gotta be part of the action surely :p Plus it's fun to set it to Punch and Clarity just to see what it gets up to
Click to expand...
The bulk of the time I spent honing my chops was spent before computers were in every studio. Actual hardware multiband compressors are very hard to come by outside of a radio station or high end (old school) mastering house.

It doesn't matter how cool it looks, if you really need one, your mix wasn't balanced enough to begin with.
 
As with any project (mixing or mastering) you need to start off with a goal sonically (snip)
Click to expand...
with any project (mixing or mastering) you need to start off with a goal sonically (snip)
Click to expand...
(mixing or mastering) you need to start off with a goal sonically (snip)
Click to expand...
you need to start off with a goal sonically (snip)
Click to expand...
you need to start off with a goal sonically
Click to expand...
Sorry - My Cmd-V got stuck there for a minute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top